The 2016 Presidential Candidates Thread

howie105

Well-Known Member
Legalization of the MJ trade in America is about market control not about governmental leaders becoming illuminated on the realities of pot. Once it becomes regulated intrastate commerce and moves into retail stores the government turns an expensive and failed effort into a taxable revenue stream. Any remaining unregulated domestic or foreign MJ production will be either ignored or suppressed. As to Trump It really comes down to what plays best in the present presentation. Overall he sounds better then some of the herd but that probably doesn’t mean much.
 

CarolKing

Singer of songs and a vapor connoisseur
I had to laugh during the CNN debate tonight. A woman basically asked Trump why he wasn't nice and had good manners like his children.

Also Anderson asked when was the last time he apologized to someone. I could tell Trump was put on the spot. He was sweaty and red faced. He said that he apoligized to his mom for saying a bad word.

He also spent a lot of time talking about his campaign manager who was arrested for assault. On film it shows him grabbing a woman reporter. He let everyone know he wasn't firing him.

The reporter had hand print bruises on her arm. Trump said she could be making things up. He said he stands behind people. We'll see if he loses Wisconsin, he might feel differently. I hope he loses.:bang:
 
Last edited:

grokit

well-worn member
If cruz somehow grabs the nomination, the gop is going down hard in 2016. At least trump would make the final tally acceptable, but what an indictment that would be on america itself :huh:

Both parties are due for an extreme makeover (to say the least) after this election :argh:

What an entertaining way to be a part of history!
:popcorn:
 
Last edited:

Farid

Well-Known Member
I know cannabis tends to attract liberals/leftists more so than the outgroups, but does nobody here feel Trump? He wants a wall to keep brick weed out, I think we can get behind that. Legal buds is sort of moot if they can continue to just distribute their merchandise unfettered, the whole point of making it legal is to take away the criminal perks and if we legalize without correcting that it will be status quo. The off the books money likely exceeds our legal trade deficit with Mexico and it would just be good for our pocketbooks to not continue hemorrhaging that sort of money for decades more.

We used to get really good Mexican KB. I mean I'd probably still buy the stuff for nostalgia's sake. At $100 an oz for around 10% THC I don't think it was a bad deal. Always full colas, never any trim. I used to make really good pressed hash out of it using screens and magazine paper (before I had ever heard of using parchment paper).

I also want my relatives to be able to visit me in this country so I will not be voting for that xenophobic piece of human filth.
 

cybrguy

Putin is a War Criminal
March 30, 2016 2:00 PM
Does Trump Want an Exit Ramp?

When it comes to a classic narcissist like Donald Trump, it’s hard to say when (or if) he’ll begin to find the process of running for president so humiliating that he’s tempted to just drop out. He clearly doesn’t care that “respectable” people are routinely calling him a racist and comparing him to some of the most notorious fascist dictators of the 20th-Century. He doesn’t seem to care that the intelligentsia and the media elite are condemning his character and his intelligence. But he’s also obsessed with his image and he’s financially dependent on his brand. His campaign has already cost him business relationships and partnerships, yet that hasn’t tamed or dissuaded him so far.

But, let’s remember what happened to H. Ross Perot, who you might recall dropped out of the race in July 1992 only to reenter it in early October:

Like Trump, Perot was allergic to spending money: he believed that paid advertising was unnecessary as long as he could get on TV as often as he wished. For a time, it worked: He got away with many slip-ups, gaffes and misdeeds because they reinforced his outsider persona. Perot was adept at using the public’s disdain of the news media to deflect criticism. Repeatedly deemed a nut-bag by the press, Perot adopted an appropriate campaign song: the Patsy Cline tune, “Crazy.”

But Perot came to despise the scrutiny brought on by all the free media he sought, and he never truly embraced retail politics to the degree needed to win. Just as Trump has drawn criticism for phoning in his cable-news appearances from his bedroom, Perot preferred to campaign from his Dallas office rather than make personal appearances.

