Hillary Clinton is Done

[Skeptic Ginger]

Do you seriously think that's a possibility?

My brain says no, my fear there are that many low information voters says yes. So I'm not confident this county isn't vulnerable to insanity.

I would have people vote for the best candidate.

Best depends on the criteria you judge it by. I think Clinton is the most competent. I think Sanders has the best philosophy. Tis a dilemma.

There's a bit more at stake here...but

There's everything at stake. If one votes for Clinton I think we'll we'll have a lot of good and a small amount of bad. If we vote for Sanders I think we'll have a lot of good intentions and very little actually accomplished.

Is Obama what passes for "progressive" in the Democratic Party?

He was. I'm hoping his last year will return him to Progressive status. Overall however, I'm content with what we got.

 

[SezMe]

Do you seriously think that's a possibility?

Maybe not Trump but, for example, Bush would beat Sanders one-on-one. Here's why that is not worth the risk this election. Consider this table:

Justice|Age
Ginsburg|82
Scalia|79
Kennedy|79
Breyer|77
Thomas|67
Sotomayor|61
Roberts|60
Alito|60
Kagan|55

A two-term president is going to appoint AT LEAST four justices. Should ANY of the GOP candidates get elected and appoint very conservative judges, this country will be solidified as a complete oligarchy for the next 50 years. Corporations would own elections, Roe would be overturned, voting rights would disappear, gerrymandering would become the norm, etc.

No matter how theoretically attractive he might be to some, Sanders isn't worth the risk.

 

[logger]

Reading all of the above, I can see the panic in your posts and I'll add ITS ABOUT TIME!!!

Now you're finally seeing the terrible situation you're in. All you have left is the presidency and if you lose that your power is completely gone. Lets just suppose Trump wins or even worse for you Cruz could win. I can't wait to see how crazy you get.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Reading all of the above, I can see the panic in your posts and I'll add ITS ABOUT TIME!!!

Now you're finally seeing the terrible situation you're in. All you have left is the presidency and if you lose that your power is completely gone. Lets just suppose Trump wins or even worse for you Cruz could win. I can't wait to see how crazy you get.

Neither Trump nor Cruz is going to even get the nomination. You can bluster all you want, but I have a feeling we can count on an end to this filibuster around the first week in November of 2016. It'll be fun 'til then, but you'll do a disappearing act like you did in 2012, rather than face up to the facts - that your right wing cocoon is based on a rapidly dying (figuratively and literally) demographic.

 

[Meadmaker]

Reading all of the above, I can see the panic in your posts and I'll add ITS ABOUT TIME!!!

Now you're finally seeing the terrible situation you're in. All you have left is the presidency and if you lose that your power is completely gone.

Temporarily.

Once one party gets into power so that they can actually get their agenda items without significant need to compromise, people realize that the party tends to be more extreme than they are, and vote for the other guys.

To really control the government, you need the President, the House, and the Senate. I started voting in 1980. I think since then there have been a grand total of seven years where that has been the case, and I'm counting 1980-1982 in that, when a coalition of Republicans + Southern Democrats gave Reagan an effective majority in the House.

(I think the other years were 1992-1994, a few months in 2000 - early 2001, when Jim Jeffords switched parties, giving control to Dems, and 2008-2010. All years rounded off to an election year. i.e. it was really 1993-1995, when those elected in 1992 took office.)

With Congress in Republican control, it bodes well for Clinton, but if she loses, it bodes very well for Pelosi to regain her former position in the elections of 2018.

ETA: My memory failed me. Republicans also had full control from 2002-2006.

 

[jhunter1163]

Reading all of the above, I can see the panic in your posts and I'll add ITS ABOUT TIME!!!

Now you're finally seeing the terrible situation you're in. All you have left is the presidency and if you lose that your power is completely gone. Lets just suppose Trump wins or even worse for you Cruz could win. I can't wait to see how crazy you get.

The math heavily favors the Democrats this time around. The GOP is defending 24 Senate seats in 2016; the Democrats are defending 10, nine of which are safe. The Dems only need to pick up five of those 24 Republican seats to regain control of the Senate.

There's an epic debacle brewing for the GOP and frankly the sooner it comes, the better, in my opinion. A good old-fashioned ass-beating might force them to the realization that it's not their candidates that are bad; it is their policies.

 

[foophil]

States like Florida are leading the way in throwing out the Republican party gerrymandering they have gotten away with for years too (note - Democratic party isn't exactly guilt free in the past either). Thanks to the voters in my home state voting in a constitutional amendment forcing the Republican party to draw up fair districts, many of the House seats here will no longer be freebies for their party due to their past gerrymandering. We had one district that was arguably the most obviously gerrymandered district in the entire country. It was famous. So blatantly obvious.

In a state split almost dead even between democrat and republican voters, it becomes extremely obvious when those voters are not represented by a nearly split group of politicians in the house. Now it will. Other states are looking at ours and will be drawing up amendments of their own to put on future ballots. It is just a matter of time....

 

[The Big Dog]

States like Florida are leading the way in throwing out the Republican party gerrymandering they have gotten away with for years too (note - Democratic party isn't exactly guilt free in the past either). Thanks to the voters in my home state voting in a constitutional amendment forcing the Republican party to draw up fair districts, many of the House seats here will no longer be freebies for their party due to their past gerrymandering. We had one district that was arguably the most obviously gerrymandered district in the entire country. It was famous. So blatantly obvious.

In a state split almost dead even between democrat and republican voters, it becomes extremely obvious when those voters are not represented by a nearly split group of politicians in the house. Now it will. Other states are looking at ours and will be drawing up amendments of their own to put on future ballots. It is just a matter of time....

Puzzle... you in the right thread?

/Say, maybe Illinois will put something on the ballot to cure the Democrats gerrymandering here! BWHAHAHAHA!!!! Just joshing, that will never happen because Democrats, amiright?

 

[plague311]

Puzzle... you in the right thread?

/Say, maybe Illinois will put something on the ballot to cure the Democrats gerrymandering here! BWHAHAHAHA!!!! Just joshing, that will never happen because Democrats, amiright?

Weakest tu quoque ever....Plus, the post you're replying to shows the author directly calling Dems out too. Weak sauce, even for you.

 

[The Big Dog]

Weakest tu quoque ever....Plus, the post you're replying to shows the author directly calling Dems out too. Weak sauce, even for you.

Not a tu quoque, I wasn't disputing his arguments (which are of dubious connection to the thread) but rather the likelihood that poster child for incompetent government, Illinois, would adopt a similar act to cure the egregious gerrymandering here, the answer of course being: **** no.

 

[plague311]

Not a tu quoque, I wasn't disputing his arguments (which are of dubious connection to the thread) but rather the likelihood that poster child for incompetent government, Illinois, would adopt a similar act to cure the egregious gerrymandering here, the answer of course being: **** no.

Your failure to understand how it's relative to the thread isn't all that surprising. The conversation in the thread is about how the Republicans won't be as lucky in this election as they were in the 2012. His post continues on that theme by saying, "Another reason it will be more complicated for the Republican Party is because there are laws reversing their ridiculous gerrymandering." (Not verbatim, and I apologize foophil, I just summed it up).

I would call that on topic and relevant to the conversation, maybe the sky in your world is purple.

Lastly, I didn't say you were disputing them, you were attempting to discredit his point by saying "dems do it too! lolz".

Just a quick question, that is a little off topic. Do you, in all honesty, think that if Chicago were run by Republicans it would not have the issues it does now? I don't need your obnoxious snark, sarcasm or handwaving. It's just a simple yes or no answer, with a quick reason why.

 

[The Big Dog]

Your failure to understand how it's relative to the thread isn't all that surprising. The conversation in the thread is about how the Republicans won't be as lucky in this election as they were in the 2012. His post continues on that theme by saying, "Another reason it will be more complicated for the Republican Party is because there are laws reversing their ridiculous gerrymandering." (Not verbatim, and I apologize foophil, I just summed it up).

I would call that on topic and relevant to the conversation, maybe the sky in your world is purple.

Lastly, I didn't say you were disputing them, you were attempting to discredit his point by saying "dems do it too! lolz".

Just a quick question, that is a little off topic. Do you, in all honesty, think that if Chicago were run by Republicans it would not have the issues it does now? I don't need your obnoxious snark, sarcasm or handwaving. It's just a simple yes or no answer, with a quick reason why.

Looks at title of the thread "Hillary Clinton is Done," in the part of the forum called "USA Presidential Election," looks at purple sky.

