[US Election 2016] Democratic Primary Megathread II

[Geilinor]

That's not a logical assumption to make.

And it also ignores Repubican obstructionism.

Below the state level, that's not much of a problem.

[Camicon]

That's not a logical assumption to make.

And it also ignores Repubican obstructionism.

More a sidenote. Obstructionism along party line is more a federal phenomenon than state or municipal.

What's illogical is to assume, even if Democratic success follows economic inequality, that Democratic succession is indicative of continued inequality.

[The United Territories of Providence]

Should Hillary just go ahead and release the transcripts of her paid speeches and is it unrealistic that she demand that every republican do so also as a prerequisite to her releasing hers?

She should release the Transcripts. You can't fight claims of dishonesty from Republicans and Sanders...by hiding what you said to bankers. If she was a little too friendly, fine. This is a campaign about issues and I don't think anyone really believes that Hillary isn't friendly with Wall Street, so whatever she said shouldn't be too horrible. Also, her logic when she voted for the Patriot Act in 2001 and 2006 was if you've got nothing to hide, why worry. I understand that was in a different context, and I don't agree with that position as it relates to spying. But I believe it works now. If you've got nothing to hide, why worry? Obama released his birth certificate, even though the claim that he wasn't American was ridiculous. Obama knew he was born in America, he had done nothing wrong, so he settled the argument. If it's good enough for the President, I'd say it's good enough for Hillary Clinton. We know her record as it relates to the financial sector, it's nothing to be ashamed of, she's done good work. I might be wrong, but I think we the voters deserve transparency from our candidates. Finally, I don't think it makes sense to ask for GOP transcripts. We know their agenda, we know they are pro-business, and we know they promised tax cuts for corporations and the rich...because they say it in debates and during rallies in front of thousands of people. I suppose if she's making the equality argument, then fine. But I think she understands her taking paid speeches from Wall Street matters more because she presents herself as a candidate who wants to reign in Wall Street. Marco does not, Ted does not, the GOP isn't running a candidate like that. So I don't see why she shouldn't be held to a higher standard.

[Ever-Wandering Souls]

Maybe when they eventually subpoena her for documents relating to her emails, they can find a way to toss those transcripts on the order as a side note xD

[Blakk Metal]

Guantanamo represents an unconditional surrender in the war on terror. They hate our freedoms and rule of law? Fine, we'll give those up without a fight.

In a sense, George W. Bush and the GOP handed Osama a huge victory (and Obama has done too little to roll it back).

Bin Ladin's goal was to terrorize Americans into giving up essential freedoms and becoming a paranoid police state.

No it wasn't, al-Qaeda doesn't live to piss you off.

[Conserative Morality]

Ridiculous.

[Eol Sha]

Ridiculous.

She's said this before. It's an easy cop out.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Ridiculous.

She'd just find some other reason not to even if everyone else agreed to it.

[Geilinor]

Ridiculous.

She'd just find some other reason not to even if everyone else agreed to it.

By "other people" she was including the Republicans.

[USS Monitor]

That's total bullshit.

Well, my friend, you are incorrect. The 1%, considered by Democrats to be entirely composed of the mega-rich, take only $390,000 to find themselves in their respective bracket. Hardly the 'millionaire and billionaire' class Sanders harps on about. Following that, the top 5% earn a modest average of $232,000. Both of these groups are responsible for the continued survival of small, job-creating businesses.
http://www.barbaraweltman.com/small-bus ... the-top-1/

If you make $390,000 and you're not a millionaire, you suck balls at managing your personal finances.

[Idzequitch]

Well, my friend, you are incorrect. The 1%, considered by Democrats to be entirely composed of the mega-rich, take only $390,000 to find themselves in their respective bracket. Hardly the 'millionaire and billionaire' class Sanders harps on about. Following that, the top 5% earn a modest average of $232,000. Both of these groups are responsible for the continued survival of small, job-creating businesses.
http://www.barbaraweltman.com/small-bus ... the-top-1/

If you make $390,000 and you're not a millionaire, you suck balls at managing your personal finances.

You mean you don't have to make a million dollars per year to be a millionaire? Oh, people save their money? So that's what I've been doing wrong all these years!

