(06-27-2016 02:55 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  yes, but the 'establishment' of both parties is barely a majority of either party any more.

IOW, the 'anybody but Hillary or Kasich/Bush/etc' is the majority... by a lot (I think)

Define "barely a majority"? Are we talking voters in the party? because if that's the case then sure, *barely* a majority of either party is made up of the establishment.

If we are talking about those with clout, however, we have a clear indication that the establishment of the democratic part loves Hillary and that would be the super delegates.

In 2008 she had 247 and Obama had 478 when she suspended her campaign. Obama had a majority but Hillary had a respectable minority.

This year Hillary has 560 and Sanders has 47

(06-27-2016 03:07 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(06-27-2016 02:55 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  yes, but the 'establishment' of both parties is barely a majority of either party any more.

IOW, the 'anybody but Hillary or Kasich/Bush/etc' is the majority... by a lot (I think)

Define "barely a majority"? Are we talking voters in the party? because if that's the case then sure, *barely* a majority of either party is made up of the establishment.

If we are talking about those with clout, however, we have a clear indication that the establishment of the democratic part loves Hillary and that would be the super delegates.

In 2008 she had 247 and Obama had 478 when she suspended her campaign. Obama had a majority but Hillary had a respectable minority.

This year Hillary has 560 and Sanders has 47

I'm talking about the voters in each party. OBVIOUSLY the 'insiders' are establishment voters. Insiders in the DNC didn't have to accept Bernie the way insiders in the RNC had to accept Trump because of the Super-delegates.

The disconnect between the parties and the voters hasn't been this large in decades... perhaps 'ever'. Eyeballing it, I think the establishment of each party is something like 55-60% of each party (that's about how many voted for Hillary over Bernie and how many voted for 'someone other than Trump' before people started bowing out)... which means that roughly 40% of both parties are 'settling'... plus independents.

So within the parties, 40% are settling and roughly 30% for each 'establishment'... then add the independents.



ETA: The establishment right doesn't like Trump, but they HATE Hillary

(06-27-2016 03:17 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(06-27-2016 03:07 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(06-27-2016 02:55 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  yes, but the 'establishment' of both parties is barely a majority of either party any more.

IOW, the 'anybody but Hillary or Kasich/Bush/etc' is the majority... by a lot (I think)

Define "barely a majority"? Are we talking voters in the party? because if that's the case then sure, *barely* a majority of either party is made up of the establishment.

If we are talking about those with clout, however, we have a clear indication that the establishment of the democratic part loves Hillary and that would be the super delegates.

In 2008 she had 247 and Obama had 478 when she suspended her campaign. Obama had a majority but Hillary had a respectable minority.

This year Hillary has 560 and Sanders has 47

I'm talking about the voters in each party. OBVIOUSLY the 'insiders' are establishment voters. Insiders in the DNC didn't have to accept Bernie the way insiders in the RNC had to accept Trump because of the Super-delegates.

The disconnect between the parties and the voters hasn't been this large in decades... perhaps 'ever'. Eyeballing it, I think the establishment of each party is something like 55-60% of each party (that's about how many voted for Hillary over Bernie and how many voted for 'someone other than Trump' before people started bowing out)... which means that roughly 40% of both parties are 'settling'... plus independents.

So within the parties, 40% are settling and roughly 30% for each 'establishment'... then add the independents.



ETA: The establishment right doesn't like Trump, but they HATE Hillary

Fair enough. I'm talking apples and you're talking oranges and we are both right.

I simply think *functionally* a hillary presidency will go about like Obama or W in terms of executive overreach. But I guess in terms of public perception you are correct.

(06-27-2016 11:22 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  The whole Hillary investigation fiasco was politically motivated from the start.

This is why I cannot take you seriously. You aren't willing to put on the critical thinking cap when it's your team.

