Republicans are doing exactly what they did in 2008--going after Hillary and paving the way for a socialist/communist. Here's hoping the next socialist/communist is as ineffective in getting his agenda passed as the last one was.
I've talked about leaving the country. I haven't actually left, because things have not gotten bad enough yet. Bernie could make them bad enough. Single-payer health care would probably do it.
(This post was last modified: 02-13-2016 09:30 AM by Owl 69/70/75.)
(02-13-2016 09:29 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: Republicans are doing exactly what they did in 2008--going after Hillary and paving the way for a socialist/communist. Here's hoping the next socialist/communist is as ineffective in getting his agenda passed as the last one was.
I've talked about leaving the country. I haven't actually left, because things have not gotten bad enough yet. Bernie could make them bad enough. Single-payer health care would probably do it.
Problem is there's nowhere to go. Asians have closed borders and only let in other Asians and the rest of the West is further down the road of socialism than we are.
(02-12-2016 09:06 PM)Kronke Wrote: DNC Superdelegate explains the inside baseball of the Dem's nomination process. He says only about half of their Superdelegates have pledged so far, and he expects the rest to pledge for Hilldawg within the next couple weeks. Hilarious.
To quantify it further,
If you win 47.5% of elected delegates, you only have to take 64% of Superdelegates to win the nom. If you win 45% of elected delegates, you have to take 78% of Superdelegates. Hilldawg currently has 97% of pledged Superdelegates, so she basically has a 10% cushion in the primaries, assuming they don't abandon her en masse, which would be unlikely given that this system was precisely put in place to stop candidates like Sanders.
(02-12-2016 12:56 PM)Redwingtom Wrote: If true, this is huge news. Bernie, until recently, hadn't spent hardly any time on Nevada.
Feel the Berning Revolution!!!
Okay, so just to be perfectly clear. You support someone that openly wants to take MORE of the money I have earned to redistribute to those that have you feel that I need to support. And your criteria for this government-sponsored thievery is what? Privilege, race, historical discrimination, politics? Let's just walk the path of why YOU feel it is appropriate for ME to be forced to give up the fruits of my labor to support someone that has not made the choices, done the work, attained the education ,etc. I welcome the debate.
(02-13-2016 01:58 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote: This is more proof of what a weak candidate Hilary is. She's just so damn terrible.
In the end, it will ultimately boil down to how large a percentage of Democrats are willing to vote for a dirty, lawbreaking sleazebag named Hillary. My guess is that north of 50% of the Democat electorate cares at all if their candidate is morally bankrupt.
(02-12-2016 12:56 PM)Redwingtom Wrote: If true, this is huge news. Bernie, until recently, hadn't spent hardly any time on Nevada.
Feel the Berning Revolution!!!
Okay, so just to be perfectly clear. You support someone that openly wants to take MORE of the money I have earned to redistribute to those that have you feel that I need to support. And your criteria for this government-sponsored thievery is what? Privilege, race, historical discrimination, politics? Let's just walk the path of why YOU feel it is appropriate for ME to be forced to give up the fruits of my labor to support someone that has not made the choices, done the work, attained the education ,etc. I welcome the debate.
:golfclap: earned
he won't engage that one....
yep....crickets
Oh shut the hell up and get a life. I choose to spend my weekend with my family and my church...and I owe you nothing.
I'll reply to the question on Monday when I get back in the office.
(02-12-2016 12:56 PM)Redwingtom Wrote: If true, this is huge news. Bernie, until recently, hadn't spent hardly any time on Nevada.
Feel the Berning Revolution!!!
Okay, so just to be perfectly clear. You support someone that openly wants to take MORE of the money I have earned to redistribute to those that have you feel that I need to support. And your criteria for this government-sponsored thievery is what? Privilege, race, historical discrimination, politics? Let's just walk the path of why YOU feel it is appropriate for ME to be forced to give up the fruits of my labor to support someone that has not made the choices, done the work, attained the education ,etc. I welcome the debate.
:golfclap: earned
he won't engage that one....
yep....crickets
Oh shut the hell up and get a life. I choose to spend my weekend with my family and my church...and I owe you nothing.
I'll reply to the question on Monday when I get back in the office.
You must disagree with your pastor a lot unless you attend a touchy feely church.
(02-12-2016 12:56 PM)Redwingtom Wrote: If true, this is huge news. Bernie, until recently, hadn't spent hardly any time on Nevada.
Feel the Berning Revolution!!!
Okay, so just to be perfectly clear. You support someone that openly wants to take MORE of the money I have earned to redistribute to those that have you feel that I need to support. And your criteria for this government-sponsored thievery is what? Privilege, race, historical discrimination, politics? Let's just walk the path of why YOU feel it is appropriate for ME to be forced to give up the fruits of my labor to support someone that has not made the choices, done the work, attained the education ,etc. I welcome the debate.
:golfclap: earned
he won't engage that one....
yep....crickets
Oh shut the hell up and get a life. I choose to spend my weekend with my family and my church...and I owe you nothing.
I'll reply to the question on Monday when I get back in the office.
well, with Tom things never change. We get silence, or we get butthurt.
(02-12-2016 03:26 PM)Max Power Wrote: No chance the superdelegates swing the election at the convention. They'll fall behind the leader like in '08.
Bernie can win Nevada but South Carolina will be tougherm. Still if he can get that to single digits it can be spun as a win. Sharpton and Clyburn's possible endorsements loom large.
