Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Trump Presidency

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Buster Bluth View Post
    Who says Warren is the nominee?

    Didn't Trump win in the Rustbelt by 80,000 people over four states. It's not exactly an insurmountable task.

    You're focusing on being as appealing as Obama when they just need to be more appealing than Clinton. Beating an incumbent is hard, but this is Donald Trump we're talking about.
    Those people didn't just hate Clinton. They also like Trump. Everything he does that triggers the media, the liberals, and the coastal elites into a frenzy is the same stuff that makes him more popular in the heartland. You have people like Richard Trumka and James Hoffa praising Trump's trade deals. Their constituents aren't getting their panties in a bunch over travel bans because their constituents don't like foreigners in the first place.

    Comment


    • I love all you anonymous internet strangers too much to stick around in this thread too often.

      I'm gonna bow out after voicing my concerns on Trump's education picks, and leave the governmental debate to rest of you smart people.

      I may check back in if Trump pisses me off extra again. Or if he does something cool I'll be sure to stop in and talk about it.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by wizards8507 View Post
        That's factually inaccurate. Yale Law has a first time pass rate of 97%. The bar exam is not the CPA exam, where the pass rate is below 50% and most people take it multiple times to get certified. If you graduate law school, you're expected to pass the bar.


        <iframe src="//giphy.com/embed/3ornjKd18tFIZ8PUKQ" width="480" height="268" frameBorder="0" class="giphy-embed" allowFullScreen></iframe><p><a href="http://giphy.com/gifs/parks-and-rec-ben-wyatt-accounting-3ornjKd18tFIZ8PUKQ">via GIPHY</a></p>

        Comment


        • .

          Comment


          • Originally posted by ulukinatme View Post
            .
            WTF! Trump's a madman!

            Comment


            • Originally posted by woolybug25 View Post
              Dumb analogy. Clinton went to Yale Law, was a very successful attorney, first lady and then became a senator. She wasn't just some bimbo that didn't deserve her seat. She was well qualified to run for senate.
              What exactly was so successful about her legal career? She failed the DC bar the first time she took it(551 of the 817 people who sat for the DC bar with her passed it) She was a professor at University of Arkansas until Bill become the AG of Arkansas, at which time she was hired by The Rose Law Firm. It would appear that the most prominent project that she was involved in was the Whitewater investigation.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by gkIrish View Post
                I don't know what happened with Hillary but it has always been extremely unsettling to me that she failed the bar.
                The thing is that all those stories you posted before this statement is exactly why I don't really care if someone passed the bar or not. I have no doubt that Clinton went to an excellent law school and was intelligent enough to do decent there. That's way way way tougher than passing the bar. So, to me, her failing the bar was almost certainly due to some extenuating circumstance, a complete fluke or her walking into the testing room high.

                I'm not saying this to protect Clinton, but more to give some perspective for people who have never taken the bar or been around someone taking the bar. As everyone who took it probably remembers, the biggest thing you're nervous about is something out of your control screwing you over. Because it happens every single year to tons of people. I don't know anyone who failed the bar who doesn't have a "this is the crazy/horrible thing that happened" story to go along with it. To me, there are much higher chances of a Yale graduate having something happen out of their control that cause them to fail than them actually failing the thing.

                (Just to be clear, I'd say the same thing about anyone. This isn't a leave Clinton alone thing. I just hate when I see people bashing bar failures.)

                Funnier than you in 2012.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Buster Bluth View Post
                  Who says Warren is the nominee?

                  Didn't Trump win in the Rustbelt by 80,000 people over four states. It's not exactly an insurmountable task.

                  You're focusing on being as appealing as Obama when they just need to be more appealing than Clinton. Beating an incumbent is hard, but this is Donald Trump we're talking about.
                  Buster, how come we never see you in any other thread? Are you not excited about NSD?

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by greyhammer90 View Post
                    The thing is that all those stories you posted before this statement is exactly why I don't really care if someone passed the bar or not. I have no doubt that Clinton went to an excellent law school and was intelligent enough to do decent there. That's way way way tougher than passing the bar. So, to me, her failing the bar was almost certainly due to some extenuating circumstance, a complete fluke or her walking into the testing room high.

                    I'm not saying this to protect Clinton, but more to give some perspective for people who have never taken the bar or been around someone taking the bar. As everyone who took it probably remembers, the biggest thing you're nervous about is something out of your control screwing you over. Because it happens every single year to tons of people. I don't know anyone who failed the bar who doesn't have a "this is the crazy/horrible thing that happened" story to go along with it. To me, there are much higher chances of a Yale graduate having something happen out of their control that cause them to fail than them actually failing the thing.

                    (Just to be clear, I'd say the same thing about anyone. This isn't a leave Clinton alone thing. I just hate when I see people bashing bar failures.)
                    So....are you going to tell us the story about when you failed??
                    Based Mullet Kid owns

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by NorthDakota View Post
                      So....are you going to tell us the story about when you failed??
                      2 for 2.






                      Will never take another one. Also 2 for 2 on panic attacks.

                      Funnier than you in 2012.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by IrishLion View Post
                        And you can wait all day haha.

