If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
I've heard these tapes. They're only damning when you edit out his qualifiers.
When was the last time the juiciest red meat anyone could dig up on a presidential candidate was a 30-year-old, out of context quote?
Let's face it. Relatively speaking, the guy is a saint compared to everyone else... and should he win the nomination, that's going to be a big problem for his opponent.
Funny, I thought you calling him being a saint compared to other politicians and saying that made things difficult for his opponents was doing just that.
As for Bernie's sainthood trumping Trump's ego... the electorate is only nominally involved in that prediction. At its core, I'm predicting Trump sinking himself. I don't feel this will be determined so much by the whimsy of the electorate as opposed to how many full clips Trump can empty into his own foot before the thing falls off.
Bernie needs to figure a way to use this to his advantage. Hillary made the mistake of "humanizing the unborn" by using the term "unborn person" and "child" in response to Todd's question. Planned Parenthood Worker Rips Hillary For Humanizing Fetuses
As for Bernie's sainthood trumping Trump's ego... the electorate is only nominally involved in that prediction. At its core, I'm predicting Trump sinking himself. I don't feel this will be determined so much by the whimsy of the electorate as opposed to how many full clips Trump can empty into his own foot before the thing falls off.
I feel like an alternate take of your perspective would be judging outcome by favorability ratings. Not sure how well that tracks historically, assuming there's even enough data for it to be worthwhile.
General elections in the US aren't about how many like you, they're about how many dislike you. In a two party system, if >60% of the voter base would never vote for you, you simply can't win.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
When asking people their opinions about a candidate, they options are generally favorable, neutral, unfavorable, usually with a "very" on either side to make it five options in general. Early on neutral means "haven't heard of the person", but at this point, it can be taken to mean "acceptable but not my favorite". Unfavorable essentially means that someone has excluded that candidate from consideration, and it will take something very special to bring them around - it provides a ceiling.
The reasoning above is indeed about unfavorability ratings. Trump has always had high unfavorability ratings, while Bernie doesn't - at least not yet. That indicates that Bernie is more "acceptable" to voters at this point. Not sure how relevant that is, though - unfavorables can rise sharply after a few attack ads, and there have been few of those aimed at Bernie yet.
Also note that Hillary's unfavorables are quite high, which would be an issue for her most years.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
General elections in the US aren't about how many like you, they're about how many dislike you. In a two party system, if >60% of the voter base would never vote for you, you simply can't win.
Among US voters Hillary's unfavorables are 2nd only to Trump's, which are the worst in recorded history. Putin's rating is higher than both, FYI.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
I certainly get the satirical nature of the joke punchline. But I also recognize that given the nature of the joke setup they were skating on thin ice at best ... especially in a highly charged political environment. The thing about comedy is that it's really dependent upon timing and delivery. Something that both Secretary Clinton and Mayor de Blasio sorely lack. Consequently, it came off as spectacularly tone deaf ... especially coming on the heels of President Clinton's highly publicized dustup with a few #BlackLivesMatter protesters. I don't expect this to do any lasting damage to the Clinton campaign but it definitely qualifies as an "unforced error" that was easily avoided.
I had to rack my brain for what other meaning "cp time" could have. If the black guy hadn't said anything I would not have known it was even an attempt at a joke.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
MacNN: Find yesterday's Reddit pictures posted in irrelevant threads, today!
Awww
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar
Yeah I'm missing the connection to bernie
Who said there's a connection to Bernie? I'm actually defending Hillary, people are way too quick to scream "racist" these days.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
As it was I wouldn't know how the pic related to Hillary, either.
Even after I explained it.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr