Bernie Sanders I think would have a good shot at getting the nomination if he ran.
For President?
He'd need money, lots of it, and corporations are not going to be donating money to him. Plus he'd be 75 in 2016.
+1
Metzger MeisterIt Gets Worsebefore it gets any better.Registered Userregular
He's a billionaire. He could fund the entire campaign himself and still be impossibly wealthy. Plus, being a billionaire, he probably has all kinds of rad robit parts that'll keep him alive for another fifty years.
Bernie Sanders goes on multi-hour rants about income inequality in america on the senate floor every year, so naturally you assume he's literally the wealthiest elected national official since basically George Washington
Civil forfeiture, or "we're the police and can take your shit if we even SUSPECT that you were naughty and there's not shit you can do about it and we need margarita machines and also we're not gonna charge you but we still get to keep your stuff no takesies-backsies."
I was just at Sam's Club Scrooging so hard at all the Christmas stuff already up
Basically what I'm saying is if you want my vote, huge flashy Christmas displays that are way bigger than anything you have up for Halloween in the first half of October should be illegal
If I may be permitted to briefly scream into this pillow about UK politics and upcoming elections?
Broadcasters have announced plans to host and invite political leadership to three televised debates relating to the 2015 general election.
There would be:
One head-to-head debate between the "two leaders who could become prime minister", Mr Cameron and Labour's Ed Miliband, on Sky and Channel 4 and chaired by Jeremy Paxman
Another, also to include the Liberal Democrat leader, to be hosted by David Dimbleby, on BBC TV, radio and online
Another debate, on ITV and chaired by Julie Etchingham, featuring the leaders of the Conservatives, Labour, Liberal Democrats and UK Independence Party
So what are the problems?
For starters trying to treat this like a two party race in one debate, and in doing so leaving out one of the parties currently in government (for any who don't know we currently have a Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition government, with a Conservative Prime Minister and Liberal Democrat Deputy Prime Minister) is weird at best and a transparent attempt by the broadcasters to alter the result at worst.
Following on from that we have the invitation extended to UKIP for one of these debates, elevating them (1MP) to the same level as the other three included parties while ignoring the Greens (1MP), RESPECT (1MP), the Alliance Party (1MP, Northern Irish party) Plaid Cymru (3 MPs, Welsh party), the Social Democratic and Labour Party (3 MPs, Nothern Irish party), Sinn Féin (5 MPs, Northern Irish party, although admittedly abstentionists) the Scottish National Party (6 MPs, Scottish party), and the Democratic Unionist Party (8 MPs, Northern Irish party). This is consistent with the bizarre amount of media attention given to UKIP and almost no other minor party, they are plastered all over the news on a regular basis, often in a positive light.
For reference there are a total of 650 seats in the house of commons. I could entirely understand leaving out parties who have few seats, and I could entirely understand wanting to focus on primarily English parties (thus leaving out the various NI parties, Plaid Cymru, and the SNP), but that doesn't explain the exclusion of the Greens, or of RESPECT, and this turning a spotlight onto UKIP is giving them a huge amount of extra national exposure after their already huge amount of national exposure for winning that seat, on top of the general huge amount of national exposure they are given on a regular basis for no good reason that I can fathom...it just leaves bile in my throat to see the media act this way while pretending to be impartial, and it seems as though they are deliberately trying to drag the political landscape to the right by giving such prominence to a right wing party while giving no equivalent prominence to a left wing party to provide any semblance of balance.
+2
WeaverWho are you?What do you want?Registered Userregular
If I may be permitted to briefly scream into this pillow about UK politics and upcoming elections?
Broadcasters have announced plans to host and invite political leadership to three televised debates relating to the 2015 general election.
There would be:
One head-to-head debate between the "two leaders who could become prime minister", Mr Cameron and Labour's Ed Miliband, on Sky and Channel 4 and chaired by Jeremy Paxman
Another, also to include the Liberal Democrat leader, to be hosted by David Dimbleby, on BBC TV, radio and online
Another debate, on ITV and chaired by Julie Etchingham, featuring the leaders of the Conservatives, Labour, Liberal Democrats and UK Independence Party
So what are the problems?
For starters trying to treat this like a two party race in one debate, and in doing so leaving out one of the parties currently in government (for any who don't know we currently have a Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition government, with a Conservative Prime Minister and Liberal Democrat Deputy Prime Minister) is weird at best and a transparent attempt by the broadcasters to alter the result at worst.
Following on from that we have the invitation extended to UKIP for one of these debates, elevating them (1MP) to the same level as the other three included parties while ignoring the Greens (1MP), RESPECT (1MP), the Alliance Party (1MP, Northern Irish party) Plaid Cymru (3 MPs, Welsh party), the Social Democratic and Labour Party (3 MPs, Nothern Irish party), Sinn Féin (5 MPs, Northern Irish party, although admittedly abstentionists) the Scottish National Party (6 MPs, Scottish party), and the Democratic Unionist Party (8 MPs, Northern Irish party). This is consistent with the bizarre amount of media attention given to UKIP and almost no other minor party, they are plastered all over the news on a regular basis, often in a positive light.
For reference there are a total of 650 seats in the house of commons. I could entirely understand leaving out parties who have few seats, and I could entirely understand wanting to focus on primarily English parties (thus leaving out the various NI parties, Plaid Cymru, and the SNP), but that doesn't explain the exclusion of the Greens, or of RESPECT, and this turning a spotlight onto UKIP is giving them a huge amount of extra national exposure after their already huge amount of national exposure for winning that seat, on top of the general huge amount of national exposure they are given on a regular basis for no good reason that I can fathom...it just leaves bile in my throat to see the media act this way while pretending to be impartial, and it seems as though they are deliberately trying to drag the political landscape to the right by giving such prominence to a right wing party while giving no equivalent prominence to a left wing party to provide any semblance of balance.
On the plus side this is at least only an initial proposal but smacks of not really thinking things through properly.
It's less about the strength of Hillary and more about the republican candidates always coming off as creeps or cold, robotic puppets of monied interests. They are so nakedly showing themselves as the party of Angry White Men, and an increasingly diverse nation will vote for that less and less.
this is why Jeb Bush is a good candidate
Bush is well educated, soft spoken, not tightly integrated with the business community to the point of suspicion like Romney was and W. was sometimes perceived to be, overtly moderate, well funded, respectable record as Governor, and he speaks fluent spanish to boot
He is many things that the puppets that get put on TV are not, and he is so different from his brother, outwardly and inwardly that I think the public would dismiss his last name
I haven't read past this but him being the third bush elected in thirty years would be a constant, constant talking point. It would not be dismissed.
It's less about the strength of Hillary and more about the republican candidates always coming off as creeps or cold, robotic puppets of monied interests. They are so nakedly showing themselves as the party of Angry White Men, and an increasingly diverse nation will vote for that less and less.
this is why Jeb Bush is a good candidate
Bush is well educated, soft spoken, not tightly integrated with the business community to the point of suspicion like Romney was and W. was sometimes perceived to be, overtly moderate, well funded, respectable record as Governor, and he speaks fluent spanish to boot
He is many things that the puppets that get put on TV are not, and he is so different from his brother, outwardly and inwardly that I think the public would dismiss his last name
I haven't read past this but him being the third bush elected in thirty years would be a constant, constant talking point. It would not be dismissed.
its a weak argument coming from someone whose last name is Clinton. Do you really think she's going to get behind the podium and take a dump on political dynasties? that's her whole game.
We've had ONE Clinton in the White House 15 years ago. Bush is more recent, and there's already been two of them. It's a goofy talking point, but it's one that gets traction.
+2
Metzger MeisterIt Gets Worsebefore it gets any better.Registered Userregular
Plus Bush's presidency isn't nearly as highly regarded as Clinton's.
Yeah Clinton could ignore it entirely, but ads would run and something about 3rd bush in 3 decades and probably a baseball thing about 3 strikes in there somewhere would get a ton of free press. It's too snappy not to be eaten up by the media
You guys think its a weakness, polls seem to say that American's give somewhere along the lines of zero fucks.
A big component of this is many here make the assumption that us being back in Iraq is a negative thing for the Bush name, but in my opinion it actually makes Bush look better. Because hey if even the Democrats are bombing sand then maybe ol' W. was on to something
And if your argument is that W. created the mess in Iraq, well, the fine citizens of post-Qadaffi Libya would like a word, because that country is basically a brutal war zone mostly created by Obama's policy critique of neocon involvement in the Middle East, which was to let Europe do the shooting and let the CIA try to mop up at arm's length. The result? Basically the same fucking thing on a Libyan scale. Warlords, slaughter, terrorists. We just get to pretend it's not our fault because there were no tanks with US flags pulling down statues and no mission accomplished banners
You guys think its a weakness, polls seem to say that American's give somewhere along the lines of zero fucks.
A big component of this is many here make the assumption that us being back in Iraq is a negative thing for the Bush name, but in my opinion it actually makes Bush look better. Because hey if even the Democrats are bombing sand then maybe ol' W. was on to something
And if your argument is that W. created the mess in Iraq, well, the fine citizens of post-Qadaffi Libya would like a word, because that country is basically a brutal war zone mostly created by Obama's policy critique of neocon involvement in the Middle East, which was to let Europe do the shooting and let the CIA try to mop up at arm's length. The result? Basically the same fucking thing on a Libyan scale. Warlords, slaughter, terrorists. We just get to pretend it's not our fault because there were no tanks with US flags pulling down statues and no mission accomplished banners
We haven't spent 2 trillion on an invasion into Libya, or spent years trying to occupy it.
Basically we used air power to stop a planned genocide by Muammar Gaddafi, as Libya's own people battled to liberate themselves.
That war was already happening, we didn't just start some trouble because "intel thinks they have nukes".
The citizens of Libya would be pretty pissed that America even tried to take credit for their battles.
You guys think its a weakness, polls seem to say that American's give somewhere along the lines of zero fucks.
A big component of this is many here make the assumption that us being back in Iraq is a negative thing for the Bush name, but in my opinion it actually makes Bush look better. Because hey if even the Democrats are bombing sand then maybe ol' W. was on to something
And if your argument is that W. created the mess in Iraq, well, the fine citizens of post-Qadaffi Libya would like a word, because that country is basically a brutal war zone mostly created by Obama's policy critique of neocon involvement in the Middle East, which was to let Europe do the shooting and let the CIA try to mop up at arm's length. The result? Basically the same fucking thing on a Libyan scale. Warlords, slaughter, terrorists. We just get to pretend it's not our fault because there were no tanks with US flags pulling down statues and no mission accomplished banners
You're comparing a person that is retired to one that that is still active. There's what, a ten point difference? That suggest Hill-dog is still quite popular, and those polls just reinforce that Americans have short memories. It'll be an issue, but I still think it's a stupid one. However, I also think the GOP is probably done with the Bushes in general.
Our historical involvement with the Middle East has been a clusterfuck of mass suffering for our varying self-interests that finally bit us in the ass starting in the 90s. We frankly have no business in the goddamn region, because every time we meddle in their affairs we just make things worse. Obama is really just Diet Bush in terms of his handling of the situation, and that's why things continue to get worse. I will not try to pretend that I like Obama's foreign policy, as we've basically created an environment where everything we do is a losing move.
Posts
For President?
He'd need money, lots of it, and corporations are not going to be donating money to him. Plus he'd be 75 in 2016.
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
Like, President of the Northeast Corridor? Landslide victory. President of Everything West of Nevada? Sure thing.
President of the United States? Ehh...no.
He's worth $110,000 net.
i'm not even sure he's a millionaire
we also talk about other random shit and clown upon each other
we also talk about other random shit and clown upon each other
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
Or getting two people all amalgamated and shit.
http://www.rollcall.com/politics/us-senate-personal-wealth-111th-congress.html
i think there are heiresses purse dogs that have a higher net worth
we also talk about other random shit and clown upon each other
Does nobody read my posts
we also talk about other random shit and clown upon each other
NO
Bernie Sanders goes on multi-hour rants about income inequality in america on the senate floor every year, so naturally you assume he's literally the wealthiest elected national official since basically George Washington
we also talk about other random shit and clown upon each other
Civil forfeiture, or "we're the police and can take your shit if we even SUSPECT that you were naughty and there's not shit you can do about it and we need margarita machines and also we're not gonna charge you but we still get to keep your stuff no takesies-backsies."
Basically what I'm saying is if you want my vote, huge flashy Christmas displays that are way bigger than anything you have up for Halloween in the first half of October should be illegal
So what are the problems?
For starters trying to treat this like a two party race in one debate, and in doing so leaving out one of the parties currently in government (for any who don't know we currently have a Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition government, with a Conservative Prime Minister and Liberal Democrat Deputy Prime Minister) is weird at best and a transparent attempt by the broadcasters to alter the result at worst.
Following on from that we have the invitation extended to UKIP for one of these debates, elevating them (1MP) to the same level as the other three included parties while ignoring the Greens (1MP), RESPECT (1MP), the Alliance Party (1MP, Northern Irish party) Plaid Cymru (3 MPs, Welsh party), the Social Democratic and Labour Party (3 MPs, Nothern Irish party), Sinn Féin (5 MPs, Northern Irish party, although admittedly abstentionists) the Scottish National Party (6 MPs, Scottish party), and the Democratic Unionist Party (8 MPs, Northern Irish party). This is consistent with the bizarre amount of media attention given to UKIP and almost no other minor party, they are plastered all over the news on a regular basis, often in a positive light.
For reference there are a total of 650 seats in the house of commons. I could entirely understand leaving out parties who have few seats, and I could entirely understand wanting to focus on primarily English parties (thus leaving out the various NI parties, Plaid Cymru, and the SNP), but that doesn't explain the exclusion of the Greens, or of RESPECT, and this turning a spotlight onto UKIP is giving them a huge amount of extra national exposure after their already huge amount of national exposure for winning that seat, on top of the general huge amount of national exposure they are given on a regular basis for no good reason that I can fathom...it just leaves bile in my throat to see the media act this way while pretending to be impartial, and it seems as though they are deliberately trying to drag the political landscape to the right by giving such prominence to a right wing party while giving no equivalent prominence to a left wing party to provide any semblance of balance.
On the plus side this is at least only an initial proposal but smacks of not really thinking things through properly.
D3 Steam #TeamTangent STO
(I totally forgot today was even Columbus Day. That's how little I regard Columbus)
I haven't read past this but him being the third bush elected in thirty years would be a constant, constant talking point. It would not be dismissed.
its a weak argument coming from someone whose last name is Clinton. Do you really think she's going to get behind the podium and take a dump on political dynasties? that's her whole game.
we also talk about other random shit and clown upon each other
We've had ONE Clinton in the White House 15 years ago. Bush is more recent, and there's already been two of them. It's a goofy talking point, but it's one that gets traction.
Bush 41 was kind of a Diet Reagan thing I guess, but he lost reelection to Clinton which doesn't bode well for the Bush Legacy.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/171794/clinton-elder-bush-positively-rated-living-presidents.aspx
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/hillary-clinton-favorable-rating
You guys think its a weakness, polls seem to say that American's give somewhere along the lines of zero fucks.
A big component of this is many here make the assumption that us being back in Iraq is a negative thing for the Bush name, but in my opinion it actually makes Bush look better. Because hey if even the Democrats are bombing sand then maybe ol' W. was on to something
And if your argument is that W. created the mess in Iraq, well, the fine citizens of post-Qadaffi Libya would like a word, because that country is basically a brutal war zone mostly created by Obama's policy critique of neocon involvement in the Middle East, which was to let Europe do the shooting and let the CIA try to mop up at arm's length. The result? Basically the same fucking thing on a Libyan scale. Warlords, slaughter, terrorists. We just get to pretend it's not our fault because there were no tanks with US flags pulling down statues and no mission accomplished banners
we also talk about other random shit and clown upon each other
We haven't spent 2 trillion on an invasion into Libya, or spent years trying to occupy it.
Basically we used air power to stop a planned genocide by Muammar Gaddafi, as Libya's own people battled to liberate themselves.
That war was already happening, we didn't just start some trouble because "intel thinks they have nukes".
The citizens of Libya would be pretty pissed that America even tried to take credit for their battles.
Wait...
we also talk about other random shit and clown upon each other
One man answers the call
we also talk about other random shit and clown upon each other
Our historical involvement with the Middle East has been a clusterfuck of mass suffering for our varying self-interests that finally bit us in the ass starting in the 90s. We frankly have no business in the goddamn region, because every time we meddle in their affairs we just make things worse. Obama is really just Diet Bush in terms of his handling of the situation, and that's why things continue to get worse. I will not try to pretend that I like Obama's foreign policy, as we've basically created an environment where everything we do is a losing move.