                        The position exists, and she's unqualified for it in my opinion. No more, no less.
                        Fair enough. You may be right that she is unqualified to break the law in the name of government sponsored mafia extorting money from citizens for a department and function which the Constitution does not allow. That is about the only reason I would support her as she may oppose the mafia to begin with, and may LAWFULLY assert the unalienable rights of 'We the People' of the United States in order to frustrate the unlawful actions of those supporting a corrupt institution.

                        Cheers!

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Irish#1 View Post
                          Buster, how come we never see you in any other thread? Are you not excited about NSD?
                          There wasn't much to talk about for an 4-8 team that wasn't toxic and speculative. And I've intentionally tried to stay in the back row on recruiting news. As I get older I get less interested in pinning my happiness to the decisions of high school kids; after some reflection, I guess I was embarrassed that I was putting myself through so much stress with previous classes.

                          I'm as glued as the next guy to the basketball team but unfortunately we don't get much basketball discussion on IE.

                          So, spring football is the next thing on the calendar that interests me. But then again the videos by Notre Dame took a big step back last spring.
                          Last edited by Buster Bluth; 02-01-2017, 12:08 PM.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by greyhammer90 View Post
                            The thing is that all those stories you posted before this statement is exactly why I don't really care if someone passed the bar or not. I have no doubt that Clinton went to an excellent law school and was intelligent enough to do decent there. That's way way way tougher than passing the bar. So, to me, her failing the bar was almost certainly due to some extenuating circumstance, a complete fluke or her walking into the testing room high.

                            I'm not saying this to protect Clinton, but more to give some perspective for people who have never taken the bar or been around someone taking the bar. As everyone who took it probably remembers, the biggest thing you're nervous about is something out of your control screwing you over. Because it happens every single year to tons of people. I don't know anyone who failed the bar who doesn't have a "this is the crazy/horrible thing that happened" story to go along with it. To me, there are much higher chances of a Yale graduate having something happen out of their control that cause them to fail than them actually failing the thing.

                            (Just to be clear, I'd say the same thing about anyone. This isn't a leave Clinton alone thing. I just hate when I see people bashing bar failures.)
                            The thing is that all the "fluke" reasons a smart person (i.e. Hillary) would fail the bar are the types of things that would make me uneasy about someone being President. Panicking being the most likely scenario.

                            And I can't believe I still need to disclaim this but I am not trying to be pro-Trump in any way here or commenting on any particular nominee's qualifications. I just disagree with the assertion that failing the bar isn't a big deal.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by wizards8507 View Post
                              Those people didn't just hate Clinton. They also like Trump. Everything he does that triggers the media, the liberals, and the coastal elites into a frenzy is the same stuff that makes him more popular in the heartland. You have people like Richard Trumka and James Hoffa praising Trump's trade deals. Their constituents aren't getting their panties in a bunch over travel bans because their constituents don't like foreigners in the first place.
                              This sorta assumes that everyone voted, and that vote totals are a zero sum game. Democrats don't have to take away Trump voters to win states. They have to energize their voters. Hillary Clinton was a miserable candidate if only because she brought zero excitement with her beyond being the first female President--a milestone that I'm proud to say is insignificant at this point. As a society we've moved so passed that being a huge deal IMO, it didn't have the aura it would have had in the 1990s.

                              I think you're right that the Democrats can't expect to nominate an Elizabeth Warren, Gavin Newsom type. I'm particularly interested in seeing how Al Franken and Sherrod Brown position themselves over the next 2-3 years. Chris Murphy is a guy I've really been impressed with in YouTube CFR discussions, but a liberal from Connecticut likely won't speak to the crowd you have in mind. It'll be interesting to see if Cory Booker passes on 2020, he's up for reelection in the Senate and I doubt he'll want to jeopardize that if Trump's approval ratings aren't completely in the tank.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by gkIrish View Post
                                The thing is that all the "fluke" reasons a smart person (i.e. Hillary) would fail the bar are the types of things that would make me uneasy about someone being President. Panicking being the most likely scenario.

                                And I can't believe I still need to disclaim this but I am not trying to be pro-Trump in any way here or commenting on any particular nominee's qualifications. I just disagree with the assertion that failing the bar isn't a big deal.
                                Dude you think failing the bar in someone's mid-20s is an indication of how they'll preform in their early-70s? I cannot recognize the logic there.

                                Comment


                                • Originally posted by Buster Bluth View Post
                                  This sorta assumes that everyone voted, and that vote totals are a zero sum game. Democrats don't have to take away Trump voters to win states. They have to energize their voters. Hillary Clinton was a miserable candidate if only because she brought zero excitement with her beyond being the first female President--a milestone that I'm proud to say is insignificant at this point. As a society we've moved so passed that being a huge deal IMO, it didn't have the aura it would have had in the 1990s.

                                  I think you're right that the Democrats can't expect to nominate an Elizabeth Warren, Gavin Newsom type. I'm particularly interested in seeing how Al Franken and Sherrod Brown position themselves over the next 2-3 years. Chris Murphy is a guy I've really been impressed with in YouTube CFR discussions, but a liberal from Connecticut likely won't speak to the crowd you have in mind. It'll be interesting to see if Cory Booker passes on 2020, he's up for reelection in the Senate and I doubt he'll want to jeopardize that if Trump's approval ratings aren't completely in the tank.
                                  I can only speak to my own personal experience but I know dozens of women who voted for Hillary instead of not voting at all simply b/c she was a woman. Perhaps thats not representative of the country, but that is what happened in my local area.

