• We're giving away a Cyclingnews water bottle! Find out more here!

U.S. Politics

Page 1000 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jun 22, 2009
4,924
0
0
Thanks for the excellent input blutto and Beech.

The Hillshills I encounter (not referring to Velo), who were all extremely mouthy and offensive about Bernie yesterday, have gone very quiet today as more input like the above comes in from tech savvy people. I have no way of knowing how true this may be, but numerous Bernie supporters have today stated that they had received unexpected emails from the Clinton campaign, by coincidence since October, when the first breach was reported by the Sanders campaign! Meanwhile, the groundswell of anti-DWS opinion is snowballing together with more (circumstantial as yet) evidence of her pro-Hillary partisanship. Her position should shortly become untenable. I believe that only Obama can fire her - is that right?

Finally, a little thought provocation for you, posed to me elsewhere - if you had a gun to your head and absolutely had to choose one or the other, whom would it be - Trump, or Cruz?
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,638
0
0
Beech Mtn said:
VeloCity said:
If Bernie were still rising, sure, there might be some fire to the smoke, but he's been steadily fading and is no longer a real threat. It'd be dumb to pull a stunt like this now.
Huh. You see Bernie steadily fading, and I see the two big endorsements this week, contributors' record-breaking, the public appearances with folks like Killer Mike and George Lopez, the mosque visit, other good PR, as signs of Bernie's momentum.
It's less Bernie fading then Hillary regaining lost ground and Bernie's momentum being stalled over the past month and a half - Hillary's back up to +20-30 nationally and +10-33 in IA. Still close for NH but he's made no inroads at all anywhere else.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/democratic_primary_polls.html

Remove Biden from some of those and the gap is even bigger.
 
Amsterhammer said:
Finally, a little thought provocation for you, posed to me elsewhere - if you had a gun to your head and absolutely had to choose one or the other, whom would it be - Trump, or Cruz?
My initial thought was Cruz, simply because of his political acumen, and that in some ways he's a fighter and speaks well/thinks well on his feet as good as Trump. But after some thought, it would be Trump. The simple fact is that I think Trump would push harder to get more done, and try to do more with open doors, with damage mitigated by Congress and the courts. Keep in mind, I used the word "more", in relation to Cruz, not "everything".

As I said several times before, if the vast GOP electorate were sane people, we'd be watching debates between Kasich, Rubio, Bush and possibly Paul or Christie or Graham even. Trump, Carson and Cruz would not be the front runners with quintuple the support of those I mentioned. But the party in desperation to get votes sold it's soul to the lunatic fringe, who now are the party.
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,638
0
0
Re:

Amsterhammer said:
Thanks for the excellent input blutto and Beech.

The Hillshills I encounter (not referring to Velo), who were all extremely mouthy and offensive about Bernie yesterday, have gone very quiet today as more input like the above comes in from tech savvy people. I have no way of knowing how true this may be, but numerous Bernie supporters have today stated that they had received unexpected emails from the Clinton campaign, by coincidence since October, when the first breach was reported by the Sanders campaign! Meanwhile, the groundswell of anti-DWS opinion is snowballing together with more (circumstantial as yet) evidence of her pro-Hillary partisanship. Her position should shortly become untenable. I believe that only Obama can fire her - is that right?

Finally, a little thought provocation for you, posed to me elsewhere - if you had a gun to your head and absolutely had to choose one or the other, whom would it be - Trump, or Cruz?
I'd take the bullet. Far less painful and much quicker than having to watch either of those two for at least the next four years.

All right, fine, Trump. It's a question of which would do the less amount of damage, and Trump would either be impeached or essentially neutered by his own party, but regardless he'd be a one-term prez who'd get next to nothing done. Cruz would be far savvier and the damage he'd do would take decades to undo, especially if he were to have the chance to fill a SCOTUS seat or two.

But in truth there's not a single R who wouldn't be a complete disaster for the country, which is the main reason I support Hillary over Bernie. We need a D in the WH and Hillary has the far better chance.

EDIT: read Alpe's post and realized I'd completely forgotten about Graham - ok there's one R candidate who might not be a complete disaster.
 
