88m3
Fast Money & Foreign Objects
Wow... ok
Criminal justice reform, sentencing reform, etc.
Wow... ok
Criminal justice reform, sentencing reform, etc.
so kagan and sotemayor have presided over these cases and voted in a negative way?Wow... ok
Criminal justice reform, sentencing reform, etc.
Look it up I'm tired of saying the same thing. Never would I vote for Clinton and I explained the policy differences numerous of times.The deck was stacked only in the sense that he was going against a political juggernaut while being a relatively unknown democratic socialist. So yeah, it was a going to be an uphill battle, just like it was for Obama. But that doesn't mean it was impossible for him to win. He was probably one major Hillary gaffe away from winning this thing.
I'm confused. What is it about Trump's foreign policy & trade policy that differs from Clinton and would take longer for ordinary people to recover?
Seems to me this would make little difference. Clinton would still be up 1947 to 1575 in total delegates, and probably still get the nomination. Sanders would need to win 2/3s of the remaining delegates in this scenario ... not very likely to happen.
so kagan and sotemayor have presided over these cases and voted in a negative way?
but no proof of it, just your feelings. and we don't even know what this potential case that would be brought to the supreme court would even look like.Both insure exactly what I stated.
That Roe v. Wade gets upheld and that immigration reform gets passed.
Got anything to say?
but no proof of it, just your feelings. and we don't even know what this potential case that would be brought to the supreme court would even look like.
Obama was one of them Four years earlier he was a speaker at the DNC Convention. Not bashing Obama, I'm just telling you that he was an establishment candidate. Bernie is an outsider that had to run as a Democrat for name recognition. Superdelegates are there, so they can rig it for their candidate.Yeah, but you don't think they would have changed if the people began supporting Sanders? Wasn't that precisely what happened in 2008?
Look it up I'm tired of saying the same thing. Never would I vote for Clinton and I explained the policy differences numerous of times.
The point was that the election was between two establishment candidates. Also, Dennis Kucinich was ousted he was 08's Bernie. The guy was for gay marriage and etc. It was originally suppose to come down to O'Malley (Your establishment candidate) and Clinton, but the people loved Bernie because of his platform.Well I don't follow you around threads, so.
As to your other point, Obama might have been more to the right than Sanders, but he was still fighting uphill to combat the political strength and name recognition of Clinton. The superdelegates overwhelmingly supported Clinton until she started making bald faced lies like the Bosnia trip, and people called her out for it. We had very similar results in the actual elections up until then too.
We said that in 2008. The fact is, politics is local. That image only hurts nationally. Locally, you're good. Besides, all you have to do is disavow Trump. Most of them have already.
It was perceived policy weaknesses (soft on crime) and backlash to the civil rights movement that hurt Dems before Clinton at the presidential level. But they still held Congress throughout that time. And under Clinton they (Rs) held Congress despite his popularity. Republicana are not going anywhere. If Mitt Romney was their candidate this year, Hillary would lose. They come back in 2020 with a "moderate" that their base likes. National party favorables mean nothing.
Republicans have shown for the past 20 years that they don't need Congress or the Presidency to run the country.It was true in 2008 as well, the difference is that republicans had a clear path to saving themselves. Instead they took the exact opposite path - anti immigration and anti Hispanic in many respects. Note I'm not talking about congress; republicans continue to have advantages in districts throughout the country and that won't immediately change, even after the 2020 census. But nationally the party as it currently stands doesn't have a path to 270 without outside factors such as an economic implosion or scandal.
It's nigh impossible to be elected president without winning nearly 43% of the Hispanic vote. Romney was at 27%, Trump will likely get 20%. A Trump nomination is very likely to ruin the party with Hispanics for the foreseeable future.
Just as Pete Wilson destroyed republicans with Hispanics in California, I think Trump will do the same nationally.
except trump isnt a 'republican'
voting trump isnt the same as cruz or kasich. i wouldnt actually vote for those two
especially because they would be being selected by the repub establishment, which is what im voting against trump IS NOT. hes arguably the only candidate selected by the people against the will of the party. fukk that pic
some of you fags need to take into account that just because americans have only been left with two choices for 'party', that doesnt mean trump or bernie are actually of that party. they didnt have a choice but to borrow the name
does trump represent the republican party and establishment?
does bernie represent the democratic party and establishment?
Top 10 Donald Trump Failures - TIME
Donald Trump's 13 Biggest Business Failures
A Short History of Donald Trump's Failed Business Ventures
The Definitive Roundup of Trump’s Scandals and Business Failures, by Celina Durgin, National Review
How Donald Trump Made Millions Off His Biggest Business Failure
http://gawker.com/a-complete-list-of-donald-trump-s-business-disasters-1764151188
The myth and the reality of Donald Trump’s business empire
If I were trump I would be trying to convince Bernie to run third party