                                  Comment


                                  • Originally posted by Buster Bluth View Post
                                    Dude you think failing the bar in someone's mid-20s is an indication of how they'll preform in their early-70s? I cannot recognize the logic there.
                                    But what Donald Trump said or did 25-30* years ago is relevant. Got it.

                                    *correction, 40 years ago

                                    Comment


                                    • Originally posted by Buster Bluth View Post
                                      Dude you think failing the bar in someone's mid-20s is an indication of how they'll preform in their early-70s? I cannot recognize the logic there.
                                      The bar was the single most important academic/work thing that she had to prepare for in her life prior to running for Senator. I promise you that. And she failed.

                                      Comment


                                      • Originally posted by gkIrish View Post
                                        The bar was the single most important academic/work thing that she had to prepare for in her life prior to running for Senator. I promise you that. And she failed.
                                        I disagree.

                                        I think the Whitewater investigation that she had to prepare for was probably more important. Or Filegate, or Travelgate........... or Vince Foster's suicide...

                                        Comment


                                        • Originally posted by Buster Bluth View Post
                                          Dude you think failing the bar in someone's mid-20s is an indication of how they'll preform in their early-70s? I cannot recognize the logic there.
                                          Failing the bar -- barring a legitimate excuse -- shows she was either too stupid, too poorly prepared, or too incompetent to pass something any mediocre lawyer with an average education and level of preparedness should be able to pass. It's a low threshold and extremely puzzling that she couldn't clear it. Relevant to her abilities as POTUS? In itself, not necessarily, but...

                                          Not only did she fail the bar, but she has routinely and recently lied about "turning down a high paying prestigious job at a law firm" to "serve the people." That shows a massive character flaw. Taking your own incompetence, lying about it, and then trying to spin the lie as virtue.

                                          If she wasn't doing that and instead said "I thought about being a lawyer but my heart wasn't in it so I went into politics to help people" that'd be fine... why lie? Instead she lies about her competency and sacrifice and motivations. Just like she lied about dodging sniper fire and so many other needless things. At some point, it all adds up to someone who is not only image concerned but so self-indulgent she has to embellish and lie about mundane occurrences to make herself look better.

                                          Trump, obviously, has not only this flaw but worse and many others. But Jesus Christ can we stop making excuses for Hillary?

                                          Comment


                                          • Originally posted by Buster Bluth View Post
                                            This sorta assumes that everyone voted, and that vote totals are a zero sum game. Democrats don't have to take away Trump voters to win states. They have to energize their voters. Hillary Clinton was a miserable candidate if only because she brought zero excitement with her beyond being the first female President--a milestone that I'm proud to say is insignificant at this point. As a society we've moved so passed that being a huge deal IMO, it didn't have the aura it would have had in the 1990s.

                                            I think you're right that the Democrats can't expect to nominate an Elizabeth Warren, Gavin Newsom type. I'm particularly interested in seeing how Al Franken and Sherrod Brown position themselves over the next 2-3 years. Chris Murphy is a guy I've really been impressed with in YouTube CFR discussions, but a liberal from Connecticut likely won't speak to the crowd you have in mind. It'll be interesting to see if Cory Booker passes on 2020, he's up for reelection in the Senate and I doubt he'll want to jeopardize that if Trump's approval ratings aren't completely in the tank.

                                            Wow, spoken like a misogynist. Apparently you missed the morale outrage from millions of women, young and old, who railed bitterly after the election that once again men had conspired to stifle women's chance for advancement. We discussed here on IE and there were links posted to articles about women's daughters no longer having a place in America. Five year olds whose future was ended before it began because they would have no positive role model. A woman who would now forego looking for a husband because of their treachery (in not electing Hillary). Women once again trampled by the chauvinists.

                                            I agree outside of the first female interest theme her campaigning seem more like Jeb Bush. Low energy. She didn't work the traditional Democrat bastions, union halls, colleges, black church's. Bernie was the energizer bunny by comparison going everywhere, speaking to anyone. But you're clueless if you think that electing the first woman president was "insignificant. It was one of their tribe. It was the prime reason for the million woman march after the inauguration. Hillary was one of their tribe. Just as JFK was for Catholics in '60. Over a million fewer blacks voted for Clinton, than for Obama, who wasn't one of their tribe. A significant number of blacks voted for Obama in '12 than did in '08 because the color barrier crumbled in '08. Millions of women wanted the the sex barrier shattered regardless of the caliber of the candidate.

                                            The night of the election my sister posted on Facebook, "God bless our country and our new president." A fairly common sentiment hoping for guidance which is expressed every four years regardless of which party enters the White House. She was soundly thrashed by dozens of "friends" castigating her because their daughters were now relegated to a lifetime of second class citizenship solely because Hillary was not elected. The hopes of women young and old were shattered. The issue is not passé. It will be a prime motivator in future elections until a woman is elected.

