2016 Presidential Horse Race

[Irish YJ]

Ha! She just locked down the OMM vote.

As well as most of the X-Files fan base. Brilliant LOL.

I've expected some collusion for a while now anyway....

 

[connor_in]

Ha! She just locked down the OMM vote.

Bill could have gone public anytime he wanted...

 

[kmoose]

All them black families broken up by mass incarceration is a fairly substantial "exception."

The source of their mass incarceration is largely "The First Black President". And they are currently supporting his wife, who stumped for the very laws that largely drive the mass incarceration. That's not institutional racism...

 

[NDohio]

All them black families broken up by mass incarceration is a fairly substantial "exception."

Interesting exchange between Bill and BLM protestor.


Bill Clinton Gets Into Heated Exchange With Black Lives Matter Protester : NPR

In a prolonged exchange Thursday afternoon, former President Bill Clinton forcefully defended his 1994 crime bill to Black Lives Matter protesters in the crowd at a Hillary Clinton campaign event.

He said the bill lowered the country's crime rate, which benefited African-Americans, achieved bipartisan support, and diversified the police force. He then addressed a protester's sign, saying:
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Sen. Bernie Sanders during a debate last month in Miami.


"I don't know how you would characterize the gang leaders who got 13-year-old kids hopped up on crack and sent them out onto the street to murder other African-American children," Clinton said, addressing a protester who appeared to interrupt him repeatedly. "Maybe you thought they were good citizens .... You are defending the people who kill the lives you say matter. Tell the truth. You are defending the people who cause young people to go out and take guns."

The Clintons have faced criticism from BLM activists and younger black voters for months now over that bill, which they say put an unfairly high number of black Americans in prison for nonviolent offenses.

After a protester interrupted him repeatedly, Bill Clinton began to take on that critique directly, making the claim that his crime bill was being given a bad rap.

"Here's what happened," Clinton said. "Let's just tell the whole story."

"I had an assault weapons ban in it [the crime bill]. I had money for inner-city kids, for out of school activities. We had 110,000 police officers so we could keep people on the street, not in these military vehicles, and the police would look like the people they were policing. We did all that. And [Joe] Biden [then senator and chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee] said, you can't pass this bill, the Republicans will kill it, if you don't put more sentencing in it."

"I talked to a lot of African-American groups," Clinton continued. "They thought black lives matter. They said take this bill, because our kids are being shot in the street by gangs. We have 13-year-old kids planning their own funerals."

Throughout the spirited defense of his policy, Clinton continued to be interrupted, and he repeatedly seemed to single out one protester.
Surrounded by lawmakers, President Bill Clinton hugs then-Sen. Joseph Biden after signing the $30 billion crime bill at the White House on Sept. 13, 1994.


"She doesn't wanna hear any of that," Clinton said to the protester. "You know what else she doesn't want to hear? Because of that bill, we have a 25-year low in crime, a 33-year low in murder rate. And because of that and the background check law, we had a 46-year low in the deaths of people by gun violence, and who do you think those lives were? That mattered? Whose lives were saved that mattered?"

For several minutes, the discussion of the crime bill, Clinton's exchange with the protester and the crowd's attempts to yell and chant over her were missing one thing: any mention of Hillary Clinton, the one Clinton running for president this election cycle.

Bill Clinton did finally address her. "Hillary didn't vote for that bill, because she wasn't in the Senate," Clinton said. "She was spending her time trying to get health care for poor kids [referencing her advocacy for the Children's Health Insurance Program]. Who were they? And their lives mattered. And her opponent [Bernie Sanders] did vote for it. But I don't blame him either ... There were enough Republicans in the Senate to kill this bill, and nobody wanted it to die. That's what happened."

"But she [Hillary Clinton] was the first candidate, the first one to say let's get these people who did nonviolent offenses out of prison," Clinton continued. "And guess what? A lot of Republicans agreed. They know they made a mistake."

Clinton went on to further defend his administration, referencing the financial crisis: "It reminds me of when the Republicans try to blame me for the financial meltdown."

He turned back to his wife and said: "This election is about the future. They're trying to blame her for something she didn't do. So I'll tell you another story about a place where Black Lives Matter? Africa." The former president went on to speak of his wife's work fighting AIDS in Africa while secretary of state.

