Liberals: Why is Hilary Clinton the favorite to win Democratic nomination?

[longhornfan1234]

What's wrong with Corey Booker? Booker has more charisma and is more likeable. Booker took one of the deadliest cities in America and made it the #1 city for violent crime reduction between 2006 and 2009. Having the first murder free month in Newark since 1966 under Booker's watch. He actually cut spending in Newark. What has Hilary done? Her husband threw the Democratic party under the bus( NAFTA, DOMA, Repeal Glass Steagall, Welfare reform,etc...). Republicans punked Bubba ROUTINELY. Do you really want to take a chance on another turncoat?

[bagelred]

Because Bill Clinton was a highly successful President, and Hillary is associated with him, and she's very electable, and very smart, and has deep credentials, and doesn't hurt she's a woman? :confusedshrug:

[longhornfan1234]

Because Bill Clinton was a highly successful President, and Hillary is associated with him, and she's very electable? :confusedshrug:


He's a product of the most fiscally responsible house in history and tech boom. What's wrong with Booker? What has Hilary done to be a favorite? Why do liberals conveniently forget Bubba threw his party under the bus? Republicans punked him routinely. :EDIT: There's a reason why historians rank Buba somewhere between 15-20.

[Horde of Temujin]

Chris Christie will be the next president unless the Dem's find a viable candidate. Hilary is too polarizing

[B-Low]

Because Bill Clinton as first lady would make for fantastic late night comedy sketches

[KevinNYC]

Why is Hilary Clinton the favorite to win Democratic nomination?

Somewhat reasonable question followed by this

What's wrong with Corey Booker?
:wtf: Are you ****ing high? Here's an answer. Because the guy is still mayor of Newark. Have you ever heard a mayor winning the presidency? Dude hasn't even been swore in as a senator. Clinton and Obama winning the presidency so young has skewed what you think is possible. Both of them are far, far better politicians than Booker.


Why is Hilary Clinton the favorite to win Democratic nomination?What's wrong with Corey Booker? Booker has more charisma and is more likeable. Booker took one of the deadliest cities in America and made it the #1 city for violent crime reduction between 2006 and 2009. Having the first murder free month in Newark since 1966 under Booker's watch. He actually cut spending in Newark. What has Hilary done? Her husband threw the Democratic party under the bus( NAFTA, DOMA, Repeal Glass Steagall, Welfare reform,etc...). Republicans punked Bubba ROUTINELY. Do you really want to take a chance on another turncoat?

Oh I see you're concern-trolling, pretending to offer advice to your political enemies. You also don't know shit about Corey Booker's standing among liberals. I'll give you the question The Atlantic asked? : Why do Liberals Hate Corey Booker. (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/08/why-do-liberals-hate-cory-booker/278992/)

[KevinNYC]

Is this just your latest man crush? Has your love of Ben Carson faded since he said Obamacare was the worst thing since slavery?

[longhornfan1234]

Somewhat reasonable question followed by this

:wtf: Are you ****ing high? Here's an answer. Because the guy is still mayor of Newark. Have you ever heard a mayor winning the presidency? Dude hasn't even been swore in as a senator. Clinton and Obama winning the presidency so young has skewed what you think is possible. Both of them are far, far better politicians than Booker.



Oh I see you're concern-trolling . You also don't know shit about Corey Booker's standing among liberals. I'll give you the question The Atlantic asked? : Why do Liberals Hate Corey Booker. (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/08/why-do-liberals-hate-cory-booker/278992/)



so...liberals hate him because he's a moderate democrat? BUT...they love Bubba? :biggums:



Booker should run in 2020. He needs to win a couple of senate races first.

[longhornfan1234]

Is this just your latest man crush? Has your love of Ben Carson faded since he said Obamacare was the worst thing since slavery?


Booker and Cruz are my guys. Cruz is a true conservative. Any Democrat for entitlement reform can win my vote.

[KevinNYC]

so...liberals hate him because he's a moderate democrat? BUT...they love Bubba? :biggums:

Well Bubba did win the presidency after 12 years of Republican rule while Booker in 2012 called the message of his party's candidate and the President of the United States "nauseating." (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/21/us/politics/cory-a-booker-criticizes-obamas-bain-ad.html?_r=0) And he did it in a way that would please his campaign donors and especially please Beltway media types who love to promote who pretend that they are above the fray of politics. So, yeah Clinton gets cut some slack, but also I think you are confusing Liberal with Democrat.



Booker and Cruz are my guys. Cruz is a true conservative. Any Democrat for entitlement reform can win my vote.

That's schizophrenic. Also Cruz is a radical.

[KevinNYC]

Chris Christie will be the next president unless the Dem's find a viable candidate. Hilary is too polarizing

Now Christie as opposed to Booker is a NJ politician who will have a impact on 2016 politics. And this happened today. (http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/nj-gay-couple-marriage-license-20628597)
Gov. Chris Christie dropped his legal challenge to same-sex marriages on Monday, removing the possibility that the vows of couples who began getting married hours earlier could be undone by a court.

New Jersey became the 14th state to allow gay marriages Monday, three days after the state Supreme Court unanimously rejected Christie's request to delay the start of the nuptials. He has said residents, not a court or legislators, should decide on the issue.

"Although the governor strongly disagrees with the court substituting its judgment for the constitutional process of the elected branches or a vote of the people, the court has now spoken clearly as to their view of the New Jersey Constitution and, therefore, same-sex marriage is the law," Christie's spokesman Michael Drewniak said in a statement. "The governor will do his constitutional duty and ensure his administration enforces the law as dictated by the New Jersey Supreme Court."

The announcement came from a Republican governor who is a possible 2016 presidential candidate and has for years opposed gay marriage while supporting the state's previous civil union law.

Christie is up for reelection next month (which is why Christie chose Booker's special election would be this month)....so I guess he is choosing not to cause a fuss in NJ in 2013 at the risk of pissing off Iowa primary voters in 2016. But I expect to hear a lot about this.

[Big_Dogg]

Jesse Ventura needs to be your next president, he won't take no mess from nobody

[Myth]

Because Bill Clinton as first lady would make for fantastic late night comedy sketches

I'd love to see her elected if it meant Darrell Hammond came back to SNL.

[KevinNYC]

Just found out that Christie dropped his opposition to gay marriage on the same day a poll came out saying New Jerseyans overwhelming support gay marriage including 49% of NJ Republicans.

[Horde of Temujin]

Now Christie as opposed to Booker is a NJ politician who will have a impact on 2016 politics. And this happened today. (http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/nj-gay-couple-marriage-license-20628597)

Christie is up for reelection next month (which is why Christie chose Booker's special election would be this month)....so I guess he is choosing not to cause a fuss in NJ in 2013 at the risk of pissing off Iowa primary voters in 2016. But I expect to hear a lot about this.

Thanks for the info.

It seems that Christie is definitely positioning himself for a run.

Remember last year after Sandy and days before the election he publicly praised Obama in a news conference?

I didnt expect that from a fellow Republican, I think he was trying to swing the vote in favor of Obama so that he wouldnt have to go up against an incumbent Repub. president in 2016.

[longhornfan1234]

Well Bubba did win the presidency after 12 years of Republican rule while Booker in 2012 called the message of his party's candidate and the President of the United States "nauseating." (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/21/us/politics/cory-a-booker-criticizes-obamas-bain-ad.html?_r=0) And he did it in a way that would please his campaign donors and especially please Beltway media types who love to promote who pretend that they are above the fray of politics. So, yeah Clinton gets cut some slack, but also I think you are confusing Liberal with Democrat.