                                            Comment


                                            • I listen to POTUS radio on Sirius XM and apparently their WH Correspondent said the media was not briefed which is against a set precedent in these types of situations. So a huge part of the mess was that they (the WH) rolled out his EO, didn't inform the media on any details, and didn't contact the right agencies to properly execute the plan. Confusion, hysteria, etc ensued.

                                              Comment


                                              • Originally posted by BleedBlueGold View Post
                                                I listen to POTUS radio on Sirius XM and apparently their WH Correspondent said the media was not briefed which is against a set precedent in these types of situations. So a huge part of the mess was that they (the WH) rolled out his EO, didn't inform the media on any details, and didn't contact the right agencies to properly execute the plan. Confusion, hysteria, etc ensued.
                                                Interesting as the protesters were well organized and assembled with logistical precision including professionally printed signs in airports throughout the country. Planned spontaneity is contagious.

                                                Comment


                                                • Originally posted by IrishLax View Post
                                                  Failing the bar -- barring a legitimate excuse -- shows she was either too stupid, too poorly prepared, or too incompetent to pass something any mediocre lawyer with an average education and level of preparedness should be able to pass. It's a low threshold and extremely puzzling that she couldn't clear it. Relevant to her abilities as POTUS? In itself, not necessarily, but...

                                                  Not only did she fail the bar, but she has routinely and recently lied about "turning down a high paying prestigious job at a law firm" to "serve the people." That shows a massive character flaw. Taking your own incompetence, lying about it, and then trying to spin the lie as virtue.

                                                  If she wasn't doing that and instead said "I thought about being a lawyer but my heart wasn't in it so I went into politics to help people" that'd be fine... why lie? Instead she lies about her competency and sacrifice and motivations. Just like she lied about dodging sniper fire and so many other needless things. At some point, it all adds up to someone who is not only image concerned but so self-indulgent she has to embellish and lie about mundane occurrences to make herself look better.

                                                  Trump, obviously, has not only this flaw but worse and many others. But Jesus Christ can we stop making excuses for Hillary?
                                                  I know people who passed it who were not even in the top half of their class throughout their entire academic career...I presume she just choked because she isn't dumb. But still, you can't fail that thing and avoid criticism because as you said, this is not meant to weed out but the lowest of legal performers.
                                                  One equal temper of heroic hearts, Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will. To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.

                                                  Comment


                                                  • Originally posted by phgreek View Post
                                                    I know people who passed it who were not even in the top half of their class throughout their entire academic career...I presume she just choked because she isn't dumb. But still, you can't fail that thing and avoid criticism because as you said, this is not meant to weed out but the lowest of legal performers.
                                                    The purpose of the bar exam is to ensure only people who are serious about practicing law are permitted to do so. The way they ensure you are serious is by making the exam cover lots of topics, which forces you to spend 2-3 months studying for the exam. It is nothing like an LSAT or SAT which basically measure how smart you are. The Bar measures how prepared you are. I believe in many states it is theoretically possible for everyone to pass.

                                                    Comment


                                                    • Can we move passed this bar exam thing? HRC sucked at the bar and she sucked at being the D candidate for POTUS. Lets move on.

                                                      Comment


                                                      • Not sure why we're still talking about Clinton but she took two different bar exams in the same year. This was before the UBE so that's crazy- I could very easily see her getting the finer points of DC tort law confused especially if she'd been focused on Arkansas.

                                                        Comment


                                                        • Originally posted by IrishLax View Post
                                                          Failing the bar -- barring a legitimate excuse -- shows she was either too stupid, too poorly prepared, or too incompetent to pass something any mediocre lawyer with an average education and level of preparedness should be able to pass. It's a low threshold and extremely puzzling that she couldn't clear it. Relevant to her abilities as POTUS? In itself, not necessarily, but...

                                                          Not only did she fail the bar, but she has routinely and recently lied about "turning down a high paying prestigious job at a law firm" to "serve the people." That shows a massive character flaw. Taking your own incompetence, lying about it, and then trying to spin the lie as virtue.

                                                          If she wasn't doing that and instead said "I thought about being a lawyer but my heart wasn't in it so I went into politics to help people" that'd be fine... why lie? Instead she lies about her competency and sacrifice and motivations. Just like she lied about dodging sniper fire and so many other needless things. At some point, it all adds up to someone who is not only image concerned but so self-indulgent she has to embellish and lie about mundane occurrences to make herself look better.

                                                          Trump, obviously, has not only this flaw but worse and many others. But Jesus Christ can we stop making excuses for Hillary?

                                                          Can't speak to what it was like when HRC graduated but most firms these days will give you two chances to pass the bar. They make their offers at the end of the summer before your third year of law school, so long before anyone has taken the bar. Tl;dr is that failing the bar =/= she couldn't have worked for a white shoe D.C. Firm.

                                                          Comment


                                                          • Originally posted by Buster Bluth View Post
                                                            This sorta assumes that everyone voted, and that vote totals are a zero sum game. Democrats don't have to take away Trump voters to win states. They have to energize their voters. Hillary Clinton was a miserable candidate if only because she brought zero excitement with her beyond being the first female President--a milestone that I'm proud to say is insignificant at this point. As a society we've moved so passed that being a huge deal IMO, it didn't have the aura it would have had in the 1990s.