 

[GoIrish41]

The source of their mass incarceration is largely "The First Black President". And they are currently supporting his wife, who stumped for the very laws that largely drive the mass incarceration. That's not institutional racism...

No doubt the Bill Clinton signed had a lot to do with mass incarceration. See the post by NDOhio, above. It is Bill Clintons' explanation of how that bill came about and the opposition he faced and the concessions he was forced to make within our institutions to get something passed.

It was a mistake and it has forced those institutions to operate in a harmful manner ever since while black people were incarcerated at a distructive rate. The flaws are baked in to the system even as the evidence of the harm they are doing mount. It seems to me that it was an acceptable situation for decades to send black men to prison at a high rate. The best the government could do was to create laws that negatively affected black people and black communities. And everyone patted themselves on the back about how they changed the country as it turns out at the expense of black people in this country. That is institutional racism.

And the Clinton propensity to accept chaff with their political wheat so they can take credit for "getting things done" is part of the problem. This is why Hillary's starting the negotiation with half measures that are politically attainable is not ideal. Bernie has it right. Ask for the full loaf of bread and you might end up with half a loaf. Ask for a half loaf and you end up with crumbs -- like a destructive crime bill that negatively affects African Americans.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

Bernie Sanders accepts Pope Francis' Vatican invitation - NY Daily News

 

[ShawneeIrish]

I don't know if this will help Bernie in NY or the time off the trail will hurt him, but it is certainly interesting.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

I don't know if this will help Bernie in NY or the time off the trail will hurt him, but it is certainly interesting.

My own opinion is that it might help and couldn't have came at a better time. The mainstream media has basically unloaded on him with negative article after negative article. HRC's donors and supporters are trying to smear Bernie any way they can. It reeks of desperation if you ask me. But now the Pope wants Bernie in the Vatican? I don't see how anyone can spin that in a bad light.

I saw a funny tweet earlier: Paraphrasing...Bernie is meeting with the Pope, meanwhile Hillary is meeting with the FBI. Who's more qualified again?

 

[IrishJayhawk]

My own opinion is that it might help and couldn't have came at a better time. The mainstream media has basically unloaded on him with negative article after negative article. HRC's donors and supporters are trying to smear Bernie any way they can. It reeks of desperation if you ask me. But now the Pope wants Bernie in the Vatican? I don't see how anyone can spin that in a bad light.

I saw a funny tweet earlier: Paraphrasing...Bernie is meeting with the Pope, meanwhile Hillary is meeting with the FBI. Who's more qualified again?

Bernie also flubbed an interview pretty badly and made up that Hillary called him unqualified. She questioned whether he had thought through some of his proposals, but he actually said that she called him "quote unquote, unqualified." If you're going to quote someone, make sure they actually used the word that you're quoting.

I love a lot about Bernie. I don't think the MSM is being unfair to him.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

Bernie also flubbed an interview pretty badly and made up that Hillary called him unqualified. She questioned whether he had thought through some of his proposals, but he actually said that she called him "quote unquote, unqualified." If you're going to quote someone, make sure they actually used the word that you're quoting.

I love a lot about Bernie. I don't think the MSM is being unfair to him.

I'm fine with questioning #qualifiedgate.

But you can't deny the onslaught of negative articles being put out there by media outlets almost on a daily basis. This isn't a Right/Left thing. This is a situation where The Establishment (which includes elites from both sides) is trying to smear Bernie. The Daily News is the most recent example I can use. They did a hatchet job of an interview with Bernie trying to trap him, get him caught up and twisted. And when he corrected them on his own policy details and voting record, they still ran article after article putting words in his mouth and twisting what he said. Who owns Daily News? Mortimer Zuckerman - a MASSIVE Hillary supporter and donor -- SHOCKER! Same situation with the Daily Beast, Politico, etc. Comcast, Time Warner, you name it. The media is wildly biased and it pisses me off. Because instead of being neutral and presenting readers/listeners with facts, they're busy trying to spin everything to fit their agenda which only ensures general population ignorance. It's one thing to know objective material regarding a subject and decide that you don't agree. But it's something else to have someone feed you lies and spin so you don't know the truth. How can anyone make informed decisions if they aren't being informed?

