Switch Theme:

The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Last Remaining Whole C'Tan






Pleasant Valley, Iowa

I'm sure the fact that Hillary Clinton didn't actually win Iowa via 6 consecutive successful coin flips means it won't be repeated ad nauseum, right?

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.

 Flinty wrote:
The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
 
   
Made in us
Thane of Dol Guldur




The poster boy for fething your neighbor is back in the news:

‘Pharma bro’ Shkreli stays silent before Congress, calls lawmakers ‘imbeciles’ in tweet
by Carolyn Y. Johnson
(https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/02/04/pharma-bro-martin-shkreli-faces-congress-today-but-pledges-silence/?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_no-name%3Ahomepage%2Fstory)

Spoiler:
Martin Shkreli has left the building.

Shkreli, the former chief executive of Turing Pharmaceuticals, who gained notoriety for jacking up a little-known drug's price, was excused from a House hearing on drug prices after he refused to answer any questions -- other than how to pronounce his name correctly, or to confirm that, yes, he was listening.

After minutes of refusal to answer questions, during which Shkreli fidgeted, looked away and appeared to smirk at times, he gave his parting remarks on Twitter:

Hard to accept that these imbeciles represent the people in our government.

— Martin Shkreli (@MartinShkreli) February 4, 2016

Five minutes were set aside for opening remarks that could shed light on Shkreli's controversial decision to raise the price of Daraprim, a drug for a rare but severe infection that afflicts people with compromised immune systems. But Shkreli declined to make any. Instead, Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, began asking him questions about patients affected by the price and remarks he had made previously. Shkreli gave the same composed answer to each question:

"On the advice of counsel, I invoke my Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and respectfully decline to answer your question," Shkreli said. Repeatedly.

[Why is this ‘bro’ smiling? The many smirks of Martin Shkreli.]

Shkreli didn't come willingly to Thursday's hearing. He was compelled by a subpoena that he threatened to ignore and that his lawyers argued against vehemently.

Wearing a slim-cut black jacket, Shkreli sat at the end of a row of witnesses called before the committee with hands folded, fidgeting a bit and smiling uncomfortably at times -- tics his attorney, Benjamin Brafman, called the "nervous energy" of the 32-year-old former hedge fund manager, not meant to show disrespect to any member of Congress.

Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) described Turing as a "Ponzi scheme" in his opening remarks, saying the research and development that Turing has claimed it is doing to justify its high prices is simply research on which new drugs it could acquire to raise their prices.

Shkreli smirked.

"It's not funny, Mr. Shkreli. People are dying," Cummings said.
'Pharma Bro' Martin Shkreli told drug price increases 'not funny'
Play Video0:49
During a hearing on drug pricing Feb. 4, Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) told controversial hedge fund manager Martin Shkreli that steep drug price rises are "not funny" because "people are dying." (AP)

One of the few questions he did answer, asked by Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), was whether the congressman had pronounced Shkreli's last name correctly.

When Gowdy told Shkreli he could answer questions without incriminating himself, since they would not bear on the securities fraud charges being brought against him in a separate matter, he said, "I intend to follow the advice of my counsel, not yours."

Eventually, Shkreli was excused, trailed by a media scrum.

Your attempt to subvert my constitutional right to the 5th amendment are disgusting & insulting to all Americans @OversightDems @RepCummings

— Martin Shkreli (@MartinShkreli) January 21, 2016

The hearing focused on two companies that drove up the price of drugs they didn't invent -- by more than 5,000 percent in the case of Daraprim. After Shkreli's departure, the rest of the witnesses testified. Among them was Turing's current chief commercial officer, Nancy Retzlaff. Howard Schiller, the interim chief executive of Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, another company that has been accused of operating more like a hedge fund than a drug company, appeared. Janet Woodcock, the director of the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research at the Food and Drug Administration, and Mark Merritt, the president of the Pharmaceutical Care Management Association, a trade group that represents pharmacy benefit companies, was also present.

[How pharma bro Martin Shkreli described his own drug price hike: 'Almost all of it is profit.']

Turing and Valeant both turned over tens of thousands of pages of documents. Some highlights were presented in two memos released earlier this week. Although there are fascinating details taken from internal emails that draw back the curtain on the tactics of drug pricing, the main finding thus far is simple: Both companies strove to maximize profits.