                                                            I think you're right that the Democrats can't expect to nominate an Elizabeth Warren, Gavin Newsom type. I'm particularly interested in seeing how Al Franken and Sherrod Brown position themselves over the next 2-3 years. Chris Murphy is a guy I've really been impressed with in YouTube CFR discussions, but a liberal from Connecticut likely won't speak to the crowd you have in mind. It'll be interesting to see if Cory Booker passes on 2020, he's up for reelection in the Senate and I doubt he'll want to jeopardize that if Trump's approval ratings aren't completely in the tank.

                                                            Im prematurely and irrationally putting all my hope on Kamala Harris

                                                            Comment


                                                            • Originally posted by IrishinSyria View Post
                                                              Im prematurely and irrationally putting all my hope on Kamala Harris
                                                              She's fucking insane.

                                                              <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Here&#39;s the truth: infrastructure spending isn&#39;t a transportation issue for most Americans — it&#39;s a human rights issue.</p>&mdash; Kamala Harris (@KamalaHarris) <a href="https://twitter.com/KamalaHarris/status/824080345926664192">January 25, 2017</a></blockquote>
                                                              <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

                                                              She says shit like that all the time.

                                                              Comment


                                                              • Originally posted by IrishinSyria View Post
                                                                Can't speak to what it was like when HRC graduated but most firms these days will give you two chances to pass the bar. They make their offers at the end of the summer before your third year of law school, so long before anyone has taken the bar. Tl;dr is that failing the bar =/= she couldn't have worked for a white shoe D.C. Firm.
                                                                Counterpoint: there is no evidence at all that she in fact had said job lined up in DC. She took the bar exam in both Arkansas and DC, and failed it in DC. She did not immediately then go into politics. Instead, she moved to Arkansas and then eventually a few years later joined a law firm there.

                                                                So if she had the "high paying DC law firm job" lined up and, as you said, you can take it again... then why would she not take it again? Why would she abandon ship, go to Arkansas, and then eventually end up being a corporate lawyer there?

                                                                The simple fact is that she passed an easier bar exam in Arkansas and failed a harder one in DC... an exam the majority of people pass, but her with her preparatory course and Yale education, somehow couldn't. I don't know why she failed, I don't know why she didn't take it again, but all circumstantial evidence before and after he failure points towards her not declining a DC lawyerin' job of her own volition to "help people"... it shows her running away to Arkansas and then eventually getting into a lesser form of corporate law because she didn't have the opportunity to do it in DC.

                                                                Comment


                                                                • Originally posted by wizards8507 View Post
                                                                  She's fucking insane.

                                                                  <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Here's the truth: infrastructure spending isn't a transportation issue for most Americans — it's a human rights issue.</p>&mdash; Kamala Harris (@KamalaHarris) <a href="https://twitter.com/KamalaHarris/status/824080345926664192">January 25, 2017</a></blockquote>
                                                                  <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

                                                                  She says shit like that all the time.
                                                                  You posted this before and people clearly and concisely explained her intent. How say Flint, MI may see infrastructure as a human right issue.

                                                                  Are you just recycling old comments and hoping people don't jump on you?

                                                                  Post an original thought for once.
                                                                  Originally posted by koonja
                                                                  I'm making peace with Woolly in 2017.

                                                                  Comment


                                                                  • Originally posted by IrishinSyria View Post
                                                                    Im prematurely and irrationally putting all my hope on Kamala Harris
                                                                    she has the stamp of approval from General Van Jones, so you know that Daddy Soros is on-board.
                                                                    YYZ by RUSH (cover) - (only the last half)
                                                                    Billie Stephens' Fiery Disaster -- Dancin' with Myself (partial cover)

                                                                    Comment


                                                                    • Originally posted by BGIF View Post
                                                                      Wow, spoken like a misogynist. Apparently you missed the morale outrage from millions of women, young and old, who railed bitterly after the election that once again men had conspired to stifle women's chance for advancement. We discussed here on IE and there were links posted to articles about women's daughters no longer having a place in America. Five year olds whose future was ended before it began because they would have no positive role model. A woman who would now forego looking for a husband because of their treachery (in not electing Hillary). Women once again trampled by the chauvinists.

                                                                      I agree outside of the first female interest theme her campaigning seem more like Jeb Bush. Low energy. She didn't work the traditional Democrat bastions, union halls, colleges, black church's. Bernie was the energizer bunny by comparison going everywhere, speaking to anyone. But you're clueless if you think that electing the first woman president was "insignificant. It was one of their tribe. It was the prime reason for the million woman march after the inauguration. Hillary was one of their tribe. Just as JFK was for Catholics in '60. Over a million fewer blacks voted for Clinton, than for Obama, who wasn't one of their tribe. A significant number of blacks voted for Obama in '12 than did in '08 because the color barrier crumbled in '08. Millions of women wanted the the sex barrier shattered regardless of the caliber of the candidate.

