U.S. Politics - no more cakes

[Lany Freelove Cassandra]

Can we just ban this putz again already? Maybe IP ban him once and for all?

And in actual news: The GOP is trying once again to win that Hispanic vote with all their might.... wait, I got that wrong. The opposite of that. They're trying the opposite of that.

Is anyone really surprised at the latest display of hateful, ignorant bigotry?

That is one of the stupidest things I have heard in a while. And to drag out Lino Graglia turns it into a carnival side show. Don't these people (23 in total!) have actual jobs to do? Our congress is such a joke

eta: They are basing it on the clause "and subject to the laws [of the country/state]" as a qualifier and saying that certain people are not subject to the laws? Which laws would those be?

And I could see them taking this a little further and the children of convicted felons also being included in the exclusion (since they lose a lot of their rights)

[FuzzydaBear]

Can we just ban this putz again already? Maybe IP ban him once and for all?

And in actual news: The GOP is trying once again to win that Hispanic vote with all their might.... wait, I got that wrong. The opposite of that. They're trying the opposite of that.

Is anyone really surprised at the latest display of hateful, ignorant bigotry?

You must have me confused with someone else. This account is the only account I have ever created under my IP address.

But thanks for showing your true tolerance. There was another group from recent history that wanted people they didn't agree with or like that wanted them banned/gone too. Sounds like you believe in freedom in principle but not when you don't agree someone who thinks different from you.

I won't sink to your childish name calling game though.

Good day to you sir.

[Shryke]

Rand Paul courting the conspiracy nutter vote:

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) said in a recent interview that he'd "look at" a planned U.S. military training exercise that conspiracy theorists believe may be a cover for the implementation of martial law.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/rand-paul-jade-helm

He's finally found his constituency.

[theprincethatwasntpromised]

To bad Hillary hasn't...

http://m.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/april_2015/63_think_hillary_clinton_may_have_helped_foreign_donors_as_secretary_of_state

[Shryke]

To bad Hillary hasn't...

http://m.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/april_2015/63_think_hillary_clinton_may_have_helped_foreign_donors_as_secretary_of_state

Any poll of all voters is pointless on these kind of things. Republicans hate the Clintons for everything and weren't gonna vote Democrat anyway.

[theprincethatwasntpromised]

Any poll of all voters is pointless on these kind of things. Republicans hate the Clintons for everything and weren't gonna vote Democrat anyway.

Haha, polling all voters is pointless! That's priceless! You now, November 8 all voters will be polled. It's called election day. Good luck with that!

[Seli]

Ah a national phone survey. Still land lines only?

[Shryke]

Haha, polling all voters is pointless! That's priceless! You now, November 8 all voters will be polled. It's called election day. Good luck with that!

You don't understand anything about politics do you?

Here, lemme help you:

A poll of all voters opinions on a Democratic/Republican candidate is largely pointless. It doesn't matter if Republicans hate Clinton or don't trust Clinton or whatever, they won't be voting for her anyway. They never would have.

Further, people don't vote for one party or the other, they generally vote for the party they always vote for or they just don't vote. Elections are about turn-out. It's about getting your people out to vote (and keeping their people from voting if you are the GOP)

The larger point being that all that matters is whether Democratic voters trust her. In the same way that all the matters for a GOP candidate is whether GOP voters like him. It doesn't matter if the other party's voters hate that candidate's guts and think he's the devil incarnate or if they just are kinda whatever about him/her. They won't vote for that candidate regardless so their opinions don't matter for election results.

That's why without a full breakdown of the cross-tabs, this shit is useless. It's why you see Obama with approval ratings in the 40s and disapproval ratings at the exact same level but still winning elections, cause his approval ratings among his party is in the 70s or 80s. It's why Obama can win worst president eva in polls and yet handily win elections. Polls like this one don't matter for election results without breakdowns by party affiliation.

[theprincethatwasntpromised]

You don't understand anything about politics do you?

Here, lemme help you:

A poll of all voters opinions on a Democratic/Republican candidate is largely pointless. It doesn't matter if Republicans hate Clinton or don't trust Clinton or whatever, they won't be voting for her anyway. They never would have.

Further, people don't vote for one party or the other, they generally vote for the party they always vote for or they just don't vote. Elections are about turn-out. It's about getting your people out to vote (and keeping their people from voting if you are the GOP)

The larger point being that all that matters is whether Democratic voters trust her. In the same way that all the matters for a GOP candidate is whether GOP voters like him. It doesn't matter if the other party's voters hate that candidate's guts and think he's the devil incarnate or if they just are kinda whatever about him/her. They won't vote for that candidate regardless so their opinions don't matter for election results.

That's why without a full breakdown of the cross-tabs, this shit is useless. It's why you see Obama with approval ratings in the 40s and disapproval ratings at the exact same level but still winning elections, cause his approval ratings among his party is in the 70s or 80s. It's why Obama can win worst president eva in polls and yet handily win elections. Polls like this one don't matter for election results without breakdowns by party affiliation.

I think I get it just fine! I understand Hillary isn't looking too good right now! She's not very trustworthy either, based on those polls. I cited some links about donors holding out until she addresses her scandals. And everyday she waits, she looks more suspect.

All that, and republican haven't even had to go after her yet. It's the same media who pushed her out of the way for Obama doing our dirty work. I really hope she's around long enough to be considered for the nomination! I wonder how many accents we'll get to hear this go round?

[Jaxom 1974]

No. You really don't get it. But everyone is pretty used to that around here now.

[Fragile Bird]

The Baltimore prosecutor has just announced there is probable cause for homicide charges.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/02/us/freddie-gray-autopsy-report-given-to-baltimore-prosecutors.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur&bicmp=AD&bicmlukp=WT.mc_id&bicmst=1409232722000&bicmet=1419773522000

<sigh>

Wrong thread, the thug talk was on my mind, but it will have political ramifications.

[TrackerNeil]

And it continues.

A former ally of New Jersey Governor Chris Christie on Friday pleaded guilty to federal charges related to the George Washington Bridge closure scandal, while two others were indicted - another blow to Christie's image at a time when he is trying to get his presidential campaign off the ground.

David Wildstein, a former senior Christie appointee to the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, pleaded guilty to two counts of conspiracy at a U.S. district court in Newark.

Prosecutors also unsealed indictments against Bill Baroni, former deputy executive director of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and Bridget Kelly, a former deputy chief of staff to Christie. They were charged with conspiracy to commit wire fraud.

So everyone around Christie is being indicted, but not yet the governor himself. He'd better hope that Baroni and Kelly don't start shopping around for deals, or else his Republican ass is going to be lucky to avoid imprisonment, much less to finish out his governorship. Either way, his ill-fated presidential aspirations just became even more fantastical.

[Inigima]

It beggars belief that Christie is "not implicated." Like this would have happened on anyone's initiative, without direction from the top.

[DanteGabriel]

It beggars belief that Christie is "not implicated." Like this would have happened on anyone's initiative, without direction from the top.

Indeed, Christie is trumpeting the indictments of his top lieutenants as evidence of his own innocence. One could almost admire that kind of shamelessness. Almost.

[TrackerNeil]

It beggars belief that Christie is "not implicated." Like this would have happened on anyone's initiative, without direction from the top.

Well, remember that Wildstein's attorney is insisting that evidence of Christie's involvement exists, and that is has been provided to the US Attorney. In addition, David Samson remains still under investigation, and who knows what kind of deal he might strike with the prosecutor. So I think it's fairer to say that Christie is not implicated yet.

In any case, any slight chance he may have had for the GOP nomination went up in smoke. No donors are going to pony up precious dollars for a candidate around whom so much corruption swirls. There are alternatives who are not dangling over an indictment or two.

[ThinkerX]

Tracker, Tracker...why O why must you continually underestimate the power of Fox News? The scream loud enough, Christie's corruption becomes 'noble defiance' in the minds of the base. Plus we are still, what, a year or more from the first primary?

In any case, any slight chance he may have had for the GOP nomination went up in smoke. No donors are going to pony up precious dollars for a candidate around whom so much corruption swirls. There are alternatives who are not dangling over an indictment or two.

That said, I have been predicting for months now Christie would be finishing the campaign season in a prison cell.

Walker has a fair chance of ending up in a cell himself.

Which, sadly, leaves us yet another Bush, because the other candidates are pretty much jokes.

[Guest]

It seemed like Christie was toast in the Presidential race even before this stuff resurfaced, but I do wonder to what degree that was because it came up in the first place (scaring away the big money in the shadow primary) or to what extent he was always overhyped by the media since any New Jersey moderate was dead from the start in the GOP primary.

I do not know enough about O'Malley's time in Maryland to know if any of what's going on now could hurt him, but I could oddly see it working to Clinton's advantage if it does. It could open up just a bit of a "it was O'Malley who was bad on that" narrative if this stuff ends up playing in the primary (I don't know that it will).

I hope Bernie gives 'em absolute Hell and I hope the media gives him time. I cannot believe populism is so dead that someone like Sanders is perceived as a novelty candidate, but he is.

[TrackerNeil]

Tracker, Tracker...why O why must you continually underestimate the power of Fox News? The scream loud enough, Christie's corruption becomes 'noble defiance' in the minds of the base. Plus we are still, what, a year or more from the first primary?

Never confuse the Dittoheads and the Hannity zombies (who will indeed rally around Christie) with the folks who solicit the money and those who fork it over. Those folks aren't going to back a deeply compromised candidate simply because he's mean to liberals; they want a guy who can win. If any of the various scandals surrounding Christie should surface at the wrong time, the Republicans can kiss the White House goodbye in 2016, and they will not risk it. There are plenty of alternatives who are not shrouded in scandal, and it's just as easy to back one of them.

[Shryke]

It seemed like Christie was toast in the Presidential race even before this stuff resurfaced, but I do wonder to what degree that was because it came up in the first place (scaring away the big money in the shadow primary) or to what extent he was always overhyped by the media since any New Jersey moderate was dead from the start in the GOP primary.

I do not know enough about O'Malley's time in Maryland to know if any of what's going on now could hurt him, but I could oddly see it working to Clinton's advantage if it does. It could open up just a bit of a "it was O'Malley who was bad on that" narrative if this stuff ends up playing in the primary (I don't know that it will).

I hope Bernie gives 'em absolute Hell and I hope the media gives him time. I cannot believe populism is so dead that someone like Sanders is perceived as a novelty candidate, but he is.

Read some of the stuff from David Simon on the stuff going down in Baltimore. Remember that Carcetti is based on O'Malley.

Basically, everything going on right now is, not perhaps all O'Malley's fault, but he certainly contributed heavily to the problem.

[Guest]

Read some of the stuff from David Simon on the stuff going down in Baltimore. Remember that Carcetti is based on O'Malley.

Basically, everything going on right now is, not perhaps all O'Malley's fault, but he certainly contributed heavily to the problem.

To be clear, I am aware that the bolded is an issue. That's part of what I was alluding to. That seems like it's all over the news the last few days. What I meant was that I haven't done enough homework to know to what extent it's fair or not. But either way, I can see how it could get nasty for Carcetti. If he can't swing in there with something good he did there, it's just another spot where he fails to create some positive separation from Clinton.