Oct 6, 2009
4,660
0
0
Re:

Amsterhammer said:
Thanks for the excellent input blutto and Beech.

The Hillshills I encounter (not referring to Velo), who were all extremely mouthy and offensive about Bernie yesterday, have gone very quiet today as more input like the above comes in from tech savvy people. I have no way of knowing how true this may be, but numerous Bernie supporters have today stated that they had received unexpected emails from the Clinton campaign, by coincidence since October, when the first breach was reported by the Sanders campaign! Meanwhile, the groundswell of anti-DWS opinion is snowballing together with more (circumstantial as yet) evidence of her pro-Hillary partisanship. Her position should shortly become untenable. I believe that only Obama can fire her - is that right?

Finally, a little thought provocation for you, posed to me elsewhere - if you had a gun to your head and absolutely had to choose one or the other, whom would it be - Trump, or Cruz?
I'd write in Bernie :D

OK, gun to head, had to choose, I'd go with Trump. I guess partly because I think he's less evil than Cruz (which seems damned strange to be saying about somebody who's said the things Trump has said), because I think he could be worked around more easily than Cruz, he has a few leanings that are a bit more progressive - funding infrastructure (not talking about the wall here), and because I think he's pretending to be more conservative than he really is in order to get votes (the opposite of DINO Hillary :p )
 
Oct 6, 2009
4,660
0
0
VeloCity said:
Beech Mtn said:
VeloCity said:
If Bernie were still rising, sure, there might be some fire to the smoke, but he's been steadily fading and is no longer a real threat. It'd be dumb to pull a stunt like this now.
Huh. You see Bernie steadily fading, and I see the two big endorsements this week, contributors' record-breaking, the public appearances with folks like Killer Mike and George Lopez, the mosque visit, other good PR, as signs of Bernie's momentum.
It's less Bernie fading then Hillary regaining lost ground and Bernie's momentum being stalled over the past month and a half - Hillary's back up to +20-30 nationally and +10-33 in IA. Still close for NH but he's made no inroads at all anywhere else.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/democratic_primary_polls.html

Remove Biden from some of those and the gap is even bigger.
I still think those polls may be off this year. Wait until the votes start being counted. Bernie can't seem to get much of any mainstream media coverage, no matter how huge his rallies, or his celebrity endorsements, or public events. I keep seeing Bernie do things and thinking, if Hillary did this, it would be all over the news. Maybe the Clintons have lots of friends in high MSM places, or maybe Bernie really isn't a serious enough candidate to the media. I'm really hoping the votes show a different story from the polls. Might get disappointed though.

The superdelegates could be a big problem though.
 
Jul 4, 2009
9,573
0
0
....just sayin' eh...
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"“We’ve spent $4 trillion trying to topple various people that frankly, if they were there and if we could’ve spent that $4 trillion in the United States to fix our roads, our bridges, and all of the other problems; our airports and all of the other problems we’ve had, we would’ve been a lot better off. I can tell you that right now.”

This I think is a stronger critique of military spending than we’ve heard from Bernie Sanders of late."

...and...

"And Trump for all I know is a total tool of the establishment designed to implode, as some of critics of Bernie Sanders have accused him of Sheepdogging for Hillary Clinton. Trump might be serving the same function for the Republican anti-establishment base. Or he might pursue the same old establishment policies, if he were ever to get into office — that’s largely what Obama has done, especially on foreign policy. Trump quips: “I was a member of the establishment seven months ago.”

The point is that the natives are restless. And they should be and that makes it an important time to engage them so they stay restless and funnel that energy to constructive use, not to simply demonize them or tune them out."

