U.S. Politics: The Biggest Trade in WNBA History

[Baba Yaga]

Cruz wins, less than 10 votes seperate Hillary and Bernie. Fun stuff.

Is there a precedent for a race in any primary being that close!? Holy crap.

 

[bobjr]

Is there a precedent for a race in any primary being that close!? Holy crap.

Santorum and Romney in 2012. But we all know what happened to Santorum.

 

[Mordent99]

Huckabee dropped out, thank goodness.

It seems Hillary has been declared winner, by a sliver. Indeed, this will be a long primary.

 

[Aegiscalibur]

Stop voting for Rubio, people. You're ruining the Democrat plan for an easy win.

Plus think of the comedy value. Rubio would be dead boring out there.

 

[Navin]

If Sanders eventually does lose to Clinton, I do hope he will convince his followers to shift to Clinton. The country can't afford for Clinton to lose the precious Sanders bloc and give the election away to the GOP.

 

[Craig T]

Society as a whole can't afford to believe in the notion of authority and government, as it always leads to inequality and oppression. For all those who engage in the political process in any manner, I would ask you to reconsider.

 

[Mordent99]

If Sanders eventually does lose to Clinton, I do hope he will convince his followers to shift to Clinton. The country can't afford for Clinton to lose the precious Sanders bloc and give the election away to the GOP.

Maldred, that always happens. With a few exceptions, the most bitter of political rivals always kiss and make up, forgiving everything once a winner is decided. Even Trump, who was slinging insults at Cruz yesterday, congratulated him this morning. (He's handling it better than his voters are, IMOHO.)

The only four Presidents who refused to attend the Inaugurations of their predecessors were John Adams (he and Jefferson hated each other) John Quincy Adams ("hate' isn't a strong enough word for how he and Jackson felt about each other) Andrew Johnson (everybody in Washington hated him, and it was mutual) and Woodrow Wilson (but he did ride to the White House with Harding. Technically, you can add Nixon, but only because he left Washington, D.C. before his resignation took effect.

Other than that, nobody ever continues a rivalry past the election.

 

[I-am-the-peel]

Really hope Sanders trumps Clinton in the democrat electoral race (see what I did there?) though as I greatly admire him and prefer him as a Democrat over Clinton. Whenever I watch her in debates, she just can't argue her own case and always attacks the two opposite her, and the more she talks, the more I despise her. In many ways, she is a more polite female democrat version of Trump - everything she says she seems to just go back on.

As for the Republican race, given I don't support them I don't really care who wins out of that lot so long as its not the most popular (trump) or someone who offers the best oppostion to sanders (which based on my watching the debates, seems to be rubio).

 

[chalkus]

Well, Chalkus, looks like you got your wish:

http://www.aol.com/article/2016/01/...ing-grid7|main5|dl1|sec1_lnk2&pLid=-297917261

I had hoped they could be the adults in this whole thing. Silly me...

I don't remember wishing for anything other than the execution of the electoral process. You were the one advocating for your candidate to be coronated.

Chalkus, if Cruz, Rubio, and Carson are top choices in the party according to the pools... then there's a problem. Cruz is for one unlikable the more spotlight he has, Rubio is more right-wing than he looks underneath, and Carson well... yeah. ANY of these guys make Clinton the more reasonable chance since she's a moderate especially since she says that she'll continue with Obama's policies.

Also Cruz was asked by a voter what can he replace ACA with since his brother-in-law got health insurance thanks to the ACA. Well, Cruz isn't just heartless but he has no soul...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ruz-what-will-happen-if-he-repeals-obamacare/

I never said the Repubs didn't have problems. You guys were the ones who made it seem like the Repub field was downright awful while the Dems was holier than though. However, when you actually break down who the candidates were and how they performed, you see the problems staring you in the face. Problems many of you pretend not to see because of your own partiality.

That would hardly be Sanders' fault though. When candidates make election promises, they are made under the assumption that Congress is willing. Sanders can't speak on behalf of Congress.

No, as Hillary Clinton herself eluded to, over promising is the fault of the one making declarations of grandeur. Sanders has to present a realistic way over achieving his agenda. If he knows the Repubs will not go along with his agenda and that they will have the House and perhaps the Senate for the foreseeable future, to engage in talk of reforming healthcare, taking on billionaires and making college free without having a clear path to that goal is irresponsible.

This post makes it more glaringly obvious how biased you are.

"Hillary is the frontrunner so every Democrat is a hypocrite." I wish that was me exaggerating and not paraphrasing.