                                                                      The night of the election my sister posted on Facebook, "God bless our country and our new president." A fairly common sentiment hoping for guidance which is expressed every four years regardless of which party enters the White House. She was soundly thrashed by dozens of "friends" castigating her because their daughters were now relegated to a lifetime of second class citizenship solely because Hillary was not elected. The hopes of women young and old were shattered. The issue is not passé. It will be a prime motivator in future elections until a woman is elected.
                                                                      Super.

                                                                      Women didn't back Hillary

                                                                      Donald Trump's problems with women have been well documented in the media. He has consistently made derogatory remarks against women, calling some "dogs" and "slobs".

                                                                      At the beginning of October a tape of Trump apparently celebrating sexual assault in a conversation with Billy Bush was released. It led to a series of allegations against Trump as women came forward to speak out, causing his polling numbers to slump.

                                                                      This was thought to have helped drive women to vote for Clinton, with some polls showing a double-figure divide between men and women's support for the presidential candidates.

                                                                      Although last night's exit polls do show that 54 per cent of women backed Clinton compared to 42 per cent for Trump, these numbers were not significantly different from how women voted in 2012.

                                                                      In the 2012 presidential race, 55 per cent of women backed Obama while 44 per cent backed Romney.


                                                                      Despite all the headlines surrounding Trump, it seems that women didn't feel they could get behind Hillary Clinton.
                                                                      Hillary Clinton failed to win over black, Hispanic and female voters - the charts that show why she lost the presidential election

                                                                      Comment


                                                                      • Originally posted by IrishLax View Post
                                                                        Failing the bar -- barring a legitimate excuse -- shows she was either too stupid, too poorly prepared, or too incompetent to pass something any mediocre lawyer with an average education and level of preparedness should be able to pass. It's a low threshold and extremely puzzling that she couldn't clear it. Relevant to her abilities as POTUS? In itself, not necessarily, but...
                                                                        There are any number of reasons that she failed it. I do not care. How anyone can look at a lack of someone's effort/motivation/etc in their mid-20s and think that matters when they're nearly 70 is insane to me.

                                                                        Originally posted by IrishLax View Post
                                                                        Not only did she fail the bar, but she has routinely and recently lied about "turning down a high paying prestigious job at a law firm" to "serve the people." That shows a massive character flaw. Taking your own incompetence, lying about it, and then trying to spin the lie as virtue.
                                                                        A politician, a professional public opinion whore, spinning their past into the best position look? I'm stunned.

                                                                        Being under sniper fire in Bosnia is the juicier pile of shit IMO. We can't verify one way or the other if she had job offers.

                                                                        Originally posted by IrishLax View Post
                                                                        If she wasn't doing that and instead said "I thought about being a lawyer but my heart wasn't in it so I went into politics to help people" that'd be fine... why lie? Instead she lies about her competency and sacrifice and motivations. Just like she lied about dodging sniper fire and so many other needless things. At some point, it all adds up to someone who is not only image concerned but so self-indulgent she has to embellish and lie about mundane occurrences to make herself look better.

                                                                        Trump, obviously, has not only this flaw but worse and many others. But Jesus Christ can we stop making excuses for Hillary?
                                                                        I don't think I've made any excuses for her. I just commented that I cannot fathom how anyone could care about that. Just like I didn't care about George Bush's National Guardsman record. Nor do I care that Petreas shared classified info with a woman he was smashing.

                                                                        And yeah on Trump it's several orders of magnitude worse. Running a campaign on being a stud businessman while having six major bankruptcies...wake me up when Hillary fails the bar exam six times haha

                                                                        Comment


                                                                        • Originally posted by IrishinSyria View Post
                                                                          Not sure why we're still talking about Clinton but she took two different bar exams in the same year. This was before the UBE so that's crazy- I could very easily see her getting the finer points of DC tort law confused especially if she'd been focused on Arkansas.
                                                                          And what would she do if was practicing in Arkansas and had to go before a D.C. court after passing the exam? "My bad your honor, I was thinking about the finer points of Arkansas tort law even though I'm in a D.C. courtroom. Could you reconsider the verdict due to my poor representation?"

                                                                          Architects, engineers, pharmacists, contractors and a host of other professions regulated by state boards faced a similar challenge before uniform exams. It's not a unique experience nor justification for not being prepared.


                                                                          We're still talking about her because Lion got hoisted on his own petard pointing out that DeVos is only a nominee because of her husband's "Good 'Ol Boy" contacts when that's exactly what got Hillary to be a Senator. She didn't even have a NY legal residence.

                                                                          Because Buster thinks the significance of a female being elected president is passé.

                                                                          Because how one handles milestone events in their career does matter down the road. Some 1.5 million people get a college degree, MS, or PhD annually. Their college boards, LSATs, MCATs, GREs, GPAs, and work experience all matter for admissions, fellowships, job interviews, or Senate confirmations.

                                                                          And lastly we're still talking about her because you kept it alive because you wanted to quibble away her lack of preparation/execution which addresses Lion's point about being qualified.

                                                                          Comment


                                                                          • Originally posted by woolybug25 View Post
                                                                            You posted this before and people clearly and concisely explained her intent. How say Flint, MI may see infrastructure as a human right issue.

                                                                            Are you just recycling old comments and hoping people don't jump on you?

                                                                            Post an original thought for once.
                                                                            1. I don't read every single post in this thread and I'm sure others don't either. I fell out of the conversation the last time I shared that tweet and I wasn't even sure if it was in this thread or another.

                                                                            2. If she were talking about Flint water, she wouldn't have brought up transportation. She's obviously talking about roads and bridges.

                                                                            3. That's not what human rights are.

                                                                            4. If I'm so uninteresting, get off my jock.
                                                                            Last edited by wizards8507; 02-01-2017, 03:55 PM.

                                                                            Comment


                                                                            • Originally posted by wizards8507 View Post
                                                                              1. I don't read every single post in this thread and I'm sure others don't either. I fell out of the conversation the last time I shared that tweet and I wasn't even sure if it was in this thread or another.

                                                                              2. If she were talking about Flint water, she wouldn't have brought up transportation. She's obviously talking about roads and bridges.

                                                                              3. That's not what human rights are.
                                                                              I'm not gonna bother debating with you, because as I noticed, you posted this shit already and it was debated. If you want to know what was said, search for that discussion, don't just completely disregard it and post the same tweet again ya unoriginal bastard.
                                                                              Originally posted by koonja
                                                                              I'm making peace with Woolly in 2017.

                                                                              Comment


                                                                              • Originally posted by Buster Bluth View Post

                                                                                I think you're right that the Democrats can't expect to nominate an Elizabeth Warren, Gavin Newsom type. I'm particularly interested in seeing how Al Franken and Sherrod Brown position themselves over the next 2-3 years. Chris Murphy is a guy I've really been impressed with in YouTube CFR discussions, but a liberal from Connecticut likely won't speak to the crowd you have in mind. It'll be interesting to see if Cory Booker passes on 2020, he's up for reelection in the Senate and I doubt he'll want to jeopardize that if Trump's approval ratings aren't completely in the tank.
                                                                                Close. Chris Murphy is a low energy loser, totally not going to win. Gavin Newsome will get blown up as a yuuuge liberal commie type here in corn country.

                                                                                Booker or Franken would do well. I think Franken has done well in MN and is likable, that could be gold. Booker could try to rally the Obama support group, plus he's generally well recieived.

                                                                                I think the 'gimmedat' wing will come on strong next time, maybe Bernie or Elizabeth. Socialism hasn't been tried in the general, could be interesting.

                                                                                Personally, I'm pulling for Sally Boynton Brown. DNC Candidate Wants 'To Shut Other White People Down' | The Daily Caller
                                                                                Running the damn ball since 2017.

                                                                                Comment


                                                                                • DeVos On The Ropes

                                                                                  Republicans push back on Trump's pick for Education secretary | Fox News
                                                                                  By Barnini Chakraborty Published February 01, 2017

                                                                                  In back-to-back speeches from the Senate floor, a pair of Republican senators on Wednesday broke rank and said they’d oppose the nomination of Betsy DeVos as Education secretary.

                                                                                  GOP Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Alaska’s Lisa Murkowski are the first Republicans to come out against one of President Trump’s Cabinet picks.

                                                                                  ...

                                                                                  If all of the other GOP senators support DeVos- as expected - and all Democrats oppose the nomination, DeVos would end up with a 50-50 vote in the Senate. If that happens, it would be up to Vice President Mike Pence to break the tie.

                                                                                  ...

                                                                                  On Tuesday, the Senate committee voted along party lines to send her confirmation to the full Senate for final approval.

                                                                                  A full Senate vote could come early next week.

                                                                                  Here's the rub. IF the Dems don't hold up Sessions for A.G., he would have to vacate his Senate seat to take the oath as A.G. creating a vacancy and one less GOP vote. There would be no tie for Pence to break. DeVos would go down 50-49 and become only the 10th person to be denied confirmation.

                                                                                  Comment


                                                                                  • Originally posted by BGIF View Post
                                                                                    Republicans push back on Trump's pick for Education secretary | Fox News
                                                                                    By Barnini Chakraborty Published February 01, 2017




                                                                                    Here's the rub. IF the Dems don't hold up Sessions for A.G., he would have to vacate his Senate seat to take the oath as A.G. creating a vacancy and one less GOP vote. There would be no tie for Pence to break. DeVos would go down 50-49 and become only the 10th person to be denied confirmation.
                                                                                    Ooooooohh. That's dirty and clever.
                                                                                    Running the damn ball since 2017.

                                                                                    Comment


                                                                                    • Originally posted by drayer54 View Post
                                                                                      Ooooooohh. That's dirty and clever.
                                                                                      Yesterday the Dems boycotted the Senate Committee Hearings delaying Committee votes on Sessions, Mnuchin, and Price.


                                                                                      Meanwhile in Alabama, Governor Bentley has announced that there will no special election to replace Sessions in the US Senate. Instead he will appoint someone saving the state some $18 million for an election just for that Senate seat. The appointee would be up for election in 2018.