There are still thousands of pages of documents for the committee to mine for clues about how to prevent a practice that has been called "price gouging." But at least so far, the evidence appears to echo the revelations of a previous Senate investigation of an $84,000 hepatitis C drug. That company, Gilead, also sought to maximize profits, even as its price affected patients' access to the drug.

Not to be snarky, but a report showing that a for-profit company sought to maximize profits is exactly what you'd expect. No?

— Charles Ornstein (@charlesornstein) December 1, 2015

High drug prices hit a nerve with the public and with politicians, but so far, congressional hearings have generated lots of buzz and few solutions.


This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/02/04 22:58:07


 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)





Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
 whembly wrote:

Does anyone find it interesting that Clinton won all 6 coin toss?

What are the odds?
Have fun.

And Sanders did win some coin tosses to point that there were about equal.

Cool... I knew I saw something that Sanders had some coin toss his way.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/04 23:13:56


Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!


 
   
Made in se
Ferocious Black Templar Castellan






Sweden

Surely the odds of winning six coin flips in a row would be .5 to the power of six, not taking into account that the coin could balance and turn out neither heads nor tails?

For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back. 
   
Made in us
Mekboy on Kustom Deth Kopta




 Ahtman wrote:
I liked Rand but he is a non-factor sadly, and I really don't like Hillary so my choices aren't all that great. If my choices end up being Cruz and Clinton I will really be in a bad place, voting wise.


helpful hint, there are more than 2 parties.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2016

vote for Zoltan, just because it's a fun name to say

Zoltan Istvan, futurist, writer, transhumanist philosopher from California. He's running as a independent


 
   
Made in us
Secret Force Behind the Rise of the Tau




USA

Vermin Supreme 2016!


   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





Welp, he lost my vote.... Ponies are almost as evil as cats.
   
Made in us
Did Fulgrim Just Behead Ferrus?





Fort Worth, TX

 jasper76 wrote:

I tend to agree with whembley on McCain. I think McCain and Romney both did as well as any GOP candidate could have hoped to do at the time after 8 years of Bush, and demographics have only become more unkind for the next GOP candidate, especially since Trump has alienated the crucial Latino vote, and the party has done nothing to improve its standing on women's issues.


After the Bush years, it would have taken a miracle for the GOP to get the White House, no matter how good a man McCain is. However, they could have made a much better showing without Palin, and by giving her that platform and fame, the years since have only encourage the kind of crazy she represents.

The problem now, however, is that while Rubio may be the best choice if the GOP actually wants to win the election, they absolutely MUST avoid the same mistake they made in 2008: if Cruz were to be on the ticket as VP, the GOP is guaranteed to lose again. Just like I was willing to vote McCain but changed because of Palin, I could see the possibility of voting Rubio, but never with Cruz attached.

"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me."
- Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)





Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!

I don't see a possibility that Cruz would take a VP position...

I think if Rubio's the nominee.. then, someone like Nikki Haley would be a possibility (or some other Governor).

Rubio/Haley for the win!

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/05 01:17:39


Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!


 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





Are there similar rules to being VP as to being POTUS??


By this I naturally mean, could Rubio choose the Governator as his VP??
   
Made in gb
Assassin with Black Lotus Poison





Bristol

sirlynchmob wrote:
 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
 A Town Called Malus wrote:


You did not just mention Bieber in the same line as The Beatles, Led Zep and Maiden


Lol.... if black people get to blame ALL white people for slavery, then all of us Americans get to blame you Brits for whatever gak Canadian pops out of the woods


by that horrid logic you can blame all the gak america does on the brits as well. If they had never drove out the puritans we wouldn't be in this mess


Well I'm sorry that we didn't believe in religious persecution as strongly as the puritans wanted

The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.

Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)





Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Are there similar rules to being VP as to being POTUS??


By this I naturally mean, could Rubio choose the Governator as his VP??

I don't think there's anything forbidding the Governator to be his VP... but, if Rubio dies while in office... Arnie couldn't become President, which will fall to... The Speaker of House.

Which is:
Spoiler:
President Paul Ryan!


Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!


 
   
Made in gb
Assassin with Black Lotus Poison





Bristol

 whembly wrote:
 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Are there similar rules to being VP as to being POTUS??


By this I naturally mean, could Rubio choose the Governator as his VP??

I don't think there's anything forbidding the Governator to be his VP... but, if Rubio dies while in office... Arnie couldn't become President, which will fall to... The Speaker of House.

Which is:
Spoiler:
President Paul Ryan!



Well, I'd like to see people try to stop the Vice-Prezinator from ascending to his rightful place.

