US Politics Thread |OT| SAD TRUMP

[bluemax]

http://observer.com/2017/02/i-helped-create-the-milo-trolling-playbook-you-should-stop-playing-right-into-it/

[Trent Dole]

The dems really might fuck this up

Dems gonna Dem.

[Optimus]

 

The dems really might fuck this up

House Democrats’ strategy is basically this: They’ll publicly goad Trump on subjects he’s clearly sensitive about, like insinuating he’s being blackmailed by Russian President Vladimir Putin; and on other issues, like Obamacare and tax reform, they’ll get out of the way and let Trump and House Republicans fall on their face.

Second time's the charm!

They don't have an economic plan because they're still planning on marginalizing Sanders, you know, just like they did before the election. What a disaster of a party, Jesus Christ.

[Samson Manhug]

The rule she "broke" was that you can't be critical of a fellow senator.

If there were a time and a place for that rule to apply, it shouldn't be the debate for the nomination of said senator for a different position. 

Just making sure people saw this. I'm seeing a few posts here that are acknowledging she broke the rules, but. . .

The rule doesn't make any sense, shouldn't apply, and was selectively applied.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/02/a-brief-history-of-the-senate-rule-that-silenced-elizabeth-warren/516042/

[Dennis]

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/house-democrats-trump-strategy-234815

BALTIMORE — House Democrats have come here to regroup, reconnect and rally around a message to take back the House in 2018. Their political playbook already seems written, in fact, and it’s pretty simple: We’re not Donald Trump.

If their plan sounds vaguely familiar, it is. House Democrats tried the same thing in the run-up to the 2016 election, tying House Republicans to whatever the Trump controversy du jour was, with dismal results. Democrats picked up only six House seats, despite predicting big gains for weeks ahead of the election. But Democratic leaders and aides think this time will be different and that if they play their cards right, the strategy could even help deliver them the double-digit wins they need to take back the House in 2018.

The message, essentially “Let Trump be Trump,” is something Pelosi has been preaching for months. During the campaign, she repeatedly referred to him as “the gift that keeps on giving,” predicting he would hand Republicans huge losses in both the House and Senate.
After the election sent Democrats licking their wounds and questioning their longtime House leadership regime, Pelosi again renewed her declarations about Trump as a pitch for why the caucus should keep her in power for at least two more years.

Democratic aides say they will eventually shift to a positive economic message that Rust Belt Democrats can run on. But for now, aides say, the focus is on slaying the giant and proving to the voters who sent Trump into the White House why his policies will fail.
House Democrats’ strategy is basically this: They’ll publicly goad Trump on subjects he’s clearly sensitive about, like insinuating he’s being blackmailed by Russian President Vladimir Putin; and on other issues, like Obamacare and tax reform, they’ll get out of the way and let Trump and House Republicans fall on their face.

 

The dems really might fuck this up

So basically the Hillary playbook of having no plans but just going with "I am not that other guy"

I am sure that this time around it will work. Why bother having an actual plans for anything when the opponent is the Devil.

[Raist]

from the WaPo frontpage

Trump once described China as an "enemy." But this week, he sent a letter to Xi Jinping, saying he wanted to "develop a constructive relationship," according to the White House. Trump also wished China a happy lunar new year — 11 days late.

the best negotiator

I mean... do WaPo journos only wish people a happy new year on Jan. 1st?

[Mupepe]

from the WaPo frontpage

Trump once described China as an "enemy." But this week, he sent a letter to Xi Jinping, saying he wanted to "develop a constructive relationship," according to the White House. Trump also wished China a happy lunar new year — 11 days late.

the best negotiator

I mean... do WaPo journos only wish people a happy new year on Jan. 1st?

I got a Happy New Year from someone just yesterday.  That one did strike me as a bit late though.

[FunSlower]

http://observer.com/2017/02/i-helped-create-the-milo-trolling-playbook-you-should-stop-playing-right-into-it/

This was very good to read.

[Joe Molotov]

Lmao @ Trump accusing other people of wussing out of Vietnam and bashing McCain for being critical of a military action

[helios]

https://twitter.com/missmayn/status/829590447467032577?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

[studyguy]

https://twitter.com/missmayn/status/829590447467032577?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

I was about to post that, smh.
How much do I have to pay to upgrade to the Baghdadi version tho.
All these features for a monthly subscription of a few billions dollars?