....from... http://www.unz.com/article/speaking-the-unspeakable/

Cheers
 
Jul 4, 2009
9,573
0
0
Beech Mtn said:
VeloCity said:
Beech Mtn said:
VeloCity said:
If Bernie were still rising, sure, there might be some fire to the smoke, but he's been steadily fading and is no longer a real threat. It'd be dumb to pull a stunt like this now.
Huh. You see Bernie steadily fading, and I see the two big endorsements this week, contributors' record-breaking, the public appearances with folks like Killer Mike and George Lopez, the mosque visit, other good PR, as signs of Bernie's momentum.
It's less Bernie fading then Hillary regaining lost ground and Bernie's momentum being stalled over the past month and a half - Hillary's back up to +20-30 nationally and +10-33 in IA. Still close for NH but he's made no inroads at all anywhere else.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/democratic_primary_polls.html

Remove Biden from some of those and the gap is even bigger.
I still think those polls may be off this year. Wait until the votes start being counted. Bernie can't seem to get much of any mainstream media coverage, no matter how huge his rallies, or his celebrity endorsements, or public events. I keep seeing Bernie do things and thinking, if Hillary did this, it would be all over the news. Maybe the Clintons have lots of friends in high MSM places, or maybe Bernie really isn't a serious enough candidate to the media. I'm really hoping the votes show a different story from the polls. Might get disappointed though.

The superdelegates could be a big problem though.
....you think ? :D ....damn but those clowns in the Fourth Estate have long along morphed into a mercenary Fifth Column who is there to do the bidding of whoever wants to pay the freight....Merika is served by, arguably, the absolutely worst "free" media in the world....though to be fair they really don't have to that good because their audience has a collective IQ roughly equivalent to bread mould....

Cheers
 
Re: Re:

Beech Mtn said:
Amsterhammer said:
Thanks for the excellent input blutto and Beech.

The Hillshills I encounter (not referring to Velo), who were all extremely mouthy and offensive about Bernie yesterday, have gone very quiet today as more input like the above comes in from tech savvy people. I have no way of knowing how true this may be, but numerous Bernie supporters have today stated that they had received unexpected emails from the Clinton campaign, by coincidence since October, when the first breach was reported by the Sanders campaign! Meanwhile, the groundswell of anti-DWS opinion is snowballing together with more (circumstantial as yet) evidence of her pro-Hillary partisanship. Her position should shortly become untenable. I believe that only Obama can fire her - is that right?

Finally, a little thought provocation for you, posed to me elsewhere - if you had a gun to your head and absolutely had to choose one or the other, whom would it be - Trump, or Cruz?
I'd write in Bernie :D

OK, gun to head, had to choose, I'd go with Trump. I guess partly because I think he's less evil than Cruz (which seems damned strange to be saying about somebody who's said the things Trump has said), because I think he could be worked around more easily than Cruz, he has a few leanings that are a bit more progressive - funding infrastructure (not talking about the wall here), and because I think he's pretending to be more conservative than he really is in order to get votes (the opposite of DINO Hillary :p )
I don't buy this....he's very opinionated about certain issues. Is he really that good of an actor?
 
Re:

VeloCity said:
Bernie deserves an apology.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ominous-story-of-syria-climate-refugees/

And only going to get worse as the region continues to dry over the coming decades. But fortunately we have Ted Cruz and the cons to tell us that it's all just a figment of their imagination.
The climate change debate has mostly been framed as gradual warming leading to gradual changes, such as sea level rise, changes in weather patterns, certain species declining, etc. But there is a much more disastrous scenario or set of scenarios that is rarely talked about, and those who take it seriously are appalled by the failure of the COP21 conference even to acknowledge it, let alone propose actions to prevent it.

The following link is to a very lengthy analysis that was actually published prior to the conference, but was completely correct in its predictions about what would be ignored. There are five main flaws that the author believes exist in the agreement, but the one I want to focus on here involve the so-called tipping points.

To provide evidence for what essential high-impact climate data is missing from the IPCC’s global warming risk analysis process and consequence prediction scenarios, it is first necessary to review the four current global warming prediction scenarios provided in 2014 by the IPCC to the world’s politicians and policymakers.

Those four global warming prediction scenarios are:

Scenario One: Global warming is, at the most optimistic of projections, only a 2-degree Celsius increase by 2100 (about 3.7+ degrees Fahrenheit).

Scenario Two: Global warming is, at a more likely projection, a 3-degree Celsius increase by 2100 (5-6+ degrees Fahrenheit).

Scenario Three: Global warming is, at the less optimistic of IPCC projections, only a 4-degree Celsius increase by 2100 (7-8+ degrees Fahrenheit).

Scenario Four: Global warming is, at the least optimistic of IPCC projections, a 6 or more degree Celsius increase by 2100 (8-12+ degrees Fahrenheit).
Even scenario four, though, is not the most pessimistic. All of these scenarios discount the possibility of tipping points, when the changes become so severe that positive feedback cycles are set up, and the changes move from occurring in a linear to an exponential fashion. The key notion in each of these tipping points is that the process not only is enhanced by heat, but in turn generates more heat. The resulting feedback leads to exponential change, which can be much faster than linear, and eventually become irreversible:

The key climate tipping points are

1) The total amount of water vapor in the atmosphere. Water vapor in the atmosphere increases with more heat evaporating more water from oceans, lakes and rivers. [Note: water vapor is actually a far more important greenhouse gas that C02. It's thought to act as a multiplier or amplifier of C02's effect, precisely through the increased evaporation from increased warming].

2) The melting loss of white polar and glacial ice that reflects much earth-heating solar heat back into space in what is called the Albedo effect. [This is relevant to the recent study that claimed a thickening of ice in certain parts of Antarctica. The denialists point to this to argue that there is no net ice loss. But beyond the fact that this gain has not been replicated by other studies, which have not found evidence for it; and beyond the fact that it has only been reported for one part of one pole; a thickening in ice does not increase reflectivity of heat energy, whereas an actual loss of area of ice does decrease reflectivity. So even if ice is thickening in some places, the loss of it in others is far more serious in that it could lead to a tipping point and is not compensated for by the thickening]

3) The releases of methane from the warming and decaying of the permafrost and tundra near the polar areas…(Methane produces about 25 times the greenhouse heat-holding effect in the atmosphere that carbon does for anywhere from three years to decades before it decays back into simple carbon again).

4) The die-offs of the carbon-eating and oxygen-producing sea plankton because of the growing warming, carbonization and acidification of the oceans. [The acidification process is generally overlooked by denialists. No matter how much one wants to argue about the rate of temperature increase, the rate of C02 increase is known very precisely; no one challenges the data. And this C02 increase results in acidification, independent of how much warming occurs]

5) The loss of the atmospheric carbon-eating forests because of heat, drought, and wildfires.

6) Because of the escalating temperature, the soils that normally absorb carbon begin releasing it back into the atmosphere from their previously stored or inherent carbon.

7) The ever-increasing atmospheric heat now being captured by the oceans and being sent to lower levels of the ocean will eventually reach a tipping point at some date in future. These masses of deep warm water can suddenly rise to the surface again, releasing their heat to the atmosphere to radically increase global temperature in an exponential progression.

8) The global warming effect on major ocean currents that help to stabilize our weather and seasons. Research is now being conducted on how this factor might affect things like the critical North Atlantic current. If the North Atlantic current were slowed down or diverted from its presently established pathway, it would create very significant changes in weather patterns, which would affect growing seasons, rain, snowfall, and temperature—all of which have strong effects on crop yields. [Obviously very relevant to Syria and other places].

9) The global warming-caused pandemic potential. When ice, glaciers, permafrost or frozen tundra that is tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of years old melts, the melting releases bacteria and viruses that are still alive and that have never been seen by the human species in its total history. This means as global warming continues to escalate, we could be unleashing the ultimate global pandemic. We also could be releasing so many different types of bacteria and viruses at one time that even our best scientists could not keep up with creating and distributing the new vaccines needed in sufficient global quantities in time to contain the new disease outbreaks or a growing global pandemic. [This one had never occurred to me before].

10) At a specific level of rising ocean temperature, it will thaw and release the gigatons of frozen methane hydrate crystals trapped along the continental shelves of our oceans. A sudden and dramatic release of carbon into the atmosphere from methane hydrate crystals has been predicted to be what could become the last great planetary extinction event that will leave either no one left or as few as 200 million of us left living close to the poles. Scientists have theorized this massive methane release has occurred once before millions of years ago and was the most probable cause of one of the five previous great mass extinction events of our planetary history…