The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.

Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
 
   
Made in us
Hangin' with Gork & Mork






sirlynchmob wrote:
 Ahtman wrote:
I liked Rand but he is a non-factor sadly, and I really don't like Hillary so my choices aren't all that great. If my choices end up being Cruz and Clinton I will really be in a bad place, voting wise.


helpful hint, there are more than 2 parties.


Of course there are but since the discussion was about the two parties in the Iowa caucus it just makes sense to refer to those.

Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
 
   
Made in au
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





 Dreadwinter wrote:
The fact that he was able to pull this close to her and only lose in delegates because of a coin toss is way better than expected. Even more so when the party he is running for has been against him the entire time. Buuuuut, nah he lost. Even though he got delegates from it. You are acting like his whole campaign is going to fall apart and that is hilarious to me.


Alright, whatever. You’re not reading, you don’t care, and it doesn’t really matter anyway. So I’ll just sum up my point as briefly as I can, so it’s here as a nice clean record, instead of buried amidst point and counter point with a guy who is uninterested in any political reality discussion beyond ‘feel the bern’.

Sanders has done brilliantly to stay this close to Clinton for this long.
Arguably this is less a case of Sanders doing very well, as it is Clinton not doing very well.
Either way, Clinton dodged a bullet in Iowa. While the difference in delegates was zero, the difference in narrative between a narrow loss and a narrow defeat is huge. And given the tiny number of delegates in Iowa, the narrative is actually the only thing that really matters.
However, even if Sanders had won and benefitted from a strong momentum narrative in to future primaries, it’s pretty hard to figure out how he’d turn that in to winning the nomination. Unless he suddenly built a healthy share of the vote in minorities, or managed to turn his strength in white voters into a total dominance, it’s impossible to see how he’d win the vote in most states.
Sanders stood in the primary in order to direct the political debate towards equality and other issues close to his heart. Sanders has achieved this, and shown there is still a base of democratic voters who want real left wing policy advanced by the democrats.
If Sanders keeps to his initial goal, it’s possible his campaign run here might be something to build on in future years. Probably not for himself, but as the basis for developing organisations that will energise and mobilise that base of voters.
However, if he shoots for the moon, and considers only winning the nomination, then the final narrative might be that you can’t win the nomination from left, only from the centre.

“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”

Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. 
   
Made in us
Did Fulgrim Just Behead Ferrus?





Fort Worth, TX

 whembly wrote:
 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Are there similar rules to being VP as to being POTUS??


By this I naturally mean, could Rubio choose the Governator as his VP??

I don't think there's anything forbidding the Governator to be his VP... but, if Rubio dies while in office... Arnie couldn't become President, which will fall to... The Speaker of House.

Which is:
Spoiler:
President Paul Ryan!



I did look to see of the natural born citizen requirement was just for being elected (potentially allowing the Governator to move up to the top spot), and then I learned that the 12th amendment requires the VP to meet the same qualifications as the president. No Governator in the White House. :(

"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me."
- Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





Well then... no Governator, no possibility of me voting Republican this election
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)





Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
 whembly wrote:
 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Are there similar rules to being VP as to being POTUS??


By this I naturally mean, could Rubio choose the Governator as his VP??

I don't think there's anything forbidding the Governator to be his VP... but, if Rubio dies while in office... Arnie couldn't become President, which will fall to... The Speaker of House.

Which is:
Spoiler:
President Paul Ryan!



I did look to see of the natural born citizen requirement was just for being elected (potentially allowing the Governator to move up to the top spot), and then I learned that the 12th amendment requires the VP to meet the same qualifications as the president. No Governator in the White House. :(

Well... .

I stand corrected.

Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!


 
   
Made in us
Proud Triarch Praetorian





 sebster wrote:
 Dreadwinter wrote:
The fact that he was able to pull this close to her and only lose in delegates because of a coin toss is way better than expected. Even more so when the party he is running for has been against him the entire time. Buuuuut, nah he lost. Even though he got delegates from it. You are acting like his whole campaign is going to fall apart and that is hilarious to me.


Alright, whatever. You’re not reading, you don’t care, and it doesn’t really matter anyway. So I’ll just sum up my point as briefly as I can, so it’s here as a nice clean record, instead of buried amidst point and counter point with a guy who is uninterested in any political reality discussion beyond ‘feel the bern’.