                                                                                      Bentley has already interviewed some 20 candidates for the position including suspended Alabama Supreme Court Justice Roy Moore (over gay marriage) who was previously thrown off that court over his 10 Commandments monument. Pray he doesn't pick Moore. The man is a hustler.


                                                                                      No special election to replace Sessions; Bentley says move could save $16 million | AL.com

                                                                                      Comment


                                                                                      • Originally posted by BGIF View Post
                                                                                        Yesterday the Dems boycotted the Senate Committee Hearings delaying Committee votes on Sessions, Mnuchin, and Price.


                                                                                        Meanwhile in Alabama, Governor Bentley has announced that there will no special election to replace Sessions in the US Senate. Instead he will appoint someone saving the state some $18 million for an election just for that Senate seat. The appointee would be up for election in 2018.

                                                                                        Bentley has already interviewed some 20 candidates for the position including suspended Alabama Supreme Court Justice Roy Moore (over gay marriage) who was previously thrown off that court over his 10 Commandments monument. Pray he doesn't pick Moore. The man is a hustler.


                                                                                        No special election to replace Sessions; Bentley says move could save $16 million | AL.com
                                                                                        Rod Blago says that it's a "golden" opportunity for Governor Bentley.

                                                                                        Comment


                                                                                        • These DeVos/Sessions tactics by both parties are reminiscent of the 1962 movie "Advise & Consent".

                                                                                          It's a great flick about Senate confirmation hearings for a Secretary of State nominee, Henry Fonda. Charles Laughton is extraordinary as crusty, old white Southern man, Senator Seabright Cooley who leads the opposition. You can taste the mint juleps when Seab Cooley speaks.

                                                                                          Walter Pidgeon plays the Majority Leader trying to sheperd the nominee through the process. The movie covers the Senate process and the 24 hour a day wheeling and dealing that is Foggy Bottom.

                                                                                          Comment


                                                                                          • Reuters Tells Reporters Covering Trump To &quot;Get Out Into The Country And Learn&quot;

                                                                                            Shocking development, reporters at Reuters are now being ordered to do real research when they write their stories. I cannot decide whether that was an indictment on their previous standards or a positive development for the news organization overall.

                                                                                            Covering Trump the Reuters Way | Reuters

                                                                                            Comment


                                                                                            • Originally posted by zelezo vlk View Post
                                                                                              Rod Blago says that it's a "golden" opportunity for Governor Bentley.

                                                                                              Bentley, 73, is already in trouble down here over an alleged affair with a 44 year old "consultant" on the state payroll. She's a former Miss Alabama/weathergirl if I recall correctly. His wife of 50 some years dumped him. It was big in the news a year or so ago but I've heard he's been weakened by it.

                                                                                              Comment


                                                                                              • Originally posted by wyvrn View Post
                                                                                                Shocking development, reporters at Reuters are now being ordered to do real research when they write their stories. I cannot decide whether that was an indictment on their previous standards or a positive development for the news organization overall.

                                                                                                Covering Trump the Reuters Way | Reuters
                                                                                                I don't see in that article where they're changing practices. Reuters is generally considered one of the more unbiased reporting entities out there, or so I thought. That article looks more like a reaffirmation of their current standards and mission statement.

                                                                                                So what is the Reuters answer? To oppose the administration? To appease it? To boycott its briefings? To use our platform to rally support for the media? All these ideas are out there, and they may be right for some news operations, but they don’t make sense for Reuters. We already know what to do because we do it every day, and we do it all over the world.

                                                                                                To state the obvious, Reuters is a global news organization that reports independently and fairly in more than 100 countries, including many in which the media is unwelcome and frequently under attack. I am perpetually proud of our work in places such as Turkey, the Philippines, Egypt, Iraq, Yemen, Thailand, China, Zimbabwe, and Russia, nations in which we sometimes encounter some combination of censorship, legal prosecution, visa denials, and even physical threats to our journalists. We respond to all of these by doing our best to protect our journalists, by recommitting ourselves to reporting fairly and honestly, by doggedly gathering hard-to-get information – and by remaining impartial. We write very rarely about ourselves and our troubles and very often about the issues that will make a difference in the businesses and lives of our readers and viewers.
                                                                                                To me, it seems like a commendable statement. They just want to report the news, they don't want to get into the politics behind it, or use it as a soap box to bolster a position. We need more journalists like this.
                                                                                                Last edited by ulukinatme; 02-01-2017, 05:35 PM.

                                                                                                Comment


                                                                                                • Originally posted by BGIF View Post
                                                                                                  Republicans push back on Trump's pick for Education secretary | Fox News
                                                                                                  By Barnini Chakraborty Published February 01, 2017




                                                                                                  Here's the rub. IF the Dems don't hold up Sessions for A.G., he would have to vacate his Senate seat to take the oath as A.G. creating a vacancy and one less GOP vote. There would be no tie for Pence to break. DeVos would go down 50-49 and become only the 10th person to be denied confirmation.
                                                                                                  I dont know whats worse, Sessions as AG or DeVoss as Sec of Education. My gut tells me Sessions doesn't need to be anywhere near the AG position.

                                                                                                  Comment

                                                                                                  Adsense

                                                                                                  Collapse
                                                                                                  Working...
                                                                                                  X