That's schizophrenic. Also Cruz is a radical.


You think that because you're a far left liberal. Bernie Sanders molded liberal.

[KevinNYC]

Thanks for the info.

It seems that Christie is definitely positioning himself for a run.

Remember last year after Sandy and days before the election he publicly praised Obama in a news conference?

I didnt expect that from a fellow Republican, I think he was trying to swing the vote in favor of Obama so that he wouldnt have to go up against an incumbent Repub. president in 2016.
Christie's definitely running.

I don't think he was trying to affect the national vote, I think he was trying to get as much aid for his state as he could. I think he was playing local politics against national politics. Had he played politics with getting aid, he would not an overwhelming favorite to win election next month. NJ was devastated Sandy. I work in lower Manhattan and there are restaurants that are still not open in my building. I know someone in the nut business and the biggest cold storage warehouse in the country was completely flooded. He said something like a third of cashews in the country were in that building awaiting Thanksgiving sales. The importer of Grey Goose and other high end liquors was there he said he lost something like 10 or 100 million (I don't remember which) bucks of booze. Sandy was just really bad. NJ is the most densely populated state in the country. Christie would have been crippled as a politician if he didn't act the way he did.

[KevinNYC]

Also Christie had the lap band surgery. By 2016 he's going to be thinner and Cruz is going to be balder.

[KeylessEntry]

You think that because you're a far left liberal. Bernie Sanders molded liberal.

Kevin is absolutely not a "far left liberal", everything I have seen him post indicates he is a mainstream moderate democrat.

And he is completely right in this case, Ted Cruz is a radical.

[KevinNYC]

You think that because you're a far left liberal. Bernie Sanders molded liberal.

No, I think he's a radical because advocated policy -shutting down the government- that cost the economy $24 billion dollars (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/federal-eye/wp/2013/10/18/how-much-did-the-shutdown-cost-the-economy/) for a goal -defunding Obamacare- that had zero percent chance of occurring. There's nothing conservative about a person who acts like that.

$24 billion dollars for nothing.

[longhornfan1234]

No, I think he's a radical because advocated policy -shutting down the government- that cost the economy $24 billion dollars (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/federal-eye/wp/2013/10/18/how-much-did-the-shutdown-cost-the-economy/) for a goal -defunding Obamacare- that had zero percent chance of occurring. There's nothing conservative about a person who acts like that.

$24 billion dollars for nothing.
http://news.yahoo.com/cbo-obamacare-price-tag-shifts-940-billion-1-163500655.html

Obamacare will cost more.

[KevinNYC]

http://news.yahoo.com/cbo-obamacare-price-tag-shifts-940-billion-1-163500655.html

Obamacare will cost more.


A. The website is incorrect and it seems like it's deliberately distorting the CBO document it refers to (Why even cite a conservative blogger when trying to have a factual argument?) and the CBO has repsonded to that kind of misinformation and they even have a blog post called (http://cbo.gov/publication/44176)
CBO’s Estimate of the Net Budgetary Impact of the Affordable Care Act’s Health Insurance Coverage Provisions Has Not Changed Much Over Time
http://cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/images/pubs-images/44xxx/44176-land-ACA.png

B. In 2012 when John Boehner wanted to repeal Obamacare, the CBO found the Boehner bill would ADD TO THE DEFICIT.

C. The goverment shutdown produced nothing. The ACA gets people health insurance.

By the way, last week I found out that a coworker of a friend of mine was standing behind Obama the day the ACA went into affected. She personally saved something like 12 grand a year.

[Patrick Chewing]

Cruz is a radical.


:sleeping

[longhornfan1234]

No, I think he's a radical because advocated policy -shutting down the government- that cost the economy $24 billion dollars (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/federal-eye/wp/2013/10/18/how-much-did-the-shutdown-cost-the-economy/) for a goal -defunding Obamacare- that had zero percent chance of occurring. There's nothing conservative about a person who acts like that.

$24 billion dollars for nothing.
The Dems shut down the Gov every year under Carter while holding both Houses of Congress and the Presidency. Must have been the Tea Party trying to destroy the Gov???Dems shut Gov several times under Reagan because they wanted to increase welfare funding and Reagan wanted to decrease funding for Welfare.... Dept of Energy and Dept of Education.

Or how about Bubba shutting it down in the 90s because the House and Senate passed welfare reforms and Clinton wouldn't agree to them. Then.... he finally does and leads us to run the surplus that the Dems brag about in the 90s.

Shutting down the government is nothing new. When neither side tries passing a serious budget... it's really the only recourse. I'm not sure where the BS is coming from that Cruz is a radical. Cruz was just after cost cuts. Dems don't like that because they are fiscally irresponsible just like the Old Guard Republicans.

[Scoooter]

Ted Cruz might have the most punchable face in politics. Something about the poutiness of it.

[KeylessEntry]

Ted Cruz might have the most punchable face in politics. Something about the poutiness of it.

Pretty sure Dianne Feinstein holds that crown.

[HarryCallahan]

Chris Christie will be the next president unless the Dem's find a viable candidate. Hilary is too polarizing

:roll:

Homie, I got a better shot than fat-boy Christie. He won't even survive the primaries. He'll get slaughtered in Iowa and S.Carolina, Rubio's running, so he'll probably take florida, so he'd need to do well in New Hampshire, which is far too libertine for a gun-hating homophobe.

[Scoooter]

Pretty sure Dianne Feinstein holds that crown.
She's more slappable, I'd say. You go across the face with Feinstein. Cruz you throw it straight down the pipe and mash that awful nose.

[longhornfan1234]

[QUOTE=KevinNYC]A. The website is incorrect and it seems like it's deliberately distorting the CBO document it refers to (Why even cite a conservative blogger when trying to have a factual argument?) and the CBO has repsonded to that kind of misinformation and they even have a blog post called (http://cbo.gov/publication/44176)
[B]CBO

[longhornfan1234]

She's more slappable, I'd say. You go across the face with Feinstein. Cruz you throw it straight down the pipe and mash that awful nose.

What about bernie sanders? He's the most radical member in senate's history. :lol



I want to beat that old fvcks ass.

[KeylessEntry]

What about bernie sanders? He's the most radical member in senate's history. :lol



I want to beat that old fvcks ass.

Old man sanders would beat your face into the ground if you tried that kid

[longhornfan1234]

Old man sanders would beat your face into the ground if you tried that kid
Ha I'm 23 and he's 72. :roll: :roll:


I'd give him the hands.

[KeylessEntry]

Ha I'm 23 and he's 72. :roll: :roll:


I'd give him the hands.

he would clamp on to your little wrists with his vice grip old man strength, give you the worst indian burn in your life

[Rasheed1]

hillary would win because she is the most popular politician in America (who is running)

Chris Christie is too fat.. (the optics are bad.. Ive seen him stand next to other politicians and his weight is gonna be a problem)..

the rest of the GOP is crazy & not popular enough.. a good democrat (like hillary) will win against any republican because the GOP has nothing offer but knuckleheads.. their best is either rand paul or christie and neither are on hillary's level

[Scoooter]

Christie will need the William Taft mustache to compliment his fatness. That's the only way it will work.

[KeylessEntry]

Why cant a fat guy become president? seems fitting for a country full of fat people.

[HarryCallahan]

Why cant a fat guy become president? seems fitting for a country full of fat people.

They can, just not Christie because a) He won't get the nomination. and b) Even if he does, why vote for him when you can vote for an actual democrat.

[Dresta]

Because Bill Clinton was a highly successful President, and Hillary is associated with him, and she's very electable, and very smart, and has deep credentials, and doesn't hurt she's a woman? :confusedshrug:
No he ****ing wasn't. He was a scumbag triangulating asshole who manipulated saps into thinking he was good.

[JellyBean]

Because it is her time. She is popular among our Liberal circles. She is polished in terms of political knowledge and savvy. And best of all, she could generate a treasure in political donations. Plus there is one other reason, we get to piss off the Republicans even move if Hilary wins the Democratic nomination.

[JellyBean]

No he ****ing wasn't. He was a scumbag triangulating asshole who manipulated saps into thinking he was good.
Stop hating...jeez

[MavsSuperFan]

It probably wont be hilary. The most important qualification to getting elected is charisma. She isnt charismatic. Someone like Obama is going to come and take it from her again.

[Lakers Legend#32]

Elizabeth Warren 2016

[longhornfan1234]

It probably wont be hilary. The most important qualification to getting elected is charisma. She isnt charismatic. Someone like Obama is going to come and take it from her again.




:applause:

[DukeDelonte13]

She is not going to be the nominee. She's not healthy enough, and she's too polarizing.

[longhornfan1234]

She is not going to be the nominee. She's not healthy enough, and she's too polarizing.


Liberals are changing their tune. I guess we're seeing a republican takeover in 2016. :rockon:

[redhonda76]

Hillary is favorably to win the democratic nomination. If you looked at her experience, she was a former senator, former secretary of state, and former first lady ( was very involve politically unlike Laura Bush ). I would think she is a better president than Obama.
However I would like to see a 3rd party candidate on the ballot with national debate access. I am sick and tired of Democrats and Republicans holding the office and screwing this country with useless policies, unnecessary wars and aids.,

[DukeDelonte13]

Hillary is favorably to win the democratic nomination. If you looked at her experience, she was a former senator, former secretary of state, and former first lady ( was very involve politically unlike Laura Bush ). I would think she is a better president than Obama.
However I would like to see a 3rd party candidate on the ballot with national debate access. I am sick and tired of Democrats and Republicans holding the office and screwing this country with useless policies, unnecessary wars and aids.,


a third party already exists, the tea party. They are not republicans. We just saw how well that worked out for American politics.

[DukeDelonte13]

Liberals are changing their tune. I guess we're seeing a republican takeover in 2016. :rockon:


i'm not changing my tune. I like hil, but i never voted for her in the primaries. I just don't think she can win a presidential election. I vote for who i think can win the presidency.

[redhonda76]

a third party already exists, the tea party. They are not republicans. We just saw how well that worked out for American politics.

Read what I wrote. "I would like to see a 3rd party candidate on the ballot with national debate access. "

Have we see that??

[Take Your Lumps]

I'm not a big Hillary fan but I'm sorry, with the current state of the GOP and the upcoming primary civil war that's brewing...I just don't see Republicans putting up much of a fight if she's the nominee.

Maybe Chris Christie. Maybe. But even he runs the risk of becoming Mitt Romney part deux. A moderate republican that gets shunned and beat up by the hard right so much so that he ends up appearing unelectable.

If this party couldn't beat a black guy they built up as the devil incarnate -- twice...during a recession...they sure as hell aren't going to beat a woman in today's America in a general election.

The electorate is shifting away from them at an incredible rate and they continue to dig their heels into policies that the people at large have not bought for the past 8 years. I just don't see the votes.

Nevermind the fact that a ton of people (women especially) will want in on electing the first female president...turnout would be insane which is more bad news for the GOP.

[DukeDelonte13]

Read what I wrote. "I would like to see a 3rd party candidate on the ballot with national debate access. "

Have we see that??



yeah Ross Perot.

[redhonda76]

yeah Ross Perot.

That was more than 20 years ago. And what about now??? None.
What else are you going to say?

[nightprowler10]

Elizabeth Warren 2016
I'd love to see her run, but I don't think she's interested.

[DukeDelonte13]

That was more than 20 years ago. And what about now??? None.
What else are you going to say?


I get that its easier to say everybody sucks rather than to choose a side. Whining for a 3rd party candidate is a cop out. Ron Paul, Ralph Nader, etc. Go throw your vote away on them.

Whining that there isn't a legit 3rd party is like whining about changing the rules of an established sport just because you aren't happy with a particular outcome.

[Rasheed1]

I get that its easier to say everybody sucks rather than to choose a side. Whining for a 3rd party candidate is a cop out. Ron Paul, Ralph Nader, etc. Go throw your vote away on them.

Whining that there isn't a legit 3rd party is like whining about changing the rules of an established sport just because you aren't happy with a particular outcome.


the point is that the public wants better choices than the ones coming from the 2 parties.

you arent throwing your vote away if you vote for the candidate you believe in


if you look at the state of politics and the the lack of effective governance in the political system right now? you can easily see that the 2 political parties are 2 sides of the same coin..

the 2 parties need some real competition and some ideas to push the conversations back in a sane direction.. A candidate that isnt beholden to these 2 parties is freed up to do that.. Even if he doesnt win, he can garner support for ideas that the public wants discussed.. This will force the other politicians to address issues that they would normally avoid.

we need more varied voices in order to break the grip of the status quo business as usual politics

[MavsSuperFan]

the point is that the public wants better choices than the ones coming from the 2 parties.

you arent throwing your vote away if you vote for the candidate you believe in


if you look at the state of politics and the the lack of effective governance in the political system right now? you can easily see that the 2 political parties are 2 sides of the same coin..

the 2 parties need some real competition and some ideas to push the conversations back in a sane direction.. A candidate that isnt beholden to these 2 parties is freed up to do that.. Even if he doesnt win, he can garner support for ideas that the public wants discussed.. This will force the other politicians to address issues that they would normally avoid.

we need more varied voices in order to break the grip of the status quo business as usual politics

In our system with the electoral college yes you are.

In a different system sure, where they have run off voting, voting 3rd party makes sense.

But our system is the electoral college. You literally have to win a whole state before you get any electoral votes.

take the 1992 election for example

Percentage 43.0% 37.5% 18.9%

Clinton won 43%
Bush won 37.5%
and Perot won 18.9%

Electoral vote 370 168 0

Clinton won 370 electoral votes
Bush won 168 electoral votes
Perot won 0 electoral votes.

People who vote 3rd party need to get this through their heads. Perot a billionaire used his own money to finance his campaign and won almost 1 in 5 votes, still failed to score even 1 electoral vote.

All perot did was cost Bush the election.

Edit: and yes it is a reasonable assumption that almost everyone who voted for Perot would have voted for Bush. at least it would have been enough to make up the difference between bush and clinton.

[MavsSuperFan]

I'm not a big Hillary fan but I'm sorry, with the current state of the GOP and the upcoming primary civil war that's brewing...I just don't see Republicans putting up much of a fight if she's the nominee.

Maybe Chris Christie. Maybe. But even he runs the risk of becoming Mitt Romney part deux. A moderate republican that gets shunned and beat up by the hard right so much so that he ends up appearing unelectable.

If this party couldn't beat a black guy they built up as the devil incarnate -- twice...during a recession...they sure as hell aren't going to beat a woman in today's America in a general election.