Sanders has done brilliantly to stay this close to Clinton for this long.
Arguably this is less a case of Sanders doing very well, as it is Clinton not doing very well.
Either way, Clinton dodged a bullet in Iowa. While the difference in delegates was zero, the difference in narrative between a narrow loss and a narrow defeat is huge. And given the tiny number of delegates in Iowa, the narrative is actually the only thing that really matters.
However, even if Sanders had won and benefitted from a strong momentum narrative in to future primaries, it’s pretty hard to figure out how he’d turn that in to winning the nomination. Unless he suddenly built a healthy share of the vote in minorities, or managed to turn his strength in white voters into a total dominance, it’s impossible to see how he’d win the vote in most states.
Sanders stood in the primary in order to direct the political debate towards equality and other issues close to his heart. Sanders has achieved this, and shown there is still a base of democratic voters who want real left wing policy advanced by the democrats.
If Sanders keeps to his initial goal, it’s possible his campaign run here might be something to build on in future years. Probably not for himself, but as the basis for developing organisations that will energise and mobilise that base of voters.
However, if he shoots for the moon, and considers only winning the nomination, then the final narrative might be that you can’t win the nomination from left, only from the centre.


Okay, you are accusing me of not reading but I posted you a link where he just stole a major endorsement in the Carolinas from Hillary and it is an endorsement from a minority leader. Please, read what I linked.
   
Made in au
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





 Dreadwinter wrote:
Okay, you are accusing me of not reading but I posted you a link where he just stole a major endorsement in the Carolinas from Hillary and it is an endorsement from a minority leader. Please, read what I linked.


I read it, I giggled and moved on. Here's the 538 list of endorsements, those with a 1 are house of reps, those with a 5 are senators, and those with a 10 are governors.

Bernie Sanders
10/12/15 Keith Ellison REP. (D-MINN.) 1
10/7 Raúl Grijalva REP. (D-ARIZ.) 1


