News 2016 U.S. Presidential election - the highs and lows

John Kerry: presidential campaign descending into 'embarrassment' for US
"The chaos of the 2016 US presidential election “is an embarrassment to our country”, secretary of state John Kerry said on Sunday ... " Well that's about right!
Ted Cruz, "“We can’t become Europe with its failed immigration policies. We can’t repeat their mistakes,” he told Fox News Sunday. “We can’t be forced to live under Sharia law." Hmm ... Ted which European country has Sharia law?
“If I become president, we will carpet-bomb Isis into the ground,” Cruz said.
Like carpet-bombing really worked well in Vietnam not to mention Afghanistan ... Know your history Ted.
2 and half million tons of bombs on Viet .. no wait a moment that was Laos. 500,ooo tons of bombs dropped on Viet ... no wait a moment that was Cambodia (or that could be 2.7 million tons) . 7 million tons of bombs dropped on Vietnam, or something like that. Nobody seems to know!
 
Last edited:
8a45f35c445acf8ff424fdbbad83839c.jpg
 
Hmmm...whenever Bernie wins, it's because he's wonderful, but when Hillary wins, it's because she cheated. :hmm:

I'm not a fan of either but Bernie is at least honest about the way he wants to screw things up. Hilary is a lying shrew.
 
Typical of the media, and Sanders could still win the nomination, but it won't be easy. Sanders needs to to well in the remaining states with big delegate counts such as California (546 delegates), New York (291) and Pennsylvania (210 delegates). These states pose particular problems for Sanders for several reasons: they have significant non-white minority populations, which tends to favour Clinton, and they are primaries, not caucuses, which again seems to favour Clinton (going by the results so far from the Dem primary). Clinton is also way ahead in the polls in these states.
 
... but then there is this:
Yes, federal prosecutors will interview Hillary Clinton, in addition to her close associates.

At what point will establishment Democrats admit this fiasco is horrible for a general election?

When federal prosecutors are interviewing your candidate for president, even Donald Trump has a good chance at the White House.
It’s time for Democrats to deal with reality, not just allegiance to a political icon, and rally around the only candidate not linked to an FBI investigation, and other controversies. With recent victories and future wins ahead, Bernie Sanders has all the political momentum heading towards Election Day. Most importantly, Bernie Sanders is the only leading candidate with positive favorability ratings in 2016.

Hillary Clinton has negative favorability ratings in ten national polls.
More: It's Time for Hillary Clinton to Concede the Democratic Nomination to Bernie Sanders (28. March 2016)
 
  • Like
Reactions: ledboots
I think it's the height of arrogance to suggest that a viable candidate who's won a number of delegates should give up more than seven months before the election and four months before the convention simply because the other candidate, at this stage of the game, SEEMS like the inevitable winner and Hillary might "ruin" things for him. Both Bernie and Hillary are in it to win it. Why not allow the campaign to play out normally just like every other campaign and let the PEOPLE decide who they want? Sheesh.

I also detect a bit of sexism here. It's typical in patriarchal societies to pat the little lady on the head and condescendingly ask her to step aside and let the more "competent" man take over. The minute Bernie decided to run, the media started treating Hillary like, well, her campaign was okay while it lasted, but now that a MAN has a real chance of winning, she can't possibly beat him. Well, screw 'em. The campaign ain't over til it's over.
 
Last edited:
I think it's the height of arrogance to suggest that a viable candidate who's won a number of delegates should give up more than seven months before the election and four months before the convention simply because the other candidate, at this stage of the game, SEEMS like the inevitable winner and Hillary might "ruin" things for him. Both Bernie and Hillary are in it to win it. Why not allow the campaign to play out normally just like every other campaign and let the PEOPLE decide who they want? Sheesh.

I also detect a bit of sexism here. It's typical in patriarchal societies to pat the little lady on the head and condescendingly ask her to step aside and let the more "competent" man take over. The minute Bernie decided to run, the media started treating Hillary like, well, her campaign was okay while it lasted, but now that a MAN has a real chance of winning, she can't possibly beat him. Well, screw 'em. The campaign ain't over til it's over.

Agreed. I'm seeing a lot of sexism, including the use of female-specific pejoratives, like "shrew."

To be clear, I don't accuse Bernie of sexism. However, there's a strong tone of it among segments of his supporters, sufficient that his campaign has asked the Bernie Bros to put a cork in it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Amy SF
It's the friggin' Huffington Post, people. The HP is to serious journalism what the yellow rags in GB are to serious journalism.
Not to mention, the person who wrote this is very pro-Bernie anti-Hillary. If you click on his name, that's what every single blog post he wrote is about, including one talking about the election being stolen from Bernie. :rolleyes:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Amy SF
I think it's the height of arrogance to suggest that a viable candidate who's won a number of delegates should give up more than seven months before the election and four months before the convention simply because the other candidate, at this stage of the game, SEEMS like the inevitable winner and Hillary might "ruin" things for him. Both Bernie and Hillary are in it to win it. Why not allow the campaign to play out normally just like every other campaign and let the PEOPLE decide who they want? Sheesh.
I think this HuffPost headline (and the article itself) needs to be read in context with the many calls in other news media for Sanders to throw in the towel. As the article shows, there are good reasons why he should not, and for why it might well be the other way around. It does seem like a gamble for the Democratic party to run with Clinton as their nominee due to the email scandal.

Also, there is no way in hell Sanders is the inevitable candidate at this point, by any standards, even though some of the more over-enthusiastic supporters might think so. You'll have to forgive them, as it is only that kind of zeal which provides the energy the Sanders campaign needs to accomplish what is an extremely difficult goal in an unequal fight.
 
I also detect a bit of sexism here. It's typical in patriarchal societies to pat the little lady on the head and condescendingly ask her to step aside and let the more "competent" man take over. The minute Bernie decided to run, the media started treating Hillary like, well, her campaign was okay while it lasted, but now that a MAN has a real chance of winning, she can't possibly beat him. Well, screw 'em. The campaign ain't over til it's over.

+1.
 
I think this HuffPost headline (and the article itself) needs to be read in context with the many calls in other news media for Sanders to throw in the towel. As the article shows, there are good reasons why he should not, and for why it might well be the other way around. It does seem like a gamble for the Democratic party to run with Clinton as their nominee due to the email scandal.

Also, there is no way in hell Sanders is the inevitable candidate at this point, by any standards, even though some of the more over-enthusiastic supporters might think so. You'll have to forgive them, as it is only that kind of zeal which provides the energy the Sanders campaign needs to accomplish what is an extremely difficult goal in an unequal fight.

Where are all these media calls for Sanders to throw in the towel?