jakee

You know meth lords aren't supposed to be role models, right?

How do you know that? May 4th hasn't happened yet.

The anti-war movement. That's pretty obvious.

Not at Kent State on that day.

Because it's a day to remember victims of the military, not the military.

TBH if there's one day a year to not make a decision based on how veterans feel I'd have thought it would be that one.

Trump does favours for friends. It's hardly a secret. He tried to make his personal pilot the chief of the FAA. What would that utterly insane move have gained him? He tried to make his personal doctor head of the VA. What would that ridiculous move have gained him? He made Jared Kushner Czar Of Everything, what did that gain him?

Would have gone for Bernie if what? Clinton got millions more votes than Bernie. If it had been the Presidential race it'd have been called a landslide. You can't explain that away by DNC favouritism.

They appeared together on the Apprentice (Trump's favourite thing) and we know that anyone who Trump has met personally and not yet fallen out with is automatically the best person in the world. See examples including doctors, pilots, family members and multiple dictators.

And instead opts for the occasional 'tyranny' of the minority. Cool.

Sure, but that has absolutely nothing to do with the Democrats changing their procedure, and absolutely nothing to do with the stated reason you are angry in the first place. It’s also nothing that is unique to Bloomberg or a reason to have a problem with him. People who either have a lot of money or raise a lot of money can spend a lot of money. If you disagree with that you can lobby for electoral change, but it’s not Bloomberg’s fault that it’s currently allowed. This makes no sense. Just because they don’t exclude rich people on principle doesn’t mean they don’t value hard work. The two aren’t mutually exclusive. If you want a party that despises rich people as much as you then go join the communists.

Like I said, thinking about it like a poker game prevents you from understanding the situation. Once again, the point is not to reward those who have best worked the nomination process. The point is to find the person that democrats want to run for President. All that Bloomberg has ‘bought’ is a place on the platform. If people like what he says on that platform then it’s right for him to be there. If they don’t like what he has to say then it doesn’t matter.

Yes, you are wrong with that statement. Here's the problem - the nomination process isn't a game. Unlike Poker, its purpose isn't simply to reward the person who's best at playing by a certain set of rigid procedural rules. Its purpose is to find the person who will be the best candidate for the election. So once again, if you've set certain criteria to identify realistic candidates for debate participation, then someone comes along whose method of campaigning means they won't meet those criteria but may well still be strong overall candidates then it can make sense to change the rules in order to achieve your original goal. This is why the poker analogy simply doesn't work, and why you'll never understand the situation if you keep thinking in those terms.

Because the Trump lawsuit is the only reason anyone knows who Avenatti is. Think about it - why did YOU bring the sleazy lawyer into this thread? Because of his history with Trump, obviously. You even brought up Trump yourself in your own post. How can you possibly get pissy about someone else making the same connection you did? Nothing to do with Nike, but since you mentioned Trump in your own post anyway then it's irrelevant - SkyDekker was directly responding to something you said. But you don't have that excuse, so if you're handing out diagnoses then what deep rooted psychological reason caused you to bring up Trump in a post about a situation you claim he had no connecton to?

Oh yeah, for some reason I was only thinking about the sexual assault allegations. Ok, Clinton is definitely a criminal. Um, Turtle - what was your point?

What does that have to do with it? Impeachment isn’t a criminal process. Clinton probably is a criminal, but not because he was impeached. Trump is definitely a criminal, for many reasons that have nothing to do with impeachment.

I don’t see how. And if they continue to prefer what he has to say they’ll continue to be his voters and he’ll be the right choice. If they prefer what Bloomberg has to say then he’ll be the right choice. Doesn’t matter when he started. I don’t believe any of those questions are analogous to the current situation.

You want to fix the unfairness inherent in the EC by massively, massively amplifying the unfairness inherent in the EC?

How so? Trump is clearly a criminal, as much as Avenatti is. The Presidency has both helped his criminality come to light and so far protected him from the consequences of it (re. unindicted co-conspirator). That protection may not last forever. Nothing about any of those statements is based on hate.

All they've done is allow Bloomberg into the conversation. It does sound ike a bit of a procedural fuckup, but if you decide to use fundraising as a metric and are then faced with a potentially popular candidate who is committed to not fundