Forums / Fun! / Memeory Lane

Fuming Bernie supporters: Why is CNN deleting our comments?

{ Already feeling the news network’s coverage had become rabidly pro-Hillary in the aftermath of last night’s debate, Facebook users leaving reactions on CNN’s page are now continually re-posting them, knowing they will be quickly removed. There are hundreds in a seeming battle with the network, with no explanation as to why.

Some users and messages appear to be specifically targeted, especially those accusing CNN of having conflicts of interest that make it naturally inclined to back Hillary. }

Barry has me covered on this one

So in other words, lefties are rebelling against the perceived censoring of comments against the media's preferred candidate, while righties just let it happen to them :D

Kidding, but for real, your flawed economic approach based on threatening "what ifs" is almost as engorging as your generalization rate.

I rarely post "what-ifs" that aren't backed by professionals in a relevant field who are suggesting what could happen as a consequence of bad liberal policy.

Which ones are you having a problem with?

omg.

Panic strikes school after student says ‘gum’

{ Principal Michelle Chae sent a letter home to parents after the incident, according to the Hays Free Press, writing:

Dear Lobo Parents,

This morning we received a report from a student that there was allegedly a weapon on campus. After investigating the concern, it was determined that a student thought he heard the word “gun,” but in fact it was another student asking for some “gum.” }

Someone get some therapy for the poor paranoid kid, he's clearly the next one to snap.

I rarely post “what-ifs” that aren’t backed by professionals in a relevant field who are suggesting what could happen as a consequence of bad liberal policy.

Which ones are you having a problem with?

Mainly the issue is "could". How certain is it that the majority, most, or all companies having to pay their workers more than the minimum wage (that isn't adjusted for inflation this year, by the way) will spend more money to acquire land overseas? Is it economically feasible?

Secondly, the issue with more money than the median earners can be solved with a logarithmic curve with decreasing payoffs as the pay grade rises, starting at the proposed minimum wage. Consumer manufacturers won't have to increase prices, as people will already be buying far more than they could before. The idea is to keep the flow of money going, as a large portion (but not the majority) of funds are being kept by a few billionaires. They aren't using the prized "trickle-down theory" that so many righties promised would occur.

What does the news article have with the election of 2016?

lmao you guys are so sensitive, it was just a light news article that popped up on an aggregator I use.

{ will spend more money to acquire land overseas? Is it economically feasible? }

Why would they have to go overseas when we have the highest rate of both illegal immigrant workers and visa workers whose employers don't have to pay taxes? You know that chunk of money that comes out of every citizen's paycheck that goes to the state and federal government?

How could wealth be trickling down when the richest manufacturers are leaving America for third world countries with no business tax (when we wont even consider compromising on the highest rate in the first world) and what companies remain are laying off native workers for visa holders? Wealth is definitely trickling down in the places these businesses are moving too. How about China's economic explosion? Dubai and the UAE? India? It's everywhere companies that were once American have fled to, and where new business starts from the get go.

Increasing taxes doesn't generate income or economic growth, two things you need to be stable. Our ridiculous regulations drive people away, which also increases the human rights burden on those countries they move to. Plenty of Republicans now have offered alternatives that will genuinely promote American manufacturing again, but you guys are too busy on your rich-guy witch hunt.

I don't understand how you guys don't get this. You can keep raising and raising taxes on industry until the three people left are paying a 75% rate, or you can lower the rate and become competitive with other countries' rates which encourages business to move back until there are hundreds of companies paying a 15% rate. Not only are you generating income through shitloads of booming business actually paying their taxes, but because you have so many industries moving back in you now have millions of jobs, from labor to corporate. Those people are paid to do their jobs, and because we don't have to import goods the overall price of everything can afford a slight decrease, encouraging native spending and keeping the money moving through the economy.

"Trickle down/etc" doesn't refer to a straight line so much as the direction a loop is turning.

Why is manufacturing such a big concern when the economy here is like 70% services, and probably more?

Do you like the economy how it is now?

It's workable.

It doesn't have a large enough profit margin to be making up 70% of the economy, and then on top of that the big guys in the service industries aren't paying their taxes/are abusing loopholes anyway. All industries need to be reworked, but manufacturing is what would see the most dramatic change and I think the most potentially beneficial change.

Sanders Would Raise Payroll Taxes on Everyone to Fund Paid Family Leave

{ Sanders said, “I think if you are looking about guaranteeing paid family and medical leave, which every other major country has so that when a mom gives birth she doesn’t have to go back to work in two weeks. Dad or mom can stay home with the kids. That will require a small increase in the payroll tax.”

Stephanopoulos said, “That’s going to hit everybody.”

Sanders agreed saying, “That would hit everybody, yeah, it would. }

No matter which Democrat you go with, they all want to increase your taxes.
You are not poor enough to be protected by the Democrats.