Hillary Clinton
2/3/16 Alma Adams REP. (D-N.C.) 1
2/1 Chaka Fattah REP. (D-PA.) 1
1/30 Ron Wyden SEN. (D-ORE.) 5
1/29 Al Green REP. (D-TEXAS) 1
1/26 David Price REP. (D-N.C.) 1
1/19 Mike Quigley REP. (D-ILL.) 1
1/8 Frank Pallone Jr. REP. (D-N.J.) 1
1/7 G.K. Butterfield REP. (D-N.C.) 1
12/18/15 Earl Blumenauer REP. (D-ORE.) 1
12/16 Linda Sánchez REP. (D-CALIF.) 1
12/15 Brad Ashford REP. (D-NEB.) 1
12/7 Michael E. Capuano REP. (D-MASS.) 1
11/30 Maxine Waters REP. (D-CALIF.) 1
11/30 Pete Aguilar REP. (D-CALIF.) 1
11/30 Anna G. Eshoo REP. (D-CALIF.) 1
11/30 Jerry McNerney REP. (D-CALIF.) 1
11/30 Jackie Speier REP. (D-CALIF.) 1
11/19 John A. Yarmuth REP. (D-KY.) 1
11/17 Donna F. Edwards REP. (D-MD.) 1
11/17 C. A. Dutch Ruppersberger REP. (D-MD.) 1
11/17 Alan Grayson REP. (D-FLA.) 1
11/17 John P. Sarbanes REP. (D-MD.) 1
11/17 Jack Reed SEN. (D-R.I.) 5
11/16 Ruben Gallego REP. (D-ARIZ.) 1
11/14 Jay Inslee GOV. (D-WASH.) 10
11/14 Denny Heck REP. (D-WASH.) 1
11/14 Suzan DelBene REP. (D-WASH.) 1
11/13 Joe Donnelly SEN. (D-IND.) 5
11/13 Ann Kirkpatrick REP. (D-ARIZ.) 1
11/11 Gwen Moore REP. (D-WIS.) 1
11/11 Tony Cárdenas REP. (D-CALIF.) 1
11/11 Corrine Brown REP. (D-FLA.) 1
11/10 Christopher A. [see forum posting rules] SEN. (D-DEL.) 5
11/9 Bennie G. Thompson REP. (D-MISS.) 1
11/8 Seth Moulton REP. (D-MASS.) 1
11/5 Maria Cantwell SEN. (D-WASH.) 5
11/4 Jay Nixon GOV. (D-MO.) 10
10/28 Heidi Heitkamp SEN. (D-N.D.) 5
10/28 Jared Huffman REP. (D-CALIF.) 1
10/27 Sherrod Brown SEN. (D-OHIO) 5
10/26 Thomas R. Carper SEN. (D-DEL.) 5
10/26 John Carney REP. (D-DEL.) 1
10/23 Paul D. Tonko REP. (D-N.Y.) 1
10/21 Jack Markell GOV. (D-DEL.) 10
10/20 Eliot Engel REP. (D-N.Y.) 1
10/19 Joe Courtney REP. (D-CONN.) 1
10/16 William Keating REP. (D-MASS.) 1
10/14 Edward J. Markey SEN. (D-MASS.) 5
10/13 Yvette D. Clarke REP. (D-N.Y.) 1
10/13 Hakeem Jeffries REP. (D-N.Y.) 1
10/5 John Hickenlooper GOV. (D-COLO.) 10
10/5 Robert C. Scott REP. (D-VA.) 1
9/17 Maggie Hassan GOV. (D-N.H.) 10
9/13 Ann Kuster REP. (D-N.H.) 1
9/7 Cheri Bustos REP. (D-ILL.) 1
9/7 David Loebsack REP. (D-IOWA) 1
9/1 Zoe Lofgren REP. (D-CALIF.) 1
8/31 Tammy Baldwin SEN. (D-WIS.) 5
8/28 Timothy J. Walz REP. (D-MINN.) 1
8/24 Donald Payne Jr. REP. (D-N.J.) 1
8/24 John Garamendi REP. (D-CALIF.) 1
8/24 Bonnie Watson Coleman REP. (D-N.J.) 1
8/24 Bill Pascrell Jr. REP. (D-N.J.) 1
8/18 Jim Himes REP. (D-CONN.) 1
8/6 Xavier Becerra REP. (D-CALIF.) 1
8/5 Scott Peters REP. (D-CALIF.) 1
7/15 Lois Capps REP. (D-CALIF.) 1
7/15 Marcia L. Fudge REP. (D-OHIO) 1
7/14 André Carson REP. (D-IND.) 1
7/13 Suzanne Bonamici REP. (D-ORE.) 1
6/27 Niki Tsongas REP. (D-MASS.) 1
6/26 Don Beyer REP. (D-VA.) 1
6/26 Brenda Lawrence REP. (D-MICH.) 1
6/23 William "Lacy" Clay Jr. REP. (D-MO.) 1
6/23 Matthew Cartwright REP. (D-PA.) 1
6/13 Elizabeth Esty REP. (D-CONN.) 1
6/13 John B. Larson REP. (D-CONN.) 1
6/13 Tom Wolf GOV. (D-PA.) 10
6/7 Dannel P. Malloy GOV. (D-CONN.) 10
6/5 Steve Cohen REP. (D-TENN.) 1
6/4 Christopher Murphy SEN. (D-CONN.) 5
5/27 Katherine Clark REP. (D-MASS.) 1
5/20 Peter Shumlin GOV. (D-VT.) 10
5/14 Joseph P. Kennedy III REP. (D-MASS.) 1
5/12 James McGovern REP. (D-MASS.) 1
5/5 Michael F. Bennet SEN. (D-COLO.) 5
5/5 Gary Peters SEN. (D-MICH.) 5
5/4 Kathy Castor REP. (D-FLA.) 1
5/4 Mike Thompson REP. (D-CALIF.) 1
5/4 Gerald E. "Gerry" Connolly REP. (D-VA.) 1
5/4 Patrick Murphy REP. (D-FLA.) 1
5/4 Marc Veasey REP. (D-TEXAS) 1
5/4 Adam Schiff REP. (D-CALIF.) 1
5/4 José E. Serrano REP. (D-N.Y.) 1
5/4 Kurt Schrader REP. (D-ORE.) 1
5/4 Julia Brownley REP. (D-CALIF.) 1
5/4 Kathleen Rice REP. (D-N.Y.) 1
5/4 Brad Sherman REP. (D-CALIF.) 1
5/4 Jim Cooper REP. (D-TENN.) 1
5/4 Sean Patrick Maloney REP. (D-N.Y.) 1