And ultimately, his skin proved too thin for the race: When he withdrew in mid-July, he gave various official explanations for the decision. But the one his advisers gave to the New York Times was telling: “[C]ampaign insiders described Mr. Perot as a man obsessed with his image who began to lose interest in the contest when faced with a barrage of critical news reports.” Even when Perot dove back into the race in the fall, he was a busted candidate: in the final five weeks, he left Dallas only for debates and a handful of rallies. After his 1992 loss, Perot’s image never really recovered, and after one more flailing presidential run in 1996, he disappeared from the public eye almost entirely.
Trump’s already getting a little squirrelly. He’s under pressure after his campaign manager was indicted yesterday for battering a Breitbart reporter, and now he’s reneging on his pledge to support the eventual nominee because he feels the RNC has treated him shabbily and he can sense that the party elite are plotting to deny him the nomination at the convention. There’s increasing talk that he could cost the Republicans control of the House of Representatives as well as the Senate.

Due to sore loser laws in many states that will prevent Trump from running as an independent after failing to secure the Republican nomination, he cannot run a successful third party candidacy. But he could get on the ballot in some red states, split the vote, and hand Electoral College delegates to Clinton or Sanders. I can see him doing that out of spite.

If he does secure the nomination, I could even see him losing interest like Perot did briefly if he thinks he’s just getting abused, his image is being irreparably harmed, and that he’ll go down in history as a major loser.

He’s very unpredictable. He seems to be getting enough validation at the moment to make all the hits he’s taking seem worthwhile, but this doesn’t seem to make much sense from a business or branding perspective, and he surely knows that history is written by the same intellectuals who increasingly despise him with the heat of a thousand suns.

And reading what the former Communications Director of the Make America Great Again Super PAC, Stephanie Cegielski, had to say yesterday, it seems like Trump may be like the dog who actually caught the car.

Almost a year ago, recruited for my public relations and public policy expertise, I sat in Trump Tower being told that the goal was to get The Donald to poll in double digits and come in second in delegate count. That was it.

The Trump camp would have been satisfied to see him polling at 12% and taking second place to a candidate who might hold 50%. His candidacy was a protest candidacy…

…I don’t think even Trump thought he would get this far. And I don’t even know that he wanted to, which is perhaps the scariest prospect of all.

He certainly was never prepared or equipped to go all the way to the White House, but his ego has now taken over the driver’s seat, and nothing else matters…

…What was once Trump’s desire to rank second place to send a message to America and to increase his power as a businessman has nightmarishly morphed into a charade that is poised to do irreparable damage to this country if we do not stop this campaign in its tracks.

I’ll say it again: Trump never intended to be the candidate. But his pride is too out of control to stop him now.

You can give Trump the biggest gift possible if you are a Trump supporter: stop supporting him.

He doesn’t want the White House. He just wants to be able to say that he could have run the White House. He’s achieved that already and then some. If there is any question, take it from someone who was recruited to help the candidate succeed, and initially very much wanted him to do so.
I don’t know if Ms. Cegielski is correct about what Trump originally intended or if it even matters anymore what he set out to do in the beginning. But, maybe she’s right and he’s looking for an offramp. Maybe winning the nomination and then losing to Clinton or Sanders would be his worst nightmare.

Who can say what goes on in his mind?

All I know is that this won’t end well for him and he’s got to know that.

So, does he pull the plug before Cleveland? Does he flake out after Cleveland?

Or is he in it all the way to the end?

And, if so, what terrifies him more?

The humiliation of losing?

Or the responsibility of winning?
 

grokit

well-worn member
edit: I would just add to the article below, that I don't think Cruz would go any easier on her...


Hillary Clinton’s “tone”-gate disaster:
Why her campaign’s condescending Bernie dismissal should concern Democrats everywhere

If the Clinton campaign can't deal with Bernie's "tone," how are they supposed to handle someone like Donald Trump?

sanders_hillary15-620x412.jpg

Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton (Credit: Reuters/Shannon Stapleton/Mary Schwalm/Photo montage by Salon)

During a CNN interview on Monday, Hillary Clinton’s Chief Strategist Joel Benenson responded to a question about whether Clinton would participate in a Democratic debate in New York — as the Sanders campaign has requested — in such a condescending way, that he unintentionally managed to break the internet.

“I think the real question is what kind of campaign is Senator Sanders going to run going forward,” opined Benenson. “Senator Sanders doesn’t get to decide when we debate, particularly when he’s running a very negative campaign against us. Let’s see if he goes back to the kind of tone he said he was going to set early on. If he does that, then we’ll talk about debates.”