11) The total weight of all melting ice and rising seas as a wildcard tipping point. Although research is sparse in this area it has been suggested that, as massive amounts of ice melt off areas where the ice is sitting on land masses and sea level rises, the unweighting and weighting of land masses and the oceans and their respective tectonic plates can potentially cause significant shifts and movement in the tectonic plates of the planet. This could cause earthquakes and volcanic eruptions at a scale that we have not seen on the planet for ages. If the shifting of these tectonic plates causes numerous or massive volcanic eruptions around the planet, we could go into a sudden but temporary volcanic winter. If the shifting of tectonic plates triggers a super volcano-like eruption, the years that the sun would be blocked could kill off most of the human population.
Nobody has much of a clue as to how likely any of these tipping points is to occur, which is one reason why they are left out of most discussions. They're also referred to as "fat tails", i.e., on a normal distribution meant to indicate the probability of various temperature increases, they constitute a tall of potentially far greater increases. Maybe it’s highly unlikely any of them would happen. But I think it’s fair to say that right now we may have already, without knowing it or yet being able to confirm it, passed one or more of these tipping points. The comparison to Venus is particularly chilling:

Some astronomers use the expression runaway greenhouse effect to describe the situation where the climate deviates so irreversibly, catastrophically and permanently from the original state that it mimics what happened on Venus when it caused that planet to lose all of its atmosphere.
http://www.joboneforhumanity.org/why_the_paris_un_climate_conference_is_doomed_to_fail
 
Oct 6, 2009
4,660
0
0
Re: Re:

Jspear said:
I don't buy this....he's very opinionated about certain issues. Is he really that good of an actor?
He was a pro-life Democrat for many years. Not really religious (though he's currently claiming to be), with many business partners in the middle east (though he claims he wouldn't let Muslims in the country temporarily). Etc. I think he has verbal diarrhea and doesn't mean some of what he says.

Is he a progressive, probably not. Yes he's an actor.
 
Oct 6, 2009
4,660
0
0
Bernie calling for an independent investigation of ALL the breaches that have occurred during the campaign.

Q: does Secretary Clinton deserve an apology?
Bernie: Yes. I apologize.

O'Malley's interjection was pretty awkward.
 
Oct 6, 2009
4,660
0
0
O'Malley is going to get himself disinvited from future debates by interrupting so much in a desperate attempt to get airtime.
 
Oct 6, 2009
4,660
0
0
Oh good. We're just going to let HIllary control the message. Ugh.

Hillary is so shrill. Imagine being lectured to like this from the oval office for 4 years.
 
Jul 4, 2009
9,573
0
0
Re: Re:

Merckx index said:
....the following is the thing that most people don't get...and many thanks for introducing it....

"The resulting feedback leads to exponential change, which can be much faster than linear, and eventually become irreversible"

.....they see incremental change and assume that is the way the this process will continue to evolve....but when this goes kablooeee its going to go big kabloooeee, real big....and catastrophe management which is the way we generally deal with stuff like this is simply not going to work...it will way too little, and way too late...

Cheers
 
Jul 4, 2009
9,573
0
0
....money, the root of all evil, Chapter 2475.....
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"By Bill Moyers and Michael Winship

Television news has gone off its rocker and turned our politics into the equivalent of a freak show's hall of mirrors.

The networks have grasped Donald Trump to their collective bosom like the winner of one of those misogynistic, televised beauty pageants he owns. Each pronouncement from the Sultan of Slur is treated as epic, no matter how deeply insulting, bigoted or just plain ridiculous.

You may have seen by now that recent Tyndall Report analysis of the nightly news shows on ABC, CBS, and NBC. It found that from January 1 through November, the big three had devoted 234 minutes of reporting to Donald Trump but only ten to Bernie Sanders. At ABC, World News Tonight had given the Trump campaign 81 minutes of coverage while Bernie Sanders has received less than a minute. A minute!

Our friend and colleague John Nichols at The Nation magazine says that it's useless to try to get the networks to dial it back; every Trump bellow leaves them begging for more. Rather, he writes, "When a candidate is playing to the worst fears of Americans, what's needed is more serious and intensive coverage that puts things in perspective... The point is to recognize that there are other candidates who are getting as much support as Trump, that are exciting crowds and gaining significant support, and that are advancing dramatically different responses to the challenges facing America. That's not happening now."