The Democrats claim the Republicans are in the pocket's of big business, but the GOP is the only party whose candidates have proposed tax reform policies that would benefit the average person at the cost of the corporate class instead of the working class.

{ The federal government took in a record high of approximately $3,248,723,000,000 in taxes in fiscal 2015 (which ended on Sept. 30), according to the Monthly Treasury Statement released today.

That equaled approximately $21,833 for every person in the country who had either a full-time or part-time job in September. }

Obviously the government doesn't have enough of our money already.

The Democrats claim the Republicans are in the pocket’s of big business, but the GOP is the only party whose candidates have proposed tax reform policies that would benefit the average person at the cost of the corporate class instead of the working class.

I don't think so, Lisa.

Fantastic, that really helps make your point. I've posted reviews of GOP tax plans in this thread already, we have at least four candidates actively proposing to close corporate loopholes, reform the tax code, and make us globally competitive again. Or there's Bernie, who admittedly wants to raise your income taxes.

Sure, you could talk about the here-and-now candidates opening another can of worms and looking to the future, but how was it in the past? What got us the incrementally-decreasing middle class and the ever-lengthening plutocrat class? Citizens United, a conservative lobbying group, who made it possible to allow for corporations to donate campaign funds to politicians in return for voting for policies they want enacted. It's been great so far, for those with the money to make more money. What else is working in effect that was enacted by conservatives? Reaganomics. Wanna know how that turned out? The debt held by the public rose from $789 billion to $2.190 trillion in 8 years. 1981 to 1989. How bad is it that the debt increased almost thrice the amount in an age where even the inflation wasn't as bad as it is now? All conservative. So conservatives are helping the middle class "at the expense of the corporate class" my ass.

We're talking about the 2016 candidates and their plans as we are in the 2016 election thread, not the political party history thread. The proposed GOP plans have done what I will not repeat for a third time. The two proposed Democrat plans both involve raising taxes on the working class while making absolutely no reference to the obvious corporate loopholes.

Obama has single handedly raised the debt exponentially higher and faster than any President in US history, if you want to throw irrelevant facts back and forth. They're are also more women than ever in history not in work, more black Americans than ever not in work, the lowest labor participation rate in 30 years and still tanking, more Americans than ever in history are currently on food stamps, do you still want to play the irrelevant fact game, 'cause the Democrat track record is not on your side here.

It's only a Democratic track record of 7 years. A lot of those woes could be traced to the great recession; but was that born from one Republican or Democrat? (Answer: it was both!)

That's why I called them irrelevant facts, both parties have fucked up in the past, so why would we not talk about the here-and-now candidates who want to try something completely different instead of following party lines for another 100 years??

Because they're lying?

Well why vote at all, all the politicians are lying and nothing will ever change, might as well stay home. I totally agree, I hope the other liberals adhere to that exact mindset.

If you want to be hopeful, be my guest. I'll be trying to acclimate to a warmer climate in the meantime.

(On a side note- it's rather amusing to see how most extremists understand how corrupt the government is, but completely fail to understand why. Far left people will say, "Only white people would do this!" while far right people will say, "Only jews would do this!")

Freakenstein said:

What got us the incrementally-decreasing middle class and the ever-lengthening plutocrat class?

Globalization which resulted in companies outsourcing for cheap foreign labor? Stagflation in the 70s that ground things to a halt? The lack of a World War and GIs flush with cash and babies?

…Citizens United…

Citizens United was decided in 2010. It has nothing to do with the declining middle class, which was accelerated in 2007 due to the subprime crisis.

…made it possible to allow for corporations to donate campaign funds to politicians…

You do know what Citizens United v FEC was about, right? SCOTUS declared that a section of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act which prohibited corporations, unions, or non-profits from broadcasting "electioneering communications" (campaign ads) within 60 days of a general election was an unconstitutional abridgment of the First Amendment.

This means that corporations, unions, and non-profits are now free to spend money advertising for the candidate, ballot proposal, etc. that they support or oppose closer to an election. In practice, SuperPACs are usually formed as "war chests" to pile money into to coordinate the advertising.

What it didn't do is allow corporations to donate directly to political candidates. The Tillman Act, which bans corporations from directly donating to political candidates, remains federal law and was not at issue in Citizens United.

All conservative.

If there's one flaw Reagan had, it was his ballooning of the federal debt. You'll see plenty of conservatives agree with that. Then again, it did arguably help to tip the Soviets over the edge. I'm not seeing how this is related to a debate over candidates' taxation proposals, though.

Just so we're clear, this thread has become an argument between Lisa and Freakenstein with me jarbox and TSG thrown in here and there. Feels a bit like a perpetual argument between 5 people rather than actual political discussion.