[I'm a Puppy!]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/conway-may-have-broken-key-ethics-rule-by-touting-ivanka-trumps-products-experts-say/2017/02/09/fd1cc64a-eeda-11e6-b4ff-ac2cf509efe5_story.html?utm_term=.1f744534a3bf

Conway, speaking to “Fox & Friends” viewers from the White House briefing room, was responding to boycotts of Ivanka Trump merchandise and Nordstrom’s discontinuation of stocking her clothing and shoe lines, which the retailer said was in response to low sales and which the president assailed as unfair.

“I’m going to give it a free commercial here,” Conway said of the president’s daughter’s merchandise brand. “Go buy it today.”

Yeah...I don't see how she could possibly think this was a good idea

[Boredfrom]

Trump probably told her to do it. Is not like she had any shame left.

[studyguy]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/conway-may-have-broken-key-ethics-rule-by-touting-ivanka-trumps-products-experts-say/2017/02/09/fd1cc64a-eeda-11e6-b4ff-ac2cf509efe5_story.html?utm_term=.1f744534a3bf

Conway, speaking to “Fox & Friends” viewers from the White House briefing room, was responding to boycotts of Ivanka Trump merchandise and Nordstrom’s discontinuation of stocking her clothing and shoe lines, which the retailer said was in response to low sales and which the president assailed as unfair.

“I’m going to give it a free commercial here,” Conway said of the president’s daughter’s merchandise brand. “Go buy it today.”

Yeah...I don't see how she could possibly think this was a good idea

Who knows, maybe we'll never know. 

[Trent Dole]

I kind of suspect that they know they're going to get sacked eventually so might as well go all in.

[Boredfrom]

I kind of suspect that they know they're going to get sacked eventually so might as well go all in.

The party is more concerned about defending the feelings of racist senators and throwing bones to mega donors.

[recursivelyenumerable]

I don't support Bannon for IS leadership either. Why change horses in midstream? Besides, both are doing a fine job fucking up the world together, right where they are now.

[chronovore]

I kind of suspect that they know they're going to get sacked eventually so might as well go all in.

 Are you talking politics, or people who believe the end of the world is coming?

[FStop7]

Maybe insulting the entire judiciary wasn't such a bright idea, Trumplestiltskin.

[Great Rumbler]

Appeals court in San Francisco upheld the suspension of Trump's travel ban:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/us-appeals-court-trump-travel-ban

[FStop7]

His statements (tweets) about it being a "muslim ban" are called out in the ruling.

Whoopsie.

[Great Rumbler]

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/829836231802515457

[studyguy]

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/829836231802515457

      

THE CAPS LOCKS LETS YOU KNOW HE'S SRS!

[TakingBackSunday]

What a fuckin loser

[Syph]

Arguments being heard now about the immigration EO.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=229876370&postcount=864

This post didn't leave me with a lot of confidence about what comes next.  We'll see.

Trump is going to end up winning on this. I've read both sides, its not even close.

remind me to never get a libertarian lawyer

lol everyone expected this
wait till the SCOTUS

[Phoenix Dark]

https://twitter.com/bradheath/status/829832294923902981/photo/1
snitch on yourself brehs

spoiler (click to show/hide)

[close]

[Optimus]

Political payback: Bernie Sanders refuses to help DNC raise money off his email list


Good.

[Phoenix Dark]

It's his right. Who cares.

[helios]

[Optimus]

No, that is dumb as fuck. He wouldn't have anywhere near the following if the Democratic Party hadn't let him run in their primary when he wasn't even a member. Now he's going to be petty like this while at the same time making demands of the party and trying to be one of its leaders?

He doesn't owe shit to these corporate shills. It's a warning that if they don't reform the party they won't have his support which they desperately need.

[Take My Breh Away]

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/829836231802515457

      

THE CAPS LOCKS LETS YOU KNOW HE'S SRS!

https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/829846842150096896

[FStop7]

Eh, I don't see where Yas Queen has a lot of room to talk about taking Ls.

[archie4208]

Born too late to explore the earth
Born too early to explore the universe
Born just in time to see politicians shitpost on Twitter

[FStop7]

Bernie can do what he wants but it's worth noting that it was his people who were caught stealing data from Hillary's mailing list within the DNC.