Big surprise, the problem is money. Tons of it. Trump brings ratings and ratings raise advertising revenue. What's more, in an insane election cycle like this one, cash already is pouring in from the production, sale and placement of political TV advertising, cash that also makes television executives and political strategists wealthy. Here's CBS chief executive Les Moonves at an investor presentation last week, cheering on Trump and the other Republican candidates: "The more they spend, the better it is for us... Go Donald! Keep getting out there. And you know, this is fun, watching this, let them spend money on us... We're looking forward to a very exciting political year in '16."

...... http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/bill-moyers/65266/bad-news-for-democracy-is-great-news-for-tv-profits

Cheers
 
Jul 4, 2009
9,573
0
0
"It just keeps getting better and better. The Bernie Sanders campaign said they can prove that the Democratic National Committee and Debbie Wasserman Schultz are conspiring to ensure Hillary Clinton is the party’s nomination for president. Overnight, the DNC announced they would no longer suspend the Sanders campaign for accessing Hillary’s campaign voter information when a firewall wend down on the DNC Server.

The Sanders staffer who poked around for several hours looking at Clinton’s records was fired, but Sanders’ team threatened a lawsuit if access wasn’t restored. It was, and it seemed all was copacetic. But the Sanders campaign isn’t giving up the lawsuit and on MSNBC, campaign chairman Jeff Weaver, said the DNC is desperate to settle out of court, The Washington Post is reporting.


“I’m happy to provide it to anybody in the media, which will demonstrate that, of course, what the chairwoman said was absolutely false,” Weaver said. “We have responded with information. If they wanted additional information, they certainly should have let us know.”

Weaver also suggested the DNC was likely to settle the case because they were afraid of what might come out in the discovery process of the legal proceedings.

“We will get access to all the internal communications of the DNC where we can demonstrate what I think most people think is going on, which is that there are some people in there who are clearly trying to help the Clinton campaign,” he said.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/12/19/deal-reached-between-sanders-and-dnc-doesnt-do-away-with-the-disdain/

http://downtrend.com/robertgehl/sanders-team-claims-they-can-prove-dnc-is-in-collusion-with-hillary/

....yeah is it just me but does anyone else think it odd that Wasserman went to the press and not the police with this ( and timing, like just before a debate...gee talk about coincidences :rolleyes: )....is Wasserman is becoming the Katherine Harris of 2000..?....and btw the article cited below is well worth the read....

http://www.salon.com/2015/12/19/debbie_wasserman_schultz_must_go_and_the_case_bernie_sanders_must_make_tonight/

...and why oh why no Dem response to Trump....

" On Sunday last, Donald Trump put the matter plain, telling Fox News interviewer Chris Wallace that Clinton “killed hundreds of thousands of people with her stupidity.”

Trump added, “If you look at what she did with Libya, what she did with Syria. Look at Egypt, what happened with Egypt, a total mess. She was truly – if not the – one of the worst secretaries of state in the history of the country.”

Despite the media’s trumpeting every contrary Trump pronouncement, this particular Donald zinger wasn’t so much as allowed a seat in the parlor. There was no media follow-on anywhere. Not even a sighting or a hearing of liberal outrage.

But the Dems know that drawing any attention whatsoever to the appalling results of their candidate’s previous stewardship of U.S. foreign policy would be most unwise."


Cheers
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,638
0
0
Re:

Beech Mtn said:
Oh good. We're just going to let HIllary control the message. Ugh.

Hillary is so shrill. Imagine being lectured to like this from the oval office for 4 years.
You're far more likely to have to put up with lectures from Trump or the Sanctimonious Twins Cruz or Rubio instead if Bernie is the D nominee. I'll take Hillary's "shrillness" over insanity every time, thanks.

Speaking of detached from reality, Paul Ryan:

Ryan said the House will vote to defund both Planned Parenthood and ObamaCare as a first order of business when Congress returns in January. "We will be able to get that on the president’s desk, because we found a way to get around the filibuster in the Senate,” he said. “So we are more effective in our ObamaCare and Planned Parenthood policy, to zero those out. And that’s going to the president’s desk.”
Where, as he knows perfectly well, they'll be DOA, vetoed, tossed in the garbage, and so instead of acknowledging that they lost these issues years ago and moving on to actually doing something constructive, Rs choose to replay an ideological charade out over and over again for absolutely no reason.
 
Dec 7, 2010
8,307
1
0
Re:

blutto said:
"It just keeps getting better and better. The Bernie Sanders campaign said they can prove that the Democratic National Committee and Debbie Wasserman Schultz are conspiring to ensure Hillary Clinton is the party’s nomination for president. Overnight, the DNC announced they would no longer suspend the Sanders campaign for accessing Hillary’s campaign voter information when a firewall wend down on the DNC Server.

The Sanders staffer who poked around for several hours looking at Clinton’s records was fired, but Sanders’ team threatened a lawsuit if access wasn’t restored. It was, and it seemed all was copacetic. But the Sanders campaign isn’t giving up the lawsuit and on MSNBC, campaign chairman Jeff Weaver, said the DNC is desperate to settle out of court, The Washington Post is reporting.


“I’m happy to provide it to anybody in the media, which will demonstrate that, of course, what the chairwoman said was absolutely false,” Weaver said. “We have responded with information. If they wanted additional information, they certainly should have let us know.”

Weaver also suggested the DNC was likely to settle the case because they were afraid of what might come out in the discovery process of the legal proceedings.

“We will get access to all the internal communications of the DNC where we can demonstrate what I think most people think is going on, which is that there are some people in there who are clearly trying to help the Clinton campaign,” he said.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/12/19/deal-reached-between-sanders-and-dnc-doesnt-do-away-with-the-disdain/

http://downtrend.com/robertgehl/sanders-team-claims-they-can-prove-dnc-is-in-collusion-with-hillary/

....yeah is it just me but does anyone else think it odd that Wasserman went to the press and not the police with this ( and timing, like just before a debate...gee talk about coincidences :rolleyes: )....is Wasserman is becoming the Katherine Harris of 2000..?....

http://www.salon.com/2015/12/19/debbie_wasserman_schultz_must_go_and_the_case_bernie_sanders_must_make_tonight/

...and why oh why no Dem response to Trump....

" On Sunday last, Donald Trump put the matter plain, telling Fox News interviewer Chris Wallace that Clinton “killed hundreds of thousands of people with her stupidity.”

Trump added, “If you look at what she did with Libya, what she did with Syria. Look at Egypt, what happened with Egypt, a total mess. She was truly – if not the – one of the worst secretaries of state in the history of the country.”

Despite the media’s trumpeting every contrary Trump pronouncement, this particular Donald zinger wasn’t so much as allowed a seat in the parlor. There was no media follow-on anywhere. Not even a sighting or a hearing of liberal outrage.

But the Dems know that drawing any attention whatsoever to the appalling results of their candidate’s previous stewardship of U.S. foreign policy would be most unwise."


Cheers
If they bring attention to the bolded bit there with the poor performance of Secretary of State the campaign knows it will not be good for Hillary. They will walk all around that. Remember the "RESET BUTTON" foolishness from them on the Russian relationship?
 
Jul 4, 2009
9,573
0
0
Re: Re:

VeloCity said:
Beech Mtn said:
Oh good. We're just going to let HIllary control the message. Ugh.

Hillary is so shrill. Imagine being lectured to like this from the oval office for 4 years.
You're far more likely to have to put up with lectures from Trump or the Sanctimonious Twins Cruz or Rubio instead if Bernie is the D nominee. I'll take Hillary's "shrillness" over insanity every time, thanks.

Speaking of detached from reality, Paul Ryan:

Ryan said the House will vote to defund both Planned Parenthood and ObamaCare as a first order of business when Congress returns in January. "We will be able to get that on the president’s desk, because we found a way to get around the filibuster in the Senate,” he said. “So we are more effective in our ObamaCare and Planned Parenthood policy, to zero those out. And that’s going to the president’s desk.”
Where, as he knows perfectly well, they'll be DOA, vetoed, tossed in the garbage, and so instead of acknowledging that they lost these issues years ago and moving on to actually doing something constructive, Rs choose to replay an ideological charade out over and over again for absolutely no reason.
I'll take Hillary's "shrillness" over insanity every time, thanks

....unfortunately the only candidate showing signs of insanity is Ms. Clinton.....which nicely bookends her incompetence....yup a real winner eh...