[Wallenburg]

Well, my friend, you are incorrect. The 1%, considered by Democrats to be entirely composed of the mega-rich, take only $390,000 to find themselves in their respective bracket. Hardly the 'millionaire and billionaire' class Sanders harps on about. Following that, the top 5% earn a modest average of $232,000. Both of these groups are responsible for the continued survival of small, job-creating businesses.
http://www.barbaraweltman.com/small-bus ... the-top-1/

If you make $390,000 and you're not a millionaire, you suck balls at managing your personal finances.

That, or you're a dedicated philanthropist. However, money is power, and power corrupts, so you're unlikely to find an altruist among the top 1%.

[Idzequitch]

If you make $390,000 and you're not a millionaire, you suck balls at managing your personal finances.

That, or you're a dedicated philanthropist. However, money is power, and power corrupts, so you're unlikely to find an altruist among the top 1%.

At best, you'll find someone who does donate to charity and such, but not nearly enough to put a dent in his/her own net worth.

[Eol Sha]

Sanders closes in on Clinton in Utah and Texas.

[Maineiacs]

Sanders closes in on Clinton in Utah and Texas.

Since when are there Democrats in Utah? I thought they weren't even allowed to enter the state. You have to go around.

[Ashmoria]

Should Hillary just go ahead and release the transcripts of her paid speeches and is it unrealistic that she demand that every republican do so also as a prerequisite to her releasing hers?

She should release the Transcripts. You can't fight claims of dishonesty from Republicans and Sanders...by hiding what you said to bankers. If she was a little too friendly, fine. This is a campaign about issues and I don't think anyone really believes that Hillary isn't friendly with Wall Street, so whatever she said shouldn't be too horrible. Also, her logic when she voted for the Patriot Act in 2001 and 2006 was if you've got nothing to hide, why worry. I understand that was in a different context, and I don't agree with that position as it relates to spying. But I believe it works now. If you've got nothing to hide, why worry? Obama released his birth certificate, even though the claim that he wasn't American was ridiculous. Obama knew he was born in America, he had done nothing wrong, so he settled the argument. If it's good enough for the President, I'd say it's good enough for Hillary Clinton. We know her record as it relates to the financial sector, it's nothing to be ashamed of, she's done good work. I might be wrong, but I think we the voters deserve transparency from our candidates. Finally, I don't think it makes sense to ask for GOP transcripts. We know their agenda, we know they are pro-business, and we know they promised tax cuts for corporations and the rich...because they say it in debates and during rallies in front of thousands of people. I suppose if she's making the equality argument, then fine. But I think she understands her taking paid speeches from Wall Street matters more because she presents herself as a candidate who wants to reign in Wall Street. Marco does not, Ted does not, the GOP isn't running a candidate like that. So I don't see why she shouldn't be held to a higher standard.

oh good lord no. it would be stupid to dump a massive number of transcripts that no one will read except her opponents and detractors who will go over them and pick out "quotes" that will make her look bad. fighting back with the full sentence or the context will be useless. just like "what difference does it make".

[Eol Sha]

Sanders closes in on Clinton in Utah and Texas.

Since when are there Democrats in Utah? I thought they weren't even allowed to enter the state. You have to go around.

You didn't hear? They were relocated and confined to Salt Lake City.

[Corrian]

Sanders closes in on Clinton in Utah and Texas.

Oh wow, he has a substantial lead of you count "Everyone in Utah", though of course that doesn't mean people actually voting for him.

In the least, this will be an exciting election with how close things are.

[Ashmoria]

Sanders closes in on Clinton in Utah and Texas.

Oh wow, he has a substantial lead of you count "Everyone in Utah", though of course that doesn't mean people actually voting for him.

In the least, this will be an exciting election with how close things are.

well if you look at supertuesday youll see all those southern states that are going to go for Clinton in the primary and anybodybutclinton in the general election.

its a funny system.