[Optimus]

No, that is dumb as fuck. He wouldn't have anywhere near the following if the Democratic Party hadn't let him run in their primary when he wasn't even a member. Now he's going to be petty like this while at the same time making demands of the party and trying to be one of its leaders?

He doesn't owe shit to these corporate shills. It's a warning that if they don't reform the party they won't have his support which they desperately need.

Reform the party how? What are his demands, and are they reasonable demands to make of a party he was only a part of for one year while they let him run in their primary, especially when he was a complete nobody before that primary?

They let him run for primary? How generous!

Good luck winning any election from now on without leftist Democrats. I and many others like me sure won't be blackmailed into voting for your corporate shills again, I sure didn't during this election and I regret nothing. I'd rather have Trump that can be easily opposed and sabotaged than a charismatic scumbag like Obama liberals will follow and defend blindly. I'd rather have chaos than organized and carefully managed neoliberalism which is what the sellouts you're supporting offer.

[Joe Molotov]

No, that is dumb as fuck. He wouldn't have anywhere near the following if the Democratic Party hadn't let him run in their primary when he wasn't even a member. Now he's going to be petty like this while at the same time making demands of the party and trying to be one of its leaders?

He doesn't owe shit to these corporate shills. It's a warning that if they don't reform the party they won't have his support which they desperately need.

Reform the party how? What are his demands, and are they reasonable demands to make of a party he was only a part of for one year while they let him run in their primary, especially when he was a complete nobody before that primary?

End White Genocide.

[Optimus]

They let him run for primary? How generous!

Good luck winning any election from now on without leftist Democrats. I and many others like me sure won't be blackmailed into voting for your corporate shills again, I sure didn't during this election and I regret nothing. I'd rather have Trump that can be easily opposed and sabotaged than a charismatic scumbag like Obama liberals will follow and defend blindly. I'd rather have chaos than organized and carefully managed neoliberalism which is what the sellouts you're supporting offer.

If you're a good example of the average Bernie voter, then it is going to be hard winning any election from now on since a large percentage of our hypothetical coalition is basically insane.

If you think four years of protests, angry facebook posts and sabotage (what does this even mean? We couldn't even sabotage the DeVos or Sessions nominations) is better than actually having the power to enact liberal policy, you've really gone off the deep end.

*neoliberal policy

[Optimus]

Can we establish what you're using as the definition of neoliberalism?

No, we have done that a million times. But since I was talking about chaos vs organized neoliberalism let me give you another example of vast liberal hypocrisy. Obama's DoED has been privatizing education for years, promoting charter schools and destroying public education. After years of pathetic apathy liberals suddenly care about the privatization of public education. Organizations related and unrelated to public education are ready to oppose Devos and her plans to, you know, continue Obama's legacy. So yeah, between the two incredibly shitty options I choose the second, not because I think things will get better but because at least we're building worthy opposition which hopefully will survive after the Trump fiasco and not be co-opted by the fucking Democrats.

[Nola]

Did either of you even bother to read article from Mother Jones?

I don't know why I am asking, you all wouldn't be engaging in this bizarre Freudian analysis if you had. The article isn't even really about Sanders. The Times just selectively quoted and used a clickbait headline.

Sanders, for his part, has mostly stayed quiet about the future of the list, which one Democratic consultant referred to as his "precious." He told the Washington Post in January that he would "cross that bridge" when he comes to it. "There has been no discussion with the DNC about use of the list," says Sanders spokesman Michael Briggs.

But former Sanders staffers and consultants scoff at the demand for the list. The way they see it, clamoring for access misses the point. The list wasn't the campaign's secret weapon; Sanders was.

"They keep thinking it's the list," says Becky Bond, who as a senior adviser to Sanders helped build the candidate's national organizing operation. "It's so crazy. It's like someone who buys a $12,000 bicycle and thinks they can win the Tour de France."

Detaching Sanders' list from his message, Sanders backers argue, would diminish what made it so valuable. "Bernie Sanders' list isn't an ATM machine and just handing it over to the DNC might raise a little bit of money, but it won't produce a fraction of what it's capable of,"

The fear among Sanders alums isn't just that the DNC can't recreate the magic. It's that the party will sap his supporters' energy with the kinds of gimmicky pitches the Sanders campaign swore off.

Still, these Sanders staffers don't think the DNC is a lost cause. They just think the solution is for the party to build its own Bernie list. It would require whoever takes over the DNC to be transparent with supporters about where the party was getting its money and what its goals were. And it would require some concrete structural changes within the organization—for instance, by prohibiting donations from lobbyists, as Ellison has proposed.

So far, the leading candidates for DNC chair have both hinted at a more Sanderseque approach to fundraising.

I feel like I am reading a GAF thread. An article says one thing but people start arguing like it reads something else.

[Optimus]

Did either of you even bother to read article from Mother Jones?

I don't know why I am asking, you all wouldn't be engaging in this bizarre Freudian analysis if you had. The article isn't even really about Sanders. The Times just selectively quoted and used a clickbait headline.

Sanders, for his part, has mostly stayed quiet about the future of the list, which one Democratic consultant referred to as his "precious." He told the Washington Post in January that he would "cross that bridge" when he comes to it. "There has been no discussion with the DNC about use of the list," says Sanders spokesman Michael Briggs.

But former Sanders staffers and consultants scoff at the demand for the list. The way they see it, clamoring for access misses the point. The list wasn't the campaign's secret weapon; Sanders was.

"They keep thinking it's the list," says Becky Bond, who as a senior adviser to Sanders helped build the candidate's national organizing operation. "It's so crazy. It's like someone who buys a $12,000 bicycle and thinks they can win the Tour de France."

Detaching Sanders' list from his message, Sanders backers argue, would diminish what made it so valuable. "Bernie Sanders' list isn't an ATM machine and just handing it over to the DNC might raise a little bit of money, but it won't produce a fraction of what it's capable of,"

The fear among Sanders alums isn't just that the DNC can't recreate the magic. It's that the party will sap his supporters' energy with the kinds of gimmicky pitches the Sanders campaign swore off.

Still, these Sanders staffers don't think the DNC is a lost cause. They just think the solution is for the party to build its own Bernie list. It would require whoever takes over the DNC to be transparent with supporters about where the party was getting its money and what its goals were. And it would require some concrete structural changes within the organization—for instance, by prohibiting donations from lobbyists, as Ellison has proposed.

So far, the leading candidates for DNC chair have both hinted at a more Sanderseque approach to fundraising.

I feel like I am reading a GAF thread. An article says one thing but people start arguing like it reads something else.

Are we reading the same article? Both sides are being diplomatic about it but the fact is that the DNC wants the list and the Sanders campaign hasn't given it.

[Nola]

Are we reading the same article? Both sides are being diplomatic about it but the fact is that the DNC wants the list and the Sanders campaign hasn't given it.

And from there you both decide to go into these absurd psychoanalyses about Sanders lol. Which is in no way borne out in this article.

He isn't using the list as a threat. As the article said, he is just being quiet until that bridge is ready to be crossed.

Nothing wrong with speculation its just a bit bizarre when that speculation gets defended with such hostility haha.

[Kara]

Demanding people define neoliberal is a very en vogue tactic by people who have no economic dimension to their politics, and for the ones that do have one, it can be distilled down to that overused  two panel comic with the house on fire and the dog inside saying everything is fine.

[Nola]

Demanding people define neoliberal is a very en vogue tactic by people who have no economic dimension to their politics, and for the ones that do have one, it can be distilled down to that overused  two panel comic with the house on fire and the dog inside saying everything is fine.

              

[Mandark]

Demanding people define neoliberal is a very en vogue tactic by people who have no economic dimension to their politics, and for the ones that do have one, it can be distilled down to that overused  two panel comic with the house on fire and the dog inside saying everything is fine.

I mean, it's more polite than rolling your eyes and making a jerking-off motion, which is my first instinct when I read that term these days.

[Kara]

Saying I read Jacobin is just downright hurtful.

[Optimus]

Demanding people define neoliberal is a very en vogue tactic by people who have no economic dimension to their politics, and for the ones that do have one, it can be distilled down to that overused  two panel comic with the house on fire and the dog inside saying everything is fine.

...

I'm sure this post makes perfect sense in Jacobin-speak, or to an accountant, but I'll be damned if I have the slightest idea what you mean.

He's saying more discreetly something dickish posters like me would describe as something like this: "Demanding people define neoliberal is a very popular talking point for the politically uneducated who only care about identity politics (see: Gaffers) or for the politically educated who like to pretend their party isn't a fucking disaster full of corporate shills".

Well, you asked.

To make it perfectly clear, the tactic of asking "what neoliberalism is", is a very well-known talking point/derailing strategy being spammed for years now especially in establishment Democrat hugboxes like neogaf. At some point we must stop indulging you you know. Did you see me asking what liberal means? No, we both pretty much have an idea and you sure have about neoliberalism.

Are we reading the same article? Both sides are being diplomatic about it but the fact is that the DNC wants the list and the Sanders campaign hasn't given it.

And from there you both decide to go into these absurd psychoanalyses about Sanders lol. Which is in no way borne out in this article.

He isn't using the list as a threat. As the article said, he is just being quiet until that bridge is ready to be crossed.

Nothing wrong with speculation its just a bit bizarre when that speculation gets defended with such hostility haha.

No, I think it's you who refuses to see what's happening here. The Democrats are desperate for the list, the fact that Sanders hasn't given it yet is an action in itself.

[Nola]

I refuse to see speculation that reads like wishful thinking as fact, that is correct.

[Optimus]

I'm asking because if Barack Obama is being described as a neoliberal, then the term has become so broad as to lose all practical meaning. At that point it has to include just about everyone on the ideological scale between socialism and libertarianism.

He's open to free trade deals, thinks we could lower the corporate tax rate, and isn't entirely resistant to a more expanded role for charter schools. Okay. He also raised taxes on the wealthy, gave us a huge Medicaid expansion that would be much larger if not for the 2012 Supreme Court decision, gave lower income people subsidies to buy health insurance, pushed for pretty massive direct government action to increase employment with his 2011 Jobs Bill that Boehner & friends refused to even bring to the floor, gave us the CFPB, the Credit Card Users Bill of Rights, net neutrality, public clean energy investment, tried to raise the minimum wage but was blocked, and in general does a whole lot of things that a neoliberal wouldn't do unless the definition of neoliberal includes everyone to the right of Bernie Sanders.

I'd also add that pushing for policies that have a chance in hell of passing does not make one a corporate whore. The 60th Democratic-caucusing senator in 2009 thought a fucking public option was too far left for him. And you're mad Obama didn't go for single-payer.

Purity tests are gross and completely unproductive.

No, he gave HMOs subsidies to continue screwing the American people. His jobs initiatives created part-time wage slaves and as per usual he used republicans as scapegoats to blame for everything that was too left for him. He sure didn't have a problem using the full power of the executive branch to push for neoliberal legislation but EVERY. SINGLE. TIME. legislation was too leftist he seemed almost incompetent. Gee, what a coincidence. And like I said, Democrats are careful managers of neoliberalism, their bosses need the middle class to remain stupid, subservient, to the brink of poverty but still existing because they don't want to lose their dumb consumers either or have a revolution on their hands (not talking about a violent one). So yeah, there are slight changes in taxation or the pathetic Dodd-Frank legislation that barely keep the economy stable so that they keep managing the clusterfuck.

Οn the other hand there's Trump. The establishment was clearly terrified of him even though he's their was creation. Why? Because he's a clown that will use the same policies but without restriction or careful management of the system. At this point things have become so bad that many on the left including me would rather take the chaos the idiot will bring which will lead to change than 8 more years of Democrat scumbags managing neoliberalism.

Fucking where? I'm a pretty active forums/comments sections guy, and I have never seen this derailing strategy.

Fucking everywhere. I've been asked this goddamn question a million fucking times by liberals that fit your profile perfectly.

[VomKriege]

POTUS and K.Conway (from the White House) hawking Ivanka businesses is 
Fictional banana republic tier.

[james]

So basically the Hillary playbook of having no plans but just going with "I am not that other guy"

I am sure that this time around it will work. Why bother having an actual plans for anything when the opponent is the Devil.

It works though.

No one gives half a shit about policy.

No one.

It is ALL about personality.

Why did Scott Brown beat Martha Choakley?

Personality.

Why do MA and MD have R governors?

Personality.

Why does WV sometimes elect Democrats?

Personality.

You have people who voted for a "WE MUST CUT THE BUDGET DEFICIT" house rep at the same time they checked off "WE MUST SPEND $1T ON INFRA, BUILD A WALL, BEEF UP THE BUDGET, AND SLASH TAXES"

Biden would have destroyed Trump.