Cheers
 
Jul 4, 2009
9,573
0
0
Why did Hillary use a discredited Rupert Murdoch lie to smear Sanders?

That's just who she is and how she operates.


While debating Bernie Sanders last night in New Hampshire, Hillary Clinton made an egregiously dishonest claim.
During the candidates’ discussion on college education, Clinton stated that Senator Sanders’ proposals would cost trillions of dollars, saying, “Free college, a single payer system for health, and it’s been estimated we’re looking at 18 to $20 trillion, about a 40 percent in the federal budget.”
This is flat wrong.

The $18 trillion price tag comes from an article published in the Wall Street Journal. Authored by Laura Meckler, the piece attributes the vast majority— $15 trillion— of this exorbitant amount to Bernie Sanders’ plan to expand Medicare and guarantee care for all sick or injured Americans.

Meckler writes that, “… a similar proposal in Congress… would require $15 trillion in federal spending over 10 years on top of existing federal health spending, according to an analysis of the plan by Gerald Friedman, an economist at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst.”

Only problem?

Gerald Friedman himself disagrees.

He wrote a response article, published in The Huffington Post, entitled, “An Open Letter to the Wall Street Journal on Its Bernie Sanders Hit Piece,” in which he clarified that, “…by spending these vast sums, we would, as a country, save nearly $5 trillion over ten years in reduced administrative waste, lower pharmaceutical and device prices, and by lowering the rate of medical inflation.

<snip>
http://www.salon.com/2015/12/20/hillary_clinton_just_slimed_bernie_sanders_with_a_discredited_rupert_murdoch_attack_on_single_payer_health

Cheers
 
Jul 4, 2009
9,573
0
0
"Leading environmentast and Climate Change pioneer Bill McKibben endorses Bernie Sanders


Last edited Mon Dec 21, 2015, 09:24 AM - Edit history (1)

Bill McKibben, environmentalist and author has endorsed Bernie. From a campaign e-mail by him I received:

"Last night's Democratic debate was a disappointment for anyone who cares about the future of our planet. After an historic climate summit in Paris, it is unconscionable that the moderators of last night's debate — as well as the Republican debate — didn't ask a single question about climate change.

It's too bad, because Bernie’s new climate plan is the kind of deep, powerful plan we really need. I hope that you’ll sign on to support it. It gets us started fast — 40% reductions in carbon emissions by 2030 would put the country and the world on a new pathway. Bernie’s plan would create ten million jobs — and make sure that they’re shared with those communities that usually get left out of our economic booms. ":

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

....and who has Ms Clinton got ?....Wall St and the military industrial complex....gee, tough call eh....

Cheers
 
Jun 22, 2009
4,924
0
0
Re: Re:

VeloCity said:
Beech Mtn said:
Oh good. We're just going to let HIllary control the message. Ugh.

Hillary is so shrill. Imagine being lectured to like this from the oval office for 4 years.
You're far more likely to have to put up with lectures from Trump or the Sanctimonious Twins Cruz or Rubio instead if Bernie is the D nominee. I'll take Hillary's "shrillness" over insanity every time, thanks.
I'm sad to see you repeating this shameless false narrative from the Clinton camp. You continue to deliberately ignore what for me is the most salient fact - any R's on the Hill are infinitely more likely to work with Bernie than Hillary, because they all have a combination of fear, loathing, and HATE for Hillary, to a degree that none of them have with Bernie.

Further, you are more than presumptuous, in a manner oh so typical for Hillary supporters and apologists, in thinking that only Hillary can beat any of these R's. All head to head projections show Bernie beating any R candidate with bigger numbers than Hillary. Granted, he has to become the nominee first, but that's what projections show.

Meanwhile, let us wave farewell to Lindsey Graham, who has stepped off of the clown double-decker. He made sense on lots of things, if only he wasn't infected with the 'bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb bomb Iran' affliction (to the tune of the Beach Boys' 'Barbara Ann').
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts