Saturday, April 30, 2016
shit hillary said vol 45
“We now finally are where we need to be. We have a strategy and a commitment to go after ISIS, which is a danger to us, as well as the region, and we finally have a UN Security Council resolution bringing the world together to go after a political transition in Syria.”
at
23:59
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
j reacts to rubio angling for a spot on the ticket (and trump's optimal vp logic)
the headline should say:
"marco rubio continues to do what he's told, as establishment finally buys the trump brand."
if you were still unclear up to this point, this is the clincher: trump is now the establishment candidate. otherwise, rubio would still be saying mean things about him - because that's what rubio does: what he's told.
the thinking is probably that rubio will help trump win some actual conservatives. but, it's the same incompetence we've seen through the entire race. he's been spent. i mean, that's why he lost everywhere - the facade was blown off.
rubio will probably hurt trump more than he helps him.
http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/the-buzz-florida-politics/marco-rubio-warming-up-to-donald-trump/2275308
if trump is serious, he needs to go full retard. he'd be better off with somebody like jesse ventura. i'm not joking. he'll blow the conservative vote, but what is the conservative vote? it's not that much, really.
i mean, think about this: the epiphany of trump winning is that conservatism is pretty much a dead philosophy. it's been clear in the northeast and the west coast and most of canada for quite a while, now. the surprise is that it's pretty much dead in the south, too - except amongst black democrats, oddly enough. it's still kicking in the midwest, it seems, but it's probably it's last stand. eight years from now, it'll likely be on the absolute fringe.
so, what does trump do? he listens to the establishment - the establishment he just beat the snot out of - and toys with getting a conservative as vp.
he doesn't even understand his own phenomenon. that's the level of dipshit we've got, here.
trump wants anything but a conservative (quiet down, canadians) as a running mate. what he really wants is a libertarian. ideas...
1) jesse ventura. i don't think he'd do it.
2) rand paul. i don't think he'd do it, either.
3) ron paul. you know, i think he might, actually.
4) bob barr. ??.
5) glenn beck <-!!!!
6) gary johnson. ??.
trump/beck. holy shit. i'm already laughing.
but, i'm serious - this is the right tactic. he's never going to win conservatives - and he just proved there aren't enough of them to win a fucking primary, anyways. he wants to go after liberals.
can arnold be vp?
"marco rubio continues to do what he's told, as establishment finally buys the trump brand."
if you were still unclear up to this point, this is the clincher: trump is now the establishment candidate. otherwise, rubio would still be saying mean things about him - because that's what rubio does: what he's told.
the thinking is probably that rubio will help trump win some actual conservatives. but, it's the same incompetence we've seen through the entire race. he's been spent. i mean, that's why he lost everywhere - the facade was blown off.
rubio will probably hurt trump more than he helps him.
http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/the-buzz-florida-politics/marco-rubio-warming-up-to-donald-trump/2275308
if trump is serious, he needs to go full retard. he'd be better off with somebody like jesse ventura. i'm not joking. he'll blow the conservative vote, but what is the conservative vote? it's not that much, really.
i mean, think about this: the epiphany of trump winning is that conservatism is pretty much a dead philosophy. it's been clear in the northeast and the west coast and most of canada for quite a while, now. the surprise is that it's pretty much dead in the south, too - except amongst black democrats, oddly enough. it's still kicking in the midwest, it seems, but it's probably it's last stand. eight years from now, it'll likely be on the absolute fringe.
so, what does trump do? he listens to the establishment - the establishment he just beat the snot out of - and toys with getting a conservative as vp.
he doesn't even understand his own phenomenon. that's the level of dipshit we've got, here.
trump wants anything but a conservative (quiet down, canadians) as a running mate. what he really wants is a libertarian. ideas...
1) jesse ventura. i don't think he'd do it.
2) rand paul. i don't think he'd do it, either.
3) ron paul. you know, i think he might, actually.
4) bob barr. ??.
5) glenn beck <-!!!!
6) gary johnson. ??.
trump/beck. holy shit. i'm already laughing.
but, i'm serious - this is the right tactic. he's never going to win conservatives - and he just proved there aren't enough of them to win a fucking primary, anyways. he wants to go after liberals.
can arnold be vp?
at
20:38
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
j reacts to if bernie would split the left (he may prevent a split by running!)
(in reply to somebody's comment)
but, hillary also supports war against iran and mass deportations - along with the tpp and nafta. the wall is never getting built. and, did you know that clinton supports a constitutional amendment to limit abortion access?
i think most leftists would have to concede that trump is the lesser evil on foreign policy [he actually seems to be an isolationist, and seems to want to dismantle the empire - whereas hillary is a bellicose interventionist that will no doubt launch at least three unnecessary wars] and just flat out better on trade. his positions on trade and foreign policy are legitimately closer to sanders', although nowhere near as appealing.
where trump is really scary is his fiscal policy. i don't think he's going to punish anybody for getting an abortion. i do think he'll probably bankrupt the country.
