The Democrat Thread

[StrangeSox]

~*both sides*~

[caulfield12]

http://news.yahoo.com/democrats-talking-ha...-232549307.html

Gore and Biden both in this thing would make it interesting at least.

 

If for no other reason than the environment immediately being put back at the forefront.

 

With the GOP, the main issue under consideration is Keystone, and that's about where it ends.

 

 

Yahoo comments are always fun

 

PLEASE run!! Nothing would be more enjoyable than to watch this hypocrite run. He made millions by selling his #$%$ TV station to Al Jazeera. He even forced the deal to be completed quickly to avoid the increased taxes that were going to kick in. How Republican of him. lol! Wasn't the ocean supposed to have wiped out much of the east coast by now? Maybe he will ask Tipper to get back with him so he can stand on stage and give her an awkward kiss again. I have not seen something so staged since Michael Jackson kissed Lisa Marie Presley onstage at an awards show.

 

 

Go ahead and elect this establishment clown....

I guarantee that within 8 years you will be using a shot glass to flush your toilet, and you will be waiting 6 months to hang a picture on the wall after painting because it DOESNT DRY...

Al gore will be a billionaire with approval from his illuminati friends by the time his term ends though, so don't feel bad when he is rich enough to have 5 fireplaces in his getaway mansion while peasants like you and I are prohibited from burning firewood to scrape by.

 

 

Edited August 14, 2015 by caulfield12

[StrangeSox]

Jeb! is trying to rehabilitate his brother's disastrous invasion and occupation of Iraq. Everything was going just fine in Iraq until Obama withdrew prematurely (on the timetable that GW Bush had agreed to).

 

More and more the argument that "the surge worked!" is popping up. It's true that it was effective in tamping down the violence in Iraq, but it was only ever a tool to give the Iraqi leadership the space and ability to negotiate and govern an end to the ongoing civil war. It wasn't a permanent solution to anything, and Iraq's leaders did essentially nothing and IIRC actually ramped up the sectarian persecution. Short of occupying Iraq during an ongoing civil war with a large troop presence indefinitely, I'm not sure what the people trying to paint a better picture of that disaster think could have happened.

[StrangeSox]

Editorial in the Tribune today wherein the writer said she was envious of New Orleans and Hurricane Katrina because the horrific damage, loss of life and general disruption gave room to bust up public unions and city hall. Never mind that 10 years later, much of the city is still only half-rebuilt and many residents have been permanently dislocated. This line is probably the worst part, though:

 

I can relate, metaphorically, to the residents of New Orleans climbing onto their rooftops and begging for help and waving their arms and lurching toward rescue helicopters.

[StrangeSox]

I'm almost positive I posted about the UIUC-Steven Salaita story last year, but I can't find any related posts.

 

In late 2013 or early 2014, UIUC offered a full tenure position to Steven Salaita (who was tenured at VTech at the time) in the American Indian Studies department. He accepted in early 2014, resigned his position (as did his wife) and moved to UIUC to start teaching in Fall 2014. In June of last year, he tweeted some offensive things about Israel, sparked by the latest exchange with Gaza. Wealthy donors and some Trustees starting heavily pressuring UIUC to "unhire" him, and eventually Chancellor Wise acquiesced. The university has since claimed that he was never formally hired since the BoT had not approved it yet (the BoT vote was scheduled to take place a couple of months after he would already have started teaching at UIUC and officially representing and acting on behalf of the university). Salaita filed a suit against UIUC.

 

Last week, a judge issued a ruling on UIUC's motion to dismiss. He found that both UIUC and Salaita had executed the offer letter and that Salaita did in fact have a valid contract with UIUC. Shortly after this was announced, Chancellor Wise turned in her resignation. She was to move into another position at the school (the department she had come from originally) and take a $400,000 bonus. UIUC also released 1,100 pages of emails from Wise it had not previously released. She had been deliberately using a personal account instead of her official one to avoid discovery, and she even explicitly stated what she was doing and that she was also deleting sent messages in one email.

 

Here's a summary of what's happen since then:

 

In a stunning turn of events tonight at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, the chancellor who hired the professor, then fired the professor by claiming he had never been hired in the first place; who resigned in the wake of an ethics scandal over her use of a personal email account (and destruction of emails) in order to hide evidence related to pending litigation over the firing of the professor; whose resignation was rejected by the UI Board of Trustees so that they could formally fire her instead (and thereby avoid paying her a $400,000 bonus previously agreed upon), is now resubmitting her resignation to UIUC and consulting with lawyers in order to consider her legal options and to protect her reputation from the very university that, under her leadership, systematically destroyed the reputation of the professor she fired by claiming he had never been hired in the first place.

