Jump to content

Brutus_buckeye

One World Trade Center 1,776'
  • Content Count

    3,851
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

62 Excellent

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. ^ She ran a national campaign from the start. She did not feel she needed to take Sanders seriously, because , well he is crazy Bernie and until 2 years ago nobody in the Dem party took him seriously. She cleared the field of what she perceived as all the true threats. She was playing to moderates and trying to capture the big tent vote. She missed the wave of populism that was taking hold in both parties. By the time she pivoted, it was too late. It may have saved her in the primary but hurt her in the general. Let's face it, outside of the MMQB that we all do. The mechanics of Hillary's campaign was brilliant. Her strategy was right, and up until 2015 when she made her official rollout, she executed flawlessly at that point. After that, everything that could have gone wrong seemed to go wrong, yet she still won the nomination and popular vote. She made some fatal mistakes in the Summer/Fall of 2016 such as taking the Midwest for granted, which led to her demise. Most other candidates would have been doomed long before, but the 3 years of groundwork she laid leading up to 2016 is a lesson to be emulated.
  2. The crazy Bernie thing is all in good fun. People take themselves a little too seriously sometimes on these boards. I appreciate that you let it go, as it is intended more for levity
  3. Hillary's Achilles heel was that she built what could be considered a juggernaut operation that all realistic competitors were scared off. Normally, you would have 8-10 candidates playing with 3-4 pretty serious competitors. She learned her lesson in 2008 that she needed to protect her left flank to prevent another Obama from springing up so she, with amazing efficiency, gobbled up all the big donors and also the huge campaign operatives to keep others out of the race. The reason why her campaign was so expensive was that she bought off the competition. It was a shrewd move, but at the end of the day, people always are going to demand a choice, if without serious competitors, people vote in protest for someone like crazy Bernie in the primaries or in the general Trump
  4. C'mon dude, have a bit of a sense of humor. Crazy Bernie does it to himself.
  5. Crazy Bernie in 2016 was a phenomenon that was really less about Crazy Bernie and his policies and more about Hillary Clinton. If 2016 was like 2008 Crazy Bernie would have been the clown at the end of the debate line that nobody took seriously and he would never have gained any traction because there were a slew of other more serious/credible candidates in the mix. The thing was, there was nobody besides Hillary (and O'Malley who was essentially Hillary light and not really serious and playing the role as Hillary stand in) so Crazy Bernie filled the role by giving people who did not like Hillary an option. Hillary was not popular amongst many Dems, and people were glad to rush to Crazy Bernie's side because he was simply choice B in the A&B choice. In 2020 there will be many candidates in the mix. There is not the pressure to support Crazy Bernie because there are other choices that would be more creditable and palatable (to a certain extent). Also, again, in 2016 Hillary was the name and had defined herself, Sanders, Trump, etc, were beneficiaries because they simply needed to run against the name and occupy choice B. Therefore, Crazy Bernie will actually need to redefine himself in the crowded field. He can no longer serve as default choice B. This also applies to Trump in the general election too. I don't see Crazy Bernie emerging. He may have name recognition, but what does he say that Warren and Harris are not saying and both of them bring more to the table. Also, he is not the lone progressive in the room so that vote is going to be split making it harder to emerge
  6. She was not necessarily praising Fox News and Brietbart. She was just saying that with the liberal slant, it is important to at least hear their perspective. If it were reversed, she said, she would have the same issue. She was not praising them for responsible journalism. Maybe in some cases they have been more responsible than the main stream media. Her issue with the media was the quick rush to break a story and sensationalist desire to be first and fit a narrative at the cost of truly verifying facts and sources. It is why Buzzfeed News is such a dumpster fire. The reliable sources like NYT and WaPo and CNN sometimes cave into this pressure instead of actually getting their facts right and sources right, and that is the irresponsible journalism that she was talking about. I would not consider Logan a hard core conservative. She is more moderate it seems.
  7. College should not be free. That waters down the product. It needs to have a cost. Now is it too expensive, yes, and we should do things to offer affordability, but students should pay towards college because there is always a cost to trying to better yourself.
  8. ^ The worst thing you can do is give up your Liberty. Don't let the outrageous, random act scare you into giving up your freedom and Liberty. Liberty is not for the feint of heart. For those who cant cut it, they are welcome to move North to America Junior and play at the junior varsity table
  9. I think the FAQ has telegraphed the goals, or at least the goals of a few of the zealots in Congress. None of those could pass in the current Congress, both House or Senate, but it would be concerning if they gained traction from an uneducated public.
  10. I think the FAQ has telegraphed the goals, or at least the goals of a few of the zealots in Congress. None of those could pass in the current Congress, both House or Senate, but it would be concerning if they gained traction from an uneducated public.
  11. This was supposed to be a down year for them anyway. They overachieved early and have fallen back to earth in the BIG play. Next year should be dominant. No cause for worry this year.
  12. The Green New Deal if it were ever to be implemented in such a way as presented in the now deleted FAQ, would necessitate a huge central planning operation that would infringe on individual life in almost all ways. Think about it, almost all individual property rights would be affected, it would create rationing as determined by the central planners whims and desires. There would be a ton of pressure on property rights under this plan, Now would a person have due process, we don't know yet, but the rules of the GND would be skewed to the collective instead of the individual rights, so due process is just a minor hurdle to accomplish the goal. Depending on how it would be implemented, I certainly can see issues with the 1st, 4th, 5th and 13th, etc amendments. This would vastly remake society into more of a collective system with such strong central planning, that it would be inevitable that many individual rights would go by the wayside.
  13. But the issue is decimating individual liberties. Green New Deal is much worse for that than standing for pledge of allegiance. @KJP is all worried about standing for the pledge of allegiance, yet he will gladly surrender all his liberties and rights under the guise that he can save the environment. If part of the Green New Deal says you need to stand for the pledge, I am sure @KJP gladly signs up for it then, because of O'Green new deal
  14. If you really want to talk rape of civil liberties, should be talking about the Green New Deal. That would decimate civil liberties like nothing seen before.
  15. ^ Does Donald hang out with known anti-Semites and racists leaders?
×
×
  • Create New...