Hillary wants to abolish the Electoral College

[ElNono]

:lol the "players" play the "game" as they are paid to play it, "throwing the game" to BigDonor.


Even if that's the case, it doesn't invalidate the analysis. I would hate to leave politicos off the hook because they cater to BigDonor. That kind of catering probably compounds the problem of general antipathy towards them.

[CosmicCowboy]

Speaking of Hillary, she is still making noise about running in 2020. That could be interesting. She could be the lone "centrist" in a crowded field.

[Spurtacular]

Speaking of Hillary, she is still making noise about running in 2020. That could be interesting. She could be the lone "centrist" in a crowded field.

That'd be a pretty fun shit show to watch, tbh.

[Will Hunting]

Speaking of Hillary, she is still making noise about running in 2020. That could be interesting. She could be the lone "centrist" in a crowded field.
I’d call Joe Biden a centrist, at least on economic issues. Delaware Democrats are about as pro-corporate as it gets.

She hasn’t completely closed the door on 2020 yet but if she planned to run I think she’d be making more noise by now. The only way she would win in this crowded field is by getting in early and having the upper hand in terms of infrastructure and fundraising. I’d be really surprised if she plans on running but is also standing by while so many other candidates get their campaigns going.

[Spurtacular]

I’d call Joe Biden a centrist, at least on economic issues. Delaware Democrats are about as pro-corporate as it gets.

She hasn’t completely closed the door on 2020 yet but if she planned to run I think she’d be making more noise by now. The only way she would win in this crowded field is by getting in early and having the upper hand in terms of infrastructure and fundraising. I’d be really surprised if she plans on running but is also standing by while so many other candidates get their campaigns going.

No. She doesn't need the inevitable negative backlash coming her way. She wants to slither her way in as much as possible.

[Will Hunting]

No. She doesn't need the inevitable negative lash coming her way. She wants to slither her way in as much as possible.
That has no chance at working in a field this crowded and I think she knows that. She’s the polar opposite of a candidate who can sneak in at the last minute, she won the primary in 2016 because the Democratic voters had been getting beat over the head with her name as the successor to Obama pretty much since Obama took office. Her campaign basically had a 6 year head start over anyone else who wanted to run.

From the interviews I’ve seen, she clearly wants to run and still thinks she’d be a great candidate, but I think her handlers (and probably her husband) have told her she has no shot and that she needs to just go away at this point.

[Spurtacular]

That has no chance at working in a field this crowded and I think she knows that. She’s the polar opposite of a candidate who can sneak in at the last minute, she won the primary in 2016 because the Democratic voters had been getting beat over the head with her name as the successor to Obama pretty much since Obama took office. Her campaign basically had a 6 year head start over anyone else who wanted to run.

From the interviews I’ve seen, she clearly wants to run and still thinks she’d be a great candidate, but I think her handlers (and probably her husband) have told her she has no shot and that she needs to just go away at this point.

Sneak in is a relative term. Going in early just gives more time for forces to tear her down. She doesn't need the money advantage of going early because she already has a significant system in place. She just needs to get in and get early results and sort of gain a compulsory support base. I don't think she has no shot of securing the nomination; but Bernie and Biden and possibly a dark horse will be formidable. It won't be like 2016, which was a glorified coronation. And even if she does miraculously secure the nomination, I don't know how she thinks she's better than Trump. The contrast will only be more stark this time around.

[boutons_deux]

Speaking of Hillary, she is still making noise about running in 2020. That could be interesting. She could be the lone "centrist" in a crowded field.

she's not centrist, nor is any of the Dem establishment.

She's pro-BigFinance, neocon pro-regime change, neither of which is offset by being somewhat progressive socially.

[Spurtacular]

she's not centrist, nor is any of the Dem establishment.

She's pro-BigFinance, neocon pro-regime change, neither of which is offset by being somewhat progressive socially.

Tough rhetoric. Didn't see that in January - October 2016. :lmao

[Will Hunting]

Sneak in is a relative term. Going in early just gives more time for forces to tear her down. She doesn't need the money advantage of going early because she already has a significant system in place. She just needs to get in and get early results and sort of gain a compulsory support base. I don't think she has no shot of securing the nomination; but Bernie and Biden and possibly a dark horse will be formidable. It won't be like 2016, which was a glorified coronation. And even if she does miraculously secure the nomination, I don't know how she thinks she's better than Trump. The contrast will only be more stark this time around.
So do you think she enters the race and if so when? If so you want to bet on it?

She doesn’t have a system in place and she’s already been torn down. She doesn’t have people lining up to give her campaign money anymore and putting a campaign staff and ground game together takes time, and she doesn’t have any of it right now. All she’s done since 2016 is give interviews and speeches, there hasn’t been any work being put into a 2020 campaign. She also won’t have the DNC rigging the election for her this time, there will be too many eyes on the primary process being fair.