Hillary is flat out, just on publicly available documents and testimony, guilty of at minimum: espionage, obstruction of justice, and perjury. And yea, I do indeed want an investigation into why Hillary as Secretary of State signed off on a Canadian organization having Uranium mining rights in the United States, only for that organization to sell 80% of its goods to a puppet state of Russia, followed by a $145,000,000 "donation" to the Clinton Foundation FROM THAT VERY SAME organization just a few weeks after the sale.

If you think Hillary shouldn't be in jail you are little more than a parrot for the DNC and clearly you shouldn't be allowed to vote.

(06-27-2016 04:22 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  Fair enough. I'm talking apples and you're talking oranges and we are both right.

I simply think *functionally* a hillary presidency will go about like Obama or W in terms of executive overreach. But I guess in terms of public perception you are correct.

yeah... can't dispute your points. Don't disagree. My goal (long term) is either proportional representation (where we have 3 or 4 or 6 parties) and/or much more regionalized representation, with perhaps hundreds or even thousands more bureaucrats responsible for far more local issues (because I'm convinced they won't give the power to the states)... so that's where my perspective focuses...

I know it seems antithetical to INCREASE the size of the federal government, and that isn't my preference... but there is no way that 535 people can actually represent 350mm... so what we end up with is two sides of the same coin... with little substantive difference between the parties and all of our focus on trivial details and 'what they want us to fight about' rather than things we actually care about

W. In T F are you talking about......

"This is why I cannot take you seriously. You aren't willing to put on the critical thinking cap when it's your team.

Hillary is flat out, just on publicly available documents and testimony, guilty of at minimum: espionage, obstruction of justice, and perjury. And yea, I do indeed want an investigation into why Hillary as Secretary of State signed off on a Canadian organization having Uranium mining rights in the United States, only for that organization to sell 80% of its goods to a puppet state of Russia, followed by a $145,000,000 "donation" to the Clinton Foundation FROM THAT VERY SAME organization just a few weeks after the sale.

If you think Hillary shouldn't be in jail you are little more than a parrot for the DNC and clearly you shouldn't be allowed to vote."

I'm talking about a politically motivated Benghazi witch hunt. Welcome to planet Earth three rocks from the sun. All that other stuff show me links from reputable sources and I'll listen. Damn farther than you'll get from the vast majority of red team locos that love to congregate here. The Benghazi trial has been a farce. A politically motivated bloviated farce.

Jeh. Suze. GTS.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cas....html?_r=0

A fair assessment of the situation.

Espionage???? Put down the crack pipe

(06-27-2016 05:45 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(06-27-2016 11:22 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  The whole Hillary investigation fiasco was politically motivated from the start.

This is why I cannot take you seriously. You aren't willing to put on the critical thinking cap when it's your team.

Hillary is flat out, just on publicly available documents and testimony, guilty of at minimum: espionage, obstruction of justice, and perjury. And yea, I do indeed want an investigation into why Hillary as Secretary of State signed off on a Canadian organization having Uranium mining rights in the United States, only for that organization to sell 80% of its goods to a puppet state of Russia, followed by a $145,000,000 "donation" to the Clinton Foundation FROM THAT VERY SAME organization just a few weeks after the sale.

If you think Hillary shouldn't be in jail you are little more than a parrot for the DNC and clearly you shouldn't be allowed to vote.

(06-27-2016 08:14 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Espionage???? Put down the crack pipe

What do you think the charge is for deliberate mishandling of state secrets? It's espionage. Words echoed in full by Judge Andrew Napolitano.

And the sick and twisted thing. Why do you know any of this? The five Benghazi committees. It pays off to do these political Salem trials.

Meanwhile this has zero to do with Benghazi and the **** you came with above on the uranium stuff. Nothing to do with Benghazi but it comes to light with the fishing expedition. It's campaign research at this point. Let's scrub her server to fine campaign operational Intel. It's fruit from a poisoned tree.

(06-27-2016 05:45 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(06-27-2016 11:22 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  The whole Hillary investigation fiasco was politically motivated from the start.

This is why I cannot take you seriously. You aren't willing to put on the critical thinking cap when it's your team.

