2016 Presidential Horse Race

[IrishLax]

Ed Klein: Bill Clinton: It's Hillary's Fault, Not Comey's

Worst. Candidate. Ever.

 

[IrishinSyria]

Worst. Candidate. Ever.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2...n-blood-feud-difference-between-truth-and-lie

I would take anything Klein writes with a huge grain of salt.

Even Rush Limbaugh, the king of conservative talk radio, told his listeners last week that the purported dialogue in some of Klein’s florid set pieces – “You can’t trust the motherfucker,” Clinton is supposed to have said of Obama over her next glass of wine – does not ring true.

“Some of the quotes strike me as odd,” said Limbaugh. “In the sense that I don’t know people who speak this way.”

 

[gkIrish]

Mental illness is the most serious problem in America

People Are Getting Trump Tattoos Because Why Not

 

[IrishJayhawk]

Posted in the politics thread, but it applies here as well.

Immigration hardliner says Trump team preparing plans for wall, mulling Muslim registry | Reuters

 

[Bubbles]

Worst. Candidate. Ever.

Fading away out of memory as so many also-rans before her would be the best case scenario, but I have a feeling she will be remembered for a long time because of her unique, irredeemable, unrelenting terribleness.

 

[Irish#1]

Ed Klein: Bill Clinton: It's Hillary's Fault, Not Comey's

Why do I get the feeling she didn't listen to him because she thinks she's smarter than Bill?

 

[connor_in]

TOLERANCE ALERT! Debra Messing blasts Susan Sarandon for not backing Hillary – twitchy.com

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">To all those who find blaming me less painful than introspection, never knew I was this powerful. <a href="https://t.co/etgSWBcH6a">pic.twitter.com/etgSWBcH6a</a></p>— Susan Sarandon (@SusanSarandon) <a href="https://twitter.com/SusanSarandon/status/798944467399147520">November 16, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>


Hollywood eating their own

 

[connor_in]

 

[ACamp1900]

fitting that the doll doesn't have any balls either....

 

[Whiskeyjack]

The Week's Ryan Cooper just published an article titled "2009: The year the Democratic Party died":

The Democratic Party has been obliterated. Hillary Clinton's narrow loss to Donald Trump was the shock felt 'round the world, but there's been an even deeper decline in the Democratic Party at the state and local level. The Obama administration has overseen the loss of roughly a tenth of the party's Senate seats, a fifth of its House and state legislative seats, and a third of its governorships, something which hasn't been seen since the repeated routs of Republicans in the 1930s.

There are unquestionably many factors behind this result. But I want to focus on the biggest one that was completely under Democrats' control. It is the same thing that killed the Republicans of Hoover's generation: gross mishandling of an economic crisis. Democrats had the full run of the federal government from 2009-10, during the worst economic disaster in 80 years, and they did not fully fix mass unemployment, nor the associated foreclosure crisis. That is just about the most guaranteed route to electoral death there is.

I wrote previously about how in the 1970s, the Democrats gradually embraced the neoliberal ideology of markets and deregulation, setting the stage for later disasters. One under-noticed corollary of this was forgetting the previous generation's economic wisdom. More and more, Democrats embraced the ideas that markets were self-regulating, that unions were not worth defending, that monopolies were nothing to get worked up over, and that large deficits were by definition bad.

A similar process of forgetting had been happening within the profession of economics, and so outside of a small minority of heterodox critics, the 2008 Great Recession struck economists unawares. The ones who hadn't forgotten their Keynes and Minsky, like Paul Krugman, quickly regrouped and presented the Democrats with the policy that solved the Great Depression: huge fiscal and monetary stimulus. When there is a self-fulfilling collapse in spending, the government must step in as the spender of last resort, as it did during the New Deal and World War II.