Here's a good article by Jordan Chariton. He used to work for Fox and MSNBC before leaving to work for TYT. He brings up a lot of good points regarding HRC and the media.

Why TV News’ 2016 Coverage Will Permanently Drive Young Viewers Away | Mediaite

 

[kmoose]

No doubt the Bill Clinton signed had a lot to do with mass incarceration. See the post by NDOhio, above. It is Bill Clintons' explanation of how that bill came about and the opposition he faced and the concessions he was forced to make within our institutions to get something passed.

It was a mistake and it has forced those institutions to operate in a harmful manner ever since while black people were incarcerated at a distructive rate. The flaws are baked in to the system even as the evidence of the harm they are doing mount. It seems to me that it was an acceptable situation for decades to send black men to prison at a high rate. The best the government could do was to create laws that negatively affected black people and black communities. And everyone patted themselves on the back about how they changed the country as it turns out at the expense of black people in this country. That is institutional racism.

And the Clinton propensity to accept chaff with their political wheat so they can take credit for "getting things done" is part of the problem. This is why Hillary's starting the negotiation with half measures that are politically attainable is not ideal. Bernie has it right. Ask for the full loaf of bread and you might end up with half a loaf. Ask for a half loaf and you end up with crumbs -- like a destructive crime bill that negatively affects African Americans.

Are we supposed to completely ignore that another large source of the problem was that black gangs like the Bloods and Crips ruthlessly controlled the crack cocaine distribution in America during that time? Again.......... not racism.

 

[EddytoNow]

I'm fine with questioning #qualifiedgate.

But you can't deny the onslaught of negative articles being put out there by media outlets almost on a daily basis. This isn't a Right/Left thing. This is a situation where The Establishment (which includes elites from both sides) is trying to smear Bernie. The Daily News is the most recent example I can use. They did a hatchet job of an interview with Bernie trying to trap him, get him caught up and twisted. And when he corrected them on his own policy details and voting record, they still ran article after article putting words in his mouth and twisting what he said. Who owns Daily News? Mortimer Zuckerman - a MASSIVE Hillary supporter and donor -- SHOCKER! Same situation with the Daily Beast, Politico, etc. Comcast, Time Warner, you name it. The media is wildly biased and it pisses me off. Because instead of being neutral and presenting readers/listeners with facts, they're busy trying to spin everything to fit their agenda which only ensures general population ignorance. It's one thing to know objective material regarding a subject and decide that you don't agree. But it's something else to have someone feed you lies and spin so you don't know the truth. How can anyone make informed decisions if they aren't being informed?

Here's a good article by Jordan Chariton. He used to work for Fox and MSNBC before leaving to work for TYT. He brings up a lot of good points regarding HRC and the media.

Why TV News’ 2016 Coverage Will Permanently Drive Young Viewers Away | Mediaite

Welcome to the Big Leagues, Bernie. Hillary Clinton has been the subject of negative campaigning for years. Most of the negative news regarding Hillary has either been false or a misrepresentation of the facts. Both parties use negative information, including outright lies, because the voting public will believe just about anything if it is repeated over and over again. In short, campaigns lie because the public buys into the lies. If Bernie can't handle the heat, he has no business running for president, and I say this as someone who voted for Bernie in the Michigan primary.

Bernie hasn't seen anything yet. Wait until the Republicans unleash their disinformation machine (lies) in the general election. Does anyone remember the lies spread regarding John Kerry's military service during the 2004 general election? Republican attacks would have you believe that Kerry had served dishonorably in Vietnam when the exact opposite was true.

Until their are consequences (either legally or electorally) both parties will continue to tell lies and distort the truth to suit their needs. The media could help out by placing more emphasis on the truth instead of running with the lies spewed out by both sides. Start calling out the liars and make them face the consequences either electorally or legally.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

So? Are you advocating that we use them as our model?

So? You don't see the hypocrisy of how Mexico treats illegal immigrants versus how they expect us to treat their citizens when they break our laws and sneak across the border?

All I'm advocating for is that we implement the laws we have on the books, and we shouldn't be taking any lectures from Mexico.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

So? You don't see the hypocrisy of how Mexico treats illegal immigrants versus how they expect us to treat their citizens when they break our laws and sneak across the border?