Shortly after Benenson’s patronizing comments, the Twitter hashtag #ToneDownForWhat began to trend, and the internet fittingly derided the strategist and Clinton, who just eight years ago said that “you should be willing to debate anytime, anywhere” while running for president. One can only assume that Benenson — who has consulted for various Wall Street firms — was alluding to the Sanders campaign’s criticism of Clinton’s financial ties to Wall Street and its insistence that she release transcripts from her Goldman Sachs speeches.

(He certainly couldn’t mean Sanders’s targeting of Clinton for her email scandal and ongoing FBI investigation, or for running direct attack ads, which the Senator has refused to do).

This has become a regular strategy for the Clinton campaign, consistently attacking the Sanders campaign for being “negative,” while itself running a dishonest and petty campaign, from the misleading attack on Sanders’ healthcare plan to Clinton’s deceptive auto-bailout remark to the malicious attempts to smear Sanders as a racist. (“Black lives don’t matter much to Bernie Sanders,” said Clinton surrogate David Brock in January.)

Needless to say, if the Clinton camp thinks that the Sanders campaign is being negative, wait until they face Donald Trump.
This kind of touchiness about Sanders stating inconvenient truths (like her $225,000 speeches for Goldman Sachs) should worry any Democrat about the general election, when a Republican challenger, most likely Trump, will be going after Clinton on everything from the email scandal to the Clinton foundation to her deep ties to Wall Street and other industries. If Trump has proven anything over the past year, it’s that nothing — absolutely nothing — is off limits (this includes all the scandals from the ’90s, from Whitewater to Travelgate to Monica Lewinsky).

Clinton has proven over the past months that she is not a natural-born politician. (She even said it herself.) And for someone with her political baggage, this is concerning. On Wall Street criticisms, for example, Clinton’s retorts have been impressively clumsy, from her reference to 9/11 at the first debate (“I represented Wall Street as a Senator from New York”) to her dismissive “thats what they offered” reply about her Goldman Sachs speeches.

Wall Street and other big money political connections have been where Sanders has criticized Clinton the most, but he has essentially refused to truly go negative. Most notably, he has declined to go after her “damn emails” and the FBI investigation that looms over her campaign. And whoever thinks this scandal won’t haunt Clinton in the general isn’t paying attention. It was recently revealed that 147 FBI agents are currently on the email probe, and an investigative report from Washington Post paints a surprisingly negligent Clinton and team.

“From the earliest days, Clinton aides and senior officials focused intently on accommodating the secretary’s desire to use her private email account, documents and interviews show,” writes Post reporter Robert O’Harrow Jr. “Throughout, they paid insufficient attention to laws and regulations governing the handling of classified material and the preservation of government records, interviews and documents show. They also neglected repeated warnings about the security of the BlackBerry while Clinton and her closest aides took obvious security risks in using the basement server. Senior officials who helped Clinton with her BlackBerry claim they did not know details of the basement server.”

Trump will have a field day with Clinton’s emails, the Clinton Foundation, the speeches, the big money donations, and all of the other right-wing conspiracy theories that a significant percentage of Americans continue to believe after all these years.

Now, the good news for Clinton, if she does face Trump, is that he has the worst general population favorability ratings of any presidential candidate in recent history. His divisiveness is legendary, and he has run one of the most sexist, racist, xenophobic, and just plain vile campaigns in modern American politics. But this is somewhat offset by the fact that Clinton has the second worst favorability rating of any presidential candidate in recent history. According to a new CBS/New York Times poll, Trump has a negative 33 rating (24% positive/57% negative), compared to Clinton’s somewhat better net negative of 21 (31% positive/52% negative).

With all of this negativity, the 2016 presidential race is shaping up to be one of the most polarizing contests in history. And if Clinton can’t handle the “tone” of the Sanders campaign, maybe Sanders — who conveniently has the highest favorability rating of all presidential candidates — should be the one facing Donald Trump.


https://www.salon.com/2016/03/30/hi...ncern_democrats_everywhere/?source=newsletter
 
Last edited:

CarolKing

Singer of songs and a vapor connoisseur
I think Trump has decided he really doesn't want to be president especially with this that I saw today. Or he is just telling a lie. I don't believe that he thinks this way. This abortion view that he says has will knock him out of the running with normal people. Even a lot of the republicans believe a woman should be able to get an abortion.