Here is how the Democrats need to select candidates:

Would the average person want to have a beer with the candidate?
If yes -> Run
If no -> DO NOT RUN

Lets try it with candidates!

Would the average person want to have a beer with Clinton or Dole?
CLINTON WINS

Would the average person want to have a beer with Bush or Gore?
BUSH WINS

Would the average person want to have a beer with Trump or Hillary?
TRUMP WINS

Would the average person want to have a beer with Obama or Romney?
OBAMA WINS

That. Is. It.

[PlayDat]

https://twitter.com/ppppolls/status/830054159885934593

https://twitter.com/ppppolls/status/830061711755341825

Hold on, what's wrong with Jacobin?

[james]

Here is how the Democrats need to select candidates:

Would the average person want to have a beer with the candidate?
If yes -> Run
If no -> DO NOT RUN

Did Democratic voters just not want to have a beer with Bernie then? Unless by "Democrats" you mean "Democratic voters", "Democrats" shouldn't be selecting any candidate, and they don't. The party does not pick the candidate.

What you're essentially saying is that everyone who votes in the primary should vote solely based on some kind of meta-game where they try to figure out who everyone else would want to have a beer with. That's not going to work. People vote in the primary for the candidate they want.

Also, Trump doesn't drink.

People who vote in primaries are more engaged, more educated. So yes, they care more about policy. But they're a minority. Thats why most people dont vote in primaries, they dont give a shit.

So my point is focused on the general election, which is when most people tune in.

But yes, primary voters should take that into account.

If Warren wins the 2020 primary, then Democrats lose, period. NOBODY wants to have a beer with Warren.

Cruz would have lost against Hillary because nobody wants to have a beer with him.

[Brehvolution]

Voters also say that Saturday Night Live has more credibility than Trump, 48/43

[studyguy]

https://twitter.com/XGroverX/status/829818984094654465

 

[Phoenix Dark]

Isn't PPP a troll poll org...

#fakepolls

[james]

Dude, I'm not voting for my second, third or even fourth choice primary candidate based on an unscientific beer theory. Is there even any methodologically-sound beer polling? Is there any beer polling at all? And in the absence of any rigorous beer polling, the only beer opinion I can really know is my own. I don't even like Sanders personality-wise. My own opinion is that he's a surly, bloviating pompous windbag, and I wouldn't be particularly eager to have a beer with him, whereas I'd drink with Clinton all night. But I'm supposed to pick him based on reddit pundits? Plus, if I think a candidate's policies would put us in a legit recession if fully implemented, I'm not giving him my vote because he fires up the college crowd.

Tell you what, get PPP, Quinn, Gallup, Morning Consult, and all the rest to conduct methodologically-sound beer polling for 2020, and I might consider it (probably still wouldn't though).

Im curious why youre bringing Bernie into this.

I said Biden, not Bernie.

Bernie is an angry old jewish grandfather. On the beer test, no, that doesnt play well in Michigan either. Better than Hillary, most likely, but maybe not enough to beat Trump.

Biden would have run away with it.

And there is rigorous beer polling. Look for the "candidate understands people like me" question.

Academics would look at the question and read "which candidate better understands how international trade policies impact job opportunities in Scranton"

People answering the phone from an unknown phone number think "which candidate would most likely have a spontaneous conversation with me about the Giants while having a beer at the corner bar"

BUT WAIT. Trump doesnt go to dive bars. Trump doesnt drink. Trump probably doesnt follow the NFL. So how does it fit in?

If both candidates fail the "beer and football" test you move on to the next test

"which candidate would laugh at my joke about two negros and a muslim walking into a bar"

Ah yes, he understands people like me!

[james]

Biden didn't run, so primary voters could hardly select him.

The issue starts with the DNC and their plan for a Hillary coronation.

As I said, "Here is how the Democrats need to select candidates"

Well, the selection process starts behind the scene. People run and withdraw not based on the voters, but based on what the party and funders want.

See: The upcoming NJ governors race

[Phoenix Dark]

ATTN BENJI
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/justin-amash-town-hall-obamacare-234886


that's our boy

[agrajag]

I'd drink with Clinton all night.

yass queen bless

[Raist]

I'd drink with Clinton all night.

Blood, amirite?