The electorate is shifting away from them at an incredible rate and they continue to dig their heels into policies that the people at large have not bought for the past 8 years. I just don't see the votes.

Nevermind the fact that a ton of people (women especially) will want in on electing the first female president...turnout would be insane which is more bad news for the GOP.

Rarely does the congressional squabbles affect presidential elections that much. The GOP is going to lose because of demographics, more than anything in their control. Keep it real when non-hispanic whites were almost 90% of the country GOP policies were likely to result in electoral success. Now that we are about 65% of the country it probably means guaranteed DNC victories.

The only possible hope of the GOP is to attract Latino males. But that would mean radical changes to current policies regarding immigration.

[DukeDelonte13]

the point is that the public wants better choices than the ones coming from the 2 parties.

you arent throwing your vote away if you vote for the candidate you believe in


if you look at the state of politics and the the lack of effective governance in the political system right now? you can easily see that the 2 political parties are 2 sides of the same coin..

the 2 parties need some real competition and some ideas to push the conversations back in a sane direction.. A candidate that isnt beholden to these 2 parties is freed up to do that.. Even if he doesnt win, he can garner support for ideas that the public wants discussed.. This will force the other politicians to address issues that they would normally avoid.

we need more varied voices in order to break the grip of the status quo business as usual politics

absolutely 0 substance in what you said. Just hyperbole and clich

[Rasheed1]

In our system with the electoral college yes you are.

In a different system sure, where they have run off voting, voting 3rd party makes sense.

But our system is the electoral college. You literally have to win a whole state before you get any electoral votes.

take the 1992 election for example

Percentage 43.0% 37.5% 18.9%

Clinton won 43%
Bush won 37.5%
and Perot won 18.9%

Electoral vote 370 168 0

Clinton won 370 electoral votes
Bush won 168 electoral votes
Perot won 0 electoral votes.

People who vote 3rd party need to get this through their heads. Perot a billionaire used his own money to finance his campaign and won almost 1 in 5 votes, still failed to score even 1 electoral vote.

All perot did was cost Bush the election.

Edit: and yes it is a reasonable assumption that almost everyone who voted for Perot would have voted for Bush. at least it would have been enough to make up the difference between bush and clinton.

you missed the point of my comment..

the people who voted for perot obviously didnt like Bush or Clinton... So they voted for the perot (who obviously appealed to these people more). That isnt a wasted vote.

The main point is that the 2 party system has forced people to vote for the best of a sh*tty lot. whether you choose Clinton or Obama or Bush or Romney, or Mccain? many of the policies that the public is unhappy with will not change..

I understand the numbers game, but that misses the true problem, which is the public's dissatisfaction with both parties.

Like I said, more choices will force the 2 parties to move the conversation into places that the public wants it to go.. Just like Romney got pushed to the right in the primaries of 2012? a another player would force the 2 parties to respond to issues that the new player would put on the table.

[Rasheed1]

[QUOTE=DukeDelonte13]absolutely 0 substance in what you said. Just hyperbole and clich

[MavsSuperFan]

you missed the point of my comment..

the people who voted for perot obviously didnt like Bush or Clinton... So they voted for the perot (who obviously appealed to these people more). That isnt a wasted vote.

The main point is that the 2 party system has forced people to vote for the best of a sh*tty lot. whether you choose Clinton or Obama or Bush or Romney, or Mccain? many of the policies that the public is unhappy with will not change..

I understand the numbers game, but that misses the true problem, which is the public's dissatisfaction with both parties.

Like I said, more choices will force the 2 parties to move the conversation into places that the public wants it to go.. Just like Romney got pushed to the right in the primaries of 2012? a another player would force the 2 parties to respond to issues that the new player would put on the table.

You miss my point. The electoral college is unchangeable. It is in the constitution and a constitutional amendment is impossible (well not technically impossible, but you will have a better chance of winning the lottery) in 2013.

you need to win the popular vote in a state before you get 1 electoral vote. 271 electoral votes to win.


the people who voted for perot obviously didnt like Bush or Clinton

True, but you are going to hate one of them less. Eg. Nader voters would have hated gore less.

[Rasheed1]

You miss my point. The electoral college is unchangeable. It is in the constitution and a constitutional amendment is impossible (well not technically impossible, but you will have a better chance of winning the lottery) in 2013.

you need to win the popular vote in a state before you get 1 electoral vote. 271 electoral votes to win.

the electoral college can be amended, but the 2 parties would obviously fight any such change because the current system benefits them.






True, but you are going to hate one of them less. Eg. Nader voters would have hated gore less.

and there in lies the problem... The public is basically voting for the guy they hate the least instead of the guy they like

[KeylessEntry]

You miss my point. The electoral college is unchangeable. It is in the constitution and a constitutional amendment is impossible (well not technically impossible, but you will have a better chance of winning the lottery) in 2013.

you need to win the popular vote in a state before you get 1 electoral vote. 271 electoral votes to win.


This is simply not true. In Nebraska and Maine, electoral votes can be split. Other states could do the same if they wanted to, there is nothing in the constitution stopping them.

[MavsSuperFan]

This is simply not true. In Nebraska and Maine, electoral votes can be split. Other states could do the same if they wanted to, there is nothing in the constitution stopping them.
hmm I did not know that.

still dont see a change ever happening. and i believe the other 48 states are winner take all.

[KeylessEntry]

hmm I did not know that.

still dont see a change ever happening.

If people like Perot cost people like Bush enough elections, the people like Bush will be howling for a change, and the public will too.

[MavsSuperFan]

If people like Perot cost people like Bush enough elections, the people like Bush will be howling for a change, and the public will too.
Wouldnt changing the system just make it harder for the people already in charge to stay in charge?


THE CONSTITUTION
Article II

Section 1. The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.


Twelfth Amendment

The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate; The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;--The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice.... The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President to the United States.

Maybe you were right about changing the allocation of electoral votes. But getting rid of the system entirely would require amending the constitution. Which is very difficult.

Correct me if im wrong but are the other 48 states winner take all?

[OldSkoolball#52]

Any Democrat for entitlement reform can win my vote.


This.


I gaurantee there are far more voters who consider themselves to be on the conservative/republican side of the spectrum who would be WILLING to compromise than there are democrat/liberal voters willing to compromise aything.

A lot of secular conservatives do not care about gay marriage and abortion, just want to reign in out of control entitlements.

ALL liberals want more welfare, more entitlements, more pork, more bureaucracy, more intervention. They are on a never ending quest to use government to accomplish their deluded ideologies about complete, literal income equality across all Americans.

Of course, remind them they live much better than impoverished kids in most of the world, and ask them to donate 200 bucks to help kids in Africa or Malaysia or Paraguay - hell even some of the ones in America - live a life closer in quality to their own, suddenly theyre not so concerned with equality.


American liberals want to make sure the cutoff for "making too much money/being greedy" is always arbitrarily rigt above their own heads. They want to make themselves equal to the fat cats above themselves, they dont care about making the starving kids below them equal to themselves.


Whats more amazing is that they actually use these selfish positions to massage their own egos and convince themselves theyre being compassionate and intellectual - by ponying up other peoples money instead of their own.

[KeylessEntry]

Wouldnt changing the system just make it harder for the people already in charge to stay in charge?

I dont know the answer to that one, but my guess is that its a bit of a two-way road.