Oh wait, because you asked so nicely I am SURE AS HELL gonna respond to your question without my "obnoxious snark, sarcasm or handwaving" (yours being fine and dandy I presume, Mr. Purple Sky?)

Answer: Illinois is more than Chicago. Consult a map next time, chief.

 

[logger]

that your right wing cocoon is based on a rapidly dying (figuratively and literally) demographic.

Your fantasy land isn't based in reality, you only have the presidency and you're not going to have that for long.

 

[logger]

the realization that it's not their candidates that are bad; it is their policies.

The rupub establishment agrees with you, which is why they keep putting up moderate repubs. Can you see where that has gotten them?

 

[plague311]

Looks at title of the thread "Hillary Clinton is Done," in the part of the forum called "USA Presidential Election," looks at purple sky.

Apparently you're unfamiliar with the terms "appropriate thread drift", eh? You're right, the thread is titled "Hillary Clinton is Done", and foo gave a completely logical reason why she isn't done. Because there are states that are fixing gerrymandering, and this will help her to win the election. You're welcome. You know, for the time I had to take to explain that to you. I'm really baffled at how that wasn't clear right away. Mind boggling.

Oh wait, because you asked so nicely I am SURE AS HELL gonna respond to your question without my "obnoxious snark, sarcasm or handwaving" (yours being fine and dandy I presume, Mr. Purple Sky?)

There was no snark when I was asking the question, as far as the rest...there was a little bit.

Answer: Illinois is more than Chicago. Consult a map next time, chief.

You want to know what? Your gotcha! got me! I did say Chicago when I meant Illinois. It was a simple slip as I knew you were from Chicago, or so you've claimed many times, and just made a mental error. I award you an UNPRECEDENTED +17 internet points, and provide you with the knowledge that everyone here laughed at my error. I'm so embarrassed.

Thank you for taking the time to focus on that one aspect of my statement and completely ignoring the question. About par for the course if you ask me. I'm glad you didn't keep trying to play off that pathetic Tu Quoque.

 

[The Big Dog]

Apparently you're unfamiliar with the terms "appropriate thread drift", eh? You're right, the thread is titled "Hillary Clinton is Done", and foo gave a completely logical reason why she isn't done. Because there are states that are fixing gerrymandering, and this will help her to win the election. You're welcome. You know, for the time I had to take to explain that to you. I'm really baffled at how that wasn't clear right away. Mind boggling.



There was no snark when I was asking the question, as far as the rest...there was a little bit.



You want to know what? Your gotcha! got me! I did say Chicago when I meant Illinois. It was a simple slip as I knew you were from Chicago, or so you've claimed many times, and just made a mental error. I award you an UNPRECEDENTED +17 internet points, and provide you with the knowledge that everyone here laughed at my error. I'm so embarrassed.

Thank you for taking the time to focus on that one aspect of my statement and completely ignoring the question. About par for the course if you ask me. I'm glad you didn't keep trying to play off that pathetic Tu Quoque.

Tee hee! You got foo's point wrong, but if you wanted to actually stay on topic a post would have said "despite efforts to address gerrymandering where it hurts democrats (and ignoring it where it totally helps, hello Illinois!) Hillary Clinton is done because the party leadership does not want a pathological liar leading the party's ticket." See? On point!

By the way, your silly question about illinois? Unless Republicans Get supported by partisan armies of municipal workers and politicians completely beholden to public employee unions and trial lawyers (at which point they become illinois democrats) no Illinois is not going to have the same problems we have now.

Say, look up tu quoque, I explained it before but your butthurt at getting corrected on chicago seemingly caused you to miss it.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Your fantasy land isn't based in reality, you only have the presidency and you're not going to have that for long.

You do know he doesn't live in the US, right?

 

[Noztradamus]

Your failure to understand how it's relative to the thread isn't all that surprising. .

Well it's got me puzzled and all.

 

[SezMe]

The rupub establishment agrees with you, which is why they keep putting up moderate repubs. Can you see where that has gotten them?

Who do you want to run against HRC?

 

[SezMe]

By the way, your silly question about illinois? Unless Republicans Get supported by partisan armies of municipal workers and politicians completely beholden to public employee unions and trial lawyers (at which point they become illinois democrats) no Illinois is not going to have the same problems we have now.

Does Illinois have an initiative process as a way around the legislature? It's been a couple of centuries since I lived there.