Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 whembly wrote:
I'm with Ouze... What. The. Feth. Is. Going. ON? What's the actual mission? What are the criteria of a successful mission?

By the Holy Emprah... take a good look at this foreign policy fiasco...

And you think Hillary would make this better?

 whembly wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
It doesn't seem like you actually need someone else to supply an argument with that last line; you seem content to simply invent their arguments in your head.

Erm... dude... she was Obama's Secretary of State in his first term.

Wanna try that again bro?

Who is "you" that would be suggesting Hillary would make this better? I mean, is this a Clint Eastwood monologue directed at no one in particular, or what?

 Ouze wrote:

 whembly wrote:
I'm with Ouze... What. The. Feth. Is. Going. ON? What's the actual mission? What are the criteria of a successful mission?

By the Holy Emprah... take a good look at this foreign policy fiasco...

And you think Hillary would make this better?

 whembly wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
It doesn't seem like you actually need someone else to supply an argument with that last line; you seem content to simply invent their arguments in your head.

Erm... dude... she was Obama's Secretary of State in his first term.

Wanna try that again bro?

Who is "you" that would be suggesting Hillary would make this better? I mean, is this a Clint Eastwood monologue directed at no one in particular, or what?

Look at your old Avatar... *we* know where you stand.

So yes, like I said. You don't actually need anyone to supply an argument, you're content to simply make one up in your head and then rebut it. Good to know.

 Ouze wrote:
So yes, like I said. You don't actually need anyone to supply an argument, you're content to simply make one up in your head and then rebut it. Good to know.

Naw... you're just defending your Queen any chance you'd get by attacking *me* and not trying to reconcile my arguments.

Good to know.

 whembly wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
So yes, like I said. You don't actually need anyone to supply an argument, you're content to simply make one up in your head and then rebut it. Good to know.

Naw... you're just defending your Queen any chance you'd get by attacking *me* and not trying to reconcile my arguments.

Good to know.

Unless I've been missing something, in this thread, there are no Clinton supporters.... There are people who are saying her nomination is "inevitable" which isn't the same thing as, "I like Hilary and think she'd make a great POTUS"


So yeah... I'm with Ouze on this one, you're making up an argument.

And even the people who "support" Hillary seem to support her only in the sense that she's better than whatever raving lunatic the republican party finally picks. I mean, "I'd rather have Hillary than Trump" is a pretty weak endorsement.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
So yes, like I said. You don't actually need anyone to supply an argument, you're content to simply make one up in your head and then rebut it. Good to know.

Naw... you're just defending your Queen any chance you'd get by attacking *me* and not trying to reconcile my arguments.

Good to know.

Unless I've been missing something, in this thread, there are no Clinton supporters.... There are people who are saying her nomination is "inevitable" which isn't the same thing as, "I like Hilary and think she'd make a great POTUS"


So yeah... I'm with Ouze on this one, you're making up an argument.

So, what am I to infer from Ouze's Hillary "Deal with it" gif as his avater?

I'm simply calling him out... that's all.

But, for some reason, he gets defensive.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:
And even the people who "support" Hillary seem to support her only in the sense that she's better than whatever raving lunatic the republican party finally picks. I mean, "I'd rather have Hillary than Trump" is a pretty weak endorsement.

And that's fine.

We all have opinions as to who would be better.

I'd argue that the lunatics are on the blue team.

 whembly wrote:

So, what am I to infer from Ouze's Hillary "Deal with it" gif as his avater?

he doesn't have a Hillary "Deal with it" Gif... He has an A10 Warthog...

I think you're losing it Whembly XD

 LordofHats wrote:

 whembly wrote:

So, what am I to infer from Ouze's Hillary "Deal with it" gif as his avater?

he doesn't have a Hillary "Deal with it" Gif... He has an A10 Warthog...

I think you're losing it Whembly XD

*had*

Right after the last Republican debate.

I paid attention when I was on vacay!

 whembly wrote:
Here's the distilled problem:
1) Its inarguable that most of the media tends to be liberal/lefties.

2) CNBC (or any NBC affiliate for that matter) is one of THE most liberal groups in the media industry. FWIW: They also spent over 200 million on Vox.com!

3) That was the worst moderated debate I've seen. It's sad that THEY'RE the story and not the candidates.

4) It'd be like, having the Democratic debate hosted on FoxNews moderated by the conservatives. Yeah... you know how that'll go.

5) Speaking of which, no one wants to comment on the DNC own prohibition of have Fox host any of their debates? Yeah... GOP... WTF were you thinking?

6) #1 needs to be fleshed out as to why it's an issue... liberal/lefties who dominate the medias will obviously push liberal/liefty agendas as "mainstream" and anything but would be "extreme"... which, if you'd rub two neurons together, you'd know that ain't true in the US.

7) Having said all that... HRC will be the next President. She's unstoppable now. No 'ghazi, no email, no evidences of puppy slaughtering can stop her now. Hail to the Queen!

I was going to refute you point by point, but then I realized it would be pointless because you're so far dug in with the "vast liberal conspiracy" so instead I'll go with this...


Whembly be like:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Here's the distilled problem:
1) Its inarguable that most of the media tends to be liberal/lefties.

2) CNBC (or any NBC affiliate for that matter) is one of THE most liberal groups in the media industry. FWIW: They also spent over 200 million on Vox.com!

3) That was the worst moderated debate I've seen. It's sad that THEY'RE the story and not the candidates.

4) It'd be like, having the Democratic debate hosted on FoxNews moderated by the conservatives. Yeah... you know how that'll go.

5) Speaking of which, no one wants to comment on the DNC own prohibition of have Fox host any of their debates? Yeah... GOP... WTF were you thinking?

6) #1 needs to be fleshed out as to why it's an issue... liberal/lefties who dominate the medias will obviously push liberal/liefty agendas as "mainstream" and anything but would be "extreme"... which, if you'd rub two neurons together, you'd know that ain't true in the US.

7) Having said all that... HRC will be the next President. She's unstoppable now. No 'ghazi, no email, no evidences of puppy slaughtering can stop her now. Hail to the Queen!

I was going to refute you point by point, but then I realized it would be pointless because you're so far dug in with the "vast liberal conspiracy" so instead I'll go with this...


Whembly be like:

Meaning... you got nuthin.

Got it.

 whembly wrote:

So, what am I to infer from Ouze's Hillary "Deal with it" gif as his avater?

I'm simply calling him out... that's all.

But, for some reason, he gets defensive.

Bro, it's an avatar.... By your logic, we can assume that d-usa "supports" ebola's fatal effects on people, or that gordon shumway supports the ingestion of feline housepets by extraterrestrial lifeforms living on earth

Or... that I support the overconsumption of chimichangas, burritos, and pancakes.


It's an avatar, and unless it's like those FB ones that actually say "Candidate 2016" on them, I don't assume any "support" for the thing pictured.

 whembly wrote:
I'd argue that the lunatics are on the blue team.

You could try, but you won't succeed. Disagree with the ideas of the democrats all you want, but they're not the party where one of the leading candidate's main campaign promises is to build a border wall to keep out all of the illegal immigrants and to get the other country to pay for it.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

I reference my old Signature; I reject your reality and substitute it with my Skyrim. It has higher resolution

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 whembly wrote:

So, what am I to infer from Ouze's Hillary "Deal with it" gif as his avater?

I'm simply calling him out... that's all.

But, for some reason, he gets defensive.

Bro, it's an avatar.... By your logic, we can assume that d-usa "supports" ebola's fatal effects on people, or that gordon shumway supports the ingestion of feline housepets by extraterrestrial lifeforms living on earth

So it's a coincidence that he'd decide to temporarily swap out his totally awesome A-10 avatar to the "deal with it" Hillary avatar?

Nah... don't buy it.

Besides, Ouze can defend himself.

Or... that I support the overconsumption of chimichangas, burritos, and pancakes.

You'd be like Deadpool... what's wrong with that?

Who doesn't wanna be the Merc with the Mouth?

It's an avatar, and unless it's like those FB ones that actually say "Candidate 2016" on them, I don't assume any "support" for the thing pictured.

