USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem
- Thread starter Kepler
- Start date
- Status
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem
You know, I'm all for Bernie staying in this thing until Hillary gets a majority of pledged delegates, and I don't hold him responsible for everything his supporters do, but he's got to either get a handle on these people or come out with a lot stronger personal denunciation of their actions.
https://www.ralstonreports.com/blog/sample-voicemails-left-state-democratic-chairwoman-roberta-lange
As I've said before, the key to this election isn't to try to out-Trump Trump. We don't need violence and chaos at party events over like 4 freakin' delegates. Everybody focus on the ultimate goal here.
You know, I'm all for Bernie staying in this thing until Hillary gets a majority of pledged delegates, and I don't hold him responsible for everything his supporters do, but he's got to either get a handle on these people or come out with a lot stronger personal denunciation of their actions.
https://www.ralstonreports.com/blog/sample-voicemails-left-state-democratic-chairwoman-roberta-lange
As I've said before, the key to this election isn't to try to out-Trump Trump. We don't need violence and chaos at party events over like 4 freakin' delegates. Everybody focus on the ultimate goal here.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem
300 million citizens. There will be morons. No doubt Hillary has plenty too.
Your concern is noted and logged.
300 million citizens. There will be morons. No doubt Hillary has plenty too.
Your concern is noted and logged.
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem
I'm sure she does Kep. However, I'm not sure I've ever seen them threatening Sanders supporters and their families with death and financial ruin. You can almost see the "Oh, both sides do it" case being made in the media to excuse the thuggery at a typical Trump rally now.
While I'm obviously not supporting Sanders in the primary (but would in the general) a few more instances like this and I would think his message gets overwhelmed by the Bernie Bros meme. Which do you think is easier to report - Sanders has a good point about income inequality, or 100 Sanders supports are throwing chairs and making threats? I personally would have liked a bit stronger statement out of the man denouncing all this.
I'm sure she does Kep. However, I'm not sure I've ever seen them threatening Sanders supporters and their families with death and financial ruin. You can almost see the "Oh, both sides do it" case being made in the media to excuse the thuggery at a typical Trump rally now.
While I'm obviously not supporting Sanders in the primary (but would in the general) a few more instances like this and I would think his message gets overwhelmed by the Bernie Bros meme. Which do you think is easier to report - Sanders has a good point about income inequality, or 100 Sanders supports are throwing chairs and making threats? I personally would have liked a bit stronger statement out of the man denouncing all this.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem
Uh huh.
I'm sure she does Kep. However, I'm not sure I've ever seen them threatening Sanders supporters and their families with death and financial ruin. You can almost see the "Oh, both sides do it" case being made in the media to excuse the thuggery at a typical Trump rally now.
Uh huh.
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem
I set my watch by how long it was going to take you to post that. I was off by 30 seconds.
As I said, a more forceful statement out of Sanders personally would have been appropriate. I heard he was asked about it at a press conference today and walked away without answering....
I set my watch by how long it was going to take you to post that. I was off by 30 seconds.
As I said, a more forceful statement out of Sanders personally would have been appropriate. I heard he was asked about it at a press conference today and walked away without answering....
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem
How about a joint statement. Bernie condemns the threats made against Chairwoman Lang. Hillary condemns the undemocratic behavior of Chairwoman Lang.
I set my watch by how long it was going to take you to post that. I was off by 30 seconds.
As I said, a more forceful statement out of Sanders personally would have been appropriate. I heard he was asked about it at a press conference today and walked away without answering....
How about a joint statement. Bernie condemns the threats made against Chairwoman Lang. Hillary condemns the undemocratic behavior of Chairwoman Lang.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem
Heard a piece on Allan Lichtman's 13 Keys this morning on POTUS. When five or fewer statements are FALSE, the incumbent party is predicted to win. Currently, 5 are FALSE (by my count).
FALSE Party Mandate: After the midterm elections, the incumbent party holds more seats in the U.S. House of Representatives than after the previous midterm elections
FALSE Contest: There is no serious contest for the incumbent party nomination.
FALSE Incumbency: The incumbent party candidate is the sitting president.
TRUE Third party: There is no significant third party or independent campaign.
TRUE Short term economy: The economy is not in recession during the election campaign.
TRUE Long term economy: Real per capita economic growth during the term equals or exceeds mean growth during the previous two terms.
TRUE Policy change: The incumbent administration effects major changes in national policy.
TRUE Social unrest: There is no sustained social unrest during the term.
TRUE Scandal: The incumbent administration is untainted by major scandal.
TRUE Foreign/military failure: The incumbent administration suffers no major failure in foreign or military affairs.
FALSE Foreign/military success: The incumbent administration achieves a major success in foreign or military affairs.
FALSE Incumbent charisma: The incumbent party candidate is charismatic or a national hero.
TRUE Challenger charisma: The challenging party candidate is not charismatic or a national hero.
Heard a piece on Allan Lichtman's 13 Keys this morning on POTUS. When five or fewer statements are FALSE, the incumbent party is predicted to win. Currently, 5 are FALSE (by my count).
FALSE Party Mandate: After the midterm elections, the incumbent party holds more seats in the U.S. House of Representatives than after the previous midterm elections
FALSE Contest: There is no serious contest for the incumbent party nomination.
FALSE Incumbency: The incumbent party candidate is the sitting president.
TRUE Third party: There is no significant third party or independent campaign.
TRUE Short term economy: The economy is not in recession during the election campaign.
TRUE Long term economy: Real per capita economic growth during the term equals or exceeds mean growth during the previous two terms.
TRUE Policy change: The incumbent administration effects major changes in national policy.
TRUE Social unrest: There is no sustained social unrest during the term.
TRUE Scandal: The incumbent administration is untainted by major scandal.
TRUE Foreign/military failure: The incumbent administration suffers no major failure in foreign or military affairs.
FALSE Foreign/military success: The incumbent administration achieves a major success in foreign or military affairs.
FALSE Incumbent charisma: The incumbent party candidate is charismatic or a national hero.
TRUE Challenger charisma: The challenging party candidate is not charismatic or a national hero.
Last edited:
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem
No, because by doing so you treat death threats equally with caucus rule disputes, which only an idiot would consider to be of equal magnitude. Besides I haven't read anything from a neutral observer who said the woman did anything wrong. If you aren't a registered Dem you can't participate in the party gathering.
No, because by doing so you treat death threats equally with caucus rule disputes, which only an idiot would consider to be of equal magnitude.
Besides I haven't read anything from a neutral observer who said the woman did anything wrong. If you aren't a registered Dem you can't participate in the party gathering.
unofan
Well-known member
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem
Obama: Ignorance is not a virtue.
Trump: <a href="http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/280121-trump-tweet-quotes-then-mocks-obama">Yes it is.</a>
Your 2016 GOP candidate, ladies and gentlemen, coming out in favor of ignorance.
Obama: Ignorance is not a virtue.
Trump: <a href="http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/280121-trump-tweet-quotes-then-mocks-obama">Yes it is.</a>
Your 2016 GOP candidate, ladies and gentlemen, coming out in favor of ignorance.
Last edited:
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem
I actually read Trump's response as saying the reason Obama is a bad president is his ignorance. Which is, I know, ridiculous, but not in the same way as interpreting him as embracing ignorance.
Remember: Trump is too dumb to know he's dumb.
I actually read Trump's response as saying the reason Obama is a bad president is his ignorance. Which is, I know, ridiculous, but not in the same way as interpreting him as embracing ignorance.
Remember: Trump is too dumb to know he's dumb.
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem
My understanding is that what she is accused of doing is conducting a vote as follows: "All those in favor?...(waits for response)...Allthoseopposed?theayeshaveit" If that's what really happened, that's more than a "caucus rule dispute"--it's taking a big steaming dump on democratic principles.
No, because by doing so you treat death threats equally with caucus rule disputes, which only an idiot would consider to be of equal magnitude.
My understanding is that what she is accused of doing is conducting a vote as follows: "All those in favor?...(waits for response)...Allthoseopposed?theayeshaveit" If that's what really happened, that's more than a "caucus rule dispute"--it's taking a big steaming dump on democratic principles.
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem
Lets run with your conspiracy theory even though you've shown no actual proof! Lets say the woman applied the caucus rules wrong, and cost Sanders 4 delegates. In your mind, this deserves death threats and threats to family members including children? Yeah....
Lets run with your conspiracy theory even though you've shown no actual proof! Lets say the woman applied the caucus rules wrong, and cost Sanders 4 delegates. In your mind, this deserves death threats and threats to family members including children? Yeah....
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem
Yeah, because that's what I said My god, you are insufferable.
Yeah, because that's what I said
My god, you are insufferable.Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/17/u...n-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0
These are your heroes. Own it or disavow it. There's no in between.
Yeah, because that's what I said
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/17/u...n-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0
These are your heroes. Own it or disavow it. There's no in between.
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem
Remember when I suggested Bernie should condemn the threats made against chairwoman Lang?
Remember when I suggested Bernie should condemn the threats made against chairwoman Lang?
St. Clown
Liberal Rebel Scum, apparently
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem
"You either stand with us or with the terrorists." Sounds similar.
"You either stand with us or with the terrorists." Sounds similar.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem
Q. Why are there no threats from Clinton supporters?
A. http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2564/3837032372_d14cf3fa46.jpg
Q. Why are there no threats from Clinton supporters?
A. http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2564/3837032372_d14cf3fa46.jpg
rufus
rock and roller
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem
Yeah, that's how I read it. Obama may be many things, you could say he's somewhat politically naive(in a good way, meaning, he can't understand why something that seems like it would be beneficial on the whole, could be opposed by the other party and members of the public), but ignorant ain't one of them.
Yeah, that's how I read it. Obama may be many things, you could say he's somewhat politically naive(in a good way, meaning, he can't understand why something that seems like it would be beneficial on the whole, could be opposed by the other party and members of the public), but ignorant ain't one of them.
rufus
rock and roller
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem
A bunch of dumbass young people ain't my heroes. Get over yourself.
A bunch of dumbass young people ain't my heroes. Get over yourself.
- Status