The Many Faces of US Politics...

[whitey]

Republicans have cherry picked some of his speech, without considering the olive branch near the end, which I quoted.

Could Republicans make exactly the same speech now, including the olive branch?

I seriously doubt it.

And you seriously think the Dems would not be doing the same if the shoe was on the other foot?

(And What about Schumers and Harry Reid's comments-wete they also taken out of context-LOL)

The Dems have never refused to hold hearings for a republican nomination for almost a full year.
Kennedy was confirmed by a Democratic majority Senate in an election year.
Bork, even though he was strongly opposed by many Democrats was given a hearing, a vote in the Judiciary committee (which he lost) and even a vote on the floor of the Senate (despite not getting passed by the Judiciary committee)

Three of the highest ranking and highest profile Democrats advocated doing exactly what the Republicans are now doing at various points in the last 25 Years. You reap what you sow

"Three of the highest ranking and highest profile Democrats advocated doing exactly what the Republicans are now doing at various points in the last 25 Years. "

No they didn't.

There is not one single instance where the Democrats advocated complete refusal to even hold hearings for the final year of a presidential term.

The current democrat party are way further to the left than ever before something to  be considered

In what way?

I'll grant you that the gap between them and the GOP has increased dramatically, but it ain't the Dems who've shifted.

A Socialist has a really good chance of becoming the Dem nominee and you don't think the party has shifted to the left?

[DuffleKing]

Republicans have cherry picked some of his speech, without considering the olive branch near the end, which I quoted.

Could Republicans make exactly the same speech now, including the olive branch?

I seriously doubt it.

And you seriously think the Dems would not be doing the same if the shoe was on the other foot?

(And What about Schumers and Harry Reid's comments-wete they also taken out of context-LOL)

The Dems have never refused to hold hearings for a republican nomination for almost a full year.
Kennedy was confirmed by a Democratic majority Senate in an election year.
Bork, even though he was strongly opposed by many Democrats was given a hearing, a vote in the Judiciary committee (which he lost) and even a vote on the floor of the Senate (despite not getting passed by the Judiciary committee)

Three of the highest ranking and highest profile Democrats advocated doing exactly what the Republicans are now doing at various points in the last 25 Years. You reap what you sow

"Three of the highest ranking and highest profile Democrats advocated doing exactly what the Republicans are now doing at various points in the last 25 Years. "

No they didn't.

There is not one single instance where the Democrats advocated complete refusal to even hold hearings for the final year of a presidential term.

The current democrat party are way further to the left than ever before something to  be considered

In what way?

I'll grant you that the gap between them and the GOP has increased dramatically, but it ain't the Dems who've shifted.

A Socialist has a really good chance of becoming the Dem nominee and you don't think the party has shifted to the left?

Except he hasn't

[whitey]

Republicans have cherry picked some of his speech, without considering the olive branch near the end, which I quoted.

Could Republicans make exactly the same speech now, including the olive branch?

I seriously doubt it.

And you seriously think the Dems would not be doing the same if the shoe was on the other foot?

(And What about Schumers and Harry Reid's comments-wete they also taken out of context-LOL)

The Dems have never refused to hold hearings for a republican nomination for almost a full year.
Kennedy was confirmed by a Democratic majority Senate in an election year.
Bork, even though he was strongly opposed by many Democrats was given a hearing, a vote in the Judiciary committee (which he lost) and even a vote on the floor of the Senate (despite not getting passed by the Judiciary committee)

Three of the highest ranking and highest profile Democrats advocated doing exactly what the Republicans are now doing at various points in the last 25 Years. You reap what you sow

"Three of the highest ranking and highest profile Democrats advocated doing exactly what the Republicans are now doing at various points in the last 25 Years. "

No they didn't.

There is not one single instance where the Democrats advocated complete refusal to even hold hearings for the final year of a presidential term.

The current democrat party are way further to the left than ever before something to  be considered

In what way?

I'll grant you that the gap between them and the GOP has increased dramatically, but it ain't the Dems who've shifted.

A Socialist has a really good chance of becoming the Dem nominee and you don't think the party has shifted to the left?

Except he hasn't

When all is said and done and this thing is done, he will have gotten almost as many actual votes as Hillary. Dem party won't (or at least wouldn't) release vote totals from Iowa because seemingingly Berne won more actual votes (per MSBNC)

It's only because of the super delegates his window s closing

[J70]

Republicans have cherry picked some of his speech, without considering the olive branch near the end, which I quoted.