 

Pretty much every step of the way, UIUC administration has screwed up. They show no signs of stopping. And apparently the board will capitulate to outside political pressure to void contracts and agreements at the drop of a hat.

 

edit: this quote from Wise is pretty ironic: “Yesterday, in a decision apparently motivated more by politics than the interests of the University, the Board reneged on the promises in our negotiated agreement and initiated termination proceedings. This action was unprecedented, unwarranted, and completely contrary to the spirit of our negotiations last week.”

 

 

Edited August 14, 2015 by StrangeSox

[caulfield12]

Editorial in the Tribune today wherein the writer said she was envious of New Orleans and Hurricane Katrina because the horrific damage, loss of life and general disruption gave room to bust up public unions and city hall. Never mind that 10 years later, much of the city is still only half-rebuilt and many residents have been permanently dislocated. This line is probably the worst part, though:

 

 

If the author had ever read Zeitoun by Dave Eggers, not sure she'd take such a cavalier attitude evidenced by making such a ridiculous comparison.

[Jenksismyhero]

Maybe she was stuck on LSD during that blizzard?

[farmteam]

I'm almost positive I posted about the UIUC-Steven Salaita story last year, but I can't find any related posts.

 

In late 2013 or early 2014, UIUC offered a full tenure position to Steven Salaita (who was tenured at VTech at the time) in the American Indian Studies department. He accepted in early 2014, resigned his position (as did his wife) and moved to UIUC to start teaching in Fall 2014. In June of last year, he tweeted some offensive things about Israel, sparked by the latest exchange with Gaza. Wealthy donors and some Trustees starting heavily pressuring UIUC to "unhire" him, and eventually Chancellor Wise acquiesced. The university has since claimed that he was never formally hired since the BoT had not approved it yet (the BoT vote was scheduled to take place a couple of months after he would already have started teaching at UIUC and officially representing and acting on behalf of the university). Salaita filed a suit against UIUC.

 

Last week, a judge issued a ruling on UIUC's motion to dismiss. He found that both UIUC and Salaita had executed the offer letter and that Salaita did in fact have a valid contract with UIUC. Shortly after this was announced, Chancellor Wise turned in her resignation. She was to move into another position at the school (the department she had come from originally) and take a $400,000 bonus. UIUC also released 1,100 pages of emails from Wise it had not previously released. She had been deliberately using a personal account instead of her official one to avoid discovery, and she even explicitly stated what she was doing and that she was also deleting sent messages in one email.

 

Here's a summary of what's happen since then:

 

 

 

Pretty much every step of the way, UIUC administration has screwed up. They show no signs of stopping. And apparently the board will capitulate to outside political pressure to void contracts and agreements at the drop of a hat.

 

edit: this quote from Wise is pretty ironic: “Yesterday, in a decision apparently motivated more by politics than the interests of the University, the Board reneged on the promises in our negotiated agreement and initiated termination proceedings. This action was unprecedented, unwarranted, and completely contrary to the spirit of our negotiations last week.”

 

Jesus, what a s***show.

 

Maybe it's the lawyer in me, but when I write work emails, I write them with the expectation that someone might well read them some day. The fact that a person this high up at a prestigious institution could think she could circumvent discovery by using her personal email account, and then actually talk about the fact that she was doing it, is mind boggling. Some things you do not put in writing.

[greg775]

Not trying to be a one-trick-pony guy, but to my Democratic friends, is this just a lull in the process time, or is Hilly really drawing yawns from Democratic leadership and they are not against Gore running or Biden getting in the race? I stand my my "Hillary wins in a landslide over Trump or Bush" but can I get my hopes up? Is there a chance the elder stateswoman is boring everybody and is there a chance she could lose the nomination?? Can I get my hopes up at all, or is this just the normal lull? It sure seems like Hilly is exciting nobody even on the Democratic side at this juncture.

[caulfield12]

Not trying to be a one-trick-pony guy, but to my Democratic friends, is this just a lull in the process time, or is Hilly really drawing yawns from Democratic leadership and they are not against Gore running or Biden getting in the race? I stand my my "Hillary wins in a landslide over Trump or Bush" but can I get my hopes up? Is there a chance the elder stateswoman is boring everybody and is there a chance she could lose the nomination?? Can I get my hopes up at all, or is this just the normal lull? It sure seems like Hilly is exciting nobody even on the Democratic side at this juncture.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/16/upshot/i...=0002&abg=0

All your answers are here.

[greg775]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/16/upshot/i...=0002&abg=0

All your answers are here.

Thanks. That's what I was afraid of. She's firmly in command. That email thing isn't going to bring her down. It's just going to add to her "greatness" legacy. ... "She overcame all obstacles even the ridiculous campaign to bring her down through alleged secret emails. She proved those accusations false."

 

Listen to this Michael Savage attack on Meghan Kelly. He makes some great points. The debate ended and Kelly interviewed some Hillary worshiper and that person had the nerve to say, "This debate tells me the Democratic nominee will have no trouble winning. And the Republicans are having so few debates because they know they don't fare well." Huh?? Will there even be a Democratic debate? Should be interesting to see the Journalists toss Hillary softballs and ruin their careers if there ever is a Democratic debate. Now she'll probably have one soon IMO before Gore and Biden decide to run and tear her apart. But listen to Savage and tell me what u think.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yawAyr4Ch-o

Edited August 16, 2015 by greg775

[Y2HH]

Thanks. That's what I was afraid of. She's firmly in command. That email thing isn't going to bring her down. It's just going to add to her "greatness" legacy. ... "She overcame all obstacles even the ridiculous campaign to bring her down through alleged secret emails. She proved those accusations false."

 

Listen to this Michael Savage attack on Meghan Kelly. He makes some great points. The debate ended and Kelly interviewed some Hillary worshiper and that person had the nerve to say, "This debate tells me the Democratic nominee will have no trouble winning. And the Republicans are having so few debates because they know they don't fare well." Huh?? Will there even be a Democratic debate? Should be interesting to see the Journalists toss Hillary softballs and ruin their careers if there ever is a Democratic debate. Now she'll probably have one soon IMO before Gore and Biden decide to run and tear her apart. But listen to Savage and tell me what u think.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yawAyr4Ch-o

 

I doubt Hillary is worried about Biden. At all.

[NorthSideSox72]

I'm really disappointed in this Dem field. Way too thin, and just poor candidate depth. You've got a Clinton, a guy whose ideas are wholly impractical (Sanders), O'Malley, and... anyone else? Really?

 

The Dems have the advantage in that they don't suffer from the MUST FOLLOW PARTY LINE problem nearly as badly as the GOP does. But the Dems have a real lack of leadership bench.

 

[Balta1701]

I'm really disappointed in this Dem field. Way too thin, and just poor candidate depth. You've got a Clinton, a guy whose ideas are wholly impractical (Sanders), O'Malley, and... anyone else? Really?

 

The Dems have the advantage in that they don't suffer from the MUST FOLLOW PARTY LINE problem nearly as badly as the GOP does. But the Dems have a real lack of leadership bench.

If Hillary wasn't there, there would be a much more open field. But really, this is the SuperPAC era. There aren't going to be many billionaires willing to turn against Hillary Clinton if she's the most obvious party standard bearer by funding an alternative candidate and if you don't have a billionaire to fund your campaign, you're facing such a huge headwind that you're outgunned.

 

Both sides are dominated by the billionaire setup right now. 17 Republicans because there's no obvious standard bearer and 14 or so have billionaires who can keep their candidacy afloat, very few Democrats because there is an obvious standard bearer and the billionaires won't ignore that.

 

You've forgotten Jim Webb and Jim Jeffords as officially declared candidates, for whatever that's worth (less than LaRoche against a lefty).

[Jenksismyhero]

If Hillary wasn't there, there would be a much more open field. But really, this is the SuperPAC era. There aren't going to be many billionaires willing to turn against Hillary Clinton if she's the most obvious party standard bearer by funding an alternative candidate and if you don't have a billionaire to fund your campaign, you're facing such a huge headwind that you're outgunned.

 

Both sides are dominated by the billionaire setup right now. 17 Republicans because there's no obvious standard bearer and 14 or so have billionaires who can keep their candidacy afloat, very few Democrats because there is an obvious standard bearer and the billionaires won't ignore that.

 

You've forgotten Jim Webb and Jim Jeffords as officially declared candidates, for whatever that's worth (less than LaRoche against a lefty).

 

Is this really true though? I mean, I know there's a lot of money spent out there, but if I'm a billionaire, wtf would I waste hundreds of millions on a candidate that (1) has no good shot at winning and (2) even if he/she does, there's no guarantee any meaningful legislation that benefits me would get enacted? I see very little benefit for doing so.

 

[Balta1701]

Is this really true though? I mean, I know there's a lot of money spent out there, but if I'm a billionaire, wtf would I waste hundreds of millions on a candidate that (1) has no good shot at winning and (2) even if he/she does, there's no guarantee any meaningful legislation that benefits me would get enacted? I see very little benefit for doing so.

Because right now it only takes 10s of millions to get them through the primary phase and that's a write-off when you're worth $10 billion and make $500 million per year on random stock transactions. In exchange for that you get politicians begging at your feet and worshipping you like you're a deity, plus if you have any issue come up it's probably worth a few billion to have the president on your side.

 

It's seriously keeping some of the also-ran Republicans in the race. Santorum is there because he has the same billionaire who funded his campaign in 2012. Rick Perry can't pay his staff for his official campaign but his SuperPAC has tens of millions in the bank. If Jim Webb had a billionaire, you'd be hearing a lot more other than me laughing at Jim Webb.

 

In 2012, Tim Pawlenty was out already because of a lack of money. Note that isn't happening now even for guys who can't pay their staff.

[greg775]

I'm really disappointed in this Dem field. Way too thin, and just poor candidate depth. You've got a Clinton, a guy whose ideas are wholly impractical (Sanders), O'Malley, and... anyone else? Really?

 

The Dems have the advantage in that they don't suffer from the MUST FOLLOW PARTY LINE problem nearly as badly as the GOP does. But the Dems have a real lack of leadership bench.

The Dems also have no debates by design. Hilly is the entitled choice. It's not even about issues or the future of our country. It's letting one lady get what is rightfully hers -- the queenship; I mean first woman presidency. It's her destiny and it's not even about democracy anymore. It's about letting Hillary fulfill her destiny. Sad.

[southsider2k5]

I'm really disappointed in this Dem field. Way too thin, and just poor candidate depth. You've got a Clinton, a guy whose ideas are wholly impractical (Sanders), O'Malley, and... anyone else? Really?

 

The Dems have the advantage in that they don't suffer from the MUST FOLLOW PARTY LINE problem nearly as badly as the GOP does. But the Dems have a real lack of leadership bench.

 

Like Joe Lieberman?

[bmags]

I'm really disappointed in this Dem field. Way too thin, and just poor candidate depth. You've got a Clinton, a guy whose ideas are wholly impractical (Sanders), O'Malley, and... anyone else? Really?

 

The Dems have the advantage in that they don't suffer from the MUST FOLLOW PARTY LINE problem nearly as badly as the GOP does. But the Dems have a real lack of leadership bench.

 

Republicans wiped out dem governors, and in addition, some of the top dem talent went into the administration in no-win situations. Also in addition, for some reason dems gave a lot of money to some Texas democrats who have not been able to elevate office.

[Jake]

One thing of interest is that if Biden did catch on in the Dem race, it would probably have the effect of making Sanders's candidacy much more legitimate. From the looks of things when it comes to polling, Biden is most liked by the most centrist/conservative liberals. Those people currently go for Clinton (or in some cases, they say they will vote Biden even though he hasn't announced). There's a non-insane scenario in which Biden making a serious bid and Sanders continuing to get a little momentum makes it a competitive three-person race

[bmags]

Biden has zero constituency. I admire the hell out of him thou

[caulfield12]

If Hillary wasn't there, there would be a much more open field. But really, this is the SuperPAC era. There aren't going to be many billionaires willing to turn against Hillary Clinton if she's the most obvious party standard bearer by funding an alternative candidate and if you don't have a billionaire to fund your campaign, you're facing such a huge headwind that you're outgunned.

 

Both sides are dominated by the billionaire setup right now. 17 Republicans because there's no obvious standard bearer and 14 or so have billionaires who can keep their candidacy afloat, very few Democrats because there is an obvious standard bearer and the billionaires won't ignore that.

 

You've forgotten Jim Webb and Jim Jeffords as officially declared candidates, for whatever that's worth (less than LaRoche against a lefty).

 

 

 

Didn't Lincoln Chafee (RI) throw his hat into the ring, too?

[bmags]

Didn't Lincoln Chafee (RI) throw his hat into the ring, too?

He's polling zero percent, so probably why he was not included.

[caulfield12]

Like Joe Lieberman?

 

Or Charles Schumer...

[StrangeSox]

Josh Duggar, "family values" activist/teenage child molester, apparently had a couple of active Ashley Madison accounts.