traderdave wrote:Oh Snap, two dudes on the right ARE NOT standing "hand over heart". Others are holding a coffee cup and another is texting. LOCK THEM UP!!!


Frankly, most of the people in that picture need a refresher on where their heart is. Of course, being Trumpians, they don't have one anyway. Hey now.

3 actually, right in a tight little triangle there, but the guy with the nazi salute sticks out too.

Mexico is imposing tariffs on US exports such as steel, apples, pork, potatoes, bourbon and cheese

Canada is imposing tariffs on US steel, aluminum and some foods

Speaking of tariffs:

According to the sources, Trudeau pressed Trump on how he could justify the tariffs as a "national security" issue. In response, Trump quipped to Trudeau, "Didn't you guys burn down the White House?" referring to the War of 1812.

The problem with Trump's comments to Trudeau is that British troops burned down the White House during the War of 1812. Historians note the British attack on Washington was in retaliation for the American attack on York, Ontario, in territory that eventually became Canada, which was then a British colony.

Uncle Milty wrote:That can't be true

Agree. Can't see him having even a tangential grasp of history.

JFLNYC wrote:

06hawkalum wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

06hawkalum wrote:

pacino wrote:oh

Cuban, an outspoken critic of Donald Trump, has previously said his decision whether to run hinges on whether his wife and family would allow it.

I would run as a "Republican before Democrat and most likely independent," Cuban said at The New York Times DealBook Conference in November.

"I think there is an incremental value for setting up an independent candidacy," he added in November. "The benefit of being an independent is you go right to the golden ticket time, if I get enough support in the polls then I get to participate in the debates."

Cuban running would almost certainly bolster the Dems chances of winning the White House in 2020.

Is there any evidence or reason to think this?

He would likely siphon off some Trump voters who voted for a "maverick" in 2016 and would prefer a less shitty alternative the next time around. I don't see Cuban appealing to many Bernie Bros or Hillary supporters.

I like Cuban. I voted for Bernie in the primary and Hillary in the general. If Cuban ran as a Dem I would definitely consider supporting him (depending on other candidates). If he ran as an Independent probably not just because it would likely be a wasted vote. If he ran as a Republican and managed to defeat Trump in the primaries I would consider voting for him if the Dems put up a weak candidate.

Just the opinion of one Bernie/Hillary supporter.

Just wondering who the strong Democratic candidates are at this point. There's no 2006 Obama out there that I can identify. Are the best candidates really people in their 60s and 70s? I know the Koch's efforts at the local level the past 15 years or so significantly weakened the Democratic bench, but its hard to even identify prominent Democrats of Obama's age (56) or younger with significant political promise. I kinda like Jason Kander if he pulled an upset in his last election, but his political resume is paper thin right now. There's Senators Harris, Booker, maybe Gillibrand, maybe Murphy, but before Obama, I would've said that a Senator has too many votes on the record to be a good Presidential candidate and that still might be true since Obama might be a unicorn.

Bernie is the team to beat, let's be real here

To be fair, Obama wasn't Obama really in 2006. He was a Junior Senator with a funny name and dark skin. Everyone knew Hilary was going to be the Democratic nominee in 2008.

I'm assigning The Party Decides again for the fall, and we're going to talk about why it's wrong now--what has changed, and can things change back. But there's no doubt things are different now. And it's both parties. By any reasonable standard, Jeb Bush should have been the Republican Presidential nominee. He clearly won the "invisible primary". If you believe Jeb was fatally uncharismatic, Rubio would have been the next logical choice.

To be sure, Hilary's nomination was consistent with the thesis of The Party Decides, but Obama's was not I don't think. And, it turns out the Party isn't really very good at nominating winnable candidates. And the reason is pretty simple in my opinion--party elites (which at least in terms of behavior often include primary voters) are not really in touch with ordinary Americans.

TenuredVulture wrote:To be fair, Obama wasn't Obama really in 2006. He was a Junior Senator with a funny name and dark skin. Everyone knew Hilary was going to be the Democratic nominee in 2008.

I'm assigning The Party Decides again for the fall, and we're going to talk about why it's wrong now--what has changed, and can things change back. But there's no doubt things are different now. And it's both parties. By any reasonable standard, Jeb Bush should have been the Republican Presidential nominee. He clearly won the "invisible primary". If you believe Jeb was fatally uncharismatic, Rubio would have been the next logical choice.

To be sure, Hilary's nomination was consistent with the thesis of The Party Decides, but Obama's was not I don't think. And, it turns out the Party isn't really very good at nominating winnable candidates. And the reason is pretty simple in my opinion--party elites (which at least in terms of behavior often include primary voters) are not really in touch with ordinary Americans.

I mean he had the 2004 Convention Speech, he wasn't that unknown, so it's not out of the question that he was the favorite in lethal's mind. He was not the obvious choice though, like you said Hillary seemed to be the one to beat.

 Members of a group of outside experts required by law to meet twice a year with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau say the group has been dissolved by CFPB head Mick Mulvaney

To be replaced. Place your bets. I got a board of people the CFBA successfully took action against.

pacino wrote:Bernie is the team to beat, let's be real here

I believe he's behind Biden and Warren in unreliable polling for 2020. He is not the team to beat, especially with other potential progressives (Warren, but she seems set on not running) and more establishment players that are becoming reliably progressive (Gillibrand, for example) in the running.

pacino wrote:Bernie is the team to beat, let's be real here

I can only think of a worse candidate who would be named Clinton. Seriously, Bernie ain't for me.

slugsrbad wrote:

pacino wrote:Bernie is the team to beat, let's be real here

I believe he's behind Biden and Warren in unreliable polling for 2020. He is not the team to beat, especially with other potential progressives (Warren, but she seems set on not running) and more establishment players that are becoming reliably progressive (Gillibrand, for example) in the running.

he has a huge infrastructure built up, the name recognition, and has spent 1.5 aligning himself to the rest of the Democratic Party and developing ties down the ballot.
Perhaps Warren could do it, but she doesn't seem to want it. If she did, 2016 was her time.
it's him.

I think Biden gets almost all of Bernie's voters and opens to door to many millions of others, but who knows

Biden has no platform and has failed at this twice already. being a corporate Democrat from Delaware is probably not as OK in the Democratic primary as it may have been years ago.

I can think of one major thing that could stop Bernie: Father Time

otherwise, it's probably his if he wants it.

i'd still lay bets on Booker

pacino wrote:I can think of one major thing that could stop Bernie: Father Time

otherwise, it's probably his if he wants it.

So his VP is who you need to consider.

The Big Azz Summit was a success! Ye's girl got it done.

Alice Marie Johnson Granted Clemency By Trump.

So much for drugdealers needing to get got because they are straight up murderers.

the old man and the indian 2020!

I don't think it's going to be Biden, for the reasons Pac mentioned. I don't think it's going to be Bernie, as I think lots of Dems are pretty pissed at him and his Organizing for America has flopped pretty spectacularly recently. And he's really old. Gillibrand has a shot, as does Booker (though I really fear Booker is something of an empty suit and a bit too cozy with Wall Street and even worse the pharmaceutical industry.)

I'd really like to see the Dems nominate a governor--Hickenlooper for instance. NOT KASICH. NOT CUOMO. Please God no.