All I'm advocating for is that we implement the laws we have on the books, and we shouldn't be taking any lectures from Mexico.

We should treat them how we believe they should be treated. How Mexico does it shouldn't play in at all.

 

[GATTACA!]

You're impossible to debate with in good faith.

You're the one that's constantly misrepresenting what i'm saying, or your reading comprehension is just extremely low.

Please explain to me how saying "white folks" isn't a generalization? Can you imagine if a republican said "those black folks".

Second I made a clearly satirical comment to illustrate my point and you try and call me out for having no facts to back it up? But i'm the one that isn't debating in good faith?

 

[woolybug25]

YOu're the one that's constantly misrepresenting what i'm saying, or your reading comprehension is just extremely low.

Please explain to me how saying "white folks" isn't a generalization? Can you imagine if a republican said "those black folks".

Second I made a clearly satirical comment to illustrate my point and you try and call me out for having no facts to back it up? But i'm the one that isn't debating in good faith?

My reading comprehension is fine, but your grammar isn't... Nobody ever gets what you're saying, and when they do, your points are usually baseless or just plain incorrect.

Go argue with someone else. I really have no desire to debate someone like you. It's a waste of my time, frankly.

 

[GATTACA!]

My reading comprehension is fine, but your grammar isn't... Nobody ever gets what you're saying, and when they do, your points are usually baseless or just plain incorrect.

Interesting since you're the only one that seems to have a problem understanding me.

Go argue with someone else. I really have no desire to debate someone like you. It's a waste of my time, frankly.

You're the one that started arguing? You tried to call me out but missed the entire point of my comment.

 

[NDinL.A.]

Please explain to me how saying "white folks" isn't a generalization? Can you imagine if a republican said "those black folks".

You mean like Donald Trump?

“I have a great relationship with the blacks. I’ve always had a great relationship with the blacks.”

“Sadly, because president Obama has done such a poor job as president, you won’t see another black president for generations!” (Holy crap...serious Trump?)

And these next two are from a fired employee who said he heard Donald say this to another employee of his, so it's 2nd hand and not exactly 100% reliable, but still, I wouldn't doubt Donald thinks this way AT ALL:

“Black guys counting my money! I hate it. The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys that wear yarmulkes every day.”

"Laziness is a trait in blacks"

Then again, you said imagine if a Republican said that, and today is Friday, so I forget - is the Donald a Republican or a Democrat on Fridays? Sorry man, I always get it mixed up.

 

[phgreek]

We should treat them how we believe they should be treated. How Mexico does it shouldn't play in at all.

how Mexico treats their illegals shouldn't drive how we treat Mexican illegals...but it should certainly impact their credibility when they express criticism regarding how we treat any illegals. There are folks whom you listen to on certain topics, and others you don't.

 

[GATTACA!]

You mean like Donald Trump?





And these next two are from a fired employee who said he heard Donald say this to another employee of his, so it's 2nd hand and not exactly 100% reliable, but still, I wouldn't doubt Donald thinks this way AT ALL:




Then again, you said imagine if a Republican said that, and today is Friday, so I forget - is the Donald a Republican or a Democrat on Fridays? Sorry man, I always get it mixed up.

Exactly, thank you for proving my point. A republican says "those black folks" and gets called out for it, Obama says "white folks" and no one cares. Even though both are wrong.

Let me just put this out there since there seems to be some confusion, I don't support Trump, I don't want Trump to win the nomination, and I certainly don't want Trump to be president.

 

[Rizzophil]

IDK, Seems like a pretty fair analysis to me. Why should people not believe what he said and why is it crap? Not trying to be a jerk, I seriously want to understand where you are coming from.

Do you think legal Americans, with a license / ID, should vote for American government works to represent them?

 

[Domina Nostra]

I would argue that the GOP made it impossible for their moderate candidates to be successful by forcing them too far right during the primaries. The conservatives, in other words, burned their moderates.

W. was a moderate and won (largely because his reasonable stance on immigration did not alienate the fastest growing deomographic in the country). This begs the question of which is better ... liberal tax and spend policies, or conservative cut tax and continue to spend policies? Even if the "liberal" problem is as unsettling as you believe, it has to be superior to running up the credit card while diminishing the nation's income. For my entire life, I've been listening to republicans tell me that the GOP is the party of economic responsibility, but every time they are in office, they blow the budget while trying to appeal to the public by cutting taxes (especially on the rich). This is a huge contributor to their inability to be trusted with the keys again.

The deficit is a tricky thing to discuss because its very dependent on a number of issues. However, almost everyone used to agree that the budget should be balanced. This was last achieved when the Republicans took over the House at the end of the Clinton administration.

At some point, possibly during the Gulf War, the Republicans simply stopped trying to balance the budget. I think they wanted to fund the war without raising taxes.

However, to pretend that the Democrats are any different is pretty naive. The budgets they have been proposing lately are not even close to balanced, and the programs they favor are unfundable. Everything is justified by shriking the military, but even if that would work, they aren't waiting until it happens to spend.

So, IMO, you are just picking a team and sticking with their story if you think either side id fiscally responsible. The only question is, do you want the military or social programs to bankrupt us?

 

[Buster Bluth]

However, almost everyone used to agree that the budget should be balanced.

This is untrue going all of the way back to the beginning.

This was last achieved when the Republicans took over the House at the end of the Clinton administration.

And even then it was never balanced. They were still pulling the usual social security IOU tricks.

The last time the budget was balanced was during the Eisenhower administration, and there's a reason for that.

Everybody agrees we need to lower the deficit but its threat to our country is incredibly overblown. And ironically the only real long-term issue with the deficit is an issue the so-called conservatives have no plan on answering: lowering health care costs.

At some point, possibly during the Gulf War, the Republicans simply stopped trying to balance the budget. I think they wanted to fund the war without raising taxes.

They started blowing up the budget the moment Reagan stepped into the White House a decade before the Gulf War. And they did it because they knew then what they know now: the deficit isn't inherently bad.

However, to pretend that the Democrats are any different is pretty naive. The budgets they have been proposing lately are not even close to balanced, and the programs they favor are unfundable. Everything is justified by shriking the military, but even if that would work, they aren't waiting until it happens to spend.

So, IMO, you are just picking a team and sticking with their story if you think either side id fiscally responsible. The only question is, do you want the military or social programs to bankrupt us?

Hasn't Obama decreased the debt during his terms by more nominal dollars than any US President in history?

You could sit there and list things like the stimulus, cash for clunkers, record-high food stamps, etc, ie issues you could reasonably pin on Obama, and it wouldn't come close to the damage George Bush did to our deficit when he launched the War in Iraq while simultaneously cutting taxes.

We need to get the deficit back down to comfortable levels (~60% GDP for starters, today it's ~104%), but I want to reiterate that the only long-term issue with the deficit is health care costs. Not the Defense budget. Not Social Security. We're a nation of diabetics who spend a greater percentage of our GDP on health care than anyone. Last I checked the Republicans cry out whenever someone wants to address systemic health care issues like sugar ("nanny state! nanny state!) or propose that we lower our costs the same way everyone else does: public programs negotiating lower prices.

 

[IrishLax]

Hasn't Obama decreased the debt during his terms by more nominal dollars than any US President in history?

You could sit there and list things like the stimulus, cash for clunkers, record-high food stamps, etc and it would come close to amounting to what George Bush did to our deficit when he launched the War in Iraq while simultaneously cutting taxes.

We need to get the deficit back down to comfortable levels (~60% GDP for starters, today it's ~104%), but I want to reiterate that the only long-term issue with the debt is health care costs. Not the Defense budget. Not Social Security. We're a nation of diabetics who spend a greater percentage of our GDP on health care than anyone. Last I checked the Republicans cry out whenever someone wants to address systemic health care issues like sugar ("nanny state! nanny state!) or propose that we lower our costs the same way everyone else does: public programs negotiating lower prices.

I really don't think this is true, even as taken as taken as a relative percentage of GDP. Do you have a source/link?

 

[Buster Bluth]

I think it's true. It's a bit of a trick though because it's in nominal dollars. Under Obama the debts have decreased from like $1.4 trillion to $.4 trillion. I can't name another President who has decreased the debt by a trillion dollars. At least I hope there isn't.

It is also true that in nominal dollars he's spent more than any President. So the numbers are fun to paint a picture with. But it's not any worse than conservative media brainwashing the masses by talking about the deficit in in nominal dollars when every economist on the planet measures national deficits in deficit-to-gdp ratio, no?

 

[IrishLax]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/08/o...lick&contentCollection=Opinion&pgtype=article

A blistering article from avowed leftist and economics Nobel laureate Paul Krugman. Krugman has been rather critical of the issues with Sanders' economic policy during this election cycle, but he really takes it a step further this time talking about how his campaign as a whole is really going off the rails.

Draw your own conclusions, but Bernie's economic illiteracy is a complete disqualifier for me, and moreover he seems to be inching closer and closer to being the yin to Trump's yang. He's hard to even take seriously right now.

 

[Rizzophil]

This is untrue going all of the way back to the beginning.



And even then it was never balanced. They were still pulling the usual social security IOU tricks.

The last time the budget was balanced was during the Eisenhower administration, and there's a reason for that.

Everybody agrees we need to lower the deficit but it's threat to our country is incredibly overblown. And ironically the only real long-term issue with the deficit is an issue the so-called conservatives have no plan on answering: lowering health care costs.



They started blowing up the budget the moment Reagan stepped into the White House a decade before the Gulf War. And they did it because they knew then what they know now: the deficit isn't inherently bad.



Hasn't Obama decreased the debt during his terms by more nominal dollars than any US President in history?

You could sit there and list things like the stimulus, cash for clunkers, record-high food stamps, etc, ie issues you could reasonably pin on Obama, and it wouldn't come close to the damage George Bush did to our deficit when he launched the War in Iraq while simultaneously cutting taxes.

We need to get the deficit back down to comfortable levels (~60% GDP for starters, today it's ~104%), but I want to reiterate that the only long-term issue with the deficit is health care costs. Not the Defense budget. Not Social Security. We're a nation of diabetics who spend a greater percentage of our GDP on health care than anyone. Last I checked the Republicans cry out whenever someone wants to address systemic health care issues like sugar ("nanny state! nanny state!) or propose that we lower our costs the same way everyone else does: public programs negotiating lower prices.

Total debt went from 10 trillion to 19 trillion under Obama. At 22 trillion hyper inflation will hit according to thr CBO

 

[Irish YJ]

 

[Buster Bluth]

conservative media brainwashing the masses by talking about the deficit in in nominal dollars when every economist on the planet measures national deficits in deficit-to-gdp ratio

And the first responses is...

Total debt went from 10 trillion to 19 trillion under Obama. At 22 trillion hyper inflation will hit according to thr CBO

I would love to see what is magical about the number $22 trillion that triggers hyperinflation. I'm extra curious about it because one of the head-scratching aspects of the current world economy is that the governments of the West are trying to generate the coveted 2% inflation and can't get it (no?). The Fed is actively trying to get more inflation, because there is basically none, and they can't get it. I'm not at all worried about some weird hyperinflation.

It also seems ridiculous to me considering the $22 trillion needs to be compared to GDP and revenue. All deficit numbers are useless without that info. If he hit $22 trillion when our GDP is $24 trillion, that'd be an improvement over our current situation. It's worth noting that the CBO isn't an oracle, it's a group of number-crunchers who are asked to give results of a hypothetical circumstance. The CBO might say hyperinflation (and what is that exactly?) is triggered if the deficit hits $22 trillion....along with other context you haven't mentioned. There has to be more information because the deficit doesn't increase the money supply and generate inflation and OH GOD AM I BEING TROLLED?

Only the bottom portion means anything. We might as well toss the top one out and eliminate it from our national dialogue on the deficit. The bottom one is completely fair, and shows that 1) we've always run a debt annually, but it needs to come down from ~100% of GDP, and 2) the deficit's growth rate under Obama has actually decreased drastically from the 2009 budget (bailouts etc).

We are on our way to growing our way out of the problem but the only long-term issue with the deficit, health care costs, remains.

Disclaimer I am not an economist and would love the fellows toting ND masters double extra cum laude degrees to rip any of this apart that is untrue. I've made an effort in 2016 to read more about econ and this is where I'm at on the deficit debate.

 

[Irish YJ]

If the bottom graph is the preferred,,, GWB's doesn't look all that bad...