Bonesy Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 Still no comment on the larger issue of criminal justice? You had one ready on guns. Come on Shryke, my nine words were in reference to another larger post and anyone that can read knows this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martell Spy Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 Yeah, Sanders is doing surprisingly well, but he needs to broaden his appeal soon or he won't survive March, at least as a viable campaign. Apparently the Bern is going to meet with Al Sharpton tomorrow. He could win this though. The strong support from millennial women is somewhat surprising, and further surprises could be in store from young people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 6 minutes ago, Bonesy said: Still no comment on the larger issue of criminal justice? You had one ready on guns. Come on Shryke, my nine words were in reference to another larger post and anyone that can read knows this. I literally just asked you about it. Here, let me quote it since you appear to be more interested in snark then reading: 21 minutes ago, Shryke said: What about it? The question still stands: what point are you trying to make on that issue? I have no clue what you are trying to say other then try to snark at me cause I dared to reply to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Walker Texas Ranger Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 Y'all are being too dismissive of Trump. His election would herald the legitimization of white nationalism in American politics. His views are noxious and his personality is that of anxious petty bully. Ezra Klein said it best here: http://www.vox.com/2016/2/10/10956978/donald-trump-terrifying I would take a 20% chance of president Cruz or even a 40% chance of president Rubio over a 5% chance of President Trump. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonesy Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 Don't flatter yourself Shryke. Who is taking money from prison lobbyists? Who referred to minority children as "super predators?" Do your own research Mr. Smartest guy in the room. I don't have to prove anything to anyone on this board, but the facts are reaching the American black community, and it will be a problem for Clinton. I'd say ignore that at your peril, but you have 0% skin in the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lokisnow Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 Here is a thought. If Clinton or sanders is the nominee and is elected, they will face a hor controlled by republicans, and there's about a seventy percent chance they will have a senate controlled by republicans (most of their win possibility is not in flipping the chamber proper, but having the veep tie breaker as bush did in his first term). What does it mean, then, how they will govern? They will govern largely the same in terms of appointments and bureaucracy controlled by the executive branch and both maintain the Obama status quo n this respect. however Clinton would pass a lot more legislation than sanders because she'd be willing to compromise to get the merest scrap of a concession. This outcome has tons of right wing legislation passed that is mediocrely watered down and occasionally features a classic Clinton progressive item like putting alimony and child support ahead of other creditors in bankruptcy proceedings. She accomplishes nothing of her agenda but successfully enacts weak versions of the majority of the republican agenda and the democrat base is completely infuriated that she's an even more betrayal oriented compromiser of their principles and priorities than Obama ever managed. She is contested in 2020, and does not earn the nomination. Sanders will likely refuse to compromise, and since he has chosen not to include any other legislators running on his agenda he gets to congress rather isolated and like carter is able to accomplish very little. Ultimately, the electorate is totally disenchanted with him after a "do nothing" first year completely drains all his political capital he spends most of his term with dire approval ratings in the mid thirties and he doesn't even run in 2020. Tie breaker, sanders probably cannot get his 2017 replacement of Breyer appointed by a senate that is 50/50 but Clinton, going risk averse right away, would be willing to appoint the equivalent of a democrat Anthony Kennedy and make the court a little more conservative a little bit more swingy and "preserve" the seat. On the other hand, after sanders attempted extreme left wing justice equivalent goes down in flames, he probably appoints a stalwart democrat who is almost exactly like Breyer, and like the Ginsberg appointment in the 90s is already much older than the norm for appointed justices. This appointment sails through, the court goes through no change ultimately and democrats preserve the seat. The lesson of miers/alito, after all, is that a president can successfully appoint a fairly partisan candidate if they first throw out a truly unacceptable candidate to soften up the reception for their actual desired appointment. Not that I think bush was that Machiavellian, nor do I think that sanders nor Clinton would take such a Machiavellian approach, but sanders is likely to stumble into the same scenario bush stumbled into and as a result of such blundering ultimately earn a better outcome for democrats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 52 minutes ago, Bonesy said: Don't flatter yourself Shryke. Who is taking money from prison lobbyists? Who referred to minority children as "super predators?" Do your own research Mr. Smartest guy in the room. I don't have to prove anything to anyone on this board, but the facts are reaching the American black community, and it will be a problem for Clinton. I'd say ignore that at your peril, but you have 0% skin in the game. Uh huh.... You still haven't actually explained what you are on about or why you are being such a complete tool about a simple