The Tea Party of course wants to ban abortions. You can't tell me that Trump hasn't paid for a few abortions in his day. I hope we get some women that come forward. I'm sure he's paid people off to keep quiet.

I'm disappointed that Senator Al Frankin is for Hillary.
CK

Donald Trump said Wednesday that he wants to ban abortions, and that women who get abortions illegally should be punished.

At a taping of an MSNBC town hall that will air later, host Chris Matthews pressed the Republican presidential front-runner Trump for his thoughts on abortion policy. Trump said he's in favor of an abortion ban, explaining, "Well, you go back to a position like they had where they would perhaps go to illegal places, but we have to ban it," according to a partial transcript from Bloomberg Politics.

Matthews asked if there would be a punishment for women who received abortions if they were made illegal. Trump responded, "There has to be some form of punishment." He elaborated that the punishment would have "to be determined" and the law will depend on the upcoming Supreme Court confirmation battle and the 2016 election.

Trump's proposal isn't too far off from the current reality: A woman in Tennessee is being held on aggravated assault charges for attempting to self-induce abortion using a coat hanger.
 
Last edited:

Magic9

Plant Enthusiast
The Clinton camp accusing Sanders of running a negative campaign? They tried that already.

She has since evolved on the debate issue the next day.

"There are private conversations happening, so there will likely be an announcement in the next few days about a new debate," a Clinton campaign senior adviser said Wednesday. Chief Sanders strategist Tad Devine confirmed that discussions are taking place between the rival camps.



 

grokit

well-worn member
I don't believe that he thinks this way.
He will for as long as it helps to prevent cruz from siphoning the christian vote away in the primaries, because I'm sure he would like to win the delegates and avoid a brokered convention if possible.

Then (of course because he's so full of :shit:) he would moderate his tone in the general election;
:razz: "I said what? Let me tell you what I really think!"
 

howie105

Well-Known Member
Here is the deal, if Trump believes what he is saying then I am glad he is being out front about it as opposed to him claiming something else till elected. A few additional points on this, Trump is selling a brand to an audience that wants to hear an anti-abortion position and I don't expect any of the current flock of political fuckers to tell too much of the truth about anything.
 

lwien

Well-Known Member
Matthews asked if there would be a punishment for women who received abortions if they were made illegal. Trump responded, "There has to be some form of punishment."

So rather than say that he would punish the doctors if abortions were illegal, he said that he would punish the women who received it. Sounds like something fucking ISIS would do.

Let me ask you a question Mr. Trump. Do you not think that most women who get abortions agonize over that decision and mentally, punish themselves in the process to one extent or another? Do you think that it's a decision that comes easy to most women? Well, do ya.........................asshole !!

Every day, he seems to be giving the Dems just more ammunition for the general election. Amazing......

Edit: In regards to the primary, he's gonna lose Wisconsin to Cruz and THAT will cause this whole thing to go to a brokered convention. The GOP is in the midst of a total clusterfuck. Regardless who they nominate, they will lose not only the WH, but the Senate and Congress, and yeah, the Supreme Court as well, and they won't be able to refill those seats or even get a glimpse of the front door of the WhiteHouse for a very long time.
 
Last edited:

Magic9

Plant Enthusiast
A story that isn't getting much coverage, Clinton ally David Brock filed three complaints with the Federal Election Commission Tuesday against the Bernie Sanders’ campaign and two allied outside groups.

From the article -

A group founded by Hillary Clinton ally David Brock filed three complaints with the Federal Election Commission Tuesday against the Bernie Sanders’ campaign and two allied outside groups.

One complaint from the American Democracy Legal Fund alleges Sanders’ campaign accepted more money from individual donors than allowed under federal law. Another accuses the campaign of failing to include proper disclosure on a Facebook ad it ran after the New Hampshire primary. The third claims a pro-Sanders super PAC has improperly using Sanders’ name, and also alleges illegal coordination.

The FEC has previously warned Sanders about excessive contributions. But with the FEC perpetually deadlocked, these kinds of complaints often go nowhere, and sometimes are used more to generate news coverage than actual enforcement action.