Um... he publically stated that he leans liberal. So, it isn't hard to infer.

Besides, I'm not attacking him... just challenging him a bit.

Geez... why is everyone's fee-fees a bit tight now? I've only been gone for a week.

whembly wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Here's the distilled problem:
1) Its inarguable that most of the media tends to be liberal/lefties.

2) CNBC (or any NBC affiliate for that matter) is one of THE most liberal groups in the media industry. FWIW: They also spent over 200 million on Vox.com!

3) That was the worst moderated debate I've seen. It's sad that THEY'RE the story and not the candidates.

4) It'd be like, having the Democratic debate hosted on FoxNews moderated by the conservatives. Yeah... you know how that'll go.

5) Speaking of which, no one wants to comment on the DNC own prohibition of have Fox host any of their debates? Yeah... GOP... WTF were you thinking?

6) #1 needs to be fleshed out as to why it's an issue... liberal/lefties who dominate the medias will obviously push liberal/liefty agendas as "mainstream" and anything but would be "extreme"... which, if you'd rub two neurons together, you'd know that ain't true in the US.

7) Having said all that... HRC will be the next President. She's unstoppable now. No 'ghazi, no email, no evidences of puppy slaughtering can stop her now. Hail to the Queen!

I was going to refute you point by point, but then I realized it would be pointless because you're so far dug in with the "vast liberal conspiracy" so instead I'll go with this...


Whembly be like:

Meaning... you got nuthin.

Got it.

No, I have plenty. However, it would really be pointless to explain it you because you wouldn't believe it, again, because you're so far entrenched in the "vast liberal conspiracy" narrative to think straight. So I guess if you want to take that as "having nuthin," knock yourself out. Wake me up when the next Hilary scandal breaks.

Also, I've been dying to use that Adam Savage GIF and this seemed like a good time.

Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 whembly wrote:

So, what am I to infer from Ouze's Hillary "Deal with it" gif as his avater?

I'm simply calling him out... that's all.

But, for some reason, he gets defensive.

Bro, it's an avatar.... By your logic, we can assume that d-usa "supports" ebola's fatal effects on people, or that gordon shumway supports the ingestion of feline housepets by extraterrestrial lifeforms living on earth

Or... that I support the overconsumption of chimichangas, burritos, and pancakes.


It's an avatar, and unless it's like those FB ones that actually say "Candidate 2016" on them, I don't assume any "support" for the thing pictured.

Right, and I'm a robot being forced to watch really bad movies... We should really just relax!

 Peregrine wrote:

 whembly wrote:
I'd argue that the lunatics are on the blue team.

You could try, but you won't succeed. Disagree with the ideas of the democrats all you want, but they're not the party where one of the leading candidate's main campaign promises is to build a border wall to keep out all of the illegal immigrants and to get the other country to pay for it.

It's still in the primary mang.

Besides... Trump won't win. He's trending down in the worst way, and he doesn't have a great grassroot infrastructure in any of the states. (neither does Carson/Fiorina either).

If I'm a betting man, we're looking at either Rubio or Cruz.

 whembly wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 whembly wrote:
I'd argue that the lunatics are on the blue team.

You could try, but you won't succeed. Disagree with the ideas of the democrats all you want, but they're not the party where one of the leading candidate's main campaign promises is to build a border wall to keep out all of the illegal immigrants and to get the other country to pay for it.

It's still in the primary mang.

So just because it's "still in the primary," something as fething idiotic as what Trump is suggesting doesn't count at lunacy? Or pretty much anything that has spilled out Carson's mouth? Or Fiorina's?

So I guess this applies to things you say as well:

Whembly wrote:Meaning.... you got nuthin.

Got it

 whembly wrote:

If I'm a betting man, we're looking at either Rubio or Cruz.

To keep things on topic, I think I could "deal" with one of those guys as POTUS, but not the other. I haven't really done due research on Rubio, because I also lean away from the right, and I fully intend to vote for Sanders.... But NOTHING that I've seen from Cruz has given me anything but a feeling of dread for what would/could happen if that clown got elected.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 whembly wrote:
I'd argue that the lunatics are on the blue team.

