The Swamp

howard wrote:

Steve of phpBB wrote:Plus, I think the Dems would be better off nominating someone younger. Do the Dems have any nationally known, Presidentially-eligible figures who are younger than 65? They should nominate one so that they have someone with a name for 2020 or 2024.

Other than Michelle Obama?

Just cut to the fucking chase. Chelsea.

When does she turn 35?

Edit: Ha! She's eligible already. Clinton-Clinton 2016! (And I'm fucking old.)

Isn't Julian Castro the main VP candidate for Hillary?

rass wrote:

His attorney resigned from his position as a US attorney after he bit a stripper.

That was precisely Coffey's undoing in 1996. Ejected from the club after his failed attempt to kiss the stripper ended with him biting her instead, he used a credit card to pay the $900 bill. Later he sent his father to the bar to buy the credit-card slip back at a premium price of $1,200, which tipped the irate stripper and her even-more-irate husband off that they'd been dealing with someone anxious to conceal his identity. Their complaints eventually attracted an investigators from the office of the U.S. Justice Department's inspector general, and Coffey was soon toast.

Brontoburglar wrote:

rass wrote:

His attorney resigned from his position as a US attorney after he bit a stripper.

That was precisely Coffey's undoing in 1996. Ejected from the club after his failed attempt to kiss the stripper ended with him biting her instead, he used a credit card to pay the $900 bill. Later he sent his father to the bar to buy the credit-card slip back at a premium price of $1,200, which tipped the irate stripper and her even-more-irate husband off that they'd been dealing with someone anxious to conceal his identity. Their complaints eventually attracted an investigators from the office of the U.S. Justice Department's inspector general, and Coffey was soon toast.

My god....don't use your credit card at the strip club! It's fundamental people!

Most of you guys apparently don't carry more than $10 cash when you go out. Can't have it both ways.

Please.

That's how I roll.



ETA: That took way too much effort to post one stupid picture.

Guy needs to come to Atlanta. The bar is much, much higher for pissing off a stripper. However, sending pops to handle your illicit payoffs raises serious questions as to competency.

it is mightier than the sword. I would've been impressed (and shocked) had he said that.

"A small pen is...something I take as a personal attack."

Johnny Carwash wrote:"A small pen is...something I take as a personal attack."

Crackerjack! What was Trump referring to there?

The Sybian wrote:

Johnny Carwash wrote:"A small pen is...something I take as a personal attack."

Crackerjack! What was Trump referring to there?

Prob the reporter chick that his campaign manager beat down.

Time capsule this shit

She's not Mrs. Right. She's Mrs. Right Now.

Reason #298 why everybody hates Bernie Bros.

Pro-Bernie propaganda website posts an interaction between a Bernie Bro and one of Alaska's super-delegates. We're supposed to identify with the Bernie supporter I think, but the super-delegate comes out way better IMO.

brian wrote:Reason #298 why everybody hates Bernie Bros.

Pro-Bernie propaganda website posts an interaction between a Bernie Bro and one of Alaska's super-delegates. We're supposed to identify with the Bernie supporter I think, but the super-delegate comes out way better IMO.

I certainly don't support Bernie Sanders, but I disagree with you. I think this superdelegate comes across as elitist and patronizing. I think it's legitimate to question her for going against the clear choice of her state's caucus.

Because superdelegates don't have to vote based on their state's election results. It's the entire purpose of having superdelegates in the first place. I think she only got patronizing at the end after having to deal with this kid's nonsense.

brian wrote:Because superdelegates don't have to vote based on their state's election results. It's the entire purpose of having superdelegates in the first place. I think she only got patronizing at the end after having to deal with this kid's nonsense.

I get the rules, and I get that she isn't breaking them. But, I also get why Alaska caucusers would be very disappointed about it

That super delegate had her mind made up before the Alaska caucus, I can pretty much guarantee that.

And some recent snot-nosed political science graduate rates a zero on the assholishness scale compared to Clinton cheerleader Debbie Wasserman-Schultz.

That Ramen noodle haired fuck. So please. The "establishment" has had their minds made up way before any of this shit kicked off. Blaming "Bernie Bros" for asking questions with a possible TONE in their statements is a fucking cop out. The system is rigged and those that care about it (read: not me because America sucks) are pissed. So whatever.

sancarlos wrote:I think this superdelegate comes across as elitist and patronizing.

Basically the job description

brian wrote:Because superdelegates don't have to vote based on their state's election results. It's the entire purpose of having superdelegates in the first place. I think she only got patronizing at the end after having to deal with this kid's nonsense.

I don't quite get this. Are you saying that because superdelegates are flawed by their very nature that we should just be accepting of those flaws instead of working towards fixing the system? How is giving one individual a vote that is more powerful than another citizen's vote representative of the democracy we all claim to want to hold onto so dearly?

I'm with sancarlos, I think it was a perfectly reasonable question to pose to someone who is supposed to be representative of the masses, which was answered with "sorry, I'm going to do what I want". He pressed her for an answer, which I believe she owes him since she is a representative of her state's populous and has already entered into the conversation by her own will, and gives him the same line.

BSF21 wrote:

brian wrote:Because superdelegates don't have to vote based on their state's election results. It's the entire purpose of having superdelegates in the first place. I think she only got patronizing at the end after having to deal with this kid's nonsense.

I don't quite get this. Are you saying that because superdelegates are flawed by their very nature that we should just be accepting of those flaws instead of working towards fixing the system? How is giving one individual a vote that is more powerful than another citizen's vote representative of the democracy we all claim to want to hold onto so dearly?

I'm with sancarlos, I think it was a perfectly reasonable question to pose to someone who is supposed to be representative of the masses, which was answered with "sorry, I'm going to do what I want". He pressed her for an answer, which I believe she owes him since she is a representative of her state's populous and has already entered into the conversation by her own will, and gives him the same line.

I think it's important to keep in mind what the nomination process really is - it is not a public election to a governmental position, but rather a process for the Democratic Party to choose its nominee. The Democratic Party is a private entity. I think this matters both when it comes to superdelegates and in response to Johnnie's argument that Wasserman Schulz and the establishment made up their minds to select Clinton ahead of time.

Bernie Sanders spent most of the past two decades being too good and pure for the Democratic Party. That was certainly his right, but is it really that surprising, or wrong, that the Democratic Party establishment would oppose him and instead favor Clinton, a lifelong Democrat?

And I think the superdelegate role is important because political insiders are probably better situated to judge which candidate would be more likely to prevail in November and a better perspective to evaluate the candidates and their arguments. It is great to see all these 18-to-29 year olds voting for Sanders. But please, most of these people don't even remember the Bush era. They don't remember what happened in 2000 and thereafter when the Nader candidacy threw the election to Bush and led to 9/11, Iraq, and a host of other disasters. They also don't remember how poorly the Democratic Party fared in presidential elections before the Democrats moved to the center in 1992 (and even then only got 42 percent of the vote). Any argument that Hillary is basically a Republican, or that there is no difference between electing Hillary and electing a Republican, is a specious one. So superdelegates have an important role in checking the impulses of the people voting in the primaries and caucuses. Any superdelegate who simply follows the popular results in his or her state is abdicating his or her role.

I am pretty damned sure that the Republicans wished they had a superdelegate system.

Steve of phpBB wrote:

BSF21 wrote:

brian wrote:Because superdelegates don't have to vote based on their state's election results. It's the entire purpose of having superdelegates in the first place. I think she only got patronizing at the end after having to deal with this kid's nonsense.

I don't quite get this. Are you saying that because superdelegates are flawed by their very nature that we should just be accepting of those flaws instead of working towards fixing the system? How is giving one individual a vote that is more powerful than another citizen's vote representative of the democracy we all claim to want to hold onto so dearly?

I'm with sancarlos, I think it was a perfectly reasonable question to pose to someone who is supposed to be representative of the masses, which was answered with "sorry, I'm going to do what I want". He pressed her for an answer, which I believe she owes him since she is a representative of her state's populous and has already entered into the conversation by her own will, and gives him the same line.

I think it's important to keep in mind what the nomination process really is - it is not a public election to a governmental position, but rather a process for the Democratic Party to choose its nominee. The Democratic Party is a private entity. I think this matters both when it comes to superdelegates and in response to Johnnie's argument that Wasserman Schulz and the establishment made up their minds to select Clinton ahead of time.

Bernie Sanders spent most of the past two decades being too good and pure for the Democratic Party. That was certainly his right, but is it really that surprising, or wrong, that the Democratic Party establishment would oppose him and instead favor Clinton, a lifelong Democrat?

And I think the superdelegate role is important because political insiders are probably better situated to judge which candidate would be more likely to prevail in November and a better perspective to evaluate the candidates and their arguments. It is great to see all these 18-to-29 year olds voting for Sanders. But please, most of these people don't even remember the Bush era. They don't remember what happened in 2000 and thereafter when the Nader candidacy threw the election to Bush and led to 9/11, Iraq, and a host of other disasters. They also don't remember how poorly the Democratic Party fared in presidential elections before the Democrats moved to the center in 1992 (and even then only got 42 percent of the vote). Any argument that Hillary is basically a Republican, or that there is no difference between electing Hillary and electing a Republican, is a specious one. So superdelegates have an important role in checking the impulses of the people voting in the primaries and caucuses. Any superdelegate who simply follows the popular results in his or her state is abdicating his or her role.

I am pretty damned sure that the Republicans wished they had a superdelegate system.

I guess I don't like the fact that they can have it both ways. If it's a way for the party to find it's best candidate, but it's not actually a democratic process, why have the process at all? If the insiders know, then let them decide on their own and sink or swim. The idea that they're basically doing market research under the guise of a true decision where the citizen's vote matters is kind of broken in itself yea?

My frustration really isn't at either candidate on the democratic side, and I completely understand the established Dems reasoning for not wanting to support Bernie, but the real problem and issue here was that his hand was forced by a rigged system. The laws and rules regarding elections in this country are so twisted beyond what one could assume the intentions of the Framers were (funny you never hear the Right talk about that huh?) and it just frustrates the hell out of me.

I think it's incredible that ordinary people have continued to come up with millions of dollars for not only Bernie, but all political candidates. We're so stupid as a people, thinking that anyone running within the 2 party system (with the exception of Bernie) has any of our interests in mind other than keeping themselves in power. At this point we're looking at 3 families who have presided over this nation for nearly the entirety of my lifetime. That's just so sad.

Perhaps I'm lucky(?) in that I know what a Bernie bro is supposed to be but I've never seen one/know one, or perhaps Brian is fighting the good fight against a strawman that may or may not actually exist.

BSF21 wrote:I guess I don't like the fact that they can have it both ways. If it's a way for the party to find it's best candidate, but it's not actually a democratic process, why have the process at all? If the insiders know, then let them decide on their own and sink or swim. The idea that they're basically doing market research under the guise of a true decision where the citizen's vote matters is kind of broken in itself yea?

I think the voting part matters - it just isn't and shouldn't be solely controlling.

If Bernie were crushing Hillary in the voting, the superdelegates would probably take that into consideration and likely support him at the convention.

Brontoburglar wrote:Perhaps I'm lucky(?) in that I know what a Bernie bro is supposed to be but I've never seen one/know one, or perhaps Brian is fighting the good fight against a strawman that may or may not actually exist.

I will definitely vote for Hillary in the General Election, but for someone with the name recognition and fundraising ability she has, she is a terrible campaigner. It's so transparent that with Sanders winning 5 of the last 6 states, many by huge margins, Clinton surrogates are once again raising concerns about "Bernie Bros" and Sanders' "tone." I have yet to see a shred of actual empirical evidence that Sanders supporters are uniquely stubborn, hostile or unlikely to support Clinton against the GOP candidate. And it's the height of irony for Clinton supporters to raise this concern after the whole PUMA ("party unity, my ass") threats they resorted to in the end stage of her 2008 loss to Obama.

And the closest Hillary has come to actually countering Sanders on the issues since his big wins out West is saying, "Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good." That's a valid point, but why would someone running for President ever concede that her policies are less preferable, in a vacuum, than her opponent's? Barring a seismic shift in NY of CA, she will get the nomination. And she should be a lock to win the General given the madness on the GOP side. But she's proven to be such a weak campaigner that she should be thanking her lucky stars she isn't facing some generic Republican like Romney this fall.

BSF21 wrote:I think it's incredible that ordinary people have continued to come up with millions of dollars for not only Bernie, but all political candidates. We're so stupid as a people, thinking that anyone running within the 2 party system (with the exception of Bernie) has any of our interests in mind other than keeping themselves in power. At this point we're looking at 3 families who have presided over this nation for nearly the entirety of my lifetime. That's just so sad.