5/4 Henry Cuellar REP. (D-TEXAS) 1
5/4 Ed Perlmutter REP. (D-COLO.) 1
5/4 Joyce Beatty REP. (D-OHIO) 1
5/4 Derek Kilmer REP. (D-WASH.) 1
5/4 Eddie Bernice Johnson REP. (D-TEXAS) 1
5/4 Jared Polis REP. (D-COLO.) 1
5/4 Adam Smith REP. (D-WASH.) 1
5/4 Daniel Kildee REP. (D-MICH.) 1
5/4 Rubén Hinojosa REP. (D-TEXAS) 1
5/4 Filemon Vela REP. (D-TEXAS) 1
4/29 Emanuel Cleaver REP. (D-MO.) 1
4/24 Robert P. Casey, Jr. SEN. (D-PA.) 5
4/23 Cory A. Booker SEN. (D-N.J.) 5
4/23 Steve Israel REP. (D-N.Y.) 1
4/22 John Conyers Jr. REP. (D-MICH.) 1
4/16 Gina M. Raimondo GOV. (D-R.I.) 10
4/15 Jim McDermott REP. (D-WASH.) 1
4/14 Rosa L. DeLauro REP. (D-CONN.) 1
4/13 Tom Udall SEN. (D-N.M.) 5
4/12 Andrew M. Cuomo GOV. (D-N.Y.) 10
4/12 Jeanne Shaheen SEN. (D-N.H.) 5
4/12 Karen Bass REP. (D-CALIF.) 1
4/12 Debbie Dingell REP. (D-MICH.) 1
4/12 Diana DeGette REP. (D-COLO.) 1
4/12 Rick Larsen REP. (D-WASH.) 1
4/11 Nydia M. Velázquez REP. (D-N.Y.) 1
4/11 Jerrold Nadler REP. (D-N.Y.) 1
2/2 Brian Schatz SEN. (D-HAWAII) 5
1/29 Alcee L. Hastings REP. (D-FLA.) 1
1/27 Tammy Duckworth REP. (D-ILL.) 1
1/27 Judy Chu REP. (D-CALIF.) 1
1/27 Ami Bera REP. (D-CALIF.) 1
1/27 Ted Lieu REP. (D-CALIF.) 1
1/27 Mazie K. Hirono SEN. (D-HAWAII) 5
1/27 Mark Takano REP. (D-CALIF.) 1
1/22 Lucille Roybal-Allard REP. (D-CALIF.) 1
1/22 Grace Napolitano REP. (D-CALIF.) 1
1/22 Loretta Sanchez REP. (D-CALIF.) 1
12/18/14 Bill Nelson SEN. (D-FLA.) 5
12/16 Al Franken SEN. (D-MINN.) 5
12/1 Barbara A. Mikulski SEN. (D-MD.) 5
12/1 Benjamin L. Cardin SEN. (D-MD.) 5
11/14 Terry McAuliffe GOV. (D-VA.) 10
11/10 Charles B. Rangel REP. (D-N.Y.) 1
10/14 Nita Lowey REP. (D-N.Y.) 1
8/5 Mark R. Warner SEN. (D-VA.) 5
7/12 Michelle Lujan Grisham REP. (D-N.M.) 1
7/12 Martin Heinrich SEN. (D-N.M.) 5
6/21 Patrick J. Leahy SEN. (D-VT.) 5
6/18 Betty McCollum REP. (D-MINN.) 1
6/18 Rick Nolan REP. (D-MINN.) 1
6/7 Richard Blumenthal SEN. (D-CONN.) 5
6/6 Robin Kelly REP. (D-ILL.) 1
6/6 Bill Foster REP. (D-ILL.) 1
6/5 Richard J. Durbin SEN. (D-ILL.) 5
6/4 Amy Klobuchar SEN. (D-MINN.) 5
5/22 Debbie Stabenow SEN. (D-MICH.) 5
5/4 Mark Takai REP. (D-HAWAII) 1
5/3 Tim Kaine SEN. (D-VA.) 5
2/7 Ted Deutch REP. (D-FLA.) 1
1/31 Joseph Crowley REP. (D-N.Y.) 1
1/29 Joe Manchin III SEN. (D-W.VA.) 5
1/28 Danny K. Davis REP. (D-ILL.) 1
1/28 Janice Hahn REP. (D-CALIF.) 1
1/28 Terri A. Sewell REP. (D-ALA.) 1
1/28 John Lewis REP. (D-GA.) 1
1/28 Doris O. Matsui REP. (D-CALIF.) 1
1/28 Frederica Wilson REP. (D-FLA.) 1
1/28 Sander Levin REP. (D-MICH.) 1
1/28 Sheldon Whitehouse SEN. (D-R.I.) 5
1/28 Henry C. "Hank" Jr. Johnson REP. (D-GA.) 1
1/28 David Scott REP. (D-GA.) 1
1/28 Brian Higgins REP. (D-N.Y.) 1
1/28 David Cicilline REP. (D-R.I.) 1
1/28 Louise Slaughter REP. (D-N.Y.) 1
1/28 Jim Langevin REP. (D-R.I.) 1
1/28 Gregory W. Meeks REP. (D-N.Y.) 1
1/28 Jan Schakowsky REP. (D-ILL.) 1
1/28 Gene Green REP. (D-TEXAS) 1
1/28 Grace Meng REP. (D-N.Y.) 1
1/28 Joaquin Castro REP. (D-TEXAS) 1
1/28 Luis Gutierrez REP. (D-ILL.) 1
1/28 Cedric Richmond REP. (D-LA.) 1
1/28 Richard E. Neal REP. (D-MASS.) 1
1/28 Steny H. Hoyer REP. (D-MD.) 1
1/28 Sheila Jackson Lee REP. (D-TEXAS) 1
1/28 Lois Frankel REP. (D-FLA.) 1
1/28 John Delaney REP. (D-MD.) 1
1/28 Mike Honda REP. (D-CALIF.) 1
1/28 Chellie Pingree REP. (D-MAINE) 1
1/28 Stephen F. Lynch REP. (D-MASS.) 1
1/13 Chris Van Hollen REP. (D-MD.) 1
12/12/13 Dianne Feinstein SEN. (D-CALIF.) 5
11/17 Kirsten E. Gillibrand SEN. (D-N.Y.) 5
11/11 Carolyn Maloney REP. (D-N.Y.) 1
11/8 Patty Murray SEN. (D-WASH.) 5
11/7 Mark Dayton GOV. (D-MINN.) 10
11/5 Tim Ryan REP. (D-OHIO) 1
11/2 Charles E. Schumer SEN. (D-N.Y.) 5
10/30 Barbara Boxer SEN. (D-CALIF.) 5
8/18 Dina Titus REP. (D-NEV.) 1
6/18 Claire McCaskill SEN. (D-MO.) 5

