***Official Political Discussion Thread***

This is DubA. Decided to change my user name. Did not get banned or suspended. Just pointing it out.

Very interested to see how this plays out. Trump vs hillary would be the battle of the hated.
 
I read a few pieces on this whole server thing and it's sort of extreme from both sides.

On the right they try to chastise her however what she did is technically not illegal for someone in her position at the time to have a private server because Condoleezza Rice did the same thing. So to make her a martyr I feel it's more of the right's way of trying not to lose the whitehouse because they knew they'd struggle to win after Obama.

On the left they try to minimize it as nothing big. I think it is a bit bigger but if Mrs. Rice could do it why should we allow them to do that to Hilary?
 
Too many pundits and voters liken politics to sports way too often. In sports, we have a zero-sum contest with a definitive winner and a loser. Democrats buy into this notion even more than Republicans. Republicans, especially hardcore conservatives, understand the long game. I disagree with their ends but I have to marvel at their means.

American Conservatives always seem to lose and then turn their defeat into a win later on. From the 1930's to the early 1970's, Conservatism seemed to be dead, we had Democratic Presidents or very moderate Republicans and this period of our History saw incomplete but not insignificant legislation and court cases that advanced economic justice, civil rights, women's rights, rights for criminal defendants and even rights for the environment.

Some how, we are here in 2016 and so many of those advances have been turned back by movement conservatives. The voting rights act has been gutted, States suppress minority votes, the Economy is wildly unequal and rigged, Republicans control the House and most State governments, law enforcement is still militarized and abortion is de facto illegal in many States. If NT was around in 1973-74, every progressive would celebrate and would say, in the wake of Roe v. Wade, "that's a wrap, champs."

The Conservatives are masters at getting triple kills from Beyond the Grave.While many of these conservative victories came in the Reagan and Bush years, they have made a great deal of "progress" in The Clinton and Obama years. The Clinton years, one can understand, the electorate was fundamentally center-right. The Obama years, however, defy conventional wisdom.

In 2008, we were told that we were all socialists now. Our Economy was to be red, our President would be black and our energy system would be Green. Crazy financial capitalism had been rebuffed, racism had been rebuffed, the seas would cease to rise and it all was confirm on night in early November. In 2010 we got the Tea Party.

In 2012, we were told that we were part of the "Coalition of the Ascendant." We were to expect legions of hip, young, diverse, sexually fluid, social media savvy urban professionals to descend from their trendy downtown loft apartments and deliver a permanent Democratic majority. Children of undocumented immigrants turned web designers would make places like Arizona and Texas into blue States in no time. This overwhelming liberal majority would make conservatives acknowledge the humanity of undocumented people and LGBTQ people. Two years later Mitch McConnell took over the Senate. one year ago, we got Trump and his Wall. This year we have State government making laws concerning who can and cannot use certain bathrooms.

I say to fellow Bernie supporters, we need to be steady and persistent and in time, we will win. This process will take a while but it will take less time if we have Democrats in the White House and Congressional majorities. So in a general election, vote for Clinton and more importantly vote all the way down the ballot and then we will do the same thing in 2018 and 2020 and we will persist.
This was a great read, as is usually the case with your posts. 
 
As far as the hot sauce goes though, I'd think ppl would like to be on the side of the facts with this one. She's been rocking with hot sauce since '92. She likes it and believes it's good for her health wise. She had the white house fully stocked with all sorts of hot sauce for 8 years been sticking with it for over 20 years now
source?
 
In 2012, we were told that we were part of the "Coalition of the Ascendant." We were to expect legions of hip, young, diverse, sexually fluid, social media savvy urban professionals to descend from their trendy downtown loft apartments and deliver a permanent Democratic majority

Maybe you didnt notice, but this lil snippet is a big reason was there is so much disdain between who da Democratic party USED to represent (labor & da common man) and that demographic da aforementioned described.

Bill Clinton won in 1992 because there was a inward reflection on why liberalism was relegated to da dust bin during Reagan's entire administration & 4 years of da 1st bush. There was an acknowledgement
Of "going too far"

These days thou? :{ :lol

[Video][/quote]

This dude dont even fit in da faaar left iteration of what ya consider da Democratic party anymore.

This arrogant top down centralized approach of "we know better than you" government is da reason Democrats have had historical losses between 2010-2014.

Obama has only been good for Obama.

Until ya acknowledge this aura of smug self absorbed entitled strain of liberalism thats taken hold of da Democratic party its gonna continue to flounder.

Hillary is going into da general election as a VERY damaged candidate... Most Americans think she's a liar and can't be trusted. As high negatives Donald Trump has, there's 1 attribute that spells trouble for someone lacking in da Trust dept.

"He tells it like it is".
 
As far as the hot sauce goes though, I'd think ppl would like to be on the side of the facts with this one. She's been rocking with hot sauce since '92. She likes it and believes it's good for her health wise. She had the white house fully stocked with all sorts of hot sauce for 8 years been sticking with it for over 20 years now
source?
http://fortune.com/2016/04/18/hillary-clinton-hot-sauce-beyonce/

Clinton’s official affection for hot sauce dates back decades. In 2008, she told 60 Minutes her habit of regularly eating chilies to stay healthy goes back to 1992. At the White House in the 1990s, Clinton boasted a collection of more than 100 hot sauces, according to a December report by the Associated Press. In Monday’s radio interview, Clinton reiterated that her love of hot sauce is partly to do with its health benefits.

“No seriously, hot sauce. I’ve been eating a lot of hot sauce. Raw peppers and hot sauce,” she said. “Because I think it keeps my immune system strong. I think hot sauce is good for you, in moderation.”

Once twitter reacted like she was pandering, the facts came to counter it almost immediately. I think the Associated Press first covered the story years back.

Not so surprisingly, the news haven't been reporting it to just dismiss the entire thing but all of the comedic political shows have covered it.
 
I didn't know that. Thought she was ************, but glad I was wrong.

In her bag thou was da clincher.. Watching da breakfast club interview was pretty much obvious.
You mean the interview where she explained why she loves hot sauce and keeps it in her bag? :lol

I see yall still reaching. Now it's cuz she said "in her bag". Where you want her to keep the hot sauce?
 
I didn't know that. Thought she was ************, but glad I was wrong.

In her bag thou was da clincher.. Watching da breakfast club interview was pretty much obvious.
You mean the interview where she explained why she loves hot sauce and keeps it in her bag? :lol

I see yall still reaching. Now it's cuz she said "in her bag". Where you want her to keep the hot sauce?

U just gonna have to hold that L when it comes to Hillary Clinton's trust worthiness.. Her negatives are second ONLY to Trump :lol
 
I didn't know that. Thought she was ************, but glad I was wrong.

In her bag thou was da clincher.. Watching da breakfast club interview was pretty much obvious.
You mean the interview where she explained why she loves hot sauce and keeps it in her bag? :lol

I see yall still reaching. Now it's cuz she said "in her bag". Where you want her to keep the hot sauce?

U just gonna have to hold that L when it comes to Hillary Clinton's trust worthiness..
:lol Look at you

This is not about trustworthiness.

You look silly questioning facts and reaching.
Her negatives are second ONLY to Trump :lol
You say this like there's another viable candidate to be president other than her.
 
Clinton & Trump gonna be a straight blood bath, and i got my popcorn ready.

[emoji]128526[/emoji]
 
1000
 
Clinton & Trump gonna be a straight blood bath, and i got my popcorn ready.

[emoji]128526[/emoji]

I think you're right. I'm not going to watch though.
I'm taking to the streets with the first grassroots political movement that pops. Another option is moving to Iceland.
 
Da Establishment been unmasked for what it is.

Neither of those cats got a chance now they playing spoiler.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/04/2...ant-rely-on-trumps-unpopularity.html?referer=

Hillary Clinton Can’t Rely on Donald Trump’s Unpopularity


If Hillary Clinton becomes the Democratic nominee, she’ll need Bernie Sanders’s followers in the autumn.
GABRIELLA DEMCZUK FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES
By ALBERT R. HUNT | BLOOMBERG VIEW
APRIL 24, 2016
WASHINGTON — Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio is a relatively accessible fellow, but when asked for an interview on the subject of the schisms in his Democratic Party, his schedule was full. Instead, he sent a statement that the Hillary Clinton-Bernie Sanders presidential primary battle was strengthening the party in contrast with the “divisive” Republican fight.

He’s right about the Republicans. The personal invective and policy splits threaten to tear the party apart and produce an electoral cataclysm in November.

Yet that is obscuring serious problems on the Democratic side: deep divisions on policy and an almost certain nominee, Mrs. Clinton, who if not for Donald J. Trump would be the most unpopular presidential front-runner in recent times.

The differences between Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Sanders are more pronounced than those between Barack Obama and Mrs. Clinton in 2008. Then, there were modest divergences on health care and national security, highlighted by her support five years earlier for George W. Bush’s decision to invade Iraq. Mainly it was a difference of style and persona, a new voice in an environment of change running against a candidate focused on recapturing the salad days of the last Democratic administration.

This time — on major economic issues, taxes, health care and regulating Wall Street — the gaps are much wider. On national security, too, as Mrs. Clinton hasn’t much moderated her interventionist inclination: She was a leading advocate for the 2011 military action in Libya. The aftermath of the invasion turned out disastrously and Mr. Obama has expressed regrets. She hasn’t.

Party platforms are window dressing, but they can be politically symbolic. It’s hard to see how the Clinton forces can accommodate Mr. Sanders’s demands for breaking up big banks, free college tuition and staying out of Syria.


Graphic | Which Presidential Candidates Are Winning the Money Race See how the latest fund-raising numbers from the campaigns and outside groups stack up.
Yet if she is the Democratic nominee, she’ll need Mr. Sanders’s followers in the autumn and would be taking a risk to rely on Mr. Trump’s unpopularity to carry her to the White House.

In the latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll, voters viewed Mr. Trump unfavorably, 65 percent to 24 percent, the highest negatives for a national political figure that the pollster Peter Hart said he had ever seen. But if it weren’t for Mr. Trump, the story would be about Mrs. Clinton’s negatives. In the same survey she was viewed unfavorably, 56 percent to 32 percent. She does poorly among some of Mr. Sanders’s core supporters, such as young people and independents.

If Senator Ted Cruz becomes the Republican nominee, there will be a fierce ideological battle, with both sides working to energize their base. Mr. Trump or Mr. Cruz can be counted on to raise sensitive issues, ignored by Mr. Sanders, such as potential problems involving the Clinton Foundation, which has accepted huge donations from wealthy donors as well as big contributions from foreign interests. Mrs. Clinton has said that the Clinton Foundation would continue to operate if she is elected president.

Mrs. Clinton’s backers say she holds more cards than her opponents. If, for instance, there is a foreign policy crisis during the fall campaign, many voters give her good marks for knowledge and experience. By contrast, in The Wall Street Journal/NBC News survey last week, voters, by more than 3 to 1, said they lacked confidence in Mr. Trump’s ability to deal with an international crisis.

She can send a message with her choice for vice president. To be sure, such chatter now is purely conjectural. At this stage in previous elections, Sarah Palin, Geraldine Ferraro and **** Cheney — all eventually tapped — weren’t even on the radar.

But several people who talk to Mrs. Clinton think she would be comfortable with Senator Tim Kaine, a mature moderate who was a successful governor of Virginia, a swing state. She has been intrigued, they say, with the notion of picking another woman; Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts would excite the base.

There is little chemistry between them, however, and if she still wanted to play to the Sanders folk, a more palatable alternative might be the liberal Senator Brown, which may help explain why he didn’t want to talk last week.
 
Last edited:
Trump's argument on Hillary (Prediction): "She's a woman! Woman can't do anything right. Men are made to lead, not women! She should be in the house!"

I can't wait :rollin
 
Back
Top Bottom