[Khadgar]

Sanders closes in on Clinton in Utah and Texas.

http://www.270towin.com/news/2016/02/23 ... e_219.html

Alabama (Primary, 60 delegates): Clinton leads Bernie Sanders by 28 points in the PPP poll out last week (Solid Clinton)

Arkansas (Primary, 37): Clinton up 25 in this PPP poll (Solid Clinton)

Colorado (Caucus, 79): No recent polling; delegates won't actually be awarded until a later date

Georgia (Primary, 116): A couple polls over the past week have Clinton up by an average of 43 points (Solid Clinton)

Massachusetts (Primary, 116): Neighbor state to Sanders home; he leads polling by an average of 3.5% (Toss-up)

Minnesota (Caucus, 93): A late January poll showed Clinton up by 34 points (Solid Clinton)

Oklahoma (Primary, 42): One February poll had Clinton up 14, the other just two (Leans Clinton)

Tennessee (Primary, 76): Clinton up by 26 in PPP poll (Solid Clinton)

Texas (Primary, 252): Clinton's lead has been narrowing, but still up by 10 in a poll out today (Likely Clinton)

Vermont (Primary, 26): No contest here; Sanders leads his home state by about 70 points; may keep Clinton under 15% and win all the state's delegates (Solid Sanders)

Virginia (Primary, 110): PPP has Clinton up 22; another pollster has it at 12 (Likely Clinton)

There's not a lot of good news for Bernie there. He's winning Vermont by 70 points.

[Eol Sha]

Sanders closes in on Clinton in Utah and Texas.

http://www.270towin.com/news/2016/02/23 ... e_219.html

Alabama (Primary, 60 delegates): Clinton leads Bernie Sanders by 28 points in the PPP poll out last week (Solid Clinton)

Arkansas (Primary, 37): Clinton up 25 in this PPP poll (Solid Clinton)

Colorado (Caucus, 79): No recent polling; delegates won't actually be awarded until a later date

Georgia (Primary, 116): A couple polls over the past week have Clinton up by an average of 43 points (Solid Clinton)

Massachusetts (Primary, 116): Neighbor state to Sanders home; he leads polling by an average of 3.5% (Toss-up)

Minnesota (Caucus, 93): A late January poll showed Clinton up by 34 points (Solid Clinton)

Oklahoma (Primary, 42): One February poll had Clinton up 14, the other just two (Leans Clinton)

Tennessee (Primary, 76): Clinton up by 26 in PPP poll (Solid Clinton)

Texas (Primary, 252): Clinton's lead has been narrowing, but still up by 10 in a poll out today (Likely Clinton)

Vermont (Primary, 26): No contest here; Sanders leads his home state by about 70 points; may keep Clinton under 15% and win all the state's delegates (Solid Sanders)

Virginia (Primary, 110): PPP has Clinton up 22; another pollster has it at 12 (Likely Clinton)

There's not a lot of good news for Bernie there. He's winning Vermont by 70 points.

Yeah, but the deck's always been stacked against Sanders.

[Khadgar]

http://www.270towin.com/news/2016/02/23 ... e_219.html


There's not a lot of good news for Bernie there. He's winning Vermont by 70 points.

Yeah, but the deck's always been stacked against Sanders.

I just don't see him winning with his current numbers. He's doing very well, but not well enough to put him over the top.

[Ashmoria]

http://www.270towin.com/news/2016/02/23 ... e_219.html


There's not a lot of good news for Bernie there. He's winning Vermont by 70 points.

Yeah, but the deck's always been stacked against Sanders.

doesn't "stacking the deck" imply a cheater doing it? sanders started out behind because he wasn't even a democrat and had never run for anything outside vt until now while Clinton has been running for president since '06 and has been a national figure for a quarter century.

[Galloism]

Yeah, but the deck's always been stacked against Sanders.

doesn't "stacking the deck" imply a cheater doing it? sanders started out behind because he wasn't even a democrat and had never run for anything outside vt until now while Clinton has been running for president since '06 and has been a national figure for a quarter century.

Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

[Ashmoria]

doesn't "stacking the deck" imply a cheater doing it? sanders started out behind because he wasn't even a democrat and had never run for anything outside vt until now while Clinton has been running for president since '06 and has been a national figure for a quarter century.

Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

no she isn't the reason Bernie is behind.