“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”

Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. 
   
Made in us
Mutated Chosen Chaos Marine






But he got two representatives! Feel the burn!

Help me, Rhonda. HA! 
   
Made in us
Proud Triarch Praetorian





With that 14% approval rating congress has right now, I bet those endorsements really help. hahaha

Also, wait. We are only counting Congress and Governor endorsements? What about all the other endorsements? Unions? Things like that?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/05 05:40:41


 
   
Made in au
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





 Dreadwinter wrote:
With that 14% approval rating congress has right now, I bet those endorsements really help. hahaha


You were talking about how important it was that a single endorsement flipped. So I gave you the list of congressmen and governors who've given endorsements. And then when you saw how overwhelmingly one sided that list is, you start coming up with reasons why endorsements don't count.

There's a pattern developing here.

“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”

Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. 
   
Made in us
Secret Force Behind the Rise of the Tau




USA

 Dreadwinter wrote:
With that 14% approval rating congress has right now, I bet those endorsements really help. hahaha

Also, wait. We are only counting Congress and Governor endorsements? What about all the other endorsements? Unions? Things like that?


In that case, the 1s and 5s don't matter, and Bernie has no endorsements that matter while Hillary still has all the 10s.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/05 05:55:01


   
Made in us
Proud Triarch Praetorian





 sebster wrote:
 Dreadwinter wrote:
With that 14% approval rating congress has right now, I bet those endorsements really help. hahaha


You were talking about how important it was that a single endorsement flipped.


I gave an example of an endorsement flipping and then you gave me a list of endorsements of a specific type that shows heavily in your arguments favor, but you did not provide a complete list of endorsements.

There is a pattern forming with your arguments, I believe it is called "dishonesty".

I mean, the endorsement that I gave you wasn't even a congressman or a governor. But somehow you think that only Congressman and Governors apply here. Either you are intentionally trying to win the argument with dishonesty or you have no clue what you are talking about. Which one?
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Leerstetten, Germany

 Dreadwinter wrote:

Also, wait. We are only counting Congress and Governor endorsements? What about all the other endorsements? Unions? Things like that?


In the primary process, Governors and members of Congress are not just endorsements, they are actually delegates. So while Unions can endorse people, and have their endorsement be an influence when people consider who they vote for, the super-delegates actually vote for the people they endorse.