Could Republicans make exactly the same speech now, including the olive branch?

I seriously doubt it.

And you seriously think the Dems would not be doing the same if the shoe was on the other foot?

(And What about Schumers and Harry Reid's comments-wete they also taken out of context-LOL)

The Dems have never refused to hold hearings for a republican nomination for almost a full year.
Kennedy was confirmed by a Democratic majority Senate in an election year.
Bork, even though he was strongly opposed by many Democrats was given a hearing, a vote in the Judiciary committee (which he lost) and even a vote on the floor of the Senate (despite not getting passed by the Judiciary committee)

Three of the highest ranking and highest profile Democrats advocated doing exactly what the Republicans are now doing at various points in the last 25 Years. You reap what you sow

"Three of the highest ranking and highest profile Democrats advocated doing exactly what the Republicans are now doing at various points in the last 25 Years. "

No they didn't.

There is not one single instance where the Democrats advocated complete refusal to even hold hearings for the final year of a presidential term.

The current democrat party are way further to the left than ever before something to  be considered

In what way?

I'll grant you that the gap between them and the GOP has increased dramatically, but it ain't the Dems who've shifted.

A Socialist has a really good chance of becoming the Dem nominee and you don't think the party has shifted to the left?

Bernie is one man, whose success (charisma aside) as a candidate is more a product of Hillary's problems as a candidate and the complete lack of alternatives than any vision he presents. The party itself is centre left in US terms, and centre right in international terms. He hasn't a single endorsement from a sitting Democratic senator and only a handful of house members. Hillary has 40 from current senators, including Sanders' Vermont colleague, Leahy.

He has no hope of winning the nomination anyway.

Insurgent candidates happen in primaries. They don't usually signal a grand shift in overall party position. They're more an outburst of enthusiasm from a certain faction within the party which usually gets overwhelmed by the mainstream favourite. Rick Santorum, Pat Buchanan, Bernie Sanders, Eugene McCarthy etc. etc. Bernie has gone further than most, but he hasn't had much to oppose him.

[J70]

Republicans have cherry picked some of his speech, without considering the olive branch near the end, which I quoted.

Could Republicans make exactly the same speech now, including the olive branch?

I seriously doubt it.

And you seriously think the Dems would not be doing the same if the shoe was on the other foot?

(And What about Schumers and Harry Reid's comments-wete they also taken out of context-LOL)

The Dems have never refused to hold hearings for a republican nomination for almost a full year.
Kennedy was confirmed by a Democratic majority Senate in an election year.
Bork, even though he was strongly opposed by many Democrats was given a hearing, a vote in the Judiciary committee (which he lost) and even a vote on the floor of the Senate (despite not getting passed by the Judiciary committee)

Three of the highest ranking and highest profile Democrats advocated doing exactly what the Republicans are now doing at various points in the last 25 Years. You reap what you sow

"Three of the highest ranking and highest profile Democrats advocated doing exactly what the Republicans are now doing at various points in the last 25 Years. "

No they didn't.

There is not one single instance where the Democrats advocated complete refusal to even hold hearings for the final year of a presidential term.

The current democrat party are way further to the left than ever before something to  be considered

In what way?

I'll grant you that the gap between them and the GOP has increased dramatically, but it ain't the Dems who've shifted.

A Socialist has a really good chance of becoming the Dem nominee and you don't think the party has shifted to the left?

Except he hasn't

When all is said and done and this thing is done, he will have gotten almost as many actual votes as Hillary. Dem party won't (or at least wouldn't) release vote totals from Iowa because seemingingly Berne won more actual votes (per MSBNC)

It's only because of the super delegates his window s closing

And the superdelegates are the party establishment.

Until Dems start consistently electing people leaning as far left as Bernie, and engaging in the primary warfare that has purged the GOP of almost all its moderates in the last six years, you can't really claim that the party is shifting.

[Eamonnca1]

The current democrat party are way further to the left than ever before something to  be considered

Not a bit of it. FDR would be denounced as a commie if he tried to run today. Ditto for Reagan (peace be upon his name). US politics has all shifted so far to the right that it's long overdue a leftward shunt, which we're starting to see.

[DuffleKing]

When all is said and done and this thing is done, he will have gotten almost as many actual votes as Hillary. Dem party won't (or at least wouldn't) release vote totals from Iowa because seemingingly Berne won more actual votes (per MSBNC)

It's only because of the super delegates his window s closing

I'm a big Bernie fan but i'm a little hazy on some aspects of how these primaries are put together.

The official Iowa results say Hillary got 49.9% - 701 votes translating into 23 delegates while Bernie got 49.6% - 697 votes translating into 21 delegates.

What am I missing?

[Declan]

This who Clinton should add to the ticket


POLITICS
GOP Congressman Says Elizabeth Warren Needs To Be 'Neutered'
Because she is the "Darth Vader of the financial services world."


A Republican congressman on the House Committee on Financial Services thinks Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), one of the most vocal advocates for Wall Street reform, needs to be "neutered."

Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-Mo.) made the comments during a panel discussion at an American Bankers Association conference Wednesday. According to Politico, Luetkemeyer said people needed to "find a way to neuter" Warren, whom he called the "Darth Vader of the financial services world."

Rep. Ed Perlmutter (D-Colo.), who was also on the panel, criticized the comments, saying Warren "speaks for a lot of people," according to Politico.

"Senator Warren speaks for a lot of people who are frustrated and angry with the financial system. Regardless of politics or personalities, we must treat one another with civility and respect. Words matter – particularly in today's political climate," Perlmutter said in a follow-up statement. "And the words used yesterday by Representative Luetkemeyer do not help find solutions but only drive wedges."

Asked about the comments during an appearance on MSNBC's "All in with Chris Hayes," Wednesday evening, Warren was unfazed.

"Look, if Wall Street and their buddies in the Republican party want to launch an assault on financial regulations and they want to say 'let's roll back Dodd-Frank' all I can say is 'let's have that fight,'" she said. "I'm ready. You can make it with words or anything else you want, but I am not backing down."

Nita Chaudhary, co-founder of UltraViolet, an advocacy group working to expand women's rights, said the comments showed how GOP presidential front-runner Donald Trump's rhetoric had seeped into political discourse.

"Luetkemeyer should immediately apologize to Senator Warren for his offensive language," she said. "There is plenty of room for disagreement in Washington, but resorting to sexist name-calling should have no place in our political discourse."

Luetkemeyer's office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Warren followed up on the comments in an email to supporters on Thursday with the subject line "I won't be neutered." The senator said she always identified more with Princess Leia.

"My first thought was Really? I've always seen myself more as a Princess Leia-type (as a senator and Resistance general who, unlike the guys, is never even remotely tempted by the dark side). Clearly the Force is not strong with Congressman Luetkemeyer (maybe he's a Trekkie)."

She went on to accuse the congressman of being beholden to financial interests, noting he's taken over $1 million in donations since 2008 from the financial services industry.

"Why would he go out of his way to say something so sexist and offensive? Is he hostile to all women? Clueless? Afraid? And then I had a second thought: This is all about money," she wrote. "Congressman Luetkemeyer was on a panel about the 'changing political landscape' in a room full of Wall Street bankers –powerful people who have been working for years to roll back financial reform. Trying to land the best zinger with my name is just one more way to earn chits and try to cash in big time with that audience."

[whitey]

When all is said and done and this thing is done, he will have gotten almost as many actual votes as Hillary. Dem party won't (or at least wouldn't) release vote totals from Iowa because seemingingly Berne won more actual votes (per MSBNC)

It's only because of the super delegates his window s closing

I'm a big Bernie fan but i'm a little hazy on some aspects of how these primaries are put together.


The official Iowa results say Hillary got 49.9% - 701 votes translating into 23 delegates while Bernie got 49.6% - 697 votes translating into 21 delegates.

What am I missing?

https://www.quora.com/Why-does-the-Democratic-Party-only-release-State-Delegate-Equivalents-instead-of-total-votes-in-the-Iowa-caucus

[stew]

Disgusting scenes at the Trump rally in Chicago by the libtards.
The usual suspects out in force ready to disrupt and start riots at the first sign of something they disagree with.
The media did a good job stopping news of all the looting and gunfire after the rally, cos lets face it, not like them to miss an opportunity to do some free shopping!

The bright spot here is that the general american public will now wake up and see that if these types hate Trump so much then he must be doing something right.
The Kenyan lad has brought them to this point with his policies and pandering to sections of the community. It needs to stop.

Have a look at this and keep on blaming the liberals . . . Do Trump and his supporters not deserve their fair share of the blame??

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/rachel-maddow-explains-how-donald-trumps-rhetoric-has-ramped-up-violence-at-rallies-video_uk_56e69b0be4b05c52666ec8c4

Like I said before, there is no reason for anti-trump protestors to attend his rallies. These anti-trump bullies are the ones inflaming the situation and should let democracy take its course even if they don't like his message.

If there was no popular support for Mr Trumps policies he wouldn't be winning all these states. Just shows the american public are sick of pandering to the PC brigade and are willing to be more vocal about it now.

Have you read the US Constitution?? First amendment means that liberals can protest Trump all they want!! Are you saying that people shouldn't be allowed to exercise their first amendment rights just because they are liberal?

Liberals cannot protest inside a building he is renting you imbecile!

Why do you lads never take responsibility for anything, these c***ts that went in and disrupted his meeting should have been jailed, they broke the law but under this w**k stain bo anything goes.

[J70]

Disgusting scenes at the Trump rally in Chicago by the libtards.
The usual suspects out in force ready to disrupt and start riots at the first sign of something they disagree with.
The media did a good job stopping news of all the looting and gunfire after the rally, cos lets face it, not like them to miss an opportunity to do some free shopping!

The bright spot here is that the general american public will now wake up and see that if these types hate Trump so much then he must be doing something right.
The Kenyan lad has brought them to this point with his policies and pandering to sections of the community. It needs to stop.

Have a look at this and keep on blaming the liberals . . . Do Trump and his supporters not deserve their fair share of the blame??

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/rachel-maddow-explains-how-donald-trumps-rhetoric-has-ramped-up-violence-at-rallies-video_uk_56e69b0be4b05c52666ec8c4

Like I said before, there is no reason for anti-trump protestors to attend his rallies. These anti-trump bullies are the ones inflaming the situation and should let democracy take its course even if they don't like his message.

If there was no popular support for Mr Trumps policies he wouldn't be winning all these states. Just shows the american public are sick of pandering to the PC brigade and are willing to be more vocal about it now.

Have you read the US Constitution?? First amendment means that liberals can protest Trump all they want!! Are you saying that people shouldn't be allowed to exercise their first amendment rights just because they are liberal?

Liberals cannot protest inside a building he is renting you imbecile!

Why do you lads never take responsibility for anything, these c***ts that went in and disrupted his meeting should have been jailed, they broke the law but under this w**k stain bo anything goes.

"w**kstain"??

WTF has Obama got to do with what happens at these rallies? 

It is a matter for the local authories i.e. Chicago police (or university police, if they have the jurisdiction), Cook County DA etc. etc.

[muppet]

http://www.rte.ie/news/business/2016/0318/775685-economic-risk-eiu/

Trump presidency as risky as jihadist militancy to world economy - EIU study

The prospect of Donald Trump winning the US presidency represents a global threat on a par with jihadist militancy destabilising the world economy, according to British research group EIU.

In the latest version of its Global Risk assessment, the Economist Intelligence Unit ranked victory for the Republican front-runner at 12 on an index where the current top threat is a Chinese economic "hard landing" rated 20.

Justifying the threat level, the EIU highlighted the tycoon's alienation towards China as well as his comments on Islamist extremism, saying a proposal to stop Muslims from entering the United States would be a "potent recruitment tool for jihadi groups".

It also raised the spectre of a trade war under a Trump presidency and pointed out that his policies "tend to be prone to constant revision".

"He has been exceptionally hostile towards free trade, including notably NAFTA (the North American Free Trade Agreement), and has repeatedly labelled China as a 'currency manipulator'." it said.

"He has also taken an exceptionally right-wing stance on the Middle East and jiadhi terrorism, including, among other things, advocating the killing of families of terrorists and launching a land incursion into Syria to wipe out IS (and acquire its oil)."

[foxcommander]

"w**kstain"??

WTF has Obama got to do with what happens at these rallies? 

Funny that the first person you thought of was the Kenyan lad. 

[J70]

"w**kstain"??

WTF has Obama got to do with what happens at these rallies? 

Funny that the first person you thought of was the Kenyan lad. 

Nah, read again... stew typed "...but under this w**k stain bo..."

[Taylor]

That country is in a mess but could Trump do any worse than start multiple wars, invade countries for oil, increase the gap between rich & poor etc?

Let him at it and see what he can do.