You could try, but you won't succeed. Disagree with the ideas of the democrats all you want, but they're not the party where one of the leading candidate's main campaign promises is to build a border wall to keep out all of the illegal immigrants and to get the other country to pay for it.

It's still in the primary mang.

So just because it's "still in the primary," something as fething idiotic as what Trump is suggesting doesn't count at lunacy? Or pretty much anything that has spilled out Carson's mouth? Or Fiorina's?

Sure, tax the mutherfething out of any wire transfer from US to Mexico. That'll be a start. (Colorado does this, so it's not unheard of)

So, inexperience is lunacy then...

Great, scooty, we elected Obama to two terms. Lunacy...

Glad you cleared that up.

So I guess this applies to things you say as well:

Whembly wrote:Meaning.... you got nuthin.

Got it

Again.

You got nuthin.

 whembly wrote:
It's still in the primary mang.

So? He's still saying it, and the other candidates aren't much better. Besides, "it's just the primary" is a concession that the republican candidates will lie about who they are to appeal to the raving lunatics and win the primary, then lie about everything they just said to appeal to mainstream voters. I'm not sure which is worse, being a raving lunatic or being a spineless liar who will say anything if it gets a few more votes.

Besides... Trump won't win. He's trending down in the worst way, and he doesn't have a great grassroot infrastructure in any of the states. (neither does Carson/Fiorina either).

He's still considered a legitimate candidate. If the republican party wasn't so hilariously detached from reality he wouldn't even be on the stage at those debates. The fact that he's considered "mainstream" enough for the party as a whole really says something.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Sure, tax the mutherfething out of any wire transfer from US to Mexico. That'll be a start. (Colorado does this, so it's not unheard of)

I don't think you understand the sheer scale and cost of what Trump is promising. A border wall would be one of the biggest civil engineering projects in history, and likely one of the most expensive. Taxing money sent to Mexico makes about as much sense as promising to pay for the war in Afghanistan by having a bake sale.

And let's not forget that Trump promised to get Mexico to pay for his border wall. Taxing US citizens/residents to pay for it is not the same thing.

 Peregrine wrote:

 whembly wrote:
It's still in the primary mang.

So? He's still saying it, and the other candidates aren't much better. Besides, "it's just the primary" is a concession that the republican candidates will lie about who they are to appeal to the raving lunatics and win the primary, then lie about everything they just said to appeal to mainstream voters. I'm not sure which is worse, being a raving lunatic or being a spineless liar who will say anything if it gets a few more votes.

There's truth to that.

But, don't you thing the primary exist as a vetting process, a process that's taking an extremely long time with all the early entrance into this campaign? This is a good thing. Find the best possible candidate.

Whereas on the DNC side, it's truly HRC's ticket to lose. Sanders ain't go a chance.

Besides... Trump won't win. He's trending down in the worst way, and he doesn't have a great grassroot infrastructure in any of the states. (neither does Carson/Fiorina either).

He's still considered a legitimate candidate. If the republican party wasn't so hilariously detached from reality he wouldn't even be on the stage at those debates. The fact that he's considered "mainstream" enough for the party as a whole really says something.

Yup. That's what I'm saying. The GOP leadership has fethed up enough that Trump/Carson/Fiorina are the rebellouous choices. Not necessarily because it is believed that they're BETTER, but it's a cry for leadership to start listening to their constituents.

Besides... Trump is a Democrat wearing a Republican costume doing whatever is best for Trump's interests. Regardless... he's trending downwards in a real bad way and if nothing else happens... he'll flame out by the end of the year.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Sure, tax the mutherfething out of any wire transfer from US to Mexico. That'll be a start. (Colorado does this, so it's not unheard of)

I don't think you understand the sheer scale and cost of what Trump is promising. A border wall would be one of the biggest civil engineering projects in history, and likely one of the most expensive. Taxing money sent to Mexico makes about as much sense as promising to pay for the war in Afghanistan by having a bake sale.

And let's not forget that Trump promised to get Mexico to pay for his border wall. Taxing US citizens/residents to pay for it is not the same thing.

Ever heard of the TVA?

Hoover Dam?

It'd be like that.

My brother is an engineer for Walsh and he confided to me that a wall would be fething simple. Not all of it would be a physical barrier too. The construction of that won't surpass any of the large civil projects we have going on now. It's simply the will, and funding that is required.

Now, how to make "Mexico pay for it"? Yeah, no fething clue. We don't need Mexico to pay for it.

 whembly wrote:
But, don't you thing the primary exist as a vetting process, a process that's taking an extremely long time with all the early entrance into this campaign? This is a good thing. Find the best possible candidate.

If your vetting process has Trump above 1% support then your vetting process has serious problems.

Yup. That's what I'm saying. The GOP leadership has fethed up enough that Trump/Carson/Fiorina are the rebellouous choices. Not necessarily because it is believed that they're BETTER, but it's a cry for leadership to start listening to their constituents.

So let me get this straight: republican voters are supporting obvious raving lunatic candidates just to make a point to party leadership? How exactly does this disprove my claim that the republican party is insane? Agree or disagree with the democrats all you want, but you at least have to admit that they're offering legitimate candidates who are capable of governing a country.

 Peregrine wrote:

 whembly wrote:
But, don't you thing the primary exist as a vetting process, a process that's taking an extremely long time with all the early entrance into this campaign? This is a good thing. Find the best possible candidate.

If your vetting process has Trump above 1% support then your vetting process has serious problems.

I can say thing on the DNC side where Sanders is enjoying just as much support too...

Yup. That's what I'm saying. The GOP leadership has fethed up enough that Trump/Carson/Fiorina are the rebellouous choices. Not necessarily because it is believed that they're BETTER, but it's a cry for leadership to start listening to their constituents.

So let me get this straight: republican voters are supporting obvious raving lunatic candidates just to make a point to party leadership? How exactly does this disprove my claim that the republican party is insane? Agree or disagree with the democrats all you want, but you at least have to admit that they're offering legitimate candidates who are capable of governing a country.

Because the GOP leadership has fethed the voters. Serves them right.

fething Sanders and Clinton can run the Country... but straight to the damn ground for different reasons.

Again... you keep push the hyperbolic "raven lunatic" thing. I don't think you know what that means.

Right now on the DNC side, there's a raving (see what I did there?) socialist and a raving corruptocrat as your candidate. And you're yammering about "legitimate candidates who are capable of governing a country"... those would hacks would be better?

o.O

We'll see eh? We'll see...

 whembly wrote:

Right now on the DNC side, there's a raving (see what I did there?) socialist and a raving corruptocrat as your candidate. And you're yammering about "legitimate candidates who are capable of governing a country"... those would hacks would be better?

o.O

We'll see eh? We'll see...

Except... ya know... there's really nothing wrong with having socialist ideals, as you're insinuating. Last I checked, none of the European countries that have some form or semblance of "socialism" have collapsed yet.


Also, the IMF have produced a report that completely destroys the arguments of Reaganomics, which I know so many Republicans love, so again... a candidate like Sanders is far less a lunatic than one who would say "In my America there'd be no gay people", or anything close to that affect.

 whembly wrote:
Sure, tax the mutherfething out of any wire transfer from US to Mexico. That'll be a start. (Colorado does this, so it's not unheard of)

That is somehow making Mexico pay for it? Do you even listen to anything the man says? Oh that's right, he's secretly a Democrat pretending to be an idiot Republican!

So, inexperience is lunacy then...

Who said anything about inexperience? Me? Or are you just making up arguments again? As far as Carson goes, we have his insanely idiotic comments about the Holocaust, he's insanely idiotic biblical 10% flat tax, his denial about being involved with Mannatech, his no Muslims should be President or on the Supreme Court comments, his 'people go to jail and come out gay so obviously it's a choice' comments. Those are some of just his recent moronic ramblings... This fething clown is your front runner.

Great, scooty, we elected Obama to two terms. Lunacy...

Yeah, because he's obviously history's greatest monster. Instead of actually come up with something of substance to say, just deflect to complain about Obama!

Glad you cleared that up.

Good, I know the truth is difficult for you sometimes. See my earlier GIF about reality if you have any further questions.

 whembly wrote:

Ever heard of the TVA?

Hoover Dam?

It'd be like that.

So you are a fan of big government?

My brother is an engineer for Walsh and he confided to me that a wall would be fething simple. Not all of it would be a physical barrier too. The construction of that won't surpass any of the large civil projects we have going on now. It's simply the will, and funding that is required.

Awesome, your engineer brother says it's no big deal to build a massive wall 2000 miles long in the middle of nowhere! Problem solved! I'll write my Congressmen and Senators to let them know your brother said it's no biggie, all we need is a little bit of willpower and elbow grease!

Now, how to make "Mexico pay for it"? Yeah, no fething clue. We don't need Mexico to pay for it.

Right, because you love government spending and taxes now apparently.

Carson's abortion past is also coming back to haunt him more.

Not just the research thing, but past referrals to abortion providers and previous public statements that abortions should never be outlawed.

The border wall is a stupid ain't gonna fix nothing idea and always will be.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Sure, tax the mutherfething out of any wire transfer from US to Mexico. That'll be a start. (Colorado does this, so it's not unheard of)

That is somehow making Mexico pay for it?

It's a start! Mind you that's *my* idea.. not from Trump or anyone else.

Do you even listen to anything the man says? Oh that's right, he's secretly a Democrat pretending to be an idiot Republican!

Yes. Reminds me much of the other Democrats.

So, inexperience is lunacy then...

Who said anything about inexperience? Me? Or are you just making up arguments again? As far as Carson goes, we have his insanely idiotic comments about the Holocaust, he's insanely idiotic biblical 10% flat tax, his denial about being involved with Mannatech, his no Muslims should be President or on the Supreme Court comments, his 'people go to jail and come out gay so obviously it's a choice' comments. Those are some of just his recent moronic ramblings... This fething clown is your front runner.

And your front running is a perfect example of The.Worst.Political.Human.Being.Possible. Corrupt to the core. She enriched herself and her foundation while servering her tenure as Secretary of State. Just imagine what would happen with her as President. :shudder:

Great, scooty, we elected Obama to two terms. Lunacy...

Yeah, because he's obviously history's greatest monster. Instead of actually come up with something of substance to say, just deflect to complain about Obama!

Hey... your rules.

Glad you cleared that up.

Good, I know the truth is difficult for you sometimes. See my earlier GIF about reality if you have any further questions.

 whembly wrote:

Ever heard of the TVA?

Hoover Dam?

It'd be like that.

So you are a fan of big government?

In those cases... of course.

It's entitlements need a good look'e'doo.

My brother is an engineer for Walsh and he confided to me that a wall would be fething simple. Not all of it would be a physical barrier too. The construction of that won't surpass any of the large civil projects we have going on now. It's simply the will, and funding that is required.

Awesome, your engineer brother says it's no big deal to build a massive wall 2000 miles long in the middle of nowhere! Problem solved! I'll write my Congressmen and Senators to let them know your brother said it's no biggie, all we need is a little bit of willpower and elbow grease!

That's the spirit!

Frankly, I know you're being sarcastic and I'm shocked that a pipe-fitter like you would be drinking the blue koolaid that deeply to NOT consider that as a viable option.

Now, how to make "Mexico pay for it"? Yeah, no fething clue. We don't need Mexico to pay for it.

Right, because you love government spending and taxes now apparently.

So... again... attacking *me* instead of attacking the argument.

You got nuthin.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:


The border wall is a stupid ain't gonna fix nothing idea and always will be.

Seems to be working in places like:
Saudi Arabia
Hungary
Israel, Ireland, Germany... etc.
and of nations who have done this in history.

 whembly wrote:

And your front running is a perfect example of The.Worst.Political.Human.Being.Possible. Corrupt to the core. She enriched herself and her foundation while servering her tenure as Secretary of State. Just imagine what would happen with her as President. :shudder:

Wait, Dick Cheney's had a sex change and is now running for the Democrats?