Hillary is flat out, just on publicly available documents and testimony, guilty of at minimum: espionage, obstruction of justice, and perjury. And yea, I do indeed want an investigation into why Hillary as Secretary of State signed off on a Canadian organization having Uranium mining rights in the United States, only for that organization to sell 80% of its goods to a puppet state of Russia, followed by a $145,000,000 "donation" to the Clinton Foundation FROM THAT VERY SAME organization just a few weeks after the sale.

If you think Hillary shouldn't be in jail you are little more than a parrot for the DNC and clearly you shouldn't be allowed to vote.

The entire 3rd season of the TV Show Blacklist should be dedicated to Hillary, hell that is where they go their plot line.

(06-27-2016 11:54 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  And what's bothersome to me but probably not to you is that if the D's controlled the house there wouldn't be any. I don't have the answers but it goes right along with our Supreme Court. We have politicized our Executive and Judicial systems. You point the finger at my side and I point the finger at yours. It's not a good situation for a democracy I do know that. The Benghazi fiasco has been politicized from the start to take down Hillary's numbers. Quote from the horses mouth but you guys don't give a shyt when it's your side doing the harassing. You only care when it's your team that's being harassed and that needs to stop.

Errr, Mach?

I've not read any further, so perhaps you've calmed a tad, but, uhhhhh.

This was a UNANIMOUS decision.

By the Supreme Court.

You know, with "right wangers" like Buzzy Ginsberg, Kagan, Soto, etc.

Yet you somehow try to spin this around and say this is "politicized" and somehow related to the congenital liars actions before, during, and after she oversaw the murders of 4 of our Countrymen, then lied about it? Repeatedly? And that wouldn't warrant oversight?

Am I living on Fantasy Island now? Ya'll had a fit over Novak writing an article about a desk jockey being an agent at some point past. Ya'll made a weeks long investigation and headline story of a High School kid having (allegedly) his hair tussled.

Too, too funny.

You must REALLY be nervous.
Dear Lawd, man.

(06-27-2016 09:49 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  And the sick and twisted thing. Why do you know any of this? The five Benghazi committees. It pays off to do these political Salem trials.

Meanwhile this has zero to do with Benghazi and the **** you came with above on the uranium stuff. Nothing to do with Benghazi but it comes to light with the fishing expedition. It's campaign research at this point. Let's scrub her server to fine campaign operational Intel. It's fruit from a poisoned tree.

Don't you claim to be a teacher?

doesn't research have something to do with that field?

When does "fishing expedition" become good journalism?

Was Nixon, contra, blue dress, IRS or Spiro Agnew (used to park his car and bring him food few times a year) all "fishing expeditions?

Is the fourth estate officially dead?

Dear lawd man, are we just serfs, now? NO oversight allowed? Simply take what the overseers allow and be done with it?

This person is the most corrupt, AND already corrupted, person to ever seek the office. Plain and simple.

If you can refute that, please do.

I'll grab the popcorn.

(06-27-2016 11:46 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(06-27-2016 09:49 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  And the sick and twisted thing. Why do you know any of this? The five Benghazi committees. It pays off to do these political Salem trials.

Meanwhile this has zero to do with Benghazi and the **** you came with above on the uranium stuff. Nothing to do with Benghazi but it comes to light with the fishing expedition. It's campaign research at this point. Let's scrub her server to fine campaign operational Intel. It's fruit from a poisoned tree.

Don't you claim to be a teacher?

doesn't research have something to do with that field?

When does "fishing expedition" become good journalism?

Was Nixon, contra, blue dress, IRS or Spiro Agnew (used to park his car and bring him food few times a year) all "fishing expeditions?

Is the fourth estate officially dead?

Dear lawd man, are we just serfs, now? NO oversight allowed? Simply take what the overseers allow and be done with it?

This person is the most corrupt, AND already corrupted, person to ever seek the office. Plain and simple.

If you can refute that, please do.

I'll grab the popcorn.

that's a great iteration ()...you cannot make that shite up....not even you