Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

[Slap Shot]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

When I see Rover describing with childish glee the current status of the (D) nomination process I imagine Charlie Sheen spouting, "WINNING!" while having the same amount of revulsion.

[Rover]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

When I see Rover describing with childish glee the current status of the (D) nomination process I imagine Charlie Sheen spouting, "WINNING!" while having the same amount of revulsion.

Who, me? I've been at least as classy as Sanders supporters are!

In other news, has anybody else noticed that Sanders has lost his mind and is at war with the people he should be allied with? Now Clinton isn't supposed to raise money for the DNC? Okay....

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...omepage%2Fcard

[mookie1995]

Who, me? I've been at least as classy as Sanders supporters are!

In other news, has anybody else noticed that Sanders has lost his mind and is at war with the people he should be allied with? Now Clinton isn't supposed to raise money for the DNC? Okay....

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...omepage%2Fcard

too bad the dnc doesn't want to work with bern. Why then should he help them

[Rover]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

too bad the dnc doesn't want to work with bern. Why then should he help them

Evidence, please?

They offered to set up the same deal with him but playing the victim worked better for fundraising purposes I guess.

[Kepler]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

To be fair, Obama once said we had what? 57 states?

I Snopesed this to see if he actually had said it, or if it was the usual Echo Chamber context ploy, but nope, it's true he really did say it. However, there's a great stinger in the tail that it apparently led to a righty tin foil narrative of Marine Todd-level idiocy.

Those folks never disappoint.

OTOH, that lapel pin is genuinely funny, marking perhaps the only recorded instance of a righty having a working sense of humor.

[Kepler]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

The NYT clutches its pearls about Sanders, fighting back the tears as it reports on Wall Street's "disappointment" with his rhetoric.

Won't someone think of the banksters?!!!

[St. Clown]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

I Snopesed this to see if he actually had said it, or if it was the usual Echo Chamber context ploy, but nope, it's true he really did say it. However, there's a great stinger in the tail that it apparently led to a righty tin foil narrative of Marine Todd-level idiocy.

Those folks never disappoint.

OTOH, that lapel pin is genuinely funny, marking perhaps the only recorded instance of a righty having a working sense of humor.

Each side takes mishaps like that, or statements that are entirely true when kept in context but completely false when people ignore said context, it's hardly a unique thing that the GOP started against Mullah Obama.

[joecct]

The NYT clutches its pearls about Sanders, fighting back the tears as it reports on Wall Street's "disappointment" with his rhetoric.

Won't someone think of the banksters?!!!

They ought to be thankful that it's Silent Liz right now.

[Rover]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

Each side takes mishaps like that, or statements that are entirely true when kept in context but completely false when people ignore said context, it's hardly a unique thing that the GOP started against Mullah Obama.

Yeah, no fan of Trump here but the headlines over his misstatement are a bit absurd. Slow news day until the NY results roll in later this evening I guess.

Moving on, one has to wonder what those back office ham and eggers making 50K a year to support their families think about being labeled as part of an evil corporate kleptocracy bent on ruining America.

[MaizeRage]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

The back half of this gets a little too long and Rover-ish, but the beginning pretty effectively lays out the argument against Bernie from a liberal perspective: https://medium.com/@robinalperstein/...699#.9cxsdfmko

[Rover]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

The back half of this gets a little too long and Rover-ish, but the beginning pretty effectively lays out the argument against Bernie from a liberal perspective: https://medium.com/@robinalperstein/...699#.9cxsdfmko

Pundits are always coming out here and ripping off my material, so its no surprise.

PS - You're a corporate sellout whore (or is it a corporate whore sellout?) for even posting this!

[geezer]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

Help me out - is there any downside for regular people (not bankers and day traders) in taxing trades?

[5mn_Major]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

The back half of this gets a little too long and Rover-ish, but the beginning pretty effectively lays out the argument against Bernie from a liberal perspective: https://medium.com/@robinalperstein/...699#.9cxsdfmko

A problem with Bernie is not that he has good points of view...many of his are. The problem is that he attacks not just Hillary, but that he attacks rationale, achievable liberal policy. And that includes a monitored yet productive partnership between government, people and business. Corporations are making some statements in favor of liberal policies (i.e., against some extreme social conservative positions in NC or AZ)...many businesses are siding with the left. So why initiate a war with business by saying 'corporations won't like me'.

The right has fallen into infighting not between personalities but between entire policy points of view and has seen their party suffer...it would have been a big advantage if liberals could have avoided that. Bernie may take that away (at least for some time).

[Rover]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

Help me out - is there any downside for regular people (not bankers and day traders) in taxing trades?

Not too much I wouldn't think. The theory is that if you taxed the trading of whoever's managing your retirement fund for example they'd pass those costs onto you in the form of higher fees. That might be true to some extent but there's a limit as to how much of an increase they could sock you with. Frankly I like the idea of limiting this to just high speed trading as that's not skill related but just a computer capitalizing on a fractional difference in a share price.

I also agree with the dismissal of the notion that trading would go elsewhere. New York and London are the big trading centers. You're not going to outsource the exchange to Vietnam in order to get away from this tax.

[Rover]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

A problem with Bernie is not that he has good points of view...many of his are. The problem is that he attacks not just Hillary, but that he attacks rationale, achievable liberal policy. And that includes a monitored yet productive partnership between government, people and business. Corporations are making some statements in favor of liberal policies (i.e., against some extreme social conservative positions in NC or AZ)...many businesses are siding with the left. So why initiate a war with business by saying 'corporations won't like me'.

The right has fallen into infighting not between personalities but between entire policy points of view and has seen their party suffer...it would have been a big advantage if liberals could have avoided that. Bernie may take that away (at least for some time).

Amen. I like to tease Kep once in awhile but at the start of this campaign Sanders had a lot to add about income inequality and job killing trade deals. As you say, in the last month or so he's finding enemies where they don't exist, and anybody not 100% in agreement with him is a sell out. You can't blast Planned Parenthood, Southern Democrats, older voters, moderates, black voters, etc and expect to win the general election. Elections are about finding coalitions and bringing people together, otherwise we're no better than the Republicans.