In the early months of the Obama administration, when it seemed like the world was falling apart, this logic gained much purchase, leading to the passage of the Recovery Act stimulus package. But even then Krugman and company ran headlong into a problem of ideology. Centrist Democratic senators insisted, for no reason other than sticker shock, that the stimulus could only be so big — not even close to the estimated size of the economic hole left by the collapse. Krugman's arguments that it should be massively larger than that estimate — in order to hedge against an underestimation of the size of the collapse, which was prescient indeed — fell on deaf ears.

And after the first stimulus failed to restore full employment, the ideology problem got much worse. The D.C. political and media elite, including President Obama and most other Democratic big shots, became absolutely obsessed with cutting the deficit. The ensuing austerity (much of it caused by post-2010 Republican obstruction, to be fair) dramatically slowed the recovery. It is only in the last year that unemployment has declined to a reasonably good level, and the fraction of prime working-age people with a job is still worse than the bottom of the previous two recessions. What's more, the fruits of the recovery have been highly unequal, with much of the income flowing to the top 1 percent, and most rural places left out. (Sound familiar?)

The problem was that the party never really internalized the logic of Keynesianism, and as a result was incapable of thinking strategically about their political position. Neoliberalism had become a hegemonic ideology, which takes serious effort to lever out of someone's head, and nobody was in a position to do it. Practically the whole party — and indeed the "nonpartisan" media as well — had been raised on the idea that deficits are bad for their entire lives (cemented in place by hundreds of millions of dollars in agitprop spending from Wall Street ideologues). Keynesianism — which implies things like "you can fix a recession by printing money and handing it to people" — sounded extreme and suspect. Media budget coverage to this day is usually written with an implicit presumption that deficit cutting is the ultimate good in budget policy.

That's how the party ended up with its most vulnerable members — centrist Blue Dogs in the South — hawking austerity during the worst mass unemployment crisis in 80 years. Almost all of them lost in 2010. That loss, in turn, paved the way for many of the other major problems Democrats are having. That was a census year, and huge Republican victories allowed them to control the subsequent redistricting process, in which they gerrymandered themselves a 7-point handicap in the House of Representatives and in many state legislatures.

That brings me to the foreclosure crisis, the handling of which was even worse. Instead of partially ameliorating it as with employment, the Obama administration helped it happen. As David Dayen writes in Chain of Title, the financial products underpinning the subprime mortgage boom were riddled with errors, and in order to be able to foreclose on people who had defaulted, they had to commit systematic document fraud. This epic crime spree gave the White House tremendous leverage to negotiate a settlement to keep people in their homes, but instead the administration co-opted a lawsuit from state attorneys general and turned it into a slap on the wrist that reinvigorated the foreclosure machine. There was also $75 billion in the Recovery Act to arrest foreclosures, but the administration's effort at this, HAMP, was such a complete disaster that they only spent about 16 percent of the money and enabled thousands of foreclosures in the process.

As a direct result, the homeownership rate has plummeted to levels not seen since the 1960s.

This disaster is somewhat harder to explain, because it seems so nuts. Why on Earth would anyone do this? Once again I think the problem is ideology. Neoliberal-inspired deregulation hugely empowered the financial sector, and finance — fueled by impressive-sounding and complicated products developed by the some of the smartest people in the country — came to occupy a disproportionate portion of total economic output and an even larger fraction of corporate profits. From thence it became a major source of campaign contributions. As Washington became saturated with the money and ideology of bankers, assisted by partisans of the "self-regulating market" like Alan Greenspan, it came to seem that the main task of banking policy was keeping an increasingly bloated and unstable Wall Street on its feet.

So when the crisis happened, the main thing the political system managed to do was fling money at bankers until the financial sector was stabilized. Afterwards, the idea that bankers might have committed crimes — might in fact have had whole floors of people committing crimes all day long — was simply too big to swallow. So Democrats — many of whom no doubt had plush consulting gigs in the back of their mind — basically looked the other way. No bankers went to jail, and over nine million people lost their homes.

This is not to absolve Republicans of their obstruction in Congress or President-elect Donald Trump or anything else. But the fact of the matter is that Democrats had two golden years to fix the depression, restore the housing market, hold Wall Street to account, and cement a new generation of loyal Democrats, and they bobbled it.

President Obama's spectacular charisma — and his savvy campaign against a filthy rich vulture capitalist in 2012 — papered over these problems to some extent. But for most of his presidency America has basically ceased to function for a huge fraction of the population. Fair or not, the party perceived to be responsible for that situation is going to be punished at the polls.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

The Week's Ryan Cooper just published an article titled "2009: The year the Democratic Party died":

The Democratic Party has been obliterated. Hillary Clinton's narrow loss to Donald Trump was the shock felt 'round the world, but there's been an even deeper decline in the Democratic Party at the state and local level. The Obama administration has overseen the loss of roughly a tenth of the party's Senate seats, a fifth of its House and state legislative seats, and a third of its governorships, something which hasn't been seen since the repeated routs of Republicans in the 1930s.

There are unquestionably many factors behind this result. But I want to focus on the biggest one that was completely under Democrats' control. It is the same thing that killed the Republicans of Hoover's generation: gross mishandling of an economic crisis. Democrats had the full run of the federal government from 2009-10, during the worst economic disaster in 80 years, and they did not fully fix mass unemployment, nor the associated foreclosure crisis. That is just about the most guaranteed route to electoral death there is.

I wrote previously about how in the 1970s, the Democrats gradually embraced the neoliberal ideology of markets and deregulation, setting the stage for later disasters. One under-noticed corollary of this was forgetting the previous generation's economic wisdom. More and more, Democrats embraced the ideas that markets were self-regulating, that unions were not worth defending, that monopolies were nothing to get worked up over, and that large deficits were by definition bad.

A similar process of forgetting had been happening within the profession of economics, and so outside of a small minority of heterodox critics, the 2008 Great Recession struck economists unawares. The ones who hadn't forgotten their Keynes and Minsky, like Paul Krugman, quickly regrouped and presented the Democrats with the policy that solved the Great Depression: huge fiscal and monetary stimulus. When there is a self-fulfilling collapse in spending, the government must step in as the spender of last resort, as it did during the New Deal and World War II.

In the early months of the Obama administration, when it seemed like the world was falling apart, this logic gained much purchase, leading to the passage of the Recovery Act stimulus package. But even then Krugman and company ran headlong into a problem of ideology. Centrist Democratic senators insisted, for no reason other than sticker shock, that the stimulus could only be so big — not even close to the estimated size of the economic hole left by the collapse. Krugman's arguments that it should be massively larger than that estimate — in order to hedge against an underestimation of the size of the collapse, which was prescient indeed — fell on deaf ears.

And after the first stimulus failed to restore full employment, the ideology problem got much worse. The D.C. political and media elite, including President Obama and most other Democratic big shots, became absolutely obsessed with cutting the deficit. The ensuing austerity (much of it caused by post-2010 Republican obstruction, to be fair) dramatically slowed the recovery. It is only in the last year that unemployment has declined to a reasonably good level, and the fraction of prime working-age people with a job is still worse than the bottom of the previous two recessions. What's more, the fruits of the recovery have been highly unequal, with much of the income flowing to the top 1 percent, and most rural places left out. (Sound familiar?)

The problem was that the party never really internalized the logic of Keynesianism, and as a result was incapable of thinking strategically about their political position. Neoliberalism had become a hegemonic ideology, which takes serious effort to lever out of someone's head, and nobody was in a position to do it. Practically the whole party — and indeed the "nonpartisan" media as well — had been raised on the idea that deficits are bad for their entire lives (cemented in place by hundreds of millions of dollars in agitprop spending from Wall Street ideologues). Keynesianism — which implies things like "you can fix a recession by printing money and handing it to people" — sounded extreme and suspect. Media budget coverage to this day is usually written with an implicit presumption that deficit cutting is the ultimate good in budget policy.

That's how the party ended up with its most vulnerable members — centrist Blue Dogs in the South — hawking austerity during the worst mass unemployment crisis in 80 years. Almost all of them lost in 2010. That loss, in turn, paved the way for many of the other major problems Democrats are having. That was a census year, and huge Republican victories allowed them to control the subsequent redistricting process, in which they gerrymandered themselves a 7-point handicap in the House of Representatives and in many state legislatures.

That brings me to the foreclosure crisis, the handling of which was even worse. Instead of partially ameliorating it as with employment, the Obama administration helped it happen. As David Dayen writes in Chain of Title, the financial products underpinning the subprime mortgage boom were riddled with errors, and in order to be able to foreclose on people who had defaulted, they had to commit systematic document fraud. This epic crime spree gave the White House tremendous leverage to negotiate a settlement to keep people in their homes, but instead the administration co-opted a lawsuit from state attorneys general and turned it into a slap on the wrist that reinvigorated the foreclosure machine. There was also $75 billion in the Recovery Act to arrest foreclosures, but the administration's effort at this, HAMP, was such a complete disaster that they only spent about 16 percent of the money and enabled thousands of foreclosures in the process.

As a direct result, the homeownership rate has plummeted to levels not seen since the 1960s.

This disaster is somewhat harder to explain, because it seems so nuts. Why on Earth would anyone do this? Once again I think the problem is ideology. Neoliberal-inspired deregulation hugely empowered the financial sector, and finance — fueled by impressive-sounding and complicated products developed by the some of the smartest people in the country — came to occupy a disproportionate portion of total economic output and an even larger fraction of corporate profits. From thence it became a major source of campaign contributions. As Washington became saturated with the money and ideology of bankers, assisted by partisans of the "self-regulating market" like Alan Greenspan, it came to seem that the main task of banking policy was keeping an increasingly bloated and unstable Wall Street on its feet.

So when the crisis happened, the main thing the political system managed to do was fling money at bankers until the financial sector was stabilized. Afterwards, the idea that bankers might have committed crimes — might in fact have had whole floors of people committing crimes all day long — was simply too big to swallow. So Democrats — many of whom no doubt had plush consulting gigs in the back of their mind — basically looked the other way. No bankers went to jail, and over nine million people lost their homes.

This is not to absolve Republicans of their obstruction in Congress or President-elect Donald Trump or anything else. But the fact of the matter is that Democrats had two golden years to fix the depression, restore the housing market, hold Wall Street to account, and cement a new generation of loyal Democrats, and they bobbled it.

President Obama's spectacular charisma — and his savvy campaign against a filthy rich vulture capitalist in 2012 — papered over these problems to some extent. But for most of his presidency America has basically ceased to function for a huge fraction of the population. Fair or not, the party perceived to be responsible for that situation is going to be punished at the polls.

 

[Irish YJ]

TOLERANCE ALERT! Debra Messing blasts Susan Sarandon for not backing Hillary – twitchy.com

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">To all those who find blaming me less painful than introspection, never knew I was this powerful. <a href="https://t.co/etgSWBcH6a">pic.twitter.com/etgSWBcH6a</a></p>— Susan Sarandon (@SusanSarandon) <a href="https://twitter.com/SusanSarandon/status/798944467399147520">November 16, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>


Hollywood eating their own

I really wish athletes and actors/actresses would stick to entertainment.....
The political shaming above is just as bad as any other shaming.
And we all know we should want to vote just like Lady Gaga and Miley Cyrus.... Good grief give me a break.

PS... I didn't see Buster's name on the left..... He has to be furious....

 

[IrishinSyria]

 

[CrownRoyal]

I really wish athletes and actors/actresses would stick to entertainment.....
The political shaming above is just as bad as any other shaming.
And we all know we should want to vote just like Lady Gaga and Miley Cyrus.... Good grief give me a break.

PS... I didn't see Buster's name on the left..... He has to be furious....

That's because he is busy defending one of his minions.

A professor at Rutgers who created a “politicizing Beyonce” course was reportedly taken to a New York City hospital’s psych ward Tuesday night for political statements he made “on campus and on Twitter.”
Kevin Allred told The New York Daily News that he spent about two hours at the hospital before he was released. Allred recalled a class he taught a day after Donald Trump was elected president.
“In class, we talked about flag burning generally as a form of protest, and what does the flag mean to different people. Then I made a comment, essentially saying, ‘Would people feel the same way about being so lenient with the Second Amendment if people went out and got guns to shoot random white people?”

 

[MJ12666]

I'm trying not to overreact but the way Trump's transition is going seems to confirm some of my fears about how his administration might be run: haphazardly, in a spirit of pettiness and vindictiveness. Is he really ditching Christie so Jared Kushner can settle an old score over the prosecution of his father? Why does Jared Kushner deserve to have this outsized influence anyway?

The way they are alienating some of the top talent trying to help them ... it's all really disturbing. Nobody wants to hear it, but Washington jobs are tough. When Obama came into office, he was saying a lot of the same "drain the swamp" stuff Trump was saying (although in different terms) and he tried to make his people sign agreements not to go into lobbying after leaving the administration. He had to abandon that position because he couldn't get enough of the top people (the sad reality is that the promise of a $500,000-a-year lobbying gig 5 or 10 years down the road is what gets talented people into politics), and he didn't want to settle for lesser people. If Trump really wants to persist with his run-government-as-business and cut-down-on-bureaucracy-by-holding-civil-servants-accountable positions, then he needs to make compromises to get the best people into his administration. His apparent unwillingness to do that, at least at this early stage, is worrying. Let's hope he ends up taking a different tack when the transition effort really starts to dig in.

1. Don't believe every thing you read. It is pretty obvious that after Christie's top aides were found guilty in their Bridgegate trial Christie's days were numbered. Trump could not afford to keep him around. It really does not matter who suggested it, it was the correct political move to make.

2. How many Cabinet positions did Obama have filled in the second week after he won the 2008 election. Answer -0-. Look we have no idea who Trump will select but personally I have confidence that Pence will do a good job leading the effort. But the fact is neither you nor I will have a say so relax and if you really feel strongly about it write Pence a letter expressing your concerns.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Here's a snippet of a speech that Jim Webb gave yesterday at George Washington University titled "On Rejecting Elitism":

Hopefully the results of this election will provide us an opportunity to reject a new form of elitism that has pervaded our societal mechanisms. This is not quite like anything that has faced us before in our history. It has many antecedents but the greatest barrier, even to discussing it, has come from how these elites were formed, largely beginning in the Vietnam era, and how their very structure has minimized the ability of the average American even to articulate clearly and to discuss vigorously, the reality that we all can see.

Part of it was the Vietnam war itself, the only war with mass casualties – 58,000 American dead and another 300,000 wounded – where our society’s elites felt morally comfortable in avoiding the draft and excusing themselves from serving. As I wrote of a Harvard educated character in my novel Fields of Fire, “Mark went to Canada. Goodrich went to Vietnam. Everybody else went to grad school.” This created, among our most well-educated and economically advantaged, a premise of entitlement that poured over into issues of economic fairness, and obligations to less-advantaged fellow citizens. Writer and lawyer Ben Stein wrote many years ago of his years at Yale Law School with Bill and Hillary Clinton, “that we were supermen, floating above history and precedent, the natural rulers of the universe. … The law did not apply to us.”

Part of it was the impact of the Immigration Act of 1965, which has dramatically changed the racial and ethnic makeup of the country while keeping in place a set of diversity policies in education and employment that were designed – under the Thirteenth Amendment – to “remove the badges of slavery” for African Americans. This policy designed for African Americans, which I have supported, was gradually expanded to include anyone who did not happen to be white, despite vast cultural and economic differences among whites themselves. More than 60 percent of immigrants from China and India have college degrees, while less than 20 percent of whites from areas such as Appalachia do. But to be white is, in the law and in so much of our misinformed debate, to be specially advantaged – privileged, as the slogan goes, while being a so-called minority is to be somehow disadvantaged.

Frankly, if you were a white family living in Clay County, Kentucky, one of the poorest counties in America, whose poverty rate is above 40 percent and whose population is 94 percent white, wouldn’t this concept kind of tick you off? Wouldn’t you see it as reverse discrimination? And wouldn’t you hope that someone in a position of political influence might also see this, and agree with you?

And part of it, finally, is that diversity programs, coupled with the international focus of our major educational institutions, have created a superstructure, partially global, that on the surface seems to be inclusive but in reality is the reverse of inclusive. Every racial and ethnic group has wildly successful people at the very top, and desperately poor people at the bottom. Using vague labels about race and ethnicity might satisfy the quotas of government programs, but they have very little to do with reality, whether it’s blacks in West Baltimore who have been ignored and left behind, or whites in the hollows of West Virginia. Behind the veneer of diversity masks an interlocking elite that has melded business, media and politics in a way we could never before imagine. Many of these people also hold a false belief that they understand a society with which they have very little contact. And nothing has so clearly shown how wrong they are, than the recent election of Donald Trump.

Of all the people that Trump might appoint as his SecDef, I think Webb would probably be the best. Which means he's likely got no shot at getting the job.

 

[MJ12666]

Here's a snippet of a speech that Jim Webb gave yesterday at George Washington University titled "On Rejecting Elitism":



Of all the people that Trump might appoint as his SecDef, I think Webb would probably be the best. Which means he's likely got no shot at getting the job.

After watching the first Dem debate I actually thought to myself that Webb is probably the first Dem that I would consider voting for. But he dropped out shortly thereafter and the libs on this board crucified him if my memory serves me correctly.

 

[Buster Bluth]

I really wish athletes and actors/actresses would stick to entertainment.....
The political shaming above is just as bad as any other shaming.
And we all know we should want to vote just like Lady Gaga and Miley Cyrus.... Good grief give me a break.

PS... I didn't see Buster's name on the left..... He has to be furious....

I also wish actors/actresses would stick to entertainment. Specifically, reality TV stars. They have no business giving their opinion in the serious realm of public policy.

 

[MJ12666]

I also wish actors/actresses would stick to entertainment. Specifically, reality TV stars. They have no business giving their opinion in the serious realm of public policy.

Disagree. As citizens (and even if they are not) they have a right to express their opinion, it is just a matter of how much credence you give to their opinions.

 

[IrishinSyria]

Here's a snippet of a speech that Jim Webb gave yesterday at George Washington University titled "On Rejecting Elitism":



Of all the people that Trump might appoint as his SecDef, I think Webb would probably be the best. Which means he's likely got no shot at getting the job.

Part of it was the impact of the Immigration Act of 1965, which has dramatically changed the racial and ethnic makeup of the country while keeping in place a set of diversity policies in education and employment that were designed – under the Thirteenth Amendment – to “remove the badges of slavery” for African Americans. This policy designed for African Americans, which I have supported, was gradually expanded to include anyone who did not happen to be white, despite vast cultural and economic differences among whites themselves. More than 60 percent of immigrants from China and India have college degrees, while less than 20 percent of whites from areas such as Appalachia do. But to be white is, in the law and in so much of our misinformed debate, to be specially advantaged – privileged, as the slogan goes, while being a so-called minority is to be somehow disadvantaged.

This seems a little bit disingenuous as affirmative action arguably hurts Asians more than whites.

Which brings me to this article, which I wasn't going to post for reasons that will be obvious to anyone who reads it. Presenting it without comment for now.

 

[Irish YJ]

I also wish actors/actresses would stick to entertainment. Specifically, reality TV stars. They have no business giving their opinion in the serious realm of public policy.

I agree. The fact that one was able to beat the Dem candidate is a clear indicator how f'd up both sides of the aisle truly are. But hey, Chance the rapper and Snoop would make a great team for 2020 right? Make America Sticky Icky!

That said, Ronnie turned out to be all right. Any guy who plays in an ND movie has to be OK, right?

 

[Irish YJ]

Disagree. As citizens (and even if they are not) they have a right to express their opinion, it is just a matter of how much credence you give to their opinions.

All these famous folks have egos the size of Cali to think their opinion should matter, or to go against them is shameful. The media and Hollywood have tried to tilt things for years. It's pretty disgusting to me. I wish everyone would educate themselves with fact and data (not via Twitter / Facebook feed) when it comes to the politics. It's a shame though that you can't get an unbiased report these days from any major news source. True journalism and reporting is dead.

 

[Buster Bluth]

I agree. The fact that one was able to beat the Dem candidate is a clear indicator how f'd up both sides of the aisle truly are.

I think you meant to say "how fucking stupid people can be."

That said, Ronnie turned out to be all right. Any guy who plays in an ND movie has to be OK, right?

Did he lose an arm?

 

[Buster Bluth]

Disagree. As citizens (and even if they are not) they have a right to express their opinion, it is just a matter of how much credence you give to their opinions.

Well duh. I was just giving him shit because he wants to scoff at celebrities opening their mouths in politics when half of the Republicans elected President in the last forty years were celebrities...

 

[Buster Bluth]

All these famous folks have egos the size of Cali to think their opinion should matter, or to go against them is shameful. The media and Hollywood have tried to tilt things for years. It's pretty disgusting to me. I wish everyone would educate themselves with fact and data (not via Twitter / Facebook feed) when it comes to the politics. It's a shame though that you can't get an unbiased report these days from any major news source. True journalism and reporting is dead.

I lol'd.

 

[MJ12666]

I agree. The fact that one was able to beat the Dem candidate is a clear indicator how f'd up both sides of the aisle truly are. But hey, Chance the rapper and Snoop would make a great team for 2020 right? Make America Sticky Icky!

That said, Ronnie turned out to be all right. Any guy who plays in an ND movie has to be OK, right?

Don't be surprised if the Dems don't nominate them. They will have to be better then Warren.

 

[MJ12666]

Well duh. I was just giving him shit because he wants to scoff at celebrities opening their mouths in politics when half of the Republicans elected President in the last forty years were celebrities...

Well duh. I know what you were doing, you were being a pompous ass.

 

[Irish YJ]

Well duh. I know what you were doing, you were being a pompous ass.

Yes, Buster thinks everyone's an idiot who doesn't agree with his lib ways. The only fact and data come from CNN and WAPO...... He's making the same mistake HRC did by discounting a large portion of the country.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Yes, Buster thinks everyone's an idiot who doesn't agree with his lib ways.

No I think people are idiots for supporting Trump. I tend to agree with guys like Colin Powell, he's a national embarrassment.

A few weeks ago someone asked a question along the lines of "if not Trump/Clinton, who?" and I put my vote in for a--gasp!--Republican named David Petraeus. John Huntsman, Jr. would probably be a second pick.

The only fact and data come from CNN and WAPO......

On CNN, I don't watch cable news and think anyone who does is wasting their time for the most part.

Start with PBS Newshour, especially the "Shields and Brooks" segment. Go hang out on r/economics and just read the articles and comments that pop up. Subscribe to Council of Foreign Relations on YouTube and some DC think tanks and watch their lectures. Buy a god damn book not written by someone "running" for President. It's not that hard.

He's making the same mistake HRC did by discounting a large portion of the country.

Yeah I think they fucked up big time. But then again so did you in 2008/2012. See how that works?

 

[Buster Bluth]

I've decided to take a break from IE. See you guys on signing day.