As usual, you guys completely misuse the word bias. For me to have been bias, I would have needed to bash the Dems while heaping praises on the Repubs (sort of the reverse of what many of you have engaged in). However, I never once extoled the Repubs in the slightest. Perhaps the bias you seek can be found in the mirror?

I've said it before an dI will say it again, if you guys took the time to analyze what I post instead of getting upset, you will see the truth staring you in the face. Because there is not a single criticism of Hillary of Obama that I have made that was not true. Yet many of you will ignore it simply because they are on your side. Yet if they were truly on your side, they would work to appease your sentiments instead of going against them at their convenience. To ignore this means being doomed to infinite repetition.

Jim Webb's 'joke' and Chaffee's bungled response were no way close to the raving "rah-rah war, war, Obama sucks, Obamacare bad, rah-rah, Praise Jesus!, build military" dialogue from the right-wing. It's the most negative messages ever - nobody is saying anything positive or substantiative.

Of course the Repubs will be more negative and the Dems more positive. The Dems are trying to stay in power, to paint a bleak picture would mean disavowing Obama. Similarly, the Repubs will go all doom and gloom in their quest of unseating the Dems from the White House. Not sure why this surprises you. The Dems were the ones after the Bush years talking about the failed policies of the past and the foreign wars (you know, the very policies and wars they expanded).

My point is that each side has its problems. However, you seem hell bent on making the Repubs look downright atrocious while putting your side on a pedestal. You'll only set yourself up for disappointment doing so.

Rubio is pathetic. The Bobby Jindal of Latinos - dude thinks we're in the Cold War or something. Rubio is probably secretly gay too for Obama, seeing he couldn't make one sentence without mentioning his name somewhere. Christie just rants all day and is incredibly disrespectful to the President and anyone. Cruz is way too right-wing for anyone, and even his own party dislikes him. Carson's head must have gotten messed up from inhaling anesthesia from one too many surgeries. Bush literally states he supports Super PACs and attack ads and that type of campaigning. He also thinks somehow the country was better off in 2008 than in 2015 - LOL.

You've been talking about Rubio a lot lately. Worried, perhaps? Because if Hillary is having problems with Bernie and needs minority voters to beat him, what will happen against Rubio when he takes some of those voters away?

The Dems conduct themselves infinity times more with decorum in the debates and public spotlight than the Repubs.

Interesting you say that. You do realize that the Hillary campaign recently declared that Sanders was running the most negative campaign of all time? How do you explain that?

 

[Aegiscalibur]

No, as Hillary Clinton herself eluded to, over promising is the fault of the one making declarations of grandeur. Sanders has to present a realistic way over achieving his agenda. If he knows the Repubs will not go along with his agenda and that they will have the House and perhaps the Senate for the foreseeable future, to engage in talk of reforming healthcare, taking on billionaires and making college free without having a clear path to that goal is irresponsible.

Bernie wants to start "a political revolution," which starts with him getting elected as President but inspires other similarly minded people to get elected in other political institutions. He also very openly blames the Congress for the current situation, especially the Republicans. He outright rants about the Congress being in Wall Street's pocket.

How much blaming Congress should Bernie do for it to be enough? Every time he says something, should he add an asterisk with "subject to Republican populist obstructionism"?

 

[Remix2]

Rand Paul is out of the race, couldn't get it done like his old man did.

https://t.co/lLYJmPKnCh

Kinda sad too because he was the only one out of all the gop candidates who has a brain.

Side note: Jim Gilmore is still in he race, and actually got vote in Iowa. I know I'm shock as well.

 

[SlowPokeBroKing]

As usual, you guys completely misuse the word bias. For me to have been bias, I would have needed to bash the Dems while heaping praises on the Repubs (sort of the reverse of what many of you have engaged in). However, I never once extoled the Repubs in the slightest. Perhaps the bias you seek can be found in the mirror?

I've said it before an dI will say it again, if you guys took the time to analyze what I post instead of getting upset, you will see the truth staring you in the face. Because there is not a single criticism of Hillary of Obama that I have made that was not true. Yet many of you will ignore it simply because they are on your side. Yet if they were truly on your side, they would work to appease your sentiments instead of going against them at their convenience. To ignore this means being doomed to infinite repetition.

You do realize that "bias" just means you hold a personal, unreasonable judgment. It doesn't always mean you have to favor the other thing. If I always bashed cats by perpetually denying that a cat could be a suitable pet, that makes me bias against cats and not necessarily a dog lover.