We can't force other people to post… why is 5 or 6 people arguing about politics not good to you? That's pretty active participation for these forums.

I'm rather content with 5 or 6 people in this thread. It allows me to get a feel for what everyone believes and keeps it at a steady pace.
In actual presidential news, sources have apparently are saying that Biden will run for president.
I've seen a couple recent polls and Biden has a really strong chance at winning the bid right now. One had him winning against all the major Republican candidates. As Marco Rubio's staffers have pointed out, though, peaking too early would be really bad, especially with our abnormally long campaign length.

WashPo announced he was running then yanked it, they said it was published on accident, but I've heard he's going to announce within 48 hours.

A lot of establishment Dems think Hillary is way too unstable and looks way too terrible to actually run a campaign against the GOP right now. They're eager to back Biden instead, and they're willing to invest much more in him than Hillary because there were scandal rumors rocking from the get go. I don't think it would effect Bernie's numbers too much, it's just a matter of a different opponent for him.

I'm normally more active in political discussions, but I've pretty much checked out of this election until next year. It got way too stupid way too early.

I'd advise you check back in some time between right before the parties select their candidates and the first presidential debate. Somewhere between there they'll start to become more bipartisan by necessity and the lesser candidates will be weeded out ruthlessly by the system. Hopefully.

lisalombs said:

I don’t think it would effect Bernie’s numbers too much…

If anything, it'll make him winning a little more likely since it splits the establishment vote.

As someone inexplicably decided to post outside this thread, Jim Webb has decided to give up trying to get the Democratic Bid. From CNN:

Jim Webb ended his bid for the Democratic presidential nomination at a press conference Tuesday, telling reporters he will consider an independent bid.

Speaking at the National Press Club in Washington, Webb argued the Democratic Party has moved away from "millions of dedicated, hard-working Americans."

"For this reason, I am withdrawing from any consideration of being the Democratic Party's nominee for the presidency," he said.

Independent? Pour soul has even less of a chance now. It's actually kind of surprising given how much people liked him in the first Democratic debate.

Why don't people change their official party leanings until after they succeed the first time? It's what Teddy Roosevelt did, though he did inherit the first term due to McKinley being shot by an anarchist. . . .

>mfw when Webb drops out

For those who watched the Democratic debate, a good portion of them seemed to have liked him (not a majority, but a good fraction). However, it seemed it had no effect on him, as subsequent polls put him at or near the lowest percentages out of all the Democratic candidates.

If you want a quick version of his politics, he's rather centrist, disliking affirmative action and gun control despite being a Democrat. That's about all I got from the debate, but it's enough to get a feel for who he is – left, but hardly so, it seems. In the presidential election, this is a huge boon, but in the primaries, it can be deadly if you don't handle it really carefully.

Several polls are out
Looks like the debates did nothing for Sanders, but helped Clinton a little bit
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_democratic_presidential_nomination-3824.html

I honestly expected an increase in Sander's poll number as more people discover who he is. I thought Webb and O'Malley would go up a by a slight amount too, but, meh. The democratic debate hardly did anything to the poll numbers unlike the republican debates.

Sanders has the internet, but Clinton has the television and radio, the former of which has been proven guilty of skewing the polling and editing the debates in favor of Clinton in order to warp the viewers into a Majority Bias viewpoint.

I was about to say the same. When the news company who polls also funds one of the candidates with over a half-million dollars, and when people then claim said company is indeed skewing the news and comments and polls, there is a major problem. CNN is making it painfully obvious WHY, people like Sanders want money out of politics. Maybe the news will become more honest when it comes to candidates if he becomes president since then they at least won't be circlejerking their paid-for candidate so often.

Also, I think Sanders really needs to improve his foreign policy. He rarely mentions it and he botched the question in the CNN debate about how he'd handle foreign policy.

What exactly did he botch?

Looking over the transcript again he did actually give some decent foreign policy answers I forgot about. But in regards to Russia this is what he said:

COOPER: Senator Sanders, I want you to be able to respond.

SANDERS: Pardon me?

COOPER: I'd like you to be able to respond and get in on this.

SANDERS: Well, I think Mr. Putin is going to regret what he is doing. I think that when he gets into that…

COOPER: He doesn't seem to be the type of guy to regret a lot.

SANDERS: Well, I think he's already regretting what he did in Crimea and what he is doing in the Ukraine. I think he is really regretting the decline of his economy. And I think what he is trying to do now is save some face. But I think when Russians get killed in Syria and when he gets bogged down, I think the Russian people are going to give him a message that maybe they should come home, maybe they should start working with the United States to rectify the situation now.

It was a weak answer and I feel he should've put more thought into this beforehand -especially since on the campaign trail people worried about how he'd handle Russia. Still better than any answer from the 3 stooges on stage though that's not saying much.

