Um, Donald I said you're demagogue, not a Demi-God (politics

by **pacino** » Tue Jan 05, 2016 11:35:14

The Dude wrote:Or Janet Reno

i don't want to be misunderstood; i'm fine with how law enforcement is handling this situation, I think it's proper. Rather, I just think it's entirely a double standard.

by **The Dude** » Tue Jan 05, 2016 12:04:52

Yeah, i think i understood you. I think Waco is a similar situation too, though. As is Ruby Ridge

by **TomatoPie** » Tue Jan 05, 2016 13:00:30

Monkeyboy wrote:Assuming Clinton is the nominee, how do you think she'll do against the most likely Rep nominees? Here is the map with the most likely decided states colored the appropriate color. Doing this reveals a bit of a dem advantage, assuming all the states go as planned. Dems need 53 more electoral votes to clinch it. Of the toss up states, my guess is these go to the Reps:

Florida: (either Bush or Rubio would have home state advantage and Trump's crazy talk is like a beautiful melody to Floridians)
North Carolina: Don't think another dem can win there yet.
Ohio: Maybe the fracking stuff will push it the other way, but I doubt it, though this is more of a hunch.

And these go dem:

PA: Trending dem and went that way the last several elections
NH: Can't imagine them voting for Rubio, Bush, or Trump
WI: A bit of a wild card, but this is my guess based on recent elections and Walker's fall from grace.

That leaves NV, CO, IA, and VA to decide the election with the dems needing just 19 more to win it. My guess is Clinton will use her DC connections and recent trends to win VA, especially if Trump is the nominee. Rubio would have a shot. But overall, I think she would have an edge there. That means she would just need one more of NV, CO, or IA. Nevada is the most likely spot, I think, especially once this adelson stuff fully hits the fan. She also has a better than average shot in IA. I'm not sure about CO.

What do you guys think? I know it's way too early to do this, but my daughter is watching 101 Dalmatians and I don't feel like doing real work.

Fun exercise here - great post.

I've said from the get-go - Trump has zero chance to get the nomination. Bush is fading fast - I think the focus should be on Rubio or Cruz. I still pray for Kasich, but John Huntsman showed that the reasonable man has no place in the modern GOP.

I think Hillary wins easily in all of the scenarios, but I'd like to see your analysis specifically vs Rubio or Cruz. Trump is noise. He's damn persistent noise, but he's going away.

by **Monkeyboy** » Tue Jan 05, 2016 15:46:24

Flint residents have been plagued by water issues since April 2014, when they began receiving drinking water drawn from the Flint River. Immediate concerns over odd tastes, smells and coloring gave way to more serious worries late this summer when rising levels of lead were detected in the blood of the city’s children.

Given the effects of lead on nervous system development, I certainly hope the residents of Flint sue the crap out of the state. And that's without considering growing concerns that the violence of the 70s was due to lead.

This is something that will become more common as cities have to go to 2nd and 3rd choices for water. We're either going to have to do desalination, which requires a ton of energy, or change the way we're doing practically everything. If it's the former, and it will be the former, we'll need alternative fuel sources or we'll need to do even more fracking or turn to the ME or Russia or Venezuela for more black poison. Ironically, processing oil takes a ton of water, so it will be a 2 steps forward 1 step back kind of thing. The oil-water nexus is going to kick our ass unless we turn to alternative energies asap.

by **SK790** » Tue Jan 05, 2016 16:49:29

maybe we can just have a big public works project that fixes America's crumbling infrastructure?

no, that's crazy.

by **RichmondPhilsFan** » Tue Jan 05, 2016 16:52:21

Monkeyboy wrote:Assuming Clinton is the nominee, how do you think she'll do against the most likely Rep nominees? Here is the map with the most likely decided states colored the appropriate color. Doing this reveals a bit of a dem advantage, assuming all the states go as planned. Dems need 53 more electoral votes to clinch it. Of the toss up states, my guess is these go to the Reps:

Florida: (either Bush or Rubio would have home state advantage and Trump's crazy talk is like a beautiful melody to Floridians)
North Carolina: Don't think another dem can win there yet.
Ohio: Maybe the fracking stuff will push it the other way, but I doubt it, though this is more of a hunch.

And these go dem:

PA: Trending dem and went that way the last several elections
NH: Can't imagine them voting for Rubio, Bush, or Trump
WI: A bit of a wild card, but this is my guess based on recent elections and Walker's fall from grace.

That leaves NV, CO, IA, and VA to decide the election with the dems needing just 19 more to win it. My guess is Clinton will use her DC connections and recent trends to win VA, especially if Trump is the nominee. Rubio would have a shot. But overall, I think she would have an edge there. That means she would just need one more of NV, CO, or IA. Nevada is the most likely spot, I think, especially once this adelson stuff fully hits the fan. She also has a better than average shot in IA. I'm not sure about CO.

What do you guys think? I know it's way too early to do this, but my daughter is watching 101 Dalmatians and I don't feel like doing real work.

Also, don't forget that Tim Kaine would be on Hillary's short list for VP selections. He's not Mark Warner, but he was a popular governor, has acquitted himself well as a Senator, and is a very likable guy/capable campaigner. Virginia would be Hillary's state to lose with Kaine on the ticket, IMO.

by **SK790** » Tue Jan 05, 2016 16:58:53

i really don't think there's any way any of the current republican poll leaders can win. even bernie would probably beat most of them in the general. ted cruz was the worst "serious" candidate to come out of this crazy carson/carly/trump thing currently going on. maybe i'm wrong, but he's the most conservative of the candidates who have held office and i think most of the country is sick of conservative policies as a whole. gay marriage is now widely accepted, an overwhelming number of people want more gun control, most people want economic policies that reduce the wealth gap, and there's a ton of unrest about civil rights and policing. nominating a guy who either is against or ignores all of these things can't be good.

by **Monkeyboy** » Tue Jan 05, 2016 17:34:12

I understand that's the common viewpoint. But I think people are so tribal about this stuff in the US that most of the population will vote the same way they always do, even if it's some lunatic on the ticket. It will come down to undecideds and low information voters who make up their minds last. I still think the dems have almost everything going for them given the GOP alternatives, but with most people already voting for their "tribe," small stuff and last minute surprises, not to mention weird little things that happen, will make it relatively close. I know I'm in the minority there, but I think dems get overconfident at their peril.

by **Youseff** » Tue Jan 05, 2016 17:41:21

it was really funny 3 years ago when all the polls were saying Obama would win in a landslide and certain Repub cheerleaders refused to deal with reality and certain scaredy cat Dem voters were convinced he would lose and then it turns out the polls were right.

by **Monkeyboy** » Tue Jan 05, 2016 18:44:35

Obama was an incumbent which helped significantly..

And I'm not saying that the polls are all wrong and the Reps will win. I'm saying it's going to be much closer than what's commonly being described and dems need to be on guard because weird little things can sometimes swing things. Acting like we have the election in the bag is foolish, imo.

As an aside, how good would Christie look right now if not for Bridgegate? I hate the guy regardless, but I think he might be running away with this right now if not for bridgegate.

by **RichmondPhilsFan** » Tue Jan 05, 2016 18:53:22

Monkeyboy wrote:Obama was an incumbent which helped significantly..

And I'm not saying that the polls are all wrong and the Reps will win. I'm saying it's going to be much closer than what's commonly being described and dems need to be on guard because weird little things can sometimes swing things. Acting like we have the election in the bag is foolish, imo.

As an aside, how good would Christie look right now if not for Bridgegate? I hate the guy regardless, but I think he might be running away with this right now if not for bridgegate.

Doubtful. Most of the midwest and south would be highly reluctant to elect a blowhard from Jersey with questionable conservative credentials.

They prefer their blowhards with questionable conservative credentials to be from Queens.

by **Youseff** » Tue Jan 05, 2016 21:34:00

Gov. Mike HuckabeeVerified account
‏@GovMikeHuckabee
What do you bet that if Hillary finds aliens at Area 51, Obama will want to give them green cards?

by **Monkeyboy** » Tue Jan 05, 2016 21:49:45

Huck is just disappointed we don't have religious or racial purity in this country.

by **pacino** » Tue Jan 05, 2016 22:20:55

Straight up trolling. Don't give him the satisfaction.

by **drsmooth** » Tue Jan 05, 2016 22:30:05

I would enjoy for Huckabee to be given the chance to visit aliens from other planets, without benefit of a space helmet or a spaceship or any Tang even.

Just slingshot that slackassed cornponeographer right the hell out of our atmosphere

by **Youseff** » Tue Jan 05, 2016 22:51:51

man these Repub dudes are pumping out stupid shit at an amazing clip. the Steph Curry's of irresponsible stupidity. from Ted Cruz.

by **momadance** » Tue Jan 05, 2016 23:43:00

NK tested a hydrogen bomb a bit ago.

by **SK790** » Wed Jan 06, 2016 08:03:48

So they say.

by **Bucky** » Wed Jan 06, 2016 08:48:26

there were also several independent reports of seismic activity there. But maybe they just took advantage of a minor earthquake to propagandize?

by **JUburton** » Wed Jan 06, 2016 09:07:10

It was likely a standard fission bomb that they've tested two or three times before, not a hydrogen bomb.

Archived

Um, Donald I said you're demagogue, not a Demi-God (politics

Re: Um, Donald I said you're demagogue, not a Demi-God (poli

Re: Um, Donald I said you're demagogue, not a Demi-God (poli

Re: Um, Donald I said you're demagogue, not a Demi-God (poli

Re: Um, Donald I said you're demagogue, not a Demi-God (poli

Re: Um, Donald I said you're demagogue, not a Demi-God (poli

Re: Um, Donald I said you're demagogue, not a Demi-God (poli

Re: Um, Donald I said you're demagogue, not a Demi-God (poli

Re: Um, Donald I said you're demagogue, not a Demi-God (poli

Re: Um, Donald I said you're demagogue, not a Demi-God (poli

Re: Um, Donald I said you're demagogue, not a Demi-God (poli

Re: Um, Donald I said you're demagogue, not a Demi-God (poli

Re: Um, Donald I said you're demagogue, not a Demi-God (poli

Re: Um, Donald I said you're demagogue, not a Demi-God (poli

Re: Um, Donald I said you're demagogue, not a Demi-God (poli

Re: Um, Donald I said you're demagogue, not a Demi-God (poli

Re: Um, Donald I said you're demagogue, not a Demi-God (poli

Re: Um, Donald I said you're demagogue, not a Demi-God (poli

Re: Um, Donald I said you're demagogue, not a Demi-God (poli

Re: Um, Donald I said you're demagogue, not a Demi-God (poli

Re: Um, Donald I said you're demagogue, not a Demi-God (poli