I don't know or care where your allegiances lie, nor did I reference your allegiances in my post. What I did reference was your insufferable bias against the current Democratic candidates and their supporters. I admit, I probably took a little more offense to it as a self-proclaimed progressive liberal, but that's because you declared Democratic candidates and supporters as a whole are hypocritical. Maybe you feel you need to do this because your allegiances have been bashed and lumped together in this thread. I mean, yeah probably. But not every post in the Serebii Forums Election Thread is as educated as it needs to be. As a matter of fact, you seem to fit into the "uneducated" category, but I'm responding anyways because you've reach a point of being incessant.

So, let me make this perfectly clear, Most Bernie Sanders supporters, whether or not you agree with his campaign, are just as much against Hillary Clinton's politics as we are against most of the Republicans' politics.

 

[Navin]

Of course the Repubs will be more negative and the Dems more positive. The Dems are trying to stay in power, to paint a bleak picture would mean disavowing Obama. Similarly, the Repubs will go all doom and gloom in their quest of unseating the Dems from the White House. Not sure why this surprises you. The Dems were the ones after the Bush years talking about the failed policies of the past and the foreign wars (you know, the very policies and wars they expanded).

I remember quite well the message of hope the Obama campaign ran all throughout the '08 election. And that was during a much worse time in the U.S.

My point is that each side has its problems. However, you seem hell bent on making the Repubs look downright atrocious while putting your side on a pedestal. You'll only set yourself up for disappointment doing so.

I don't need to make the Repubs "look downright atrocious." They do that quite well themselves in their debates compared to the Dems.

You've been talking about Rubio a lot lately. Worried, perhaps? Because if Hillary is having problems with Bernie and needs minority voters to beat him, what will happen against Rubio when he takes some of those voters away?

Yeah, I am concerned since Rubio would be a terrible President.

Nah, Hillary won't have a problem with that. She'll pick Julian Castro as her VP. Not to mention Rubio loses a lot of immigrants due to the fact that he cowardly backed away from immigration reform when it got too difficult.

Interesting you say that. You do realize that the Hillary campaign recently declared that Sanders was running the most negative campaign of all time? How do you explain that?

Source?

 

[chalkus]

Yeah, I am concerned since Rubio would be a terrible President.

Nah, Hillary won't have a problem with that. She'll pick Julian Castro as her VP. Not to mention Rubio loses a lot of immigrants due to the fact that he cowardly backed away from immigration reform when it got too difficult.

How do you know he would be a terrible president? Because he's a Republican? He might not make the decisions you would be in favor with, but it is impossible to tell how he would lead, jsut like it was impossible to know about Obama in 08. Your take on Rubio seems based purely on conjecture and partiality.

Source?

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box...ox-sanders-most-negative-dem-primary-bid-ever

A top adviser to Hillary Clinton is accusing Bernie Sanders of running the “most negative” Democratic primary campaign in history.

“I think, in fact, he’s probably running the most negative campaign of any Democratic presidential candidate … in a presidential primary season, yes,” said Joel Benenson, Clinton’s senior campaign strategist.

“He’s running fundamental attacks and he’s going out on the stump and raising issues about her personally and her character and [that] of other Democrats as well,” he continued on CNN.
“I think he’s kind of ‘feeling the Bern’ as he’s getting more scrutiny,” Benenson added, mocking a slogan used by supporters of the Vermont senator.

“It seems like once you’re not with him, you become a vocal point of his attacks. I do think it’s been extremely negative and I think it’s unfortunate.”

 

[bobjr]

Reversing healthcare would be a bad move, if only because you'd be denying millions the care they need. Like you can't do that and expect to be anything but a horrible person.

 

[Navin]

How do you know he would be a terrible president? Because he's a Republican? He might not make the decisions you would be in favor with, but it is impossible to tell how he would lead, jsut like it was impossible to know about Obama in 08. Your take on Rubio seems based purely on conjecture and partiality.

Rubio wants to spend even more on the military when it's absolutely not necessary. Rubio will very likely send ground troops into the Middle East into another pointless expensive conflict that'll get Americans killed. Despite touting his modest roots, Rubio's economic policies only favor the wealthy. Rubio will eliminate Obamacare, leaves millions without health insurance, and let healthcare be run by insurance companies. Rubio rejects climate change. Rubio is 100% pro-life and wants to defund PP because abortions happen there. Rubio is against LGBT marriage and rights. Rubio thinks common sense gun legislation is tyrannical.