A weak answer? "It's none of our business" is music to my ears.

Trump destroys latest ABC/WashPo poll

The Establishment Thinks the Unthinkable: Trump Could Win the Nomination

Unrelated to Trump but a relevant election issue, this OpEd from the NYTimes highlights some unintended consequences of liberal "criminal justice reform" in DC and California.

Crimes Without Punishment

{ Last year, California’s voters approved Proposition 47. The initiative reduces such crimes as shoplifting, grand theft, forgery, fraud and bad check writing from felonies to misdemeanors -- as long as the value does not exceed $950. The measure also calls for the resentencing of inmates previously convicted when these crimes were treated as felonies.

An extensive examination of the California initiative by Eli Saslow of The Washington Post earlier this month found a number of unintended consequences:

"In the 11 months since the passage of Prop 47, more than 4,300 state prisoners have been resentenced and then released. Drug arrests in Los Angeles County have dropped by a third. Jail bookings are down by a quarter. Hundreds of thousands of ex-felons have applied to get their previous drug convictions revised or erased."

Over the same period, however,

"Along with the successes have come other consequences, which police departments and prosecutors refer to as the “unintended effects”: *Robberies up 23 percent in San Francisco. Property theft up 11 percent in Los Angeles. Certain categories of crime rising 20 percent in Lake Tahoe, 36 percent in La Mirada, 22 percent in Chico and 68 percent in Desert Hot Springs."*

Repeat offenders are now known among the police as “frequent fliers.” One shoplifter was caught while using a calculator to make sure his take did not break the $950 cutoff, Saslow reported.

Looking at the costs, benefits and unintended consequences of both hard-line and lenient policies, the question becomes: is there an effective and fair-minded approach to arrest, prosecution and imprisonment policy which would elicit consensus from the voting population? }

Joe Biden announces he will NOT run for President

And so the liberal media weeped.

#Biden

Let us remember the wonderful time we had listening to Fox News biasedly state over and over that Joe Biden may or is likely to run. Also, two days ago they posted this story headline: "FOX sources: Biden to announce presidential run."
Fox News is run by such plebs.

Literally every news organization thought he was going to run. Yesterday Wash Post accidentally published their template report for when he announced, there were Xs in the spots where dates would be. Plus there's really no bias behind saying someone is probably going to run, what exactly are they skewing?

Obligatory quote from a news source.
From ABC:

Vice President Joe Biden is not running for president in 2016, he announced in a Rose Garden address this afternoon, saying the window for a realistic White House bid closed before his family was able to work through the grieving process surrounding the May death of son Beau.
"As the family and I have worked through the grieving process, I have said all along and time again what I have said to others; that the process by the time we get through it, closes the window on mounting a realistic campaign for president. That it might close. I have concluded it has closed," Biden said, with President Obama and his wife, Jill Biden, standing by his side.
Though Biden said his family is far enough into their grief to handle the rigors of a presidential campaign, there’s too little time to make the prospect viable.
“Unfortunately, I believe we're out of time; the time necessary to mount a winning campaign for the nomination," Biden said.

I continue to find the US's 14 month election season ridiculous, especially in light of Canada's recent 78 day election, which by their standards was absurdly long. It's sad we're over a year from the actual election and Biden thinks he can't get in because there's not enough time, I think.

That's an obvious empty excuse. They don't think it's worth it to split the votes with Hillary and risk Sanders winning the nomination. If he wasn't running, Biden would be 100% in to run against Hillary even at this point. The whole establishment was begging him to run, donors with millions were waiting to give it all to him, he himself has been baiting Hillary's camp into flamewars the past week. There's absolutely enough time to campaign, he was gaining in the polls just on speculation that he might run. The establishment simply won't allow it.

Jeb Bush Orders Across-the-Board Pay Cuts for Struggling Campaign

A desperate last move from a campaign doomed to fail? Is Jeb the next to pull out?
He's fallen to fifth behind Rubio and Cruz in the RCP average.
He's cut his campaign budget by 45% and is laying off tons of staff.

The Bush campaign is doing budget cuts.

So I guess you could say they're trimming the Bush.

In a move I saw coming since the first democratic debate, Lincoln Chafee is dropping out of the race.

At a women's forum held by the Democratic National Committee, he said: "After much thought I have decided to end my campaign for president today.
"But I would like to take this opportunity one last time to advocate for a chance be given to peace."
Mr Chafee was, as he pointed out in the recent Democratic debate, the only Republican to vote against the Iraq War.
His departure means there are only three Democrats left – Mrs Clinton, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders and former Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley.

Since Webb is running as independent, we can basically count him out. He'd need serious advantages to win as independent and he just doesn't. This means the field has narrowed from 18 to 14, if my counting is right – before even we're 1 year from election day.