The Sanders campaign rejected the complaints, noting that Clinton aides have spent much this week complaining he has been too aggressive in confronting Clinton.

“Just one day after the Clinton campaign said we needed to change our tone, the leaders of their coordinated super PAC, which is funded by millions from Wall Street, filed baseless and frivolous complaints with the FEC. Tells you all you need to know,” Sanders campaign manager Jeff Weaver told MSNBC.

Brock founded the ADLF in 2014 to essentially weaponize the political ethics process against opponents. But it’s always been used against Republicans – this is the first time the ADLF has filed a complaint against a Democrat.

The group’s co-founder is Brad Woodhouse, who is also the president of the super PAC Correct the Record, which coordinates directly with the Clinton campaign though a novel legal arrangement.

Brock’s sharp elbows in dealing with Sanders have provoked the ire of Clinton aides on several occasions. Sanders has raised millions of dollars by invoking Brock’s attacks to supporters. His camp believes Clinton officials’ private-but-noisy complaints about Brock are just cover so they have plausible deniability while he does the wetwork.

If the complaints do lead to FEC action, however, it could undermine two of Sanders’ biggest strengths: His perception of honesty and status as a campaign finance crusader.


What strikes me the most isn't the fact that this questionable guy is leading Clinton superPACs, or that they are doing this after saying Sanders is running a negative campaign (not the first time they've said this), which both Vox and the WaPo have called "ridiculous", but that they are alleging, "illegal coordination" with his superPAC (National Nurses United).

It's this sentence.

"The group’s co-founder is Brad Woodhouse, who is also the president of the super PAC Correct the Record, which coordinates directly with the Clinton campaign though a novel legal arrangement."

What kind of shit is this? Apparently, if you do it through "internet activity", it's legal somehow.

For Clinton to even raise this issue at all, with the potential for so much blow back, is baffling. The "attack the strength" tactic is going to hurt her more than it helps in this case.
 

Joel W.

Deplorable Basement Dweller
Accessory Maker
Anyone in Wa. should sign this petition to put pressure on your superdelegates to vote with the people.


"Sanders backers urge state's superdelegates to support him
Backers of Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders aren't just fired up about taking on America's corporate titans.

They're now targeting Washington's “superdelegates” with an aggressive online campaign to get them to pledge their delegate vote to Sanders after his landslide victory in Saturday's caucuses.

Democratic U.S. Reps. Rick Larsen and Suzan DelBene, who are superdelegates who back Hillary Clinton, are getting hammered on their Facebook pages from those insisting they respect the results.

Comments are coming from constituents and Democrats in other parts of the state who helped Sanders defeat Clinton by a margin of 72 percent to 28 percent.

“Honor the voice of the voters. Keep democracy democratic. The people have spoken,” wrote Dennis Mitchell, of Liberty Lake, one of 750 people who had commented on Larsen's page as of Tuesday.
Samuel Jennings, of Bothell, wrote to DelBene: “Speaking as your constituent in Bothell, I want my representative to honor the wishes of the people she represents, instead of letting personal feelings or political alliances dictate her concerns. Thank you for your consideration, and I hope your Easter is going well!”

Neither Larsen nor DelBene could be reached for comment. Both are part of a congressional delegation visiting China this week focused on U.S. economic, cybersecurity and environmental challenges.
Larsen did issue a statement through his campaign office.

While I recognize the win of the Sanders campaign on Saturday, I will cast my vote for Hillary at the Democratic National Convention in July,” he said. “She is on a solid path to becoming the nominee for the Democratic Party and I believe she is best suited to win this fall.”

Although Sanders beat Clinton in Washington, Alaska and Hawaii on Saturday, the Vermont senator still trails the former U.S. Secretary of State in the battle for delegates.
Clinton has 1,712 delegates to Sanders' 1,004, according to the most recent tabulations. That includes 469-29 advantage in superdelegates.

Elected office-holders and party officials in each state are automatically made delegates to the Democratic National Convention. These superdelegates can vote as they wish and are not required to abide by results of primaries or caucuses, not even in their own precinct.

Washington has 17 superdelegates. Of those Larsen, DelBene, U.S. Reps. Jim McDermott, Adam Smith, Denny Heck and Derek Kilmer; U.S. Sens. Maria Cantwell and Patty Murray, and Gov. Jay Inslee have all publicly backed Clinton.

The other eight, all party officials including Chairman Jaxon Ravens, have not publicly announced how they'll vote at the convention.

Sanders' backers, angered by the party's use of the free-wheeling superdelegates in the selection process, are trying to convince Washington's to change their minds.

Nearly 30,000 people had signed a petition circulated on MoveOn.org as of Tuesday. It targets all 17 superdelegates, not just Larsen and DelBene.

“Please remember that you are officially unpledged delegates,” it begins. “Follow the lead of average Democratic party voters and uphold authentic democracy.”

Facebook is proving a vehicle for those wishing to press their case more directly to Larsen and DelBene who, between them, represent the majority of Snohomish County. Some cautioned there could be political consequences for them this fall.

Do your job before we elect someone else to do it for you,” one man wrote to Larsen.
That someone could be Democratic candidate Mike LaPointe, of Everett, who is challenging Larsen this year. LaPointe is a Sanders backer.


“My email is exploding,” he said Tuesday. “It's overwhelming. It's really caused a lot of people to take notice of the issue we have with politics and the arrogance of some politicians. The word is getting out that there is an alternative to Rick Larsen who can do the job.”

Brooke Davis, Larsen's campaign manager, expressed confidence the eight-term congressman will be the party's nominee this fall.

“The difference I see between Bernie Sanders and Mike LaPointe is Bernie has a campaign structure and infrastructure,” she said. “We are yet to see the same organization and infrastructure in the Mike LaPointe campaign.”

http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20...ntent=article_name&utm_campaign=generalfb2016

;)
 

grokit

well-worn member
Anyone in Wa. should sign this petition to put pressure on your superdelegates to vote with the people.


"Sanders backers urge state's superdelegates to support him
Backers of Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders aren't just fired up about taking on America's corporate titans.

They're now targeting Washington's “superdelegates” with an aggressive online campaign to get them to pledge their delegate vote to Sanders after his landslide victory in Saturday's caucuses.

Democratic U.S. Reps. Rick Larsen and Suzan DelBene, who are superdelegates who back Hillary Clinton, are getting hammered on their Facebook pages from those insisting they respect the results.

Comments are coming from constituents and Democrats in other parts of the state who helped Sanders defeat Clinton by a margin of 72 percent to 28 percent.

“Honor the voice of the voters. Keep democracy democratic. The people have spoken,” wrote Dennis Mitchell, of Liberty Lake, one of 750 people who had commented on Larsen's page as of Tuesday.
Samuel Jennings, of Bothell, wrote to DelBene: “Speaking as your constituent in Bothell, I want my representative to honor the wishes of the people she represents, instead of letting personal feelings or political alliances dictate her concerns. Thank you for your consideration, and I hope your Easter is going well!”

Neither Larsen nor DelBene could be reached for comment. Both are part of a congressional delegation visiting China this week focused on U.S. economic, cybersecurity and environmental challenges.
Larsen did issue a statement through his campaign office.

While I recognize the win of the Sanders campaign on Saturday, I will cast my vote for Hillary at the Democratic National Convention in July,” he said. “She is on a solid path to becoming the nominee for the Democratic Party and I believe she is best suited to win this fall.”

Although Sanders beat Clinton in Washington, Alaska and Hawaii on Saturday, the Vermont senator still trails the former U.S. Secretary of State in the battle for delegates.
Clinton has 1,712 delegates to Sanders' 1,004, according to the most recent tabulations. That includes 469-29 advantage in superdelegates.

Elected office-holders and party officials in each state are automatically made delegates to the Democratic National Convention. These superdelegates can vote as they wish and are not required to abide by results of primaries or caucuses, not even in their own precinct.

Washington has 17 superdelegates. Of those Larsen, DelBene, U.S. Reps. Jim McDermott, Adam Smith, Denny Heck and Derek Kilmer; U.S. Sens. Maria Cantwell and Patty Murray, and Gov. Jay Inslee have all publicly backed Clinton.

The other eight, all party officials including Chairman Jaxon Ravens, have not publicly announced how they'll vote at the convention.

Sanders' backers, angered by the party's use of the free-wheeling superdelegates in the selection process, are trying to convince Washington's to change their minds.

Nearly 30,000 people had signed a petition circulated on MoveOn.org as of Tuesday. It targets all 17 superdelegates, not just Larsen and DelBene.

“Please remember that you are officially unpledged delegates,” it begins. “Follow the lead of average Democratic party voters and uphold authentic democracy.”

Facebook is proving a vehicle for those wishing to press their case more directly to Larsen and DelBene who, between them, represent the majority of Snohomish County. Some cautioned there could be political consequences for them this fall.

Do your job before we elect someone else to do it for you,” one man wrote to Larsen.
That someone could be Democratic candidate Mike LaPointe, of Everett, who is challenging Larsen this year. LaPointe is a Sanders backer.


“My email is exploding,” he said Tuesday. “It's overwhelming. It's really caused a lot of people to take notice of the issue we have with politics and the arrogance of some politicians. The word is getting out that there is an alternative to Rick Larsen who can do the job.”

Brooke Davis, Larsen's campaign manager, expressed confidence the eight-term congressman will be the party's nominee this fall.

“The difference I see between Bernie Sanders and Mike LaPointe is Bernie has a campaign structure and infrastructure,” she said. “We are yet to see the same organization and infrastructure in the Mike LaPointe campaign.”

http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20...ntent=article_name&utm_campaign=generalfb2016

;)
I just went there. Anybody can sign, not just from washington.
And they're currently at 29,1467 signatures :tup:
 

Stu

Maconheiro
Staff member
Okay full disclosure; this is what I fear if Sanders wins. Not that it deters me for an instant.

That our system is so addicted to corruption, scandals, war, and partisan bs that the corrupt ones will rise up and smother him, like what is happening right now in brazil to their fairly-elected populist leader:

Brazil president closer to impeachment as coalition partner quits

:worms:
Dilma and her predecessor Lula are both corrupt as hell and their corruption has been exposed to the Brazilian people so they are mad as hell and want her gone. Just because she was fairly elected doesn't mean that she isn't subject to impeachment for her crimes.

Sorry for the OT reply, but I just wanted to point that out.

:peace:
 

grokit

well-worn member
Dilma and her predecessor Lula are both corrupt as hell and their corruption has been exposed to the Brazilian people so they are mad as hell and want her gone. Just because she was fairly elected doesn't mean that she isn't subject to impeachment for her crimes.

Sorry for the OT reply, but I just wanted to point that out.

:peace:
All we really know is the reported allegations imo. The whole government is corrupt, and their economy has been going down with the oil prices. Maybe you have some inside info? This is the part that got me:

Rousseff’s enemies are attempting to launch impeachment proceedings on several grounds, including ongoing investigations into alleged budget irregularities and campaign finance violations.

The president has insisted there is no legal basis for impeachment, telling reporters last week that any attempt to remove her from power without legal justification would represent a “coup”.


:shrug:
 
Last edited:

Gunky

Well-Known Member
I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!

Sen. Al Franklin said he would vote for Hillary as a super-delegate regardless if Bernie won his state or not, I'm so disappointed in Al Frankin.

If Senators were obliged to pledge according to the primary vote, there wouldn't be much point in having superdelegates, would there? Franken is personally acquainted with both candidates. Might it be possible that knowing how our government actually works Franken has made an independent judgement about who would be more effective?

Current senators who have endorsed Hillary:

Tammy Baldwin, WI
Michael Bennet, CO
Richard Blumenthal, CT
Cory Booker, NJ
Barbara Boxer, CA
Sherrod Brown, OH
Maria Cantwell, WA
Ben Cardin, MD
Tom Carper, DE
Bob Casey, Jr., PA
Chris Coons, DE
Joe Donnelly,IN
Dick Durbin, Min. Whip, IL
Dianne Feinstein, CA
Al Franken, MN
Kirsten Gillibrand, NY
Martin Heinrich, NM
Heidi Heitkamp, ND
Mazie Hirono, HI
Tim Kaine, VA
Amy Klobuchar, MN
Patrick Leahy, VT
Joe Manchin, WV
Ed Markey, MA
Claire McCaskill, MO
Barbara Mikulski, MD
Chris Murphy, CT
Patty Murray, WA
Bill Nelson, FL
Gary Peters, MI
Jack Reed, RI
Harry Reid, Min. Leader, NV
Brian Schatz, HI
Chuck Schumer, NY
Jeanne Shaheen, NH
Debbie Stabenow, MI
Tom Udall, NM
Mark Warner, VA
Sheldon Whitehouse, RI
Ron Wyden, OR

Yeah, that would be 40 out of 44!

Current senators who endorsed Bernie: zilch. House representatives - similar situation.

Seriously, compare this list - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Bernie_Sanders_presidential_campaign_endorsements,_2016

with this - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Hillary_Clinton_presidential_campaign_endorsements,_2016

So far the revolution does not include a whole lot of the people Bernie has been working with for the last 28 years.
 
Last edited:
Gunky,
  • Like
Reactions: Derrrpp

Joel W.

Deplorable Basement Dweller
Accessory Maker
Sanders left off the DC ballot...
Shenanigans?


http://www.kiro7.com/news/trending-...allot-due-to-administrative-dispute/188206744



"The D.C. Democratic Party, however, failed to notify the District's Board of Elections about Sanders' registration until the day after the deadline passed on March 16."

"It was not clear why the D.C. Democratic Party was delayed. Party officials told WRC the situation boiled down to a “minor administrative dispute,” but it may take a special D.C. Council vote to fix."

Sorry, my last post looked smaller on my phone.:lol:
 

CarolKing

Singer of songs and a vapor connoisseur
I don't like the idea of the super delegates. It kinda leaves the actual voter out of the loop to vote who they would like for president. I don't agree with, if Sanders loses writing his name on the ballot anyway. There are some Sanders voters that may end up doing that.

I wouldn't risk doing something like that for the sake of the party. I absolutely wouldnt want a republican getting into office.

Is it me or does Trump look a bit red faced lately? It's kinda white around his mouth. He doesn't look as well as he did earlier in the year. He might need to go in for a checkup.

He may just feel more pressure. He was having so much fun. It was a fucking love fest between him and his followers.
 

Stu

Maconheiro
Staff member
The whole government is corrupt
This is very true. Us Americans feel that our politicians are corrupted by corporate money, but that's nothing compared to the pervasiveness of Brazil's corruption. Everyone's hands are dirty.
Maybe you have some inside info?
Not really inside info, but I've been following corruption down there for years. A good friend of mine was arrested a while back on corruption charges and it made the front page of the papers. His name wasn't mentioned in the papers, so no one knows it was him. The public went apeshit crazy that his name was being withheld, but he made sure that the press and courts kept his identity sealed. You can guess how he managed to achieve that feat.

The story blew over after a few weeks when the latest corruption scandal went down and now no one even gives it a second thought. His case is still pending trial and probably will remain so indefinitely.

Dilma and Lula appear to be toast, however. Lula's house was raided a couple of weeks ago and it appeared that charges were imminent. What did Dilma do? She called him and told him she was going to send over paperwork that would make him her Chief of Staff (which would've meant only the supreme court could charge him). How do we know this? Well, his phone was being bugged by investigators and they caught the conversation on tape. The prosecutor released the transcript to the public and the shit really hit the fan. 3 million protesters hit the streets the next day.

Now even her political allies are seeing the writing on the wall and leaving her coalition to join ranks with the opposition. This doesn't bode well for her political future.

Anyway, this is all too off topic so I'm gonna give myself a warning point for going on an OT rant.

:peace:
 
Last edited:

grokit

well-worn member
Sanders left off the DC ballot...
Shenanigans?


http://www.kiro7.com/news/trending-...allot-due-to-administrative-dispute/188206744



"The D.C. Democratic Party, however, failed to notify the District's Board of Elections about Sanders' registration until the day after the deadline passed on March 16."

"It was not clear why the D.C. Democratic Party was delayed. Party officials told WRC the situation boiled down to a “minor administrative dispute,” but it may take a special D.C. Council vote to fix."

Sorry, my last post looked smaller on my phone.:lol:
I "like" this as new info but :disgust:, the rabbit hole is starting to seem infinitely deep :whoa:
:horse:
Everything is corrupt where's my check I'll look the other way oh yeah no one cares.
 
Top Bottom