Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Willfor]

So there's this

8:45 p.m.

Donald Trump is asking law enforcement officers to arrest protesters at his rally in Kansas City, Missouri. He argues that fear of an "arrest mark" on people's records may put an end to the near-constant disruptions at his rallies.

He says he's "going to start pressing charges against all these people."This, a day after he called off a planned Chicago event because it attracted so many protesters.

Trump says arrests would mar their records.

That's "going to ruin the rest of their lives," he says. And then, he tells supporters, "we're not going to have any more protesters, folks."

Man, I can taste the freedom.

[smirk]

The AIDS thing was a pretty big deal.

Sure, yeah, we've all heard of AIDS.  Hillary Clinton didn't forget AIDS and the government dragging it's feet on research.  She forgot what disease Nancy Reagan talked about 30 years ago.

Nah, trying to pass that off as "I accidentally mistook AIDS for Alzheimer's" smells something foul. She attributed foundational work on a heavily stigmatized epidemic to the very people who are infamous for trying to brush it under the rug. I'm all for giving Holls a fair shake, but that's pretty low. At best, it's a grievous and very rookie mistake and doesn't inspire any confidence in her attention to (large, obvious) detail. AIDS is still a very important thing to a large amount of people, especially within the Democrats' base.


_{Geez; I take a break from pol-watch for a few measly days and everything goes to hell. Ah well. Back to the periscopes.}

[HAMMERMILL]

Voting Trump or Sanders would make Congress stop being a check on Presidential authority?  Presidents get to overrule congress if they aren't traditional candidates?

Obama spent the first two years of his presidency dealing with a once every three generations economic crisis and the next six years dealing with a hostile congress that vetos everything he says, what exactly do you expect?

This is actually the best pitch to make for Clinton, IMHO.  Because of gerrymandering there is little chance of democrats taking back congress.  Clinton went into this ready for a long, ugly fight with a republican congress.

Trump and Sanders would get vetoed and obstructed at every opportunity by congress and the senate. Clinton would get obstructed and vetoed because literally nobody in the world actually likes her. Nobody. She 'liberated' Libya with a bombing campaign that dismantled the government military, now everyone in Libya is fleeing the country or is an extremist Islamist militia. Count the number of supporters for her actions in Libya, if you can use that as a gauge for her credibility as a competent president.

'Elect H. Clinton! Wife of B. Clinton! Destroyer of nations! Ransacker of Libya, murderer of Kurds!, Jailer of black men!, warden for 3 million prisoners!, fierce opponent of the US constitution, lies only for your own good!, she only abandoned 1.2 million veterans of the war she voted for!'

Might as well elect the Devil. At least he's consistent!

[mainiac]

Nah, trying to pass that off as "I accidentally mistook AIDS for Alzheimer's" smells something foul.

Okay now you are deliberately misconstruing her words.

Trump and Sanders would get vetoed and obstructed at every opportunity by congress and the senate. Clinton would get obstructed and vetoed because literally nobody in the world actually likes her. Nobody.

I'm just gonna preserve this here a while to reflect on and relish.

[Vector]

she should take her damn boobs and go home :v no clintons allowed!!!

Nah, seriously, I just don't know what my opinion is yet. I want to get farther in the election cycle.

[smirk]

Nah, trying to pass that off as "I accidentally mistook AIDS for Alzheimer's" smells something foul.

Okay now you are deliberately misconstruing her words.

That's how it read to me, anyway: https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/708403247795539968
"While the Reagans were strong advocates for stem cell research and finding a cure for Alzheimer's disease, I misspoke about their records on HIV and Aids. For that, I am sorry."

You could argue that there's no connection between the first and second half of that first sentence, in which case the bit about Alzheimer's is entirely superfluous and all she needed was the "I misspoke about their records on HIV and Aids". It's still a mistake that should have been very easy to catch.

[smjjames]

Same link as Wilfor.

9:34 p.m.

Hillary Clinton is apologizing again for crediting Nancy Reagan for confronting the AIDS epidemic in the 1980s.

Clinton initially apologized Friday after saying in an interview with MSNBC during its coverage of Nancy Reagan's funeral that the former first lady helped start a "national conversation" about AIDS.

Writing on the Medium website, Clinton said Saturday that the Reagans did not do so. She instead credited the work of gay, lesbian and bisexual activists and their straight allies.

"I've heard from countless people who were devastated by the loss of friends and loved ones, and hurt and disappointed by what I said," she wrote.

Clinton added there's still "work to do to eradicate this disease for good and erase the stigma."

Eh? She's still trying to apologize?

Not sure what she was originally trying to do with the statement. Attempting to say something nice maybe and somehow botched it up? *shrug*

[mainiac]

"I misspoke about their records

The thing she misspoke about was which disease Nancy Reagan cared about thirty years ago.  You seem to be construing this as she thought the question was about Alzheimers or she thought AIDs and Alzheimers are the same disease.

[Cthulhu]

I'm not seeing it either, dude.  I can see how it could be misconstrued to say that.

It was nimble navigation.  Apologize while still giving the Reagan's some unrelated credit.  Like her post on the Chicago thing.  Enough of a disavowal to dodge the trap Cruz & Co. stepped in without actually disavowing.

She certainly has the maneuvering chops to do shit and that's a good angle for her.  Sanders's senate record does not inspire confidence in his ability to rally his own side, let alone the Republicans.

[mainiac]

Apologize while still giving the Reagan's some unrelated credit.

Where you see "give Reagan credit" I see "emphasize that a famous republican supported something republicans now oppose".  Never miss a chance for a cheap shot.

[smjjames]

She certainly has the maneuvering chops to do shit and that's a good angle for her.  Sanders's senate record does not inspire confidence in his ability to rally his own side, let alone the Republicans.

Not to mention that she knows how to navigate the system and have people work with each other.

Trump would just use his supergodly (in his own imagination) negotiation skills to, well, negotiate something. Though his VP is going to have to be someone who is able to work on both sides, or at least rally the republicans.

Apologize while still giving the Reagan's some unrelated credit.

Where you see "give Reagan credit" I see "emphasize that a famous republican supported something republicans now oppose".  Never miss a chance for a cheap shot.

Oppose what? AIDS treatment? I'm not aware of the republicans being against that, healthcare policies aside.

Also, Rubio barely beat Kasich in getting DC's delegates. No surprise that the two establishment candidates did well there. Though it does put a siren light on their heads with the word establishment blinking above them.

[mainiac]

Oppose what?

Stem cell research.

[smirk]

"I misspoke about their records

The thing she misspoke about was which disease Nancy Reagan cared about thirty years ago.  You seem to be construing this as she thought the question was about Alzheimers or she thought AIDs and Alzheimers are the same disease.

The (possible, if not likely) conflation of AIDS and Alzheimers is not the important part though; the above bolded bit is. Whether or not it was a mistake or an unrelated bit tacked on to the first half of her tweet, the fact remains that it should be really hard to connect the Reagans to AIDS in a positive manner. I wonder if she has a fact-checker to fire?

[Frumple]

Stem cell research, smj. They're also kinda' generally shit on mental health issues in general. Alzheimer's is probably something they're at least somewhat inclined towards working against (given the age of much of their demographic), but I wouldn't exactly be surprised to find any number of them had opposed various initiatives to help the problem.

Annnd ninja'd. Bah, I typed it, it gets posted.

[Descan]

Honestly, considering the focus on Trump re: fascism, the likely ineffectualism of him as president, and the precedent regarding puppetry from perceived second-rate positions (from Dick Cheney to Stalin)...

If Trump gets the nom, keep an eye on who he picks as running mate. If Trump gets elected, keep an even closer eye on whoever is his vice president. Between Trump and Trumps VP, the more likely person to manage a fascist takeover and succeed without being suspected would be the VP.

Possible other mechanics would be a Sec. of State.