[MASSA]

You guys try the cold choc yet? :lmao

https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-TKjXRfWpqLs/WbxJteIAOpI/AAAAAAAAPds/KJjgqaVYzKYhvnD5Hl5oxpAN1jK9MkQBwCEwYBhgL/s1600/JZ3RSb.gif

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-2CzSd2J6So0/V6lNmjm4d6I/AAAAAAAAILM/J5W9ez28qBkD811QKq4AAsY_CFIf0RiZwCLcB/s1600/Hillary-Clinton-has-seizure-when-talking-to-reporters-Imgur.gif

[Will Hunting]

I’d say 5-10% of the primary voters are Reck level Hillary slurpers and will support her come Hell or High Water, but she doesn’t have anything beyond that anymore.

[Will Hunting]

Too many of ya drank the koolaid. I'd vote for her over any democrat right now sans Beto.
Why, what do you like about her?

[Spurtacular]

So do you think she enters the race and if so when? If so you want to bet on it?

She doesn’t have a system in place and she’s already been torn down. She doesn’t have people lining up to give her campaign money anymore and putting a campaign staff and ground game together takes time, and she doesn’t have any of it right now. All she’s done since 2016 is give interviews and speeches, there hasn’t been any work being put into a 2020 campaign. She also won’t have the DNC rigging the election for her this time, there will be too many eyes on the primary process being fair.

Not according to some of what I've read. I've been clear that she doesn't have the 2016 gift that she still had to rig to beat Bernie though. And I'm not saying her chances are great; but I do think she sees this as her Hail Mary of a chance; and a megalomaniac like her is gonna be hard pressed not to take it. The economics and system is the least of her worries. Convincing people that she is likeable and trustworthy is her problem. It's an unsolvable problem; but a psychopath such as her is not going to see it that way. She thinks she just has to find the right formula on issues and optics.

[Admissions Office]

I'd vote for her 100 times out of a 100 times vs orange shit. :lol


Too many of ya drank the koolaid. I'd vote for her over any democrat right now sans Beto.


One thing democrats need to stop doing is bashing their own. That's how 2016 happened.


She's insanely intelligent and comes prepared. I've seen her fib once, and that's like 1 minute for orange shit. :lol


She destroyed orange shit in every debate and orange wins because he "kept his cool".

Still not a Chumpette. :lmao

[Will Hunting]

She's insanely intelligent and comes prepared.
The same description could be used for Hitler or Stalin. What about her actual stance on issues and the agenda she was proposing?

[Admissions Office]

Your a correct representation of orange shit followers. :lmao :lmao

Low IQ faggot. :lol

Calm down, sir. Don't make us call campus police.

[boutons_deux]

We adopted the EC primarily to count slaves for apportionment.


and since the 2/3 blacks didn't vote,

a voter in slave states had more electoral power than a voter in non-slave states.

And still the fucking slave states started the Civil War.

[Will Hunting]

Her stance was 99% bernie stance. But you gonna persecute just her? And comparing her to Hitler or Stalin are talks about your bias. Stop that shit my dude.
Her stance wasn’t 99% Bernie’s stance. She flip flopped on several issues because she was going to lose votes to Bernie, but there were still significant differences between the two. Just one obvious example, she’s never been in favor of universal healthcare. She’s also pro deregulation of Wall Street and pro free trade (which is why she lost the rust belt to Trump).

I wasn’t comparing her to Hitler or Stalin. I was pointing out the fact that all you could muster up as things you like about her are characteristics Hitler and Stalin had.

Lets see how long you go without being able to point out specific stances and policy that makes you like Hillary Clinton.

[Spurtacular]

The same description could be used for Hitler or Stalin. What about her actual stance on issues and the agenda she was proposing?

She is far from insanely intelligent. She would've been torn limb by limb if not for the deep state bailing her out. She should take her mulligan and her billions and walk away; but again the psychopath in her won't let her do that.

[Will Hunting]

She is far from insanely intelligent. She would've been torn limb by limb if not for the deep state bailing her out. She should take her mulligan and her billions and walk away; but again the psychopath in her won't let her do that.
As usual, the point went way over your head.

[Admissions Office]

Her stance was 99% bernie stance. But you gonna persecute just her? And comparing her to Hitler or Stalin are talks about your bias. Stop that shit my dude.

Lecturing your better-thans ain't gonna get you accepted, dude.

[Spurtacular]

As usual, the point went way over your head.

Actually, the point went over your head. John Edwards was kicked to the curb for a fraction of what she's done. She's a lynch pin. Intelligence doesn't have a damn thing to do with it.

[Will Hunting]

Actually, the point went over your head. John Edwards was kicked to the curb for a fraction of what she's done. She's a lynch pin. Intelligence doesn't have a damn thing to do with it.
The point of what? You responded to a post that wasn’t directed at you, and I never said I thought Hillary was insanely intelligent. The fact I don’t even bother replying to your deep state conspiracy stuff is different than it going over my head.

[Spurtacular]

The point of what? You responded to a post that wasn’t directed at you, and I never said I thought Hillary was insanely intelligent. The fact I don’t even bother replying to your deep state conspiracy stuff is different than it going over my head.

Comfort terms. In time when you lose your pride though, you'll start to piece it together.

[boutons_deux]

Hillary was paid many $100Ks to speak at Wall St meetings while amassing her campaign funds.

iow, Big Finance owned her, owns her.

Just like Obama, she would have left BigFinance untouched, and bailed out in the Banksters Great Depression.

[Will Hunting]

She's voted 99% just like bernie.

Some quick quotes that she is not with wall street. :lol


As president, I would not only veto any legislation that would weaken financial reform, but I would also fight for tough new rules, stronger enforcement and more accountability that go well beyond Dodd-Frank.—Dec. 7, 2015, op-ed in New York Times

Mrs. Clinton has praised Dodd-Frank (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/07/opinion/hillary-clinton-how-id-rein-in-wall-street.html?_r=0), vowing in an op-ed to “veto any legislation that would weaken financial reform.” A core plank of her platform is expanding the law to cover more lightly regulated corners of finance. “I want the law to extend to those that are part of the shadow banking industry—the big insurance companies, the hedge funds,” she said during an April 14 Democratic debate.
Her detailed plan for increasing financial regulation includes levying a “risk fee” on the largest banks beyond higher capital requirements already imposed over the past six years, and tightening the “Volcker rule” that bans banks from betting with deposits covered by taxpayer-funded insurance.
The candidate wants to tax certain types of high-frequency trading, automated stock trading by computers that has been profitable but can amplify volatility. The former secretary of state has also gone after activist investors (http://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary-clinton-calls-for-rule-exemptions-for-small-banks-1472097665?tesla=y), proposing to revamp capital-gains taxes. Such a move would hit some short-term investors with higher rates.
Mrs. Clinton has pledged to enforce rules aimed at curbing Wall Street pay. And she wants to extend the statute of limitations for prosecuting financial crimes and force individual bankers to pay a portion of fines levied on their institutions. “No bank is too big to fail, and no individual is too big to jail,” she said during a Jan. 17 Democratic debate in South Carolina.
The Democrats’ platform adopted at their July nominating convention pledged giving the Justice Department, the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission “more resources to prosecute wrongdoing” and to extend the “statute of limitations for prosecuting major financial fraud.”




Directly contradicts anything you just fucking said. :lmao


And saying she wants to expand the Affordable Care Act is a good fucking step you nimwit. :lmao





Great, you found some soundbitea from the primary when she was trying to pander to the progressive voter. Almost all of it is rhetoric and virtually none of it is specific.

Her actions are different than her words. Anti Wall Street politicians don’t give townhall speeches at Goldman Sachs about how the financial crisis wasn’t their fault.

She said she wanted to “expand” the affordable care act but didn’t agree with universal healthcare because it would damage her boosters in the insurance and pharma industries.

[Spurtacular]

The same description could be used for Hitler or Stalin.


I wasn’t comparing her to Hitler or Stalin.

:lol

[Will Hunting]

Comfort terms. In time when you lose your pride though, you'll start to piece it together.
Deep state is your term, not mine. I have no idea what it means and I don’t care to.

[Will Hunting]

This is why shit never gets done. The smear campaign when they aren't as extreme as you. :lol
It’s not a smear campaign. She’s given multiple townhall speeches at Goldman Sachs, then when she ran against Bernie she pretended to be someone who wanted to regulate Goldman Sachs.

[Pavlov]

Comfort terms. In time when you lose your pride though, you'll start to piece it together.Piece together the Deep State conspiracy?

[boutons_deux]

smear campaign

where's the smear?

[Spurtacular]

Great, you found some soundbitea from the primary when she was trying to pander to the progressive voter. Almost all of it is rhetoric and virtually none of it is specific.

Her actions are different than her words. Anti Wall Street politicians don’t give townhall speeches at Goldman Sachs about how the financial crisis wasn’t their fault.

She said she wanted to “expand” the affordable care act but didn’t agree with universal healthcare because it would damage her boosters in the insurance and pharma industries.

She says a lot of things. You know she has a private and public position. It all hinges on the money and her benefactors. Democrats would be foolish to consider her for a second. But 2016 showed us that they're not afraid to put a felon on the ticket.

[Spurtacular]

Deep state is your term, not mine. I have no idea what it means and I don’t care to.

Sure. And years from now when you've taken off your blinders, you might see it for what it is. I'm fine with that.

[Pavlov]

She says a lot of things. You know she has a private and public position. It all hinges on the money and her benefactors. Democrats would be foolish to consider her for a second. But 2016 showed us that they're not afraid to put a felon on the ticket.What felony did she commit?

[Spurtacular]

Directly implying she is in with wall street you faggot. :lmao :lmao

Are you under the impression she's not? :lmao

[Will Hunting]

She says a lot of things. You know she has a private and public position. It all hinges on the money and her benefactors. Democrats would be foolish to consider her for a second. But 2016 showed us that they're not afraid to put a felon on the ticket.
Not sure how she’s a felon but of course I know she has public opinions (ie the ones dabom2 thinks she has) and private opinions (the ones Lloyd Blankfein knows she has), she literally said she has public and private positions :lol

[Will Hunting]

Directly implying she is in with wall street you faggot. :lmao :lmao
Why did she give speeches at Goldman Sachs headquarters if she’s anti Wall Street?

Better question, why would Goldman even want her around if she were anti Wall Street?

[Spurtacular]

Not sure how she’s a felon

Try deleting records under FBI subpoena and see how it works out for you.


Feb. 1, 2013: Clinton serves her last day as secretary of state.
July 23, 2014: The State Department reaches an agreement with the Benghazi committee about producing records for its investigation into the 2012 attack on a U.S. embassy in the Libyan city.
Oct. 28, 2014: The State Department sends an official letter to Clinton’s staff requesting "emails related to their government work." Clinton’s lawyer, David Kendall, and aide Cheryl Mills oversaw the review of Clinton’s email archives to produce work-related documents to the department.
Dec. 5, 2014: Clinton’s team provides 55,000 pages of emails, or about 30,000 individual emails, to the State Department. Mills tells an employee at Platte River Networks, which managed the server, that Clinton does not need to retain any emails older than 60 days.
March 2, 2015: The New York Times breaks the story (https://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/03/us/politics/hillary-clintons-use-of-private-email-at-state-department-raises-flags.html?action=click&contentCollection=Politics&module=RelatedCoverage&region=Marginalia&pgtype=article&_r=1) that Clinton used a personal email account while secretary of state.
March 4, 2015: The Benghazi committee issues a subpoena (http://benghazi.house.gov/sites/republicans.benghazi.house.gov/files/Kendall.Clinton%20Subpoena%20-%202015.03.04.pdf) requiring Clinton to turn over all emails from her private server related to the incident in Libya.
Between March 25-31, 2015: The Platte River Networks employee has what he calls an "oh s---" moment, realizing he did not delete Clinton’s email archive, per Mills’ December 2014 request. The employee deletes the email archive using a software called BleachBit.
March 27, 2015: Clinton’s lawyers send a letter (http://democrats-benghazi.house.gov/sites/democrats.benghazi.house.gov/files/documents/2015_03_27_Kendall_to_TG_re_Response_to_March_4_Su bpoena.pdf) to the Benghazi committee saying that the State Department already has the relevant emails, as they were included in the Dec. 5, 2014, turnover.

[Spurtacular]

Show me some bills that she passed? :lmao :lmao

I could, but I won't be doing such tedious tasks. I'd rather just :lol at you thinking Wall Street dishes out riches w/o expecting a return.

[boutons_deux]

Directly implying she is in with wall street you faggot. :lmao :lmao

I gave evidence that she is, you gave emoticons. G F Y

[Pavlov]

Try deleting records under FBI subpoena and see how it works out for you.Trump’s timeline is correct. The congressional subpoena came on March 4, 2015, and an employee deleted the emails sometime after March 25, 2015, three weeks later.

However, the implication — that Clinton deleted emails relevant to the subpoena in order to avoid scrutiny — is unprovable if not flat wrong.

The FBI’s investigation did find several thousand emails among those deleted that were work-related and should have been turned over to the State Department. However, FBI Director James Comey said in a July 2016 statement that the FBI investigation "found no evidence that any of the additional work-related emails were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them."

Comey added in a later congressional hearing that the FBI learned no one on Clinton’s staff specifically asked the employee to delete the emails following the New York Times story and subpoena. Rather, the employee made that decision on his own.

Clinton told the FBI that she did was not involved in deciding whether individual emails should be sent to State Department, nor "did she instruct anyone to delete her emails to avoid complying with FOIA, State or FBI requests for information."

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/oct/09/donald-trump/donald-trump-says-hillary-clinton-deleted-33000-em/

Not a felon.

[Will Hunting]

Show me some bills that she passed? :lmao :lmao
She voted in favor of the Bankruptcy Abuse Protection and Consumer Protection Act, which was legislation that had heavy Wall Street lobbying because of how much harder it made people to file for bankruptcy.

[Admissions Office]

You didn't prove shit faggot. How were you negatively affected by her actions? :lmao :lmao

I'm still waiting faggots. :lmao

Sad that you cannot get accepted. Our only requirement is that you're a useful idiot. Instead, you're a useless idiot.

:rollin

[Will Hunting]

Try deleting records under FBI subpoena and see how it works out for you.
A felon is someone who's been convicted of a felony. She hasn't been.

[Pavlov]

Sad that you cannot get accepted. Our only requirement is that you're a useful idiot. Instead, you're a useless idiot.

:rollinHow many alts do you have now, derp?

[Spurtacular]

A felon is someone who's been convicted of a felony. She hasn't been.

You know how figurative language works. But if this is your white flag, then okay.

[Will Hunting]

Dam bro. I think people abusing Bankruptcy is an actual good step. What part do you hate? :lmao
The actual legislation itself wasn't about people "abusing" bankruptcy, they called it that to make it sound better (i.e., when Republicans use the term "right to work" in order to bust unions). The legislation made it harder for people to declare bankruptcy and made it so lenders had greater ability to go after their assets.

[Will Hunting]

You know how figurative language works. But if this is your white flag, then okay.
I actually didn't know that the word "felon" had a figurative meaning.

[Spurtacular]

I actually didn't know that the word "felon" had a figurative meaning.

Okay.

[Pavlov]

You know how figurative language works. But if this is your white flag, then okay.Walking back your felon talk as figurative is your white flag.

[Spurtacular]

Walking back your felon talk as figurative is your white flag.

:lmao Sociopath pretending that he doesn't know this is the case, as we've went over this quite explicitly in the past.

[Spurtacular]

I mean you still owe money. That's your financial responsibility. Do you think racking up 100s of thousands of dollars on a diploma and then declaring bankruptcy is cool? Your inability to pay that hurts other consumers. Does it not?

Bankruptcy f*cking over people for seven plus years was plenty sufficient. The banks are not victims of the bankruptcy laws; they never have been.

[Pavlov]

:lmao Sociopath pretending that he doesn't know this is the case, as we've went over this quite explicitly in the past.Yes, you've explicitly lied about this many, many times in the past.

She's not a felon. Period.

[Will Hunting]

I mean you still owe money. That's your financial responsibility. Do you think racking up 100s of thousands of dollars on a diploma and then declaring bankruptcy is cool? Your inability to pay that hurts other consumers. Does it not?
Why didn't the legislation address corporations that declare bankruptcy then? It's totally cool when American Airlines declares bankruptcy which ends up with a merger that causes airfare to go up, but for some reason individuals declaring bankruptcy is a huge issue?

Regarding your question - if a credit card company is stupid enough to extend hundreds of thousands of dollars in unsecured credit to someone without the income to pay it off, the credit card company is taking a risk. If you don't want the risk then don't lend the money. I don't think that should change the fact people should be able to use bankruptcy if they're down on their luck and want to protect what little assets they have (i.e. the house they live in).

It sounds like you're pretty pro wall street yourself :lol

[Will Hunting]

Bankruptcy f*cking over people for seven plus years was plenty sufficient. The banks are not victims of the bankruptcy laws; they never have been.
Yup, the legislation solved a problem that didn't exist. The impact declaring bankruptcy has on your credit score for 7 years was more than enough incentive to keep people from doing it until they actually needed it.

[Will Hunting]

I'm pro pay your fucking bills. :lol
Except for corporations though, right? The legislation didn't address corporate bankruptcy.

[Spurtacular]

Yes, you've explicitly lied about this many, many times in the past.

She's not a felon. Period.

:cry Sociopath doesn't know how figurative language works :cry

[Pavlov]

:cry Sociopath doesn't know how figurative language works :crySo you'd call Trump a felon too.

OK.

[Spurtacular]

Except for corporations though, right? The legislation didn't address corporate bankruptcy.

They're people too, 'cept when they're not. :lol

[Spurtacular]

So you'd call Trump a felon too.

OK.

No.

[Will Hunting]

I want higher taxes for the super rich. Just like warren stated. I'm also pay your your fucking bills. And if this is all you got, you made a boogeyman out of nothing. :lmao
As usual you dodged the question.

[Pavlov]

No.Why not?

[Spurtacular]

Why not?

What felony do you think Trump has committed?

[Will Hunting]

I asked earlier how were YOU negatively affected? You still haven't answered me faggot. :lmao :lmao
OK fair enough.

I haven't been negatively affected but that's a stupid way to look at it. I also haven't been negatively affected by anything Trump has done either, in fact I paid less in taxes, but my guess is you don't think I should vote for Trump.

[Pavlov]

What felony do you think Trump has committed?You said it doesn't matter; it's figurative.

[ElNono]

Speaking of Hillary, she is still making noise about running in 2020. That could be interesting. She could be the lone "centrist" in a crowded field.

Despite the rhetoric, Beto and Castro would be pretty centrist too, IMO...

[Spurtacular]

You said it doesn't matter; it's figurative.

Sociopath truth.

[Pavlov]

Sociopath truth.Right, your truth.

:lol "figurative felon"

[koriwhat]

Deregulations (environmental and wall street), Ignoring climate change that greatly impacts ourselves as a species, cutting taxes when we didn't need to and giving rich more money and cutting social programs, fucking up stock markets past year. Reducing Healthcare coverage that I'm sure will increase the cost of many individuals. :lol :lol

chicken little right above

[Spurtacular]

Right, your truth.

:lol "figurative felon"

Sociopath thinks all felonies are prosecuted.

[Pavlov]

Sociopath thinks all felonies are prosecuted.Sorry dude, your "figurative felon" theory is textbook sociopathy.

[Will Hunting]

Deregulations (environmental and wall street), Ignoring climate change that greatly impacts ourselves as a species, cutting taxes when we didn't need to and giving rich more money and cutting social programs, fucking up stock markets past year. Reducing Healthcare coverage that I'm sure will increase the cost of many individuals. :lol :lol
I don't need social programs, I got out of the market before things got ugly, and my healthcare was unaffected. Deregulating Wall Street also made my life easier.

Sorry, but Trump hasn't made my life any worse. Doesn't mean I like the guy.

So are you going to answer my question now?

[Will Hunting]

Climate change good now. :lmao :lmao
Hasn’t affect me personally.

The point being that judging a candidate by whether or not he/she has negatively impacted you personally is a childish way to look at things.

[CosmicCowboy]

Despite the rhetoric, Beto and Castro would be pretty centrist too, IMO...

Relative to the commies.

[Will Hunting]

I guess climate change is not real too you. :lmao :lmao
No, it’s real and it’s probably the issue I care most about, just hasn’t affected me personally.

[spurraider21]

I guess climate change is not real too you. :lmao :lmao
How had climate change specifically affected you?

[koriwhat]

Time is limited and this time wasted greatly impacted my future already. We're increasing the intensity of damages by not taking precaution now. Crops will be harder to make at increased temperatures. faggot. :lmao

talking out your ass as usual.

[spurraider21]

Time is limited and this time wasted greatly impacted my future already. We're increasing the intensity of damages by not taking precaution now. Crops will be harder to make at increased temperatures. faggot. :lmao
How have you been specifically affected at this point?

[ElNono]

Relative to the commies.

Like who is a commie in your view? I think things like universal healthcare or government funded college aren't necessarily 'commie' ideas. Plenty of capitalist countries that have one, the other or both.

[Spurtacular]

She's voted 99% just like bernie.

Some quick quotes that she is not with wall street. :lol


As president, I would not only veto any legislation that would weaken financial reform, but I would also fight for tough new rules, stronger enforcement and more accountability that go well beyond Dodd-Frank.—Dec. 7, 2015, op-ed in New York Times




You notice how she promises something without ever actually promising anything? Her entire campaign was worthless platitudes.

[Spurtacular]

She's insanely intelligent and comes prepared. I've seen her fib once, and that's like 1 minute for orange shit. :lol

:lol You're a shitty troll.

[Chucho]

:lol You're a shitty troll.

One of the few things you are a peer in.

[boutons_deux]

"commies"? :lol

gotta be really fucking stupid, devoid of serious ideas, a fucking clown to be talking about "Dems = commies" in 21st century.

[CosmicCowboy]

"commies"? :lol

gotta be really fucking stupid, devoid of serious ideas, a fucking clown to be talking about "Dems = commies" in 21st century.

It was actually somewhat of a joke just to get a rise, but with the speed the Democratic party is moving left (wealth envy, "wealth" tax, single payer, free college, open borders, etc.) it may turn out not to be.

[Will Hunting]

The idea that universal healthcare is some slippery slope to communism is ridiculous. The fact that half of this country melts down at the idea of having the same healthcare system that every other industrialized country in the world shows which side is more extreme in terms of ideology.

[ElNono]

It was actually somewhat of a joke just to get a rise, but with the speed the Democratic party is moving left (wealth envy, "wealth" tax, single payer, free college, open borders, etc.) it may turn out not to be.

Class warfare is a two way street, tbh... envy doesn't transfer wealth from one end to the other, taxes or tax-cuts do, and that's tangible, not a feeling.

In addition, my impression is that Democrats are not for open borders at all. Deportation amounts set new records under Obama, and they've increased border enforcement resources as well. Sure, they're more friendly to giving a path to citizenship for, say, people under DACA, but that's people that are already here.

[CosmicCowboy]

You have a Democratic senator and Presidential candidate proposing confiscating net worth (not an income tax) of wealthy individuals. Besides being unconstitutional it is clearly wealth envy and outright theft.

[ElNono]

You have a Democratic senator and Presidential candidate proposing confiscating net worth (not an income tax) of wealthy individuals. Besides being unconstitutional it is clearly wealth envy and outright theft.

but that's the point. Wealth envy in and of itself doesn't do anything. It's actions that do. You bitch when you get taxed but half the people don't pay taxes, similarly, you celebrate the tax cuts but the poorest people complain when there's no funds for foodstamps, etc.

[spurraider21]

Sociopath thinks all felonies are prosecuted.
lol alan derpowitz

[CosmicCowboy]

but that's the point. Wealth envy in and of itself doesn't do anything. It's actions that do. You bitch when you get taxed but half the people don't pay taxes, similarly, you celebrate the tax cuts but the poorest people complain when there's no funds for foodstamps, etc.

With trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see there is apparently no cause and effect between tax rates and congressional appropriations.

[spurraider21]

With trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see there is apparently no cause and effect between tax rates and congressional appropriations.
we had trillion dollar deficits in each year of obama's first term. in his second term, deficits were (in billions) 680, 485, 440, and 585. in 2017, deficit reached 665. tax cuts took effect in 2018, and deficit shot up to 833. deficits are projected to increase to the 900's next few years.

which makes sense when your spending remains constant but you've slashed your revenue.

[CosmicCowboy]

we had trillion dollar deficits in each year of obama's first term. in his second term, deficits were (in billions) 680, 485, 440, and 585. in 2017, deficit reached 665. tax cuts took effect in 2018, and deficit shot up to 833. deficits are projected to increase to the 900's next few years.

And that's without single payer, free school, guaranteed income, etc. To quote Boo, you young guys are fucked and unfuckable.

[Pavlov]

And that's without single payer, free school, guaranteed income, etc. To quote Boo, my grandkids are fucked and unfuckable.Quite the legacy you got going there.

[boutons_deux]

Repugs plan to fuck the boomers, too, with cuts to SS, Medicare, Medicaid to "pay for" enriching the oligarchy.

[CosmicCowboy]

Repugs plan to fuck the boomers, too, with cuts to SS, Medicare, Medicaid to "pay for" enriching the oligarchy.

source?

[CosmicCowboy]

Quite the legacy you got going there.

My goal is to leave them a few million to make it a little easier. How's YOUR legacy, CHUMP?

[DMC]

we had trillion dollar deficits in each year of obama's first term. in his second term, deficits were (in billions) 680, 485, 440, and 585. in 2017, deficit reached 665. tax cuts took effect in 2018, and deficit shot up to 833. deficits are projected to increase to the 900's next few years.

which makes sense when your spending remains constant but you've slashed your revenue.

Stop paying for illegals.

[Pavlov]

My goal is to leave them a few million to make it a little easier. How's YOUR legacy, CHUMP?:lol money is everything to you

Quite the legacy you got going there.

Who gets your government golf carts?

[CosmicCowboy]

:lol money is everything to you

Quite the legacy you got going there.

Who gets your government golf carts?

Leaving money is better than leaving your grandkids your 479,000 posts on Spurstalk.

[ElNono]

With trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see there is apparently no cause and effect between tax rates and congressional appropriations.

so deficit spending is only good for tax cuts? I mean, that's class warfare right there.

[Pavlov]

Leaving money is better than leaving your grandkids your 479,000 posts on Spurstalk.:lol the assumptions posters make here....

[Spurtacular]

One of the few things you are a peer in.

Deep crust!

[rmt]

You guys try the cold choc yet? :lmao

https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-TKjXRfWpqLs/WbxJteIAOpI/AAAAAAAAPds/KJjgqaVYzKYhvnD5Hl5oxpAN1jK9MkQBwCEwYBhgL/s1600/JZ3RSb.gif

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-2CzSd2J6So0/V6lNmjm4d6I/AAAAAAAAILM/J5W9ez28qBkD811QKq4AAsY_CFIf0RiZwCLcB/s1600/Hillary-Clinton-has-seizure-when-talking-to-reporters-Imgur.gif

That little video of Hillary reminds me of Total Recall.

[Spurtacular]

That little video of Hillary reminds me of Total Recall.

:lol How is there not memes of her being blasted by shots?

[Reck]

I’d say 5-10% of the primary voters are Reck (https://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=14412) level Hillary slurpers and will support her come Hell or High Water, but she doesn’t have anything beyond that anymore.

How many times do I have to say I didn't vote/dont vote on primaries, you retard?

I barely vote at all. Didn't vote prior to Obama's second term.

[Chris]

I barely vote at all.

Thank God :tu

[Spurtacular]

How many times do I have to say I didn't vote/dont vote on primaries, you retard?

I barely vote at all. Didn't vote prior to Obama's second term.

You still slurped Hillary at the end of the day. Will Hunting called it right. :lol

[Winehole23]

this would be one way to do it, state by state

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/428015-colorado-senate-passes-bill-to-give-electoral-votes-to-presidential

[boutons_deux]

this would be one way to do it, state by state

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/428015-colorado-senate-passes-bill-to-give-electoral-votes-to-presidential

Of course the Repugs would be against any change, since they have weaponized the status quo in their favor.

Rigged, constipated, non-dynamic America is fundamentally incapable of change since the oligarchy will block all change.

Capital has rigged employment conditions against Labor

Capital has rigged the economy and tax system in is favor (Buffet: "There is a Class War and my side is winning")

Capital has rigged politics through money corruption

Capital has rigged voting through gerrymandering, counting fraud, voter disenfranchisement

and Capital's biggest ally is the fucking Confederacy, still fighting to destroy Federal govt.

[boutons_deux]

From a Common Cause email

"Just 6 states.

That’s all that stands between you and me and a disastrous Article V constitutional convention.

An event unprecedented in U.S. history -- that would put every constitutional right we cherish under attack.

We have no choice but to immediately step up our grassroots response to defeat this effort.

Many constitutional experts believe this is the biggest present threat to our democracy -- and it’s happening right now, behind closed doors and out of the public eye.

The Koch Brothers & the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC)

are spending big money to lobby state lawmakers,

demanding they support an Article V convention

to radically reshape our nation. If we let them succeed, there’ll be little to stop them from

writing their far right-wing agenda directly into our Constitution

That could mean changing our First Amendment rights, like the right to free speech and assembly… gutting environmental regulations… rolling back our right to vote… and putting Supreme Court decisions about marriage equality and healthcare up for grabs.

That’s what’s in store if just 6 more states sign on to an Article V convention. That’s all

the Koch Brothers, the Mercers, and their extremist allies

need to reach the two-thirds supermajority required to convene the convention and start tearing apart our U.S. Constitution."

=================

"Congress may face this issue very soon.

At least 27 state legislatures have valid applications outstanding for a convention to propose a balanced budget amendment (BBA).

At least six states without BBA applications have outstanding applications calling for a plenary convention.

Thus, if aggregation is called for, 33 of the 34 applications needed for Congress to call a convention likely exist."

https://fedsoc.org/commentary/publications/counting-to-two-thirds-how-close-are-we-to-a-convention-for-proposing-amendments-to-the-constitution (https://fedsoc.org/commentary/publications/counting-to-two-thirds-how-close-are-we-to-a-convention-for-proposing-amendments-to-the-constitution)

==================

States Likely Could Not Control Constitutional Convention on Balanced Budget Amendment or Other Issues

A convention likely would be extremely contentious and highly politicized, and its results impossible to predict.

A number of prominent jurists and legal scholars have warned that

a constitutional convention could open up the Constitution to radical and harmful changes.

"There is no way to effectively limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention.

The Convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda.

Congress might try to limit the Convention to one amendment or one issue,

but there is no way to assure that the Convention would obey.

After a Convention is convened, it will be too late to stop the Convention if we don’t like its agenda.

Such serious concerns are justified, for several reasons:

A convention could write its own rules.

A convention could set its own agenda, possibly influenced by powerful interest groups.

A convention could choose a new ratification process

No other body, including the courts, has clear authority over a convention.

https://www.cbpp.org/research/states-likely-could-not-control-constitutional-convention-on-balanced-budget-amendment-or

An Article V Convention convened by extreme right-wing billionaires and their stink tank allies would actually be a Constitutional coup d'etat to destroy effectively the US Govt and

hand power Constitutionally to the right-wing billionaires, aka, the oligarchy would be validated in law, and unassailable in other means than violent revolution.
https://www.cbpp.org/sites/default/files/styles/downsample150to92/public/atoms/files/1-18-17sfp-f1.png?itok=DqAnqXpM

[boutons_deux]

Keep it up my dude. :tu

the red states that weirdly have not yet applied for Art V convention

(AZ, WV, MT, ID, WY, SC, KY)

but probably will means the oligarchy's Constitutional coup d'etat via Art V convention will happen.

America is fucked and unfuckable

[koriwhat]

she wants to get rid of the EC and we want to get rid of her. when her time finally passes i am going to throw a party because the devil will finally be defeated.

[Winehole23]

HRC is already a political dead duck.

What more do you want?

[koriwhat]

HRC is already a political dead duck.

What more do you want?

to shoot her into space

[MASSA]

That little video of Hillary reminds me of Total Recall.

For why?

[rmt]

For why?

Isn't there a scene of Arnold disguised as a woman shaking/bursting out of disguise?

[Chris]

https://twitter.com/SebGorka/status/1198801697386225665?s=19

[DMX7]

https://twitter.com/SebGorka/status/1198801697386225665?s=19

Maybe we should ask* if there really should be two Dakotas for starters. They should merge.

[Spurminator]

https://twitter.com/SebGorka/status/1198801697386225665?s=19

This is a great argument against the electoral college.

And the Senate, tbh.

[DMX7]

This is a great argument against the electoral college.

It really is. LA is not fairly represented in congress either.

[DMX7]

When we add Greenland to the U.S., we should merge the two Dakotas immediately. :lol

[Chris]

Maybe we should as if there really should be two Dakotas for starters. They should merge.

Do what?

[DMX7]

Do what?


Maybe we should ask* if there really should be two Dakotas for starters. They should merge.

[ElNono]

This is a great argument against the electoral college.

And the Senate, tbh.

yup

[spurraider21]

This is a great argument against the electoral college.

And the Senate, tbh.

[boutons_deux]

If Dems had "EC-won" 2 of the last 5 Presidencies while losing the popular vote,

the Repugs would have agitated vehemently to have the EC abolished long ago.

Repugs know very well they have lost the demographic trends and

the only way they can obtain and retain power is by anti-democratic, cheating, fraudulent paths, financed by the anti-democratic, traitorous oligarchy.

[pgardn]

If Dems had "EC-won" 2 of the last 5 Presidencies while losing the popular vote,

the Repugs would have agitated vehemently to have the EC abolished long ago.

Repugs know very well they have lost the demographic trends and the only way they can obtain and retain power is by anti-democratic, cheating, fraudulent paths, financed by the anti-democratic, traitorous oligarchy.

The red team argues it would benefit the blue team to maintain a large uneducated poverty ridden class that votes.

[spurraider21]

1314204509225148419

he should abolish the EC to pwn the libs

[Spurtacular]

1314204509225148419

he should abolish the EC to pwn the libs

Would love to abolish it if we lived in an honest country, but we don't. EC is as good as it gets.