That is what people who are chirping super delegates forget, they'll switch over to Bernie if he's winning the states.
The Clinton's are trying to use every arguement in the book to convince democrats that Hillary is a safer choice than Bernie.
1) Electable- This isn't working with Bernie bringing in Independents.
2) Experience- Bernie has served in the House and Senate for 25 years.
3) Commander and Chief-Syria isn't going well so no Obama legacy.
4) Practical-The Dems are going to struggle against Republican Congress.
Obama was able to dominate African American support in 2008 race 75/25 over Hillary but I wouldn't assume that Southern Firewall edge for Hilary in 2016. The edge won't be that wide and inroads could snowball for Bernie as the primary season rolls on with a decent result in South Carolina.
(02-13-2016 01:58 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote: This is more proof of what a weak candidate Hilary is. She's just so damn terrible.
Its too obvious that she wants the presidency so damn bad.
Its not because she wants to create change or make progress like a normal candidate for office. Its purely driven by her own ego. That bothers a lot of people.
There are opportunists who have won the presidency but Hillary is the only one who has pouted like a child to be the next president for decades. Picked up political appointments for the sole purpose of boosting her presidential stock.
I'm more of the view that a presidency is about electability and a known flawed candidate should hang it up for a new generation of candidates.
(02-13-2016 12:38 AM)ODUsmitty Wrote: Okay, so just to be perfectly clear. You support someone that openly wants to take MORE of the money I have earned to redistribute to those that have you feel that I need to support. And your criteria for this government-sponsored thievery is what? Privilege, race, historical discrimination, politics? Let's just walk the path of why YOU feel it is appropriate for ME to be forced to give up the fruits of my labor to support someone that has not made the choices, done the work, attained the education ,etc. I welcome the debate.
:golfclap: earned
he won't engage that one....
yep....crickets
Oh shut the hell up and get a life. I choose to spend my weekend with my family and my church...and I owe you nothing.
I'll reply to the question on Monday when I get back in the office.
You must disagree with your pastor a lot unless you attend a touchy feely church.
Politically we probably have next to nothing in common...but he's my pastor, not my elected official.
(02-13-2016 12:38 AM)ODUsmitty Wrote: Okay, so just to be perfectly clear. You support someone that openly wants to take MORE of the money I have earned to redistribute to those that have you feel that I need to support. And your criteria for this government-sponsored thievery is what? Privilege, race, historical discrimination, politics? Let's just walk the path of why YOU feel it is appropriate for ME to be forced to give up the fruits of my labor to support someone that has not made the choices, done the work, attained the education ,etc. I welcome the debate.
:golfclap: earned
he won't engage that one....
yep....crickets
Oh shut the hell up and get a life. I choose to spend my weekend with my family and my church...and I owe you nothing.
I'll reply to the question on Monday when I get back in the office.
well, with Tom things never change. We get silence, or we get butthurt.
And nothing ever changes with you either. I rarely if ever post on the weekends much less even visit this site. I just happened to check in on Saturday as I was on my work computer from home making hotel reservations for my family trip in April. So you took my absence for 1 freaking day as me ignoring the question. Worry about yourself for once please. Thanks.
(02-12-2016 12:56 PM)Redwingtom Wrote: If true, this is huge news. Bernie, until recently, hadn't spent hardly any time on Nevada.
Feel the Berning Revolution!!!
Okay, so just to be perfectly clear. You support someone that openly wants to take MORE of the money I have earned to redistribute to those that have you feel that I need to support. And your criteria for this government-sponsored thievery is what? Privilege, race, historical discrimination, politics? Let's just walk the path of why YOU feel it is appropriate for ME to be forced to give up the fruits of my labor to support someone that has not made the choices, done the work, attained the education ,etc. I welcome the debate.
Yes...I support higher taxes as Bernie is proposing. But I haven't read all the proposals yet...if he's even put forth a concrete one yet, so I may change some of my thoughts in this area. But from what I've seen, the bulk of them will be on those making over $10 million dollars. I doubt that's you. I also see some of them going to those making over $400,000 a year. I also doubt that's you. If it is, congratulations!!
I support them because these folks have done exceptionally well reaping the benefits of the Bush tax cuts and those same cuts that continued under Obama for a couple years. That's nearly a decade in total I believe. And in that time, we had to pay for two big and costly wars and congress continued to spend on other measures. It's now time for those folks to pay up. Yes, pay up more.
I also support his initiatives to make some levels of college free and some or all of health care free or much cheaper. This country is more than rich enough to be able to handle it. I feel that increasing the wealth of the lowest and middle class will more than benefit those on the top and the overall increase in our economy and the strength of our country. But it has to be done wisely and I think Bernie could. But you can't just throw money at it either, so I need to see way more of these proposals. However, a rising tide lifts all boats.
(This post was last modified: 02-15-2016 10:33 AM by Redwingtom.)
(02-12-2016 12:56 PM)Redwingtom Wrote: If true, this is huge news. Bernie, until recently, hadn't spent hardly any time on Nevada.
I was thinking the same Tom... I thought Nevada was one of those "locked" wins for Hillary?
However, Rachel did a look/see at this polling firm and apparently it's not a highly respected outfit and it mostly polls Republican causes. So it could all be just a ruse. Also, not many firms poll in Nevada because they cannot get accurate readings.
Therefore, I would classify this as an outlier. I still think Hillary will win Nevada.
(This post was last modified: 02-15-2016 10:52 AM by Redwingtom.)