I'm sorry. He might be youthful and charismatic, but this dude sounds like he would be a terrible President. Unless, once again, sleazeball Rubio will say whatever politically expedient statement to his particular crowd to get votes.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box...ox-sanders-most-negative-dem-primary-bid-ever

Oh...you meant that. C'mon, you know what I'm talking about is presentation. Look at the town hall tonight. Both Sanders and Clinton were respectful of each other and politely disagreed. In the Republican circus, there would have been name-calling, outrageous statements, and every other sentence would be false proclamations of the apocalypse that this country is supposedly in.

 

[chalkus]

Rubio wants to spend even more on the military when it's absolutely not necessary. Rubio will very likely send ground troops into the Middle East into another pointless expensive conflict that'll get Americans killed. Despite touting his modest roots, Rubio's economic policies only favor the wealthy. Rubio will eliminate Obamacare, leaves millions without health insurance, and let healthcare be run by insurance companies. Rubio rejects climate change. Rubio is 100% pro-life and wants to defund PP because abortions happen there. Rubio is against LGBT marriage and rights. Rubio thinks common sense gun legislation is tyrannical.

I'm sorry. He might be youthful and charismatic, but this dude sounds like he would be a terrible President. Unless, once again, sleazeball Rubio will say whatever politically expedient statement to his particular crowd to get votes.

I don't know if he would send ground troops in unilaterally. But whether he wants to or not, he may have to change the current strategy. The Air Force is running out of bombs to drop.
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/12/04/politics/air-force-20000-bombs-missiles-isis/

It will take years to rebuild the stockpile. Merely dropping bombs is not a long term strategy. Consider that if the current strategy is so good, why is it that Obama has gone through as many Secretaries of Defense as he has, with each one having less than kind things to say about their tenure. I don't have all the answers as this is a complicated situation and I have no access to intel, but taking a different approach is not necessarily bad or good. Hence, we have to wait and see. Assuming of course that he actually does send ground troops in.

As for Obamacare, if he replaces it with something just as good or better, then I don't see the problem. Obamacare is not sacred and future presidents have as much a right to alter how health care is handled as Obama did. Also note that the insurance companies are profiting off Obamacare quite nicely, perhaps more so than previously.

Oh...you meant that. C'mon, you know what I'm talking about is presentation. Look at the town hall tonight. Both Sanders and Clinton were respectful of each other and politely disagreed. In the Republican circus, there would have been name-calling, outrageous statements, and every other sentence would be false proclamations of the apocalypse that this country is supposedly in.

But Repubs like bravado and toughness in their candidates, so you have to expect it. Though, I'm pretty sure had Trump not taken part, we would have seen a lot less of it. And just because people are nice in a town hall or debate stage does not mean that they aren't engaging in meanspirited behaviour. Just look at how Hillary has implied that Bernie is a sexist, a gun nut and wants to destroy health care.

 

[bobjr]

Every Republican has said they'll get rid of Obamacare and replace it with something better, when none of them have laid out a plan that wouldn't just be worse in every way. Then again that's their MO this cycle, saying things are bad when they aren't and then having no real solution to fix it.

 

[Avenger Angel]

So, what happens when someone like me doesn't like Trump, Rubio, Clinton, or Sanders?

Hate to say it, but if the election were to be tomorrow, I don't think I'd be voting. I can't get behind supporting any of these guys and I just feel all of them badly drop the ball in one way or another when it comes to policies, economics, promises, and general behavior (ugh, the things Clinton and Trump do are cringe-worthy). If I go down as being part of the statistic of people that could have voted but didn't, I'm hoping that says something with the regards to I was really dissatisfied with all of the candidates and did not feel any of them earned my support. I know some people look down on this and feel it's better to just vote for "the lesser evil," but given the circumstances, I'm sick of doing that. That makes it look like I fully endorse that candidate when I don't.

I honestly feel the whole election has turned into a lame reality TV show, and I'm really not looking forward to it intensifying as the year progresses...

 

[Mordent99]

I honestly feel the whole election has turned into a lame reality TV show, and I'm really not looking forward to it intensifying as the year progresses...

That's because Donald Trump, the GOP frontrunner (before Iowa) is not a politician, he's a lame reality TV show host. Literally.

And to answer your first question, IMOHO, anyone who does not vote does not have the right to complain about anything the President does afterwards. (I first heard that the night before election day in 2008, from CBS radio correspondent Dave Ross.)