For example, lets say there was a really hardcore left wing candidate that was repeatedly taking ~10% of the Democrat vote, preventing the Dems from winning any election (like Ralph Nader did to Gore in 2000). In this case, it would certainly be in the interests of the people in power to make a change, because the dems are still much stronger than the third party, and they are almost as strong as the republicans, but they have absolutely zero chance against republicans while that third party is blocking them.

Our current system is a bit of a double edged sword to the Dems and Repubs. As long as those in power can convince people that third party candidates are too fringe to matter, the people in power stay safe. However, every time a strong third party candidate comes along it completely throws a wrench in the system and can completely neutralize one of the major parties. If we keep throwing the wrench into the system, it will eventually force a change.



Maybe you were right about changing the allocation of electoral votes. But getting rid of the system entirely would require amending the constitution. Which is very difficult.

I dont think anybody is proposing to get rid of the system entirely.



Correct me if im wrong but are the other 48 states winner take all?

I am going to let you look this up for yourself.

[MavsSuperFan]

Booker and Cruz are my guys. Cruz is a true conservative. Any Democrat for entitlement reform can win my vote.
Then why do you hate obama? He has been willing to cut entitlements as part of a grand bargain for almost 2 years now. Boehner got according to him "98%" of what he wanted in the grand bargain. the tea party was so crazy the blew up that deal and wanted to fight for the extra 2%.

[MavsSuperFan]

I dont know the answer to that one, but my guess is that its a bit of a two-way road.

For example, lets say there was a really hardcore left wing candidate that was repeatedly taking ~10% of the Democrat vote, preventing the Dems from winning any election (like Ralph Nader did to Gore in 2000). In this case, it would certainly be in the interests of the people in power to make a change, because the dems are still much stronger than the third party, but they have absolutely zero chance against republicans while that third party is blocking them.

Our current system is a bit of a double edged sword to the Dems and Repubs. As long as those in power can convince people that third party candidates are too fringe to matter, the people in power stay safe. However, every time a strong third party candidate comes along it completely throws a wrench in the system and can completely neutralize one of the major parties.



I dont think anybody is proposing to get rid of the system entirely.



I am going to let you look this up for yourself.
the other 48 states are winner take all.

Strong 3rd parties are very rare. Nader wasnt really that strong.

[KeylessEntry]

the other 48 states are winner take all.

Strong 3rd parties are very rare. Nader wasnt really that strong.

Nader was strong enough to screw Gore over, all it takes is ~3%

[MavsSuperFan]

I'd love to see her run, but I don't think she's interested.
Elizabeth Warren will probably steal the nomination from hillary. And with the demographic trends in American the dems will win again.

This is assuming the GOP doesn't manage to attract Latino males.

[OldSkoolball#52]

Boehner got according to him "98%" of what he wanted in the grand bargain. the tea party was so crazy the blew up that deal and wanted to fight for the extra 2%.


You have no idea what that means or what the context is. First of all as the lead negotiator of course hes trying to save face. Secondly no conservatives are happy with 98% of the bargain and current model. You are forcing the tea party into the issue because liberals have been trained to use the political ploy of associating republica with tea partiers every chance you get as a way to create negative association.


The current system is unsustainable. The government cant change it because too many loser liberals want money they havent earned. Thats what debt is. Spending more than you generate. People want expensive medical treatments, lofty pensions, retirement benefits and more just because they sat at a cash register for 40 years. Shit aint realistic. Labor unions, old people and minorities make up Democrats. Basically groups that want/expect more than what they are truly earning on the market. The fact these groups are growing is what makes sensinive liberal losers FEEL good. And thats all they care about. FEELING like the good, self righteous guys even as they sell out Americas future to assure they can be the ones who get to hand out the cash now and get all the praise. Its actually very very ominous that the wrong groups are growing quickly in America. But hey, thats insensitive talk. Who wants to be a buzzkill, right? Free money for everyone!!!

[Droid101]

:oldlol:

I am suprised a f@ggot like starface can take enough time out of his busy schedule of sucking d1cks under the highway overpass for drug money to post on an internet forum.
Thank you for not quoting him. He's on my ignore list, and it helps the forum to be much more pleasant.

[MavsSuperFan]

You have no idea what that means or what the context is. First of all as the lead negotiator of course hes trying to save face. Secondly no conservatives are happy with 98% of the bargain and current model. You are forcing the tea party into the issue because liberals have been trained to use the political ploy of associating republica with tea partiers every chance you get as a way to create negative association.


The current system is unsustainable. The government cant change it because too many loser liberals want money they havent earned. Thats what debt is. Spending more than you generate. People want expensive medical treatments, lofty pensions, retirement benefits and more just because they sat at a cash register for 40 years. Shit aint realistic. Labor unions, old people and minorities make up Democrats. Basically groups that want/expect more than what they are truly earning on the market. The fact these groups are growing is what makes sensinive liberal losers FEEL good. And thats all they care about. FEELING like the good, self righteous guys even as they sell out Americas future to assure they can be the ones who get to hand out the cash now and get all the praise. Its actually very very ominous that the wrong groups are growing quickly in America. But hey, thats insensitive talk. Who wants to be a buzzkill, right? Free money for everyone!!!

I followed the negotiations quite closely.

iirc obama agreed to give 3 dollars of cuts for every 1 dollar of revenue (or was it a 4:1 ratio).

He also agreed to chained CPI on cost of living adjustments to social security.

iirc Chained CPI- basically the assumption that consumers will substitute to an expensive expenditure to a cheaper one. Eg. pork instead of beef. Chicken instead of pork, spam instead of chicken. etc.

Obama also agreed to cutting the corporate tax rate, and set the estate tax at a lower rate than what it would have increased to had he done nothing.

The current system could be sustained if they simply took the cap off of payroll contributions. But Obama does not want to sustain the current system. He is trying to cut entitlements. He merely wants some tax revenue in return. I dont really understand why conservatives hate him so much. And too be honest why liberals love him so much.

[longhornfan1234]

I followed the negotiations quite closely.

iirc obama agreed to give 3 dollars of cuts for every 1 dollar of revenue (or was it a 4:1 ratio).

He also agreed to chained CPI on cost of living adjustments to social security.

iirc Chained CPI- basically the assumption that consumers will substitute to an expensive expenditure to a cheaper one. Eg. pork instead of beef. Chicken instead of pork, spam instead of chicken. etc.

Obama also agreed to cutting the corporate tax rate, and set the estate tax at a lower rate than what it would have increased to had he done nothing.

The current system could be sustained if they simply took the cap off of payroll contributions. But Obama does not want to sustain the current system. He is trying to cut entitlements. He merely wants some tax revenue in return. I dont really understand why conservatives hate him so much. And too be honest why liberals love him so much.
Those are cola changes.

[OldSkoolball#52]

I dont really understand why conservatives hate him so much. And too be honest why liberals love him so much.

I agree that Obama is not as liberal as conservatives sometimes make out to be or naive liberals believe him to be, and in fact Bush's spending record was MORE liberal than it was often made out to be. Both guys ultimately listen to their donor interests, and sometimes theres a lot of overlap. The problem is entitlements have become so popular its hard for any politician to change them regardless of party.


But the cuts that have been made really arent significant in the big picture. America has created way too many dependents. People keep talking about continuing to raise the minimum wage concurrent with inflation - ok, why hasnt the retirement age risen concurrent with life expectancy??? You realize people can retire at 62 and receive social security money untl theyre 95 if they live that long??? Plus medicare??? Thats 33 YEARS of rent money and (expensive) medical coverage from the government without working. Yes they paid into it but overall their generation will receive more than what they paid and our generation will be screwed.


Not to mention all the money allocated for medicaid, because we feel a responsibility to give the poor medical benefits, and thats fine, but somehow we dont feel the need to insist they live a healthy lifestyle? Gluttonous obesity, shooting off guns, drug use, spreading STDs... Not only are we perfectly fine with these things but were gonna pay to encourage them???


The people who target wall street, and our system of a mostly calitalistic democracy, and the "1%" are the ones who simply do not have the guts to appropriate blame where it is deserved, which is with the devolution of cultural values amongst the general public. As these values dissolve, money becomes concentrated in the hands of those who still practice them. Hard work, education, thrift, planning, responsibility, health. Loser libs see the RESULT, and blame those who benefit. They dont have the guts to tell someone struggling that its their fault. Even a deadbeat alcoholic who ran out on his kids, liberals wont even criticize that guy. They got beef with Mitt Romney because he only released two years of tax returns and apparently not releasing five years worth is what is causing lower academic test scores and higher teen pregnancy. Hm.

[MavsSuperFan]

Those are cola changes.
yes i called it cost of living adjustments.

and over time chained CPI will cut the buying power of SS payments significantly.

[HarryCallahan]

Elizabeth Warren will probably steal the nomination from hillary. And with the demographic trends in American the dems will win again.

This is assuming the GOP doesn't manage to attract Latino males.

If Warren becomes prez, i'm throwing myself off a bridge. She's an actual socialist, not an "Obama Socialist."

[Take Your Lumps]

Like I was saying...

GOP loses more young, minority and female voters after shutdown (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/22/gop-loses-more-young-minority-and-female-voters-af/)

At this rate, the GOP is going to have to ferry in white people from Europe for 2016.

[KevinNYC]

If Warren becomes prez, i'm throwing myself off a bridge. She's an actual socialist, not an "Obama Socialist."

I'm sold.

http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l217/Shockwave_73/warren_2016_bumper_sticker.jpg

What do we get if she becomes Vice President?

[knickballer]

Like I was saying...

GOP loses more young, minority and female voters after shutdown (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/22/gop-loses-more-young-minority-and-female-voters-af/)

At this rate, the GOP is going to have to ferry in white people from Europe for 2016.

Pretty much. Doesn't help that the democrats are the biggest supporters of social welfare programs and will have tons of unemployed welfare leeches to have a voting base from.

[KevinNYC]

What's wrong with Corey Booker?
Your man-crush was on Rachel Maddow yesterday.

You can probably find the video online.

[KevinNYC]

Pretty much. Doesn't help that the democrats are the biggest supporters of social welfare programs and will have tons of unemployed welfare leeches to have a voting base from.

Lee Atwater (http://www.thenation.com/article/170841/exclusive-lee-atwaters-infamous-1981-interview-southern-strategy) lives!

Atwater 2016!

[HarryCallahan]

I'm sold.

http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l217/Shockwave_73/warren_2016_bumper_sticker.jpg

What do we get if she becomes Vice President?

My cawk down your throat?

[KevinNYC]

President it is!

[HarryCallahan]

President it is!

Never gonna happen. You're just making yourself look like a crazy fringe lunatic, same thing you accuse Cruz et. al of being.

[KevinNYC]

Never gonna happen. You're just making yourself look like a crazy fringe lunatic, same thing you accuse Cruz et. al of being.
I didn't say it was going to happen, I was just rooting for your death.

[Patrick Chewing]

The Sheeple need to open their eyes against the Democratic party and realize they're all snakes that will tell you what you want to hear, but will do otherwise. They will talk like you (Hillary and Biden speaking in slang at black churches) just to appease the masses and sway the voters.

The Democrats have been the most divisive party in the history of this country and the most racist too. They bankrupt cities like Detroit and go to jail for years for their crookedness (Kwame Kilpatrick - Sentenced to 28 years in prison, Jesse Jackson Jr. - Sentenced to 3 years in prison). Martin Luther King and Frederick Douglas sure as hell weren't Democrats, for they knew of the prejudice and trickery that lay within that party, and these two men are probably the two wisest and most influential African-Americans in history.

Democrats have been running the inner-cities for nearly 40 years now and blacks are still in the same predicament they were in 40 years ago. The Liberal politician will tell you first that he is here, in YOUR city, to solve YOUR problems. He will then tell you who and what caused those problems and he will point a blind finger at Republicans and tell you to your face that it is because of their policy that you have been poor, broken down, and robbed. So they swoop in as heroes, but are really enemies as they continue down the Socialist path to take from the rich and distribute it evenly. This is their master plan. To lure you in with false hopes of changing your lives, but what they are really doing is giving you free money, or at least the illusion of. They are buying your votes and spending more money and more money in the process.

Remember: In a not so distant past, the Democratic party gave birth to Slavery. They gave birth to Secession from the Union. They gave birth to Segregation after the Civil War. They gave birth to the KKK and terrorized the American "negro". And finally, they've given birth to Socialism as we can clearly and plainly see in 2013.

If you want to vote for such liars and deceivers, then by God you have that right. However, if you ever come to a point where such decision changes your life in any form of regret or reconsideration, then please do not forget that history, TV shows, and basketball message boards warned you about the filth that is the Democratic party.

[KevinNYC]

The Sheeple need to open their eyes against the Democratic party and realize they're all snakes that will tell you what you want to hear, but will do otherwise. They will talk like you (Hillary and Biden speaking in slang at black churches) just to appease the masses and sway the voters.

The Democrats have been the most divisive party in the history of this country and the most racist too. They bankrupt cities like Detroit and go to jail for years for their crookedness (Kwame Kilpatrick - Sentenced to 28 years in prison, Jesse Jackson Jr. - Sentenced to 3 years in prison). Martin Luther King and Frederick Douglas sure as hell weren't Democrats, for they knew of the prejudice and trickery that lay within that party, and these two men are probably the two wisest and most influential African-Americans in history.

Democrats have been running the inner-cities for nearly 40 years now and blacks are still in the same predicament they were in 40 years ago. The Liberal politician will tell you first that he is here, in YOUR city, to solve YOUR problems. He will then tell you who and what caused those problems and he will point a blind finger at Republicans and tell you to your face that it is because of their policy that you have been poor, broken down, and robbed. So they swoop in as heroes, but are really enemies as they continue down the Socialist path to take from the rich and distribute it evenly. This is their master plan. To lure you in with false hopes of changing your lives, but what they are really doing is giving you free money, or at least the illusion of. They are buying your votes and spending more money and more money in the process.

Remember: In a not so distant past, the Democratic party gave birth to Slavery. They gave birth to Secession from the Union. They gave birth to Segregation after the Civil War. They gave birth to the KKK and terrorized the American "negro". And finally, they've given birth to Socialism as we can clearly and plainly see in 2013.

If you want to vote for such liars and deceivers, then by God you have that right. However, if you ever come to a point where such decision changes your life in any form of regret or reconsideration, then please do not forget that history, TV shows, and basketball message boards warned you about the filth that is the Democratic party.


Let's vote for our favorite parts.
This one is mine.

Remember: In a not so distant past, the Democratic party gave birth to Slavery.:roll: Linky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_United_States#Colonial_America)

[HarryCallahan]

I didn't say it was going to happen, I was just rooting for your death.

That's the way with you statists isn't it? You're a bunch of vile, violent, death and hate-mongering people. I hope that one day you renounce all of the violence and hatred in your heart and accept peace and love.

[Patrick Chewing]

Let's vote for our favorite parts.
This one is mine.

Remember: In a not so distant past, the Democratic party gave birth to Slavery.:roll: Linky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_United_States#Colonial_America)


Speak truths on this board and not one-sided lies that you and your cronies at the Daily Kos post on a daily basis for your 37 followers to read every other week.

[KevinNYC]

Speak truths on this board

Wait which one us knows when slavery in the US started?

[KevinNYC]

That's the way with you statists isn't it? You're a bunch of vile, violent, death and hate-mongering people. I hope that one day you renounce all of the violence and hatred in your heart and accept peace and love.
Sez the guy who wanted to sodomize me about half a page ago.

[OldSkoolball#52]

Democrats have been running the inner-cities for nearly 40 years now and blacks are still in the same predicament they were in 40 years ago.



This.


Inner cities have just become shittier and shittier because nobody is demanding that urban blacks assimilate culturally. The politically correct protection from critcism of BET culture has ensured that black people continue to spiral downward, and white people just continue to move the hell away.

[HarryCallahan]

Sez the guy who wanted to sodomize me about half a page ago.

"Want" no past tense.

An what's wrong with a consensual act of oral sex between two adults?

[KevinNYC]

"Want" no past tense.

An what's wrong with a consensual act of oral sex between two adults?
You're sweet, but I find libertarians too naive to be sexy.

[secund2nun]

Both Booker and Hillary are typical status quo candidates that only serve the corporate interests while f*cking the people in the a$$.

Booker is a man who is against repealing the Patriot Act and supports the US government spying on US citizens, he also wants military action considered against Iran and Syria (he is a war hawk), and is busying hiring lobbyists to run his staff. This guy is a fake liberal. He is a corporatist. An actual liberal is someone like Dennis Kucinich or Mike Gravel who will never stand a chance at winning office because they are not corporate whores. Booker is full of lobbyist connections to Silicon valley and is tied to corrupt for using Newark city funds for his own use.

Hillary is also a corporatist just like Kerry, Obama, and Gore. She is a phony. Both parties are controlled by the same interests. Hillary is someone who voted for the Iraqi war, wants to invade Iran and drone attack Syria, voted for the bailouts and the Patriot Act. Only if a candidate is a puppet to the big banks, big pharma, and the big military can they seriously be considered for nomination. The principled non-corporate whore ones like Grave, Nader, Ventura, Ron Paul, and Kuchinich are written off as "unelectable fringe candidates" by the corporate media.

[MavsSuperFan]

Both Booker and Hillary are typical status quo candidates that only serve the corporate interests while f*cking the people in the a$$.

Booker is a man who is against repealing the Patriot Act and supports the US government spying on US citizens, he also wants military action considered against Iran and Syria (he is a war hawk), and is busying hiring lobbyists to run his staff. This guy is a fake liberal. He is a corporatist. An actual liberal is someone like Dennis Kucinich or Mike Gravel who will never stand a chance at winning office because they are not corporate whores. Booker is full of lobbyist connections to Silicon valley and is tied to corrupt for using Newark city funds for his own use.

Hillary is also a corporatist just like Kerry, Obama, and Gore. She is a phony. Both parties are controlled by the same interests. Hillary is someone who voted for the Iraqi war, wants to invade Iran and drone attack Syria, voted for the bailouts and the Patriot Act. Only if a candidate is a puppet to the big banks, big pharma, and the big military can they seriously be considered for nomination. The principled non-corporate whore ones like Grave, Nader, Ventura, Ron Paul, and Kuchinich are written off as "unelectable fringe candidates" by the corporate media.

I kind of agree, both booker and hilary are pretty much obama's 3rd term.

booker is going to support wall street much more than his supporters realize. If they actually followed his policies they would realize the guy is pro war and pro bankers.

I think people realize that about hilary, but they are naive about booker

[longhornfan1234]

Your man-crush was on Rachel Maddow yesterday.

You can probably find the video online.


He's the future. He's a better speaker and has more charisma than Obama. He's also more intelligent. He's a new Democrat. It brings a tear to my eye there's Dems that are for cutting spending and entitlement reform.

[secund2nun]

I kind of agree, both booker and hilary are pretty much obama's 3rd term.

booker is going to support wall street much more than his supporters realize. If they actually followed his policies they would realize the guy is pro war and pro bankers.

I think people realize that about hilary, but they are naive about booker

Yep...sadly almost no one follows any candidates policies and what they actually voted for. They go by how he looks, how he sounds, and what fox and cnn told them.

People actually think we have a choice in this country. It makes me laugh :oldlol: We have an illusion of free choice to keep the masses content. I view America as an oligarchy, which it really is.

The media will only back the corporate approved candidates on both sides.

[OldSkoolball#52]

People actually think we have a choice in this country.


We do, it is just rarely exercised.


Capitalism is an economic system that encourages innovation which improves life quality. The pitfall is that money accumulating in the hands of a few causes an imbalance of power. The great neutralizer that the founding fathers gave the everyman is an equal vote. Everyones vote counts the same.

How many everymen vote? Very few. How many everymen pay attention? Very few. How many everymen show the slightest knowledge or concern for what happens in American politics? Very few. Those of us who discuss it on this site, regardless of where we stand on the issues, are in a minority. MOST Americans are extremely apathetic. Thats something the public has to take responsibility for but never does.

Corporations and media have the money/power but people have the numbers. The only difference is the corps and media are comprosed of people willing to utilize their advantages... The public isnt.

[secund2nun]

We do, it is just rarely exercised.


Capitalism is an economic system that encourages innovation which improves life quality. The pitfall is that money accumulating in the hands of a few causes an imbalance of power. The great neutralizer that the founding fathers gave the everyman is an equal vote. Everyones vote counts the same.

How many everymen vote? Very few. How many everymen pay attention? Very few. How many everymen show the slightest knowledge or concern for what happens in American politics? Very few. Those of us who discuss it on this site, regardless of where we stand on the issues, are in a minority. MOST Americans are extremely apathetic. Thats something the public has to take responsibility for but never does.

Corporations and media have the money/power but people have the numbers. The only difference is the corps and media are comprosed of people willing to utilize their advantages... The public isnt.

You are right we technically do have a choice. I should have worded my point better. From a realistic standpoint we don't have a choice right now because of the amount of sheep running around voting. If everyone woke up and started to reject the media propaganda and based their vote on a candidate's voting record and rejected the corporate backed candidates things would change, but sadly for generations people have been brainwashed from birth to eat up whatever BS the corporate media shoves down their throat in any category including politics. They really live in the Matrix.

The only hope now is that because of the internet we can now access alternative sources for information (aka the actual truth) which is why more and more people are learning the truth, but it's still such a small minority though it's a lot larger than before.

[OldSkoolball#52]

You are right we technically do have a choice. I should have worded my point better. From a realistic standpoint we don't have a choice right now because of the amount of sheep running around voting. If everyone woke up and started to reject the media propaganda and based their vote on a candidate's voting record and rejected the corporate backed candidates things would change, but sadly for generations people have been brainwashed from birth to eat up whatever BS the corporate media shoves down their throat in any category including politics. They really live in the Matrix.

The only hope now is that because of the internet we can now access alternative sources for information (aka the actual truth) which is why more and more people are learning the truth, but it's still such a small minority though it's a lot larger than before.


I agree and part of me feels the same optimism about the internet, but then you see guys like KevinNYC and DukeDelonte on here caught up in the mindless "my party vs your party" competition aspect of politics rather than discussion about effective policy, and you realize that extra access to information isnt that helpful to people too retarded to know what to do with it. KevinNYC could use these resources to discuss meaningful policy issues but instead he just disccuses political gossip and pretends hes one of TV talking heads he idolizes.

I mean theres a lot of people out there with access to the internet who pay no attention to politics. I feel like its probably a simple social law that those who innately wish to pay attention and take advantage of resources and opportunities are the ones who do, and end up with an advantage, while most people simply do not care enough to be involved, regardless of circumstances.

A dude riding a horse could plead with the horse to go faster for any number of reasons, some of which may benefit the horse. But... its still a horse. Certain things are just simply too complex for its genetic programming. So it is with sheeple I often feel.

[KevinNYC]

He's the future. He's a better speaker and has more charisma than Obama. He's also more intelligent.
I've heard that before. (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0063462/quotes?item=qt0423498)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0063462/quotes?item=qt0423498

He's a new Democrat.
New new? or just New Democrat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Democrats#Bill_Clinton_as_a_New_Democrat) the twenty-year old kind?

It brings a tear to my eye there's Dems that are for cutting spending and entitlement reform.

That's kinda odd.

[KevinNYC]

The great neutralizer that the founding fathers gave the everyman is an equal vote.

No they didn't.

[HarryCallahan]

You're sweet, but I find libertarians too naive to be sexy.

:coleman:

Who you calling a Libertarian scrah?

[longhornfan1234]

I've heard that before. (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0063462/quotes?item=qt0423498)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0063462/quotes?item=qt0423498

New new? or just New Democrat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Democrats#Bill_Clinton_as_a_New_Democrat) the twenty-year old kind?


That's kinda odd.


I don't get it.


It's strange you dislike Booker.

[BigTicket]

Liberals would much rather have Elizabeth Warren, it's bluedog democrats that prefer Hillary

[HarryCallahan]

Liberals would much rather have Elizabeth Warren, it's bluedog democrats that prefer Hillary

:kobe:

Yeah, Hillary so thoroughly appeals to fiscally conservative/socially liberal (d)'s...

[longhornfan1234]

Cory Booker Looks Forward To Working On Drug Policy Reform With Rand Paul


http://www.forbes.com/sites/jacobsullum/2013/10/23/cory-booker-looks-forward-to-working-on-drug-policy-reform-with-rand-paul/

http://i40.tinypic.com/2n833as.jpg




We're not worthy of this man. :bowdown: :bowdown:

[KevinNYC]

I don't get it.
............don't feed me straightlines.


It's strange you dislike Booker.
I actually don't dislike Booker, however, I'm not bowled over by him either and I do think him spitting on the message of his party was a chickenshit move to promote himself.

but you have this fantasy world where

A. a guy who is still mayor should leapfrog many other qualified people to beome the Democratic candidate, let alone someone with Clinton's credentials and large base of support.

B. Democrats would willingly turn away from the woman who 5 years ago would have won the Presidency if not for Obama.

C. People who like Booker would dislike Clinton.

Booker's an interesting guy, but there's nothing right now that shows me he would be a serious national candidate.

[KevinNYC]

We're not worthy of this man. :bowdown: :bowdown:

This is kind of what I'm talking about, when you fall you fall hard. And it doesn't seem to take much. This feels like when you started going crazy over
Ben Carson.



Also has Booker ever even hinted he's going to run in 2016? I'm mean where is this even coming from?

[longhornfan1234]

............don't feed me straightlines.


I actually don't dislike Booker, however, I'm not bowled over by him either and I do think him spitting on the message of his party was a chickenshit move to promote himself.

but you have this fantasy world where

A. a guy who is still mayor should leapfrog many other qualified people to beome the Democratic candidate, let alone someone with Clinton's credentials and large base of support.

B. Democrats would willingly turn away from the woman who 5 years ago would have won the Presidency if not for Obama.

C. People who like Booker would dislike Clinton.

Booker's an interesting guy, but there's nothing right now that shows me he would be a serious national candidate.


I understand the Clinton part. Who are the other qualified people that have a chance of winning? Cuomo and Biden? :lol


Like I said earlier... Hilary lacks Booker's charisma and overall personality. . She's too polarizing. Her age will be factor.


Hilary and Obama are basically the same candidates. Obama won because of his charisma and more likable personality.


Booker just needs to keep padding his resume.

[longhornfan1234]

This is kind of what I'm talking about, when you fall you fall hard. And it doesn't seem to take much. This feels like when you started going crazy over
Ben Carson.



Also has Booker ever even hinted he's going to run in 2016? I'm mean where is this even coming from?


You will never stop bringing up Carson. Are you still mad Carson belittle Obama during the prayer breakfast? Carson put his foot in his mouth too many times. I'm done with him. Booker is a rising star. I know Booker 2016 is premature.... but I still will not give up on my guy.

[KevinNYC]

You will never stop bringing up Carson. Are you still mad Carson belittle Obama during the prayer breakfast?

No.

Because I had no idea that happened, because I had no idea who he was.

The first time I heard his name was from you. And I was baffled. You were talking about this guy as a presidential candidate and I had never heard his name.


Carson put his foot in his mouth too many times. I'm done with him.

This is kinda my point. You fall hard too fast before you truly know about the guy. Booker has yet to be really tested. He beat a Tea Party guy in NJ. It doesn't make you a candidate for GOAT.

[longhornfan1234]

No.

Because I had no idea that happened, because I had no idea who he was.

The first time I heard his name was from you. And I was baffled. You were talking about this guy as a presidential candidate and I had never heard his name.



This is kinda my point. You fall hard too fast before you truly know about the guy. Booker has yet to be really tested. He beat a Tea Party guy in NJ. It doesn't make you a candidate for GOAT.
:facepalm



He took one of the deadliest cities in the US and made it the number one for violent crime reduction between 2006 and 2009. He had the first murder free month in Newark since 1966. He left Newark in good shape economically. He can work across aisle. Booker and Christie are friends. He has the charisma and likable personality. :lol stop acting like Booker is some scrub politician. If you deny he's rising star....you're not paying attention.

[Lakers Legend#32]

The Democrats were the first to elect an African-American president. They want to be the first to elect a woman president. Hopefully it will be Elizabeth Warren.

[KevinNYC]

[QUOTE=KevinNYC]He took one of the deadliest cities in the US and made it the number one for violent crime reduction between 2006 and 2009. He had the first murder free month in Newark since 1966. He left Newark in good shape economically. He can work across aisle. Booker and Christie are friends. He has the charisma and likable personality. :lol stop acting like Booker is some scrub politician. If you deny he's rising star....you're not paying attention.

Rising is the key point. He still has a long way to go.
I know what he did in Newark, but those are local issues. So how do they translate nationally?
Like I said above he had a cakewalk against Lonegan, Booker hasn't been tested in a rough fight against a tough opponent.

In basketball terms he's a third year all star, but he's never gone been in the playoffs, let alone made a run towards the finals.

[Take Your Lumps]

The Democrats were the first to elect an African-American president. They want to be the first to elect a woman president. Hopefully it will be Elizabeth Warren.

There's no chance either of the two national parties funded by bankers and corporations will nominate someone vehemently fighting against their excesses and abuses.