question. But to what you did actually bring up, she's not taking money from the prison lobby. She cut ties with them back the fall. As to the rest, welcome to old news. The Tough on Crime 90s were a long time ago. The reason this is important is because those facts already reached the American black community. They were there. They were part of the push for all the things you are referencing there. So was Sanders, who voted for the Tough on Crime bill you are likely thinking of. Along with alot of other people. Ya act like the american black community don't know the Clintons for some strange reason. It's already part of how things are laid out right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonesy Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 Cut ties with them back in the fall. Hilariously late to the party. The rest of your implications are easily refuted, and I'm spending most of my energy doing so to good result so far. The people of any race seem to be realizing that the Clintons have failed them. You can keep being obtuse all you want, but the average American voter is not listening to an ascerbic Canadian on a fantasy message board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Arryn Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 Bonesy- You keep raising Shryke's nationality/un-Americanism, and I'm scratching my head as to why. If he were running for President, it would be a valid point, but otherwise, what board are you scoring points on by hammering that? Is he therefore less able to understand? Less objective? Less sincere? It it strikes me as the kind of ad-hom point someone would make playing before a rural 'town hall' type of debate, but as you yourself point out, nothing said here makes a difference, so I'm baffled why you repeatedly seem to feel it relevant to the argument. If you are of the opinion that American opinions have more worth, that wouldn't be a novelty, but then I'd wonder why you're even arguing with a lesser. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 Cut ties with them back in the fall. Hilariously late to the party. The rest of your implications are easily refuted, and I'm spending most of my energy doing so to good result so far. The people of any race seem to be realizing that the Clintons have failed them. You can keep being obtuse all you want, but the average American voter is not listening to an ascerbic Canadian on a fantasy message board. Personally I didn't think Shryke was being obtuse. I have no idea what the heck you're talking about either. From what I've seen Sanders had a bad voting record for the same legislation that Clinton backed, and didn't protest against it either. He's gotten better since that time, but it seems odd to hold that against one but not the other. Neither has done much of anything for being lax on crime, though I guess Bernie kind of vaguely supports legalization of pot at the state level. And the guns thing is kind of a big deal, no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 Here's an article talking about what Shryke said: http://theweek.com/articles/603044/bernie-sanders-not-nearly-progressive-think The key finding in there is that his votes were in lockstep with Bill Clinton and he even went to oppose things that were not particularly great there either. He says he's changed and he'll support ending institutionalized racism, but he's not supported any bills of the sort nor has he proposed any of his own, and he flatly refuses to consider reparations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonesy Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 James, I'm not "hammering" him on that. It's worth a mention. Regardless, our conversation here is virtually meaningless. The actual voters will decide. Or not. We're just polity nerds talking smack and trying to bring understanding. What will be will be, regardless of anything said or done here. We're just passionate about why what happens, happens. Also, most Clinton supporters on this board are friends IRL. I'd like to think that won't change once this primary is over. But you can't pull punches to win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
koudoulis Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 So can sanders win or is it a done deal? And for the republicans? I woke up to a glorious trump speech , not that it wasnt fun but it left me a little bit uncertain on humanitys future Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 And sorry, I was wrong. He introduced a piece of legislation this year about private prisons, largely due to being grilled on not knowing Vermont actually ships their prison population out of state to other private prisons. But again that's this year. http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/10/bernie-sanders-doesnt-like-talking-about-criminal-justice/408358/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
koudoulis Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 So can sanders win or is it a done deal? And for the republicans? I woke up to a glorious trump speech , not that it wasnt fun but it left me a little bit uncertain on humanitys future Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stan the Man Baratheon Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 Trump dominated amongst female voters and also amongst college graduates. This NH result looks very promising and goes far to prove that he can be a viable candidate nationwide. http://edition.cnn.com/election/primaries/polls/nh/Rep Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThinkerX Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 13 minutes ago, koudoulis said: So can sanders win or is it a done deal? And for the republicans? I woke up to a glorious trump speech , not that it wasnt fun but it left me a little bit uncertain on humanitys future At this point, largely because of corporate and establishment backing, Clinton is favored to win the democratic nomination. But that lead has the potential to collapse because Sanders is doing far better than expected and Clinton has 'issues' that might stick. Republican side: Trump, mostly because the establishment candidates keep shooting themselves in the foot over and over again. Republican establishment has maybe a month to get its act together. If they don't, Trump wins. General...overall numbers favor the Democratic candidate, be it Clinton or Sanders. However, they are almost certain to be faced with a hostile republican congress, meaning more gridlock and pointless grandstanding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 25 minutes ago, koudoulis said: So can sanders win or is it a done deal? And for the republicans? I woke up to a glorious trump speech , not that it wasnt fun but it left me a little bit uncertain on humanitys future Sanders could win, yes. But to do so he'll need to change some fundamentals of the race as they stand. His support skews young, white, male and left. Clinton's support skews older, female, centre-to-left (as in the not very left wing) and minorities. The last one is one of the big issues for Sanders. Blacks, Latinos, etc make up a sizable part of the democratic coalition and they lean Clinton pretty good. The long and short of it is that as of right now Clinton has a larger coalition among the democratic base. This has not been in evidence right now because Iowa and NH are really white and really liberal, at least as far as their democratic voter base goes. In the next 2 primaries to come up (Nevada and then South Caronlina) the voters in question have very different demographics. so Clinton's edge will show there. After that comes Super Tuesday which is a whole ton of primaries at once. Usually this will seal the deal for the winner because they will gain a fairly insurmountable lead. So basically if Sanders can make inroads into the demographics that make up Clinton's coalition, he can win. If he can't, she will likely take the next 2 primaries and then take Super Tuesday pretty hard and Sanders' chance at winning will shrink dramatically. Theoretically it might still be there in that enough delegates would be up for grabs but without a shift in his voter base he won't be able to take enough of those delegates. Right now is probably his do or die time. He's coming off a win in NH, there's almost 2 weeks till Nevada and he'll have the media narrative behind him. He'll likely be trying hard to turn that into gains in Nevada and SC and try to go into Super Tuesday in a good position based on an upset in one or both of those states. He has a shot if he can pull that off. The comments above about "corporate and establishment backing" are bunk. While Clinton does have the support of the party, that's not why she's favoured to win and that's not the big issue for Sanders since that would shift his way if he managed to start winning more upsets against Clinton and looking in a place to win. The Republican field ... honestly, who the fuck knows. Trump is commanding a sizable chunk of the GOP base but not a majority. Cruz has another big chunk and the rest is sorta divided up among the rest of the candidates who are all trying to be the sensible party choice (basically the Mitt Romney of this year's primary). But everything is shifting constantly and Trump is throwing everything for a loop. Trump's contingent is strong in polling but it's still unclear if they'll come out to vote. Cruz is doing good right now with the evangelicals but they may break if he begins to falter and may go Trump or may go elsewhere or who knows. The wannabe establishment boys are basically dividing alot of votes among them but none want to drop out because the race is so up and down any of them could feasibly end up on top at the end. We may see Christie drop out now, but that still leaves like 3 I think candidates in the running against Trump. Trump can win if the rest of the candidates keep splitting the anti-Trump vote or if Cruz falls and his supporters break his way or just if he keeps pulling out wins early and gains an aura of inevitability (which generally turns into actual votes because of the way people work) But Trump's support could also never really materialize or the rest of the base could begin to coalesce around another candidate and leave him with a block that is big but not big enough to win it. Frankly, I don't think anyone has any idea wtf is gonna happen with the GOP nomination right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 1 hour ago, Bonesy said: Cut ties with them back in the fall. Hilariously late to the party. Like Sanders on guns I guess. Or both of them on alot of things, as I've pointed out this thread or the previous ones. They've both shifted their positions for the better over time. Hell, Obama did the same. Quote The rest of your implications are easily refuted, and I'm spending most of my energy doing so to good result so far. When? It's not in this thread or this reply. Quote The people of any race seem to be realizing that the Clintons have failed them. Have they? The polling I've seen still shows a heavy lean Clinton. And as is kinda my point, it ain't like any of what you are talking about is a surprise. The Clinton's are very well know just because of who they are. Quote You can keep being obtuse all you want, but the average American voter is not listening to an ascerbic Canadian on a fantasy message board. They aren't listening to anyone on this board. Nor does that have anything to do with anything I've said since I'm not posting anything that requires other people to read it to be accurate. Quite frankly, I have no idea what the heck you are on about here besides being incredibly salty and disagreeable and dickish for no discernible reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Marquis de Leech Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 The shadowy prospect of a Republican brokered convention gets less shadowy: http://capitolweekly.net/brokered-convention-republican-presidential-nomination-cleveland/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.