The Iowa Delegate total was:

23 delegates for Clinton
21 delegates for Sanders

The current endorsements/votes from super-delegates is:

357 super-delegates for Clinton
13 super-delegates for Sanders

Which makes the current total:

380 votes for Clinton
34 votes for Sanders

   
Made in au
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





 Dreadwinter wrote:
I gave an example of an endorsement flipping and then you gave me a list of endorsements of a specific type that shows heavily in your arguments favor, but you did not provide a complete list of endorsements.


I went to a site I go to fairly often, because I knew that among a lot of other things it tracks the formal endorsement count. So I copied that list and gave it to you, to show that talk about single endorsement is quite silly, when the total endorsement count is so one sided.

And now you’re calling me dishonest because the list was only the formal endorsements, and for reasons you’ve recently invented in your head we really need to know about every single person connected to the Democratic party who might endorse anyone at all. In fact, not just people connected to the Democratic party, because you listed a lawyer who worked on a high profile case. So I guess until we get a list with every single person who's ever been in a news story, then any kind of list would be 'dishonest'.

So really, I think its best we call it on this stupid little back and forth. It’s going nowhere, you just get pissier with every point I make about Sanders' position.

But the thing is, what I love about elections, same reason I got drawn in to business and finance, is that for all the talk and bs, at the end of the day there are cold hard numbers to show who was actually talking some sense. So I guess we’ll see when the numbers are in.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/05 06:18:00


“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”

Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. 
   
Made in us
Proud Triarch Praetorian





 sebster wrote:
 Dreadwinter wrote:
I gave an example of an endorsement flipping and then you gave me a list of endorsements of a specific type that shows heavily in your arguments favor, but you did not provide a complete list of endorsements.


I went to a site I go to fairly often, because I knew that among a lot of other things it tracks the formal endorsement count. So I copied that list and gave it to you, to show that talk about single endorsement is quite silly, when the total endorsement count is so one sided.

And now you’re calling me dishonest because the list was only the formal endorsements, and for reasons you’ve recently invented in your head we really need to know about every single person connected to the Democratic party who might endorse anyone at all. In fact, not just people connected to the Democratic party, because you listed a lawyer who worked on a high profile case. So I guess until we get a list with every single person who's ever been in a news story, then any kind of list would be 'dishonest'.

So really, I think its best we call it on this stupid little back and forth. It’s going nowhere, you just get pissier with every point I make about Sanders' position.

But the thing is, what I love about elections, same reason I got drawn in to business and finance, is that for all the talk and bs, at the end of the day there are cold hard numbers to show who was actually talking some sense. So I guess we’ll see when the numbers are in.


You are dismissing an endorsement that effects how voters are going to view a candidate based on the amount of super-delegates a person has right now. Which is honestly quite silly, considering a person like that can influence quite a few people in states and push them to vote for a candidate. You also linked me a bunch of endorsements by super-delegates that are not locked in. They can change(as they have in the past, with Hillary of all people!) and switch sides. On top of that, there are still 210 additional super delegates that have not chosen a candidate. We are still at the point of the process where endorsements matter as they can sway how people vote in a given area and how many delegates a candidate can earn in the state. Just because that person endorsing them is not a super delegate, does not make the endorsement meaningless as you have been claiming.

We will see when the numbers are in but if you are going with cold hard numbers and facts, you should probably remember history and how Hillary lost a lot of the people who pledged to her towards the end of the primary. But, we will see when the numbers are in.
   
Made in au
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





 Dreadwinter wrote:
Just because that person endorsing them is not a super delegate, does not make the endorsement meaningless as you have been claiming.


So we'll agree to end this debate now that's long past interesting or fun, but I'll still call you on bullshitting. I didn't say endorsements were meaningless, you made that up. fething don't do that.

“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”

Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. 
   
Made in us
Proud Triarch Praetorian





 sebster wrote:
 Dreadwinter wrote:
Just because that person endorsing them is not a super delegate, does not make the endorsement meaningless as you have been claiming.


So we'll agree to end this debate now that's long past interesting or fun, but I'll still call you on bullshitting. I didn't say endorsements were meaningless, you made that up. fething don't do that.


You laughed off an endorsement I posted for what reason then? You also claimed I did not read what you had previously written. fething don't do that.
   
 
Forum Index » Off-Topic Forum
Go to: