Road to the White House 2016

[Rostere]

By the way, here is an article about how Claire McCaskill got elected Senator by helping a strictly religious conservative candidate get the Republican nomination to oppose her. Truly the two-party system at it's finest. Now just imagine if the Democrats managed to set up a strawman like Todd Akin for presidential nomination.

[Meshugger]

 

ooopa-lompa

 

Link to source pls

 

 

The republican debate, i do not remember exactly where. Oh, Trump about Sanders:

 

 

This is simply too much fun.

[BruceVC]

 

 

ooopa-lompa

 

Link to source pls

 

 

The republican debate, i do not remember exactly where. Oh, Trump about Sanders:

 

 

This is simply too much fun.

 

Yeah that did make me laugh, but its one of the few times I agree with Trump. They should never have given the mike to those women who disrupted the event...there entire attitude was belligerent and counter productive to rationale debate  

[Malcador]

He's very Rob Ford like, this Trump.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

 

ooopa-lompa

 

 

Link to source pls

 

The republican debate, i do not remember exactly where. Oh, Trump about Sanders:

 

 

This is simply too much fun.

"But believe me that's not going to happen to Trump."

 

I hope he speaks in 3rd person entirely in the next debate.

[Gromnir]

That's really the crux, if we get a terrible President, the odds are he or she will simply be ineffective.  To actually get stuff done, you need to be able to work with congress.  The most dangerous President is one that can work with the opposing party.  

President with a mandate from the People (significantly better than 51%) goes a long way towards getting Congress to go along with the prez.  is old joke that the job o' Congressman is to get re-elected.  folks in Congress is sensitive to their constituency.  but yeah, a terrible President is never all that terrible as the President can't do much.  

 

even w/i the executive, the President needs work with career bureaucrats, and those folks is knowing that the bad prez is a 4-year hiccup.  the bad prez can make all kinda appointments, but frequent enough the multitude o' essential mid-level career bureaucrats simple go ahead with business as usual-- wait out the storm until a new administration takes power.

 

a fringe candidate, in particular, needs a mandate from the People.  compromise and moderation is the essential qualities o' the typical President 'cause he needs work with his own party and the opposing party.  fringe candidate is an outsider with his/her own party, so possibility o' getting anything done is diminished even further.  

 

"The argument is about how you best choose a person which maximizes some sort of index of political sympathy taken over all voters (which I would say is the point with democracy)."

 

and your argument shows the misunderstanding 'bout the role o' the President that hurl is much more clear 'bout.  

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Barothmuk]

Yeah that did make me laugh, but its one of the few times I agree with Trump. They should never have given the mike to those women who disrupted the event...there entire attitude was belligerent and counter productive to rationale debate

It's not what I would have done but it was probably the safest option available. Seeing that they had no actual speech or course of action and have since not used this publicity to actually make their point all they've done is made massive fools of themselves.

 

If Sanders had done anything else it would've reflected worse on him.

[Meshugger]

 

Yeah that did make me laugh, but its one of the few times I agree with Trump. They should never have given the mike to those women who disrupted the event...there entire attitude was belligerent and counter productive to rationale debate

It's not what I would have done but it was probably the safest option available. Seeing that they had no actual speech or course of action and have since not used this publicity to actually make their point all they've done is made massive fools of themselves.

 

If Sanders had done anything else it would've reflected worse on him.

 

 

Nah, he should've never given the mic. He should've done the following:

 

- Pointing at himself, saying: "I'm here for ME"

- Then pointing at the audience, saying: "THEY are here for ME"

- Finally pointing at the ham-planets, saying: "...and no one is here for YOU. Now, get.off.my.stage."

[BruceVC]

 

Yeah that did make me laugh, but its one of the few times I agree with Trump. They should never have given the mike to those women who disrupted the event...there entire attitude was belligerent and counter productive to rationale debate

It's not what I would have done but it was probably the safest option available. Seeing that they had no actual speech or course of action and have since not used this publicity to actually make their point all they've done is made massive fools of themselves.

 

If Sanders had done anything else it would've reflected worse on him.

 

 

Sure, I see your point but where do we draw the line where a presidential candidate is not able to make a speech because they support liberal values ?

 

So in other words I doubt this would have happened to a Republican candidate but since the Democrats are known to be supporters of the middle class and minorities on various levels  it seems that people are just taking advantage of there more tolerant and reasonable view 

 

I don't think this makes Sanders look weak, I just think with all his anti-racism views it makes the people who disrupted the speech silly and I really have to question there credibility and general understanding of who is on the side of African Americans in the US political arena

 

Out of all the candidates they could disrupt why choose him? 

[Barothmuk]

Out of all the candidates they could disrupt why choose him?

Indeed.

[Namutree]

 

 

Yeah that did make me laugh, but its one of the few times I agree with Trump. They should never have given the mike to those women who disrupted the event...there entire attitude was belligerent and counter productive to rationale debate

It's not what I would have done but it was probably the safest option available. Seeing that they had no actual speech or course of action and have since not used this publicity to actually make their point all they've done is made massive fools of themselves.

 

If Sanders had done anything else it would've reflected worse on him.

 

 

Nah, he should've never given the mic. He should've done the following:

 

- Pointing at himself, saying: "I'm here for ME"

- Then pointing at the audience, saying: "THEY are here for ME"

- Finally pointing at the ham-planets, saying: "...and no one is here for YOU. Now, get.off.my.stage."

 

So he should've harnessed his inner Trump?

[Zoraptor]

His inner Trump would probably have been clotheslining them off the stage, since Trump seems to be treating the entire race as an extended wrestling promo.

 

It's pretty obvious why they chose to crash Bernie's rally, while it may get less attention they are a lot less likely to get stomped by security or be literally or figuratively clotheslined off the stage if they tried the same at a Republican rally or a Clinton Chardonnay Soirée. He's an easy target, basically, and precisely because he is more sympathetic to them.

[HoonDing]

[sorophx]

 

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/inside-the-gop-clown-car-20150812

[Wrath of Dagon]

Sanders had a wet dream :

Collectivization began in 1929, and lasted three years. First they organized a commune, but it lasted for only half a year, then it was changed to a collective farm. Then the campaign against kulaks started. I was then nine years old already, and could understand what was happening. My uncle on the maternal side Makar Antonovich Petukhov was elected chairman of the combed, then he became chairman of the collective farm. His uncle Fedor Antonovich Petukhov was considered a kulak. But what kind of kulak was he in reality? He had a thresher, seeder and reaper, all earned with sweat and hard work. Besides, he had many children to help with the work in the fields. Still, he was dispossessed completely, all his property, even to the spoons. This was called absolute requisition. You can understand the state of Fedor Antonovich. And to make matters worse it was done under guidance of a close relative. His wife, a fairly sharped-tongued broad, openly denounced collectivization, railing against the Soviet authorities. For this she was arrested, imprisoned for a month or so, then released, but the husband go ten years for resisting the authorities and refusing to join the collective farm. He served the entire term, came back, and still wouldn't join. He was a hell of a stubborn man. He lived in the village until he died, his children cared for him.

 

So that was the fate of the richest peasant at the time. We had two more families deemed to be kulaks, but not because they were really wealthy, just because the kids were handy, while others laid about on stoves during the winter, they went to other villages and did carpentry and woodwork, to earn a ruble. And in the summer sweated in the fields. So naturally, they were better off than some others. So there are your kulaks. In reality, in the village there weren't any kulaks, just some hard working and industrious peasants.

http://iremember.ru/memoirs/tankisti/vershinin-nikolay-petrovich/ Edited August 18, 2015 by Wrath of Dagon

[Barothmuk]

I for one look forward to the liquidation of America's kulak class.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

So when Bernie "One Man Five Year Plan" Sanders is elected president, will the US achieve the final form of Islamic Communism or will Sanders' being a Jew mess that up?

[Meshugger]

He will be assissinated by the people representing the People's Democratic Republic of United States because he wasn't socialistic enough.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

He will be assissinated by the people representing the People's Democratic Republic of United States because he wasn't socialistic enough.

[Calax]

Just gonna say. I think at this point the battle for  Democrats is going to be Sanders/Clinton. The reason that Clinton is so favored is just because she is basically the Establishment. Sanders is liked by a lot of people and will actually probably make a fairly good run to the nomination, but if he doesn't have the full weight of the voters behind him in primaries the party will do their best to crush him in favor of Hillary.

 

On Trump: The thing about Trump is that he's built himself as a brand. He's a businessman, and is obviously savvy enough to have managed to maintain his empire. I have to wonder how much of what he's saying is the Brand vs how much is actually him being serious.  We consider people like him and Paris Hilton to be idiots because they're caught saying un-PC things that seem insensitive, but the thing is, they've still created a situation where everyone knows their names and pays them just to show up (Hilton is basically a celebrity DJ at this point). I'm tired and a bit buzzed so this may just be the booze talking, but it strikes me that SHOULD Trump find himself with the nomination, he'd actually have to divorce his personality from his brand.

 

On elections as a whole: Honestly I think this whole fiasco is going to have both sides hitting the drawing table to redo the election rules. Either to eliminate or minimize the primary system. The Primary's are where the party kills itself because (as we're seeing now, in 12 and 08) you have to catapult yourself to the extreme to get the most votes from your party, and then go head to head with somebody and run as fast as you can back to being a moderate to try to win over the swing voters. Even in the 12 elections, a lot of the republican candidates there were just running because they had books out and wanted the free publicity. Taking it seriously only when they became the front runner, and then promptly falling because the media would do their best to find every dirty secret in the front runner.

[Namutree]

Sanders had a wet dream :

Collectivization began in 1929, and lasted three years. First they organized a commune, but it lasted for only half a year, then it was changed to a collective farm. Then the campaign against kulaks started. I was then nine years old already, and could understand what was happening. My uncle on the maternal side Makar Antonovich Petukhov was elected chairman of the combed, then he became chairman of the collective farm. His uncle Fedor Antonovich Petukhov was considered a kulak. But what kind of kulak was he in reality? He had a thresher, seeder and reaper, all earned with sweat and hard work. Besides, he had many children to help with the work in the fields. Still, he was dispossessed completely, all his property, even to the spoons. This was called absolute requisition. You can understand the state of Fedor Antonovich. And to make matters worse it was done under guidance of a close relative. His wife, a fairly sharped-tongued broad, openly denounced collectivization, railing against the Soviet authorities. For this she was arrested, imprisoned for a month or so, then released, but the husband go ten years for resisting the authorities and refusing to join the collective farm. He served the entire term, came back, and still wouldn't join. He was a hell of a stubborn man. He lived in the village until he died, his children cared for him.

 

So that was the fate of the richest peasant at the time. We had two more families deemed to be kulaks, but not because they were really wealthy, just because the kids were handy, while others laid about on stoves during the winter, they went to other villages and did carpentry and woodwork, to earn a ruble. And in the summer sweated in the fields. So naturally, they were better off than some others. So there are your kulaks. In reality, in the village there weren't any kulaks, just some hard working and industrious peasants.

http://iremember.ru/memoirs/tankisti/vershinin-nikolay-petrovich/

 

What does this have to do with Sanders? 

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

Sanders had a wet dream :

 

Collectivization began in 1929, and lasted three years. First they organized a commune, but it lasted for only half a year, then it was changed to a collective farm. Then the campaign against kulaks started. I was then nine years old already, and could understand what was happening. My uncle on the maternal side Makar Antonovich Petukhov was elected chairman of the combed, then he became chairman of the collective farm. His uncle Fedor Antonovich Petukhov was considered a kulak. But what kind of kulak was he in reality? He had a thresher, seeder and reaper, all earned with sweat and hard work. Besides, he had many children to help with the work in the fields. Still, he was dispossessed completely, all his property, even to the spoons. This was called absolute requisition. You can understand the state of Fedor Antonovich. And to make matters worse it was done under guidance of a close relative. His wife, a fairly sharped-tongued broad, openly denounced collectivization, railing against the Soviet authorities. For this she was arrested, imprisoned for a month or so, then released, but the husband go ten years for resisting the authorities and refusing to join the collective farm. He served the entire term, came back, and still wouldn't join. He was a hell of a stubborn man. He lived in the village until he died, his children cared for him.

So that was the fate of the richest peasant at the time. We had two more families deemed to be kulaks, but not because they were really wealthy, just because the kids were handy, while others laid about on stoves during the winter, they went to other villages and did carpentry and woodwork, to earn a ruble. And in the summer sweated in the fields. So naturally, they were better off than some others. So there are your kulaks. In reality, in the village there weren't any kulaks, just some hard working and industrious peasants.

 

http://iremember.ru/memoirs/tankisti/vershinin-nikolay-petrovich/

What does this have to do with Sanders?

He's trying to paint Sanders as a Tankie while the reality is that Sanders is a Social Democrat.

[Namutree]

What's a "Tankie"? I've never heard that term. 

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

What's a "Tankie"? I've never heard that term.

 

A Soviet apologist who thinks Stalin didn't do anything wrong. Usually Marxist-Leninists and Maoists.

[Barothmuk]

A Soviet apologist who thinks Stalin didn't do anything wrong. Usually Marxist-Leninists and Maoists.

Nah. It's a Marxist who defends the Soviet Union from Khrushchev onwards and more specifically supports the Soviets sending tanks to crush the Hungarian Uprising of 1956 and/or the Prague Spring in 1968.

 

Mao(ists) and the more hardline Stalinists condemned this.

Edited August 19, 2015 by Barothmuk