...which is why you should probably expect hillary to run to the right of trump. while clinton may demolish him in a two-way race, it's going to be by winning red states - and by being more appealing to conservatives than trump is. so, clinton wins 40 states, sure. but, the result is that even the moderate left ends up disenfranchised.
i think he needs to wait until at least july to decide. but, i actually don't think that sanders really has a choice. if he doesn't run, what is going to happen is that jill stein is going to show up on the map in a big way. i share the author's view that sanders will win a three-way race, as clinton essentially pushes trump out of the spectrum and becomes the republican nominee. but, stein cannot win - not from where she is. so, if he doesn't run, stein could very well split the vote badly enough to screw things up.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/case-for-sanders-running-independent-if-clinton-nominee_b_9803982.html
to put it another way: somebody is going to run to the left of clinton, and that person is going to generate significant support. the real question is whether that person is:
1) not a factor. so, you could see something like clinton 55, trump 35, stein 10. that's a huge boost for the third party, but clinton wins anyways.
2) enough of a factor to split. so, then you'd get something like clinton 45, trump 35, stein 20 - but the electoral college would be kind to trump. that would be the reverse of the perot scenario that elected bill clinton.
3) or enough to actually win. then, you'd get something like clinton 25, trump 35, sanders 38, stein 2.
it ought to be a very delicate decision, made at the very last minute. and, if (3) is made to prevent (2)? it's actually "unsplitting the vote".
i don't think you can put sanders back in the tube. his supporters are going to be looking for another option, which right now is likely to be stein.
but, hillary also supports war against iran and mass deportations - along with the tpp and nafta. the wall is never getting built. and, did you know that clinton supports a constitutional amendment to limit abortion access?
i think most leftists would have to concede that trump is the lesser evil on foreign policy [he actually seems to be an isolationist, and seems to want to dismantle the empire - whereas hillary is a bellicose interventionist that will no doubt launch at least three unnecessary wars] and just flat out better on trade. his positions on trade and foreign policy are legitimately closer to sanders', although nowhere near as appealing.
where trump is really scary is his fiscal policy. i don't think he's going to punish anybody for getting an abortion. i do think he'll probably bankrupt the country.
...which is why you should probably expect hillary to run to the right of trump. while clinton may demolish him in a two-way race, it's going to be by winning red states - and by being more appealing to conservatives than trump is. so, clinton wins 40 states, sure. but, the result is that even the moderate left ends up disenfranchised.
i think he needs to wait until at least july to decide. but, i actually don't think that sanders really has a choice. if he doesn't run, what is going to happen is that jill stein is going to show up on the map in a big way. i share the author's view that sanders will win a three-way race, as clinton essentially pushes trump out of the spectrum and becomes the republican nominee. but, stein cannot win - not from where she is. so, if he doesn't run, stein could very well split the vote badly enough to screw things up.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/case-for-sanders-running-independent-if-clinton-nominee_b_9803982.html
to put it another way: somebody is going to run to the left of clinton, and that person is going to generate significant support. the real question is whether that person is:
1) not a factor. so, you could see something like clinton 55, trump 35, stein 10. that's a huge boost for the third party, but clinton wins anyways.
2) enough of a factor to split. so, then you'd get something like clinton 45, trump 35, stein 20 - but the electoral college would be kind to trump. that would be the reverse of the perot scenario that elected bill clinton.
3) or enough to actually win. then, you'd get something like clinton 25, trump 35, sanders 38, stein 2.
it ought to be a very delicate decision, made at the very last minute. and, if (3) is made to prevent (2)? it's actually "unsplitting the vote".
i don't think you can put sanders back in the tube. his supporters are going to be looking for another option, which right now is likely to be stein.
at
19:33
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
it was always about the price of oil. the criticism was that they tied themselves too strongly to the price of oil, thereby reducing the country's fiscal situation to the whim of global investors. so, when the price of oil comes down, you get huge deficits - and when it comes up, you get huge surpluses. you fix this by recreating a stable tax base, so the country can better deal with the volatility in oil prices.
oil was expected to stay low this year. it hasn't - it has risen. so, we're getting surpluses instead of deficits. it was largely agreed that the liberals low-balled the projections, but it was also largely agreed that the price would stay low.
this is not the point. it's a red herring. it's the situation of relying on oil prices that is the problem that needs to be resolved. and, the fact that we're in this situation cannot be spun out of - it is flat fiscal incompetence. if the government decides to hold to it, it's just carrying on the incompetence. an advanced nation requires an actual tax base.
(of course, i don't particularly care, anyways. i only care about keeping the imf vultures away. i'm just saying.)
www.cbc.ca/news/business/ottawa-federal-surplus-deficit-1.3559175
oil was expected to stay low this year. it hasn't - it has risen. so, we're getting surpluses instead of deficits. it was largely agreed that the liberals low-balled the projections, but it was also largely agreed that the price would stay low.
this is not the point. it's a red herring. it's the situation of relying on oil prices that is the problem that needs to be resolved. and, the fact that we're in this situation cannot be spun out of - it is flat fiscal incompetence. if the government decides to hold to it, it's just carrying on the incompetence. an advanced nation requires an actual tax base.
(of course, i don't particularly care, anyways. i only care about keeping the imf vultures away. i'm just saying.)
www.cbc.ca/news/business/ottawa-federal-surplus-deficit-1.3559175
at
09:31
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)