I'm not even convinced Bernie has our interests in mind other than power. He's already said he has no interest in raising money for down-ballot Democratic candidates in November. Who's to say this all isn't some power trip for him as well?

Steve of phpBB wrote:

BSF21 wrote:

brian wrote:Because superdelegates don't have to vote based on their state's election results. It's the entire purpose of having superdelegates in the first place. I think she only got patronizing at the end after having to deal with this kid's nonsense.

I don't quite get this. Are you saying that because superdelegates are flawed by their very nature that we should just be accepting of those flaws instead of working towards fixing the system? How is giving one individual a vote that is more powerful than another citizen's vote representative of the democracy we all claim to want to hold onto so dearly?

I'm with sancarlos, I think it was a perfectly reasonable question to pose to someone who is supposed to be representative of the masses, which was answered with "sorry, I'm going to do what I want". He pressed her for an answer, which I believe she owes him since she is a representative of her state's populous and has already entered into the conversation by her own will, and gives him the same line.

I think it's important to keep in mind what the nomination process really is - it is not a public election to a governmental position, but rather a process for the Democratic Party to choose its nominee. The Democratic Party is a private entity. I think this matters both when it comes to superdelegates and in response to Johnnie's argument that Wasserman Schulz and the establishment made up their minds to select Clinton ahead of time.

Bernie Sanders spent most of the past two decades being too good and pure for the Democratic Party. That was certainly his right, but is it really that surprising, or wrong, that the Democratic Party establishment would oppose him and instead favor Clinton, a lifelong Democrat?

And I think the superdelegate role is important because political insiders are probably better situated to judge which candidate would be more likely to prevail in November and a better perspective to evaluate the candidates and their arguments. It is great to see all these 18-to-29 year olds voting for Sanders. But please, most of these people don't even remember the Bush era. They don't remember what happened in 2000 and thereafter when the Nader candidacy threw the election to Bush and led to 9/11, Iraq, and a host of other disasters. They also don't remember how poorly the Democratic Party fared in presidential elections before the Democrats moved to the center in 1992 (and even then only got 42 percent of the vote). Any argument that Hillary is basically a Republican, or that there is no difference between electing Hillary and electing a Republican, is a specious one. So superdelegates have an important role in checking the impulses of the people voting in the primaries and caucuses. Any superdelegate who simply follows the popular results in his or her state is abdicating his or her role.

I am pretty damned sure that the Republicans wished they had a superdelegate system.

Okay, but at what point does the trauma of the 1970s and 80s electoral defeats wear off and allow Democrats to actually advocate for populist positions? After winning the popular vote in 5 of the last 6 Presidential Elections, often by a wide margin, I'm comfortable stepping out on a limb a bit. Not saying Sanders is the ideal candidate for this, but you get my point. And I would also add that although Obama certainly governed as a centrist, I don't think he was perceived as one by the electorate in 2008 or 2012, but still won easily both times. So I'm highly skeptical of the notion that the Dems need to nominate a triangulator to beat heavyweights like Trump and Cruz.

brian wrote:

BSF21 wrote:I think it's incredible that ordinary people have continued to come up with millions of dollars for not only Bernie, but all political candidates. We're so stupid as a people, thinking that anyone running within the 2 party system (with the exception of Bernie) has any of our interests in mind other than keeping themselves in power. At this point we're looking at 3 families who have presided over this nation for nearly the entirety of my lifetime. That's just so sad.

I'm not even convinced Bernie has our interests in mind other than power. He's already said he has no interest in raising money for down-ballot Democratic candidates in November. Who's to say this all isn't some power trip for him as well?

That sure would be playing the incredibly long game.

I'm still struggling what you find so detestable about Bernie in general. Is it just potential policy that you disagree with or something else?

Honest question, it just seems like you've let a few vocal minorities really bother you.

I have almost no issues with Bernie personally. There are some nits like my comment above and that he expects to be welcomed into the party with open arms after pushing away the party for 20 years like Steve mentioned, but I get why he's running as a Democrat.

But the myopia of some of his (vocal, as you mentioned) followers is what bugs me. It's become less of a political campaign and more like a cult. Some of his stated policies are so pie in the sky as to be ridiculous. And I think he has almost no chance of winning a national election. (In a "normal" year if the GOP was running a relative centrist like McCain or Romney I'd say absolutely zero chance.)

And it has the potential to do some real harm to HRC in the general election in November and result in a shitbag like Trump or Cruz getting the presidency. And that vocal part of his fanbase doesn't really seem to care about that. #Bernieorbust

brian wrote:I have almost no issues with Bernie personally. There are some nits like my comment above and that he expects to be welcomed into the party with open arms after pushing away the party for 20 years like Steve mentioned, but I get why he's running as a Democrat.

But the myopia of some of his (vocal, as you mentioned) followers is what bugs me. It's become less of a political campaign and more like a cult. Some of his stated policies are so pie in the sky as to be ridiculous. And I think he has almost no chance of winning a national election. (In a "normal" year if the GOP was running a relative centrist like McCain or Romney I'd say absolutely zero chance.)

And it has the potential to do some real harm to HRC in the general election in November and result in a shitbag like Trump or Cruz getting the presidency. And that vocal part of his fanbase doesn't really seem to care about that. #Bernieorbust

I think anyone who is truly for Bernie and his ideals would do anything in their power to ensure Cruz or Trump doesn't win the general. Hell I'll get out myself and stump for HRC is it means Cruz gets nowhere near the Executive branch. I think what fervent Bernie supporters hear is "get out of the way, your ideals don't matter because you're hurting the establishment's chances" to which I understand the response of fuck you, it's still our candidate right now and we're not going to back off until a decision is made.

I don't like HRC. At all. But anyone on this side has my vote once November comes. I'd like it to be Bernie. I don't think HRC is the worst choice given that my Democratic leanings are primarily driven by my need to see people have equal civil rights, which I feel like HRC would champion (at least far greater than anyone from the GOP). I'd love to see Liz Warren get in on this somewhere. If we do end up with HRC, if she could somehow attach Warren to that campaign, it warms me to the whole idea considerably.

Steve of phpBB wrote:That was certainly his right, but is it really that surprising, or wrong, that the Democratic Party establishment would oppose him and instead favor Clinton, a lifelong Democrat?

She was a Goldwater Girl, but became "liberal" in time for '68.

BSF21 wrote:I think anyone who is truly for Bernie and his ideals would do anything in their power to ensure Cruz or Trump doesn't win the general. Hell I'll get out myself and stump for HRC is it means Cruz gets nowhere near the Executive branch.

I hope you're right, but that's not what I'm seeing from some people on my Facebook feed.

brian wrote:

BSF21 wrote:I think anyone who is truly for Bernie and his ideals would do anything in their power to ensure Cruz or Trump doesn't win the general. Hell I'll get out myself and stump for HRC is it means Cruz gets nowhere near the Executive branch.

I hope you're right, but that's not what I'm seeing from some people on my Facebook feed.

Keyboard warriors aren't going to get out and vote even if Bernie is the nod. It's just the loudest voice you hear. Very few that post things about the election give a shit, it just gets them a little more attention and a few more self-validating "likes".

brian wrote: And it has the potential to do some real harm to HRC in the general election in November and result in a shitbag like Trump or Cruz getting the presidency. And that vocal part of his fanbase doesn't really seem to care about that. #Bernieorbust

This all reminds of the "P.U.M.A" ( meaning "Party Unity My Ass") crap in 2008 started by disgruntled Hillary supporters, led by the wonderfully named Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild, who were certain Obama had stolen the nomination.

A lot of it is these shithead millennials who combine a galling sense of entitlement and a shocking lack of awareness/history of what happened in 2000 when they were like 5 years old and we went through this last time. I'm not sure how anyone old enough to vote in that election (as a decent chunk of us were) could ever conceive of not voting, voting for a third-party candidate or writing in Bernie's name on the ballot as some of these fucktards are threatening to do.

Hillary may well be the lesser of two evils, but the lesser of two evils is still LESS FUCKING EVIL.

I would definitely watch more coverage if the debates were all in this voice.

Rush2112 wrote:

Steve of phpBB wrote:That was certainly his right, but is it really that surprising, or wrong, that the Democratic Party establishment would oppose him and instead favor Clinton, a lifelong Democrat?

She was a Goldwater Girl, but became "liberal" in time for '68.

She was 17 when the Goldwater election happened. If she has been a Democrat ever since she was 21, nearly 50 years, I think that counts as lifelong.