mods, can we get a new one started since the other one is in the 300's.

****************
TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*

This is the most interesting conundrum in the entire Republican race. I wanna see how it works out if The Donald has the majority of the votes, when the convention rolls around, and how the party treats it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/08/opinion/its-not-too-late.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-left-region®ion=opinion-c-col-left-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-left-region

David Brooks
March 8, 2006

It’s 2 a.m. The bar is closing. Republicans have had a series of strong and nasty Trump cocktails. Suddenly Ted Cruz is beginning to look kind of attractive. At least he’s sort of predictable, and he doesn’t talk about his sexual organs in presidential debates!

Well, Republicans, have your standards really fallen so low so fast? Are you really that desperate? Can you remember your 8 p.m. selves, and all the hope you had about entering a campaign with such a deep bench of talented candidates?

Back in the early evening, before the current panic set in, Republicans understood that Ted Cruz would be a terrible general election candidate, at least as unelectable as Donald Trump and maybe more so. He is the single most conservative Republican in Congress, far adrift from the American mainstream. He’s been doing well in primaries because of the support of “extremely conservative” voters in very conservative states, and he really hasn’t broken out of that lane. His political profile is a slightly enlarged Rick Santorum but without the heart.

On policy grounds, he would be unacceptable to a large majority in this country. But his policy disadvantages are overshadowed by his public image ones. His rhetorical style will come across to young and independent voters as smarmy and oleaginous. In Congress, he had two accomplishments: the disastrous government shutdown and persuading all his colleagues to dislike him.

There is another path, one that doesn’t leave you self-loathing in the morning. It’s a long shot, but given the alternatives, it’s worth trying. First, hit the pause button on the rush to Cruz. Second, continue the Romneyesque assault on Trump. The results on Saturday, when late voters swung sharply against the Donald, suggest it may be working.

Third, work for a Marco Rubio miracle in Florida on March 15. Fourth, clear the field for John Kasich in Ohio. If Rubio and Kasich win their home states, Trump will need to take nearly 70 percent of the remaining delegates to secure a majority. That would be unlikely; he’s only winning 44 percent of the delegates now.

The party would go to the convention without a clear nominee. It would be bedlam for a few days, but a broadly acceptable new option might emerge. It would be better than going into the fall with Trump, which would be a moral error, or Cruz, who in November would manage to win several important counties in Mississippi.

This isn’t about winning the presidency in 2016 anymore. This is about something much bigger. Every 50 or 60 years, parties undergo a transformation. The G.O.P. is undergoing one right now. What happens this year will set the party’s trajectory for decades.

Since Goldwater/Reagan, the G.O.P. has been governed by a free-market, anti-government philosophy. But over the ensuing decades new problems have emerged. First, the economy has gotten crueler. Technology is displacing workers and globalization is dampening wages. Second, the social structure has atomized and frayed, especially among the less educated. Third, demography is shifting.

Orthodox Republicans, seeing no positive role for government, have had no affirmative agenda to help people deal with these new problems. Occasionally some conservative policy mavens have proposed such an agenda — anti-poverty programs, human capital policies, wage subsidies and the like — but the proposals were killed, usually in the House, by the anti-government crowd.

The 1980s anti-government orthodoxy still has many followers; Ted Cruz is the extreme embodiment of this tendency. But it has grown increasingly rigid, unresponsive and obsolete.

Along comes Donald Trump offering to replace it and change the nature of the G.O.P. He tramples all over the anti-government ideology of modern Republicanism. He would replace the free-market orthodoxy with authoritarian nationalism.

He offers to use government on behalf of the American working class, but in negative and defensive ways: to build walls, to close trade, to ban outside groups, to smash enemies. According to him, America’s problems aren’t caused by deep structural shifts. They’re caused by morons and parasites. The Great Leader will take them down.

If the G.O.P. is going to survive as a decent and viable national party, it can’t cling to the fading orthodoxy Cruz represents. But it can’t shift to ugly Trumpian nationalism, either. It has to find a third alternative: limited but energetic use of government to expand mobility and widen openness and opportunity. That is what Kasich, Rubio, Paul Ryan and others are stumbling toward.

Amid all the vulgarity and pettiness, that is what is being fought over this month: going back to the past, veering into an ugly future, or finding a third way. This is something worth fighting for, worth burning the boats behind you for.

The hour is late and the odds may be long. But there is still hope. It’s a moment for audacity, not settling for Ted Cruz simply because he’s the Titanic you know.

The biggest sign that Clinton will be the Democratic nominee? Dinesh D’Souza is releasing another unhinged, Right Wing-fueled documentary hit job...The last one he did was on Obama. Now he's going at Hilldawg....They scared...


---

The Guardian
Ben Child
@BenChildGeek
Tuesday 8 March 2016 08.57 EST

Rightwing firebrand Dinesh D'Souza takes aim at Hillary Clinton in latest documentary
Hillary’s America is the conservative film-maker’s followup to 2016: Obama’s America, which imagined a terrible future under the current US president

Its trailer flags up the US Democratic party’s roots in slavery and accuses Hillary Clinton of trying to steal the upcoming presidential election. Now rightwing director Dinesh D’Souza is hoping his new film, Hillary’s America, will derail the former first lady’s chances of becoming the first female leader of the United States.

D’Souza’s latest polemic will be released this July in US cinemas, ahead of the November election. The Indian-born US neo-conservative commentator is known for his previous films 2016: Obama’s America – a 2012 documentary that imagined a terrible future under Barack Obama – and 2014’s America: Imagine the World Without Her, which also focused on Clinton.

The trailer for Hillary’s America has proven controversial for its use of racist imagery, including fictionalised footage of the Klu Klux Klan, to paint a picture of the Democratic party’s early roots in opposition to abolitionism. But producer Gerald Molen told the Hollywood Reporter such narratives were entirely justified “to show exactly where the Democratic party came from”.

He said: “Democrats don’t want to talk about it. They like to say racism was the fault of Republicans. That is pure bullshit ... They don’t teach the history of Democrats and slavery. Students know nothing about history, nothing about America. They don’t know 600,000 people died in the civil ar, most of them trying to protect black Americans from Democrats who supported slavery.”

The trailer also presents D’Souza – who was convicted of illegal contributions to a New York Republican candidate’s failed US senate bid in 2014 and sentenced to eight months at a confinement centre near his home in San Diego – as a victim of political bullying. The film-maker is seen in a fictionalised prison-style environment, complete with musclebound cons and tattooed gang members, telling his audience: “It all began when the Obama administration tried to shut me up.”

After detailing the Democratic party’s past and claimed present crimes, including references to Clinton use of a private email account during the presidential hopeful’s time as US secretary of state, the trailer finishes with a doom-laden orchestral flourish as D’Souza asks: “What if the goal of the Democratic party was to steal the most valuable thing the world has ever produced? What if their plan was to steal America? Who will stop them now?”

Molen admitted the images of D’Souza in jail were also fictionalised, but described them as vital to show the Democratic party’s hypocrisy over the director’s incarceration. He referenced the Democratic US senator Harry Reid, who escaped censure in 2006 after offering to reimburse his own campaign fund for $3,300 which had been used as contributions to a staff Christmas fund.

Introducing the trailer to an audience of conservatives at the weekend, D’Souza said: “Four years ago I made the film 2016: Obama’s America, which kind of upset the thin-skinned narcissist in the White House ... if that film got me eight months in the slammer, this new movie is going to earn me life in prison. This film is a sordid history of the Democratic party from the beginning all the way through Hillary.”

While it ultimately failed in its stated aim to prevent a second Obama term at the White House, 2016: Obama’s America was the top documentary of 2012 in North America with $33.4m in receipts. It remains in the top five highest-grossing documentaries of all time at the US box office, despite scathing reviews from most mainstream critics.

link: http://www.theguardian.com/film/2016/mar/08/dinesh-dsouza-hillary-clinton-documentary-conservative-film-maker

GOAT of his era......long live Prince.....God is alive....

Taking notes for their talking points.

****************
TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*

fuck.outta.here. ....maaan get Van Jones on the line...

------------------------------------
2019 CABG Survivor

2016 OK Survivor Champion

be about it or be without it

RIP GOATs

If you're able to laugh at the ridiculousness they're a blast.

the Obama joint was exactly as idiotic as you'd expect.

the America Image the world Without Her... It was basically things like "Yeah, we had that slavery thing, but we fought a war with ourselves to let them go. How awesome is that!" Sure, we killed a few native americans, but most of them just died of diseases and stuff. Like small pox!" The whole movie is pretty much that. Stop making such big deal about the "bad" things an we did focus on the how amazing we are.

There was also a whole hillary section at the end with a dramatization of a sweet young conservative girl sucked into a smoke filled side of the cafateria by Saul Alinsky and a bunch of evil leftists

I look forward to seeing this one.. as long as its free of course. Dinesh makes funny movies, with his convicted felon ass.

______________________________________

Everything looks like Oprah kissing Harvey Weinstein these days

if you can laugh at his movies, they're kind of amazing. but they can also be pretty infuriating knowing how many people buy into his logic.

Dinesh is a piece of shit

I'm sure Republicans are just looking up to work with her and accomplishing her "progressive" agenda

I'm sure Republicans are just looking up to work with her and accomplishing her "progressive" agenda

after 8 years of Obama they couldn't come together for the WH? Smh...

I bet Nancy Reagan was like "Fuck it, pull the plug, I can't watch this Shit anymore"

Mitt said he isn't running but if no one gets the magic number and they throw his name in the ring he admitted he wouldn't say no to the party. Wouldnt matter tho cause Trump would go 3rd party.

Last debate they said Trump was talking more moderate which would gain more indie voters but it frustrated his rabid base.

I still think Trump is in it to ensure a Clinton presidency.

****************
TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*

>I still think Trump is in it to ensure a Clinton presidency.

maan that party is so full of hate they running around like a chicken with their heads cut off... the tired rhetoric shitting on Obama is getting old...they looking more and more silly...and now with trump as the front runner...they finished....like i said from the beginning hildawg landslide


>after 8 years of Obama they couldn't come together for the
>WH? Smh...
>
>I bet Nancy Reagan was like "Fuck it, pull the plug, I can't
>watch this Shit anymore"
>
>Mitt said he isn't running but if no one gets the magic number
>and they throw his name in the ring he admitted he wouldn't
>say no to the party. Wouldnt matter tho cause Trump would go
>3rd party.
>
>Last debate they said Trump was talking more moderate which
>would gain more indie voters but it frustrated his rabid base.
>
>
>I still think Trump is in it to ensure a Clinton presidency.
>
>
>
>

------------------------------------
2019 CABG Survivor

2016 OK Survivor Champion

be about it or be without it

RIP GOATs

I know she is like "these new niggas crazy as fuck, TAKE ME HOOOOOOME!!!"

****************
TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*

The Republicans' ace-in-the-hole was two-prong: 1. The usual party turnover that comes after a political party holds the White House for two terms...and 2. A bad economy....

Trump leading the Repugs fucked up the first one....And the economy? U know the rest....

GOAT of his era......long live Prince.....God is alive....

Classic deception and mischaracterization.

Sanders voted for the auto-bail out as a stand-alone - until they slid in the Wall Street bail-out with in (which was shameful).

Unfortunately - most won't fact-check on that - but classic Clinton politics to try and convince Michigan voters that Sanders was against the auto bail-out when that simply is not true.

-->

>Classic deception and mischaracterization.
>
>Sanders voted for the auto-bail out as a stand-alone - until
>they slid in the Wall Street bail-out with in (which was
>shameful).
>
>Unfortunately - most won't fact-check on that - but classic
>Clinton politics to try and convince Michigan voters that
>Sanders was against the auto bail-out when that simply is not
>true.


It hurts him either way.....

To every day folks, they don't have time to dissect through the politics of it all...What they see is Bernie being so anti Wall St. that he would rather cut his nose to spite his face...This is not the case of people not fact checking...It's the case of people who specifically depend on the auto industry to eat. So in their minds, no matter how courageous Bernie is viewed by the progressive base for standing up Wall St., they see him as not being flexible enough to hold the office of President of the United States...

Such a straight-no-chaser stand works for Bernie...But only if u are a Senator not running for President...

GOAT of his era......long live Prince.....God is alive....

Sanders voted *for* the auto-bail out.

Clinton is just wrong on this - and even worse - is lying to score cheap political points (which is exactly why she has such high unfavorables):

http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidkiley5/2016/03/07/clintons-charges-that-sanders-did-not-support-auto-rescue-is-wrong/#246823b3582b

-->

>Sanders voted *for* the auto-bail out.
>
>Clinton is just wrong on this - and even worse - is lying to
>score cheap political points (which is exactly why she has
>such high unfavorables):

It doesn't matter how WE view it...It's about the voters in Michigan....A lot of them were looking on to see who voted Yes/No..

It's best to look at this through local eyes....Michigan Senator Debbie Stabenow, who supports Clinton, basically broke it down why it's not so cut and dry for Bernie when the auto/wall St. bailout was up for a vote.....Stabenow is coming from this from a totally local point of view....

"U.S. Sen. Debbie Stabenow said after the debate that senators, including Sanders, were aware the TARP money would be used to aid the domestic auto industry.

“A lot of folks said we shouldn’t do it because somehow it was helping the banks,” said Stabenow, D-Lansing. “It was the auto bailout we were talking about. I was very clear with colleagues that we had to do this.”

This^^^^^^is what matters.....If you have to go around in circles to prove something u r on the losing end of a debate....

link: http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/03/06/clinton-joins-call-snyder-resign/81419030/

GOAT of his era......long live Prince.....God is alive....

Got it.

-->

at least as long as it would force him to fund another thing he should have supported.

Sanders voted to provide $15 billion to help rescue the auto industry - as did Clinton. Sanders voted on Dec. 11, 2008, to bring the auto bailout bill to the floor for a final vote. But the motion failed to receive the 60 votes necessary, and the bill died.

So, he actually did support what's in question: the auto industry bail-out.

But yes - it's certainly true that Sanders voted against bailing out Wall St. in a bundled TARP bill (which also included funds to assist the auto-industry)- as he should have.

To say that Sanders "did not support coming to the rescue of the auto industry" is not a factual statement, period.

-->

>Sanders voted to provide $15 billion to help rescue the auto
>industry - as did Clinton. Sanders voted on Dec. 11, 2008, to
>bring the auto bailout bill to the floor for a final vote. But
>the motion failed to receive the 60 votes necessary, and the
>bill died.
>
>So, he actually did support what's in question: the auto
>industry bail-out.
>
>But yes - it's certainly true that Sanders voted against
>bailing out Wall St. in a bundled TARP bill (which also
>included funds to assist the auto-industry)- as he should
>have.
>
>To say that Sanders "did not support coming to the rescue of
>the auto industry" is not a factual statement, period.

It's all semantics Vex...give it a rest...lol

Politics is not a kid's game.....

GOAT of his era......long live Prince.....God is alive....

-->

U can't get credit for voting for something that didn't go through when u punted on it the next go around because it was wrapped up in another package that happened to be messy as fuck...

This happens ALL THE TIME in the Senate...

This is how to look at it.. If the local Senators in Michigan voted for the Wall Street/Auto bailout (the same bill Obama told the Dems was essential in ending the economic free fall) then that's all you need to know.....And trust, Bernie would not have been as heroic if he actually had constituents in Michigan like he did when he voted against the Brady Bill....

Again....Politics = Local......

GOAT of his era......long live Prince.....God is alive....

The best you can say is that his opposition to TARP outweighed his support for the auto industry.

The TARP excuse seems a little funny, anyway. You and a lot of the Bernie supporters like to pretend Bernie would expand on Obama's legacy. But Obama was very clear, even before the 2008 election, that TARP was absolutely essential for averting economic collapse. So I don't quite see why Bernie is so proud of his opposition to it.

but he did. So, unsurprisingly, you were wrong.

If Secretary Clinton was referring to TARP - she should've been accurate and not conflated TARP with the stand-alone auto-industry bail-out.

But that would've been much too like right.

-->

If he was gonna go with the TARP excuse (again, not that it was ever a good excuse), then he should have gone with something like "I wish I could have supported the auto bailout. Unfortunately, due to the vagaries of Senate procedure, that would have forced me to support something else that I wanted to oppose, and ultimately I felt more strongly about that. I was too strongly opposed to rescuing the broader economy to be able to support rescuing the segment of the economy that's particularly important in this state." THAT would have been honest.

By the way, remember how this all worked out. Republicans were broadly OPPOSED to the auto bailout, and they shamed some Democrats into taking their side. There's a *reason* it was ultimately bundled with TARP, because TARP was essentially certain to pass. (It was politically fraught at the time, but both parties understood the economics of it, and very carefully whipped the votes for it.) The auto bailout failed on its own, and it eventually passed *because* it was bundled with TARP, which, love it or hate it, would have passed anyway. This kind of compromising and political maneuvering is one of the central things that Bernie is running against, but nobody can dispute the fact that if not for this maneuver, *there would have never been an auto bailout*! If President Sanders would have signed the auto-only bill, it wouldn't have mattered because it never would have reached his desk anyway. The bill that would have reached his desk is the auto+tarp bill, and if he vetoed that then there wouldn't have been an auto bailout.

It's not good enough for him to say he supported it if he stopped supporting it as soon as he had to start weighing multiple priorities.

His best excuse is that he let the perfect be the enemy of the good. That's nothing to be proud of. But it's a theme both with Bernie and his supporters.

> "I wish I could have supported the auto
>bailout. Unfortunately, due to the vagaries of Senate
>procedure, that would have forced me to support something else
>that I wanted to oppose, and ultimately I felt more strongly
>about that. I was too strongly opposed to rescuing the broader
>economy to be able to support rescuing the segment of the
>economy that's particularly important in this state." THAT
>would have been honest.

speaking of being honest in phrasing....

That's really not the discussion you and the Clintons want to have re: what votes/policies are most responsible for decimating Michigan's economy/middle-class. Unequivocally - the disastrous trade policies of the Clintons destroyed the once vibrant Michigan middle-class moreso than any TARP bill that authorized that same decimated middle-class to turn around and bail out financial fraud at the top.

That's not what you want to focus on bruh. Losing battle.



-->

I'll take the fact that you didn't mention the auto bailout as an admission that Bernie didn't care enough about the auto industry to compromise on this other, purely theatrical, policy position.

Taking up your newly-chosen direction:

As for those "disastrous trade policies", by which I assume you mean NAFTA, I'll point out that outside of the Sanders echo chamber the story isn't nearly so cut and dried. The decline in Michigan manufacturing began LONG before the Clinton administration. For reference, "Roger & Me" was released in 1989. Auto jobs were moved in some cases out of the country, in other cases within the country to states with weaker labor laws, and in many cases were simply mechanized. NAFTA, at worst, accelerated what was already written on the wall. And in the process, a good argument can be made that it improved the economy as a whole.

Consider, for example, Sanders's other trade bugaboo: the TPP. There's a reason that Barack Obama (a President you claim to revere) considers it one of the signature achievements of his Presidency. But rather than *understand* why he feels that way, the Sanders supporters take the bait to use it as an easy cudgel against Obama's preferred successor.



>That's really not the discussion you and the Clintons want to
>have re: what votes/policies are most responsible for
>decimating Michigan's economy/middle-class. Unequivocally -
>the disastrous trade policies of the Clintons destroyed the
>once vibrant Michigan middle-class moreso than any TARP bill
>that authorized that same decimated middle-class to turn
>around and bail out financial fraud at the top.
>
>That's not what you want to focus on bruh. Losing battle.
>
>
>
>-->

Cool story - but it has long been settled that NAFTA and the Clinton trade policies dealt devastating blows to the manufacturing sectors and once-vibrant middle-class of not just Michigan - but in middle-class bastions across the nation. Further, these policies exacerbated stark divides of global wealth proportions, and exploited slave labor in vulnerable parts of the world in order to line the pockets of an above-the-law oligarchical class --- or as you like to call it "sound economic policy" -- but alas, I don't invest a lot of time in reasoning with somebody who is continually lathered in nihilism.

>Consider, for example, Sanders's other trade bugaboo: the TPP.
>There's a reason that Barack Obama (a President you claim to
>revere) considers it one of the signature achievements of his
>Presidency. But rather than *understand* why he feels that
>way, the Sanders supporters take the bait to use it as an easy
>cudgel against Obama's preferred successor.

Lol this was great. The TPP? You mean the trade deal that Clinton called the "Gold Standard" prior to abandoning her (already tarnished) credibility and then coming out against it once she realized Sanders would be presenting a viable challenge to her? Oh, that TPP deal. Got it.

Obama has credibility on the TPP - and makes sound arguments for why he is such a strong proponent of it. Alike, Sanders has credibility on the issue as well - and his reasons are thoroughly supported and sound. Your champion - Clinton - on the other hand - has no standing on this issue and simply wavers in the wind in whatever direction is politically expedient at the time.

What a leader.

-->

doesn't make you seem thoughtful.

>Cool story - but it has long been settled that NAFTA and the
>Clinton trade policies dealt devastating blows to the

"Long been settled", huh? You just assert these things without any sort of argument, let alone evidence. Great. And you call me a nihilist.

>manufacturing sectors and once-vibrant middle-class of not
>just Michigan - but in middle-class bastions across the
>nation. Further, these policies exacerbated stark divides of
>global wealth proportions, and exploited slave labor in
>vulnerable parts of the world in order to line the pockets of
>an above-the-law oligarchical class --- or as you like to call
>it "sound economic policy" -- but alas, I don't invest a lot
>of time in reasoning with somebody who is continually lathered
>in nihilism.
>
>>Consider, for example, Sanders's other trade bugaboo: the
>TPP.
>>There's a reason that Barack Obama (a President you claim to
>>revere) considers it one of the signature achievements of
>his
>>Presidency. But rather than *understand* why he feels that
>>way, the Sanders supporters take the bait to use it as an
>easy
>>cudgel against Obama's preferred successor.
>
>Lol this was great. The TPP? You mean the trade deal that
>Clinton called the "Gold Standard" prior to abandoning her
>(already tarnished) credibility and then coming out against it
>once she realized Sanders would be presenting a viable
>challenge to her? Oh, that TPP deal. Got it.
>
>Obama has credibility on the TPP - and makes sound arguments
>for why he is such a strong proponent of it. Alike, Sanders
>has credibility on the issue as well - and his reasons are
>thoroughly supported and sound. Your champion - Clinton - on
>the other hand - has no standing on this issue and simply
>wavers in the wind in whatever direction is politically
>expedient at the time.

Wait, so Obama has "credibility" in supporting the TPP. Sanders has "credibility" in opposing the TPP. But Hillary has no credibility because she's changed her stated position for political reasons? So it's not about whether the agreement has economic value or not, it's just about whether someone has spoken consistently about it in political campaigns. And you call me a nihilist.


Stepping back, for a moment, to the subject of Bernie giving up on the auto rescue, note that that was another example of his "credibility" standing in the way of *actually doing the right thing*.

So cute. Gosh Stravy - you're a dream.

-->

dis shit good

****************
TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*

But don't forget, he's still falling further behind in delegates overall. The'll split the delegates in Michigan, and Hillary has a huge lead in Mississippi (for a while it looked like Bernie wouldn't get a single delegate from that state, due to a 15% cutoff that he just barely seems to have passed).

Also, FiveThirtyEight has been doing a demographic breakdown of the win margins the candidates would get if the race were actually 50-50 overall:
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/delegate-targets/democrats/

By this measure, he'd need to win the state by a four-delegate margin to be on target for the state. He won't reach that. So again as far as delegates go, he's still falling further behind even just in Michigan.

Still a huge upset, and I'll give him and the campaign credit for that. But it's kinda like the upset races that Hillary won in 2008. As Obama showed then and Hillary is in the process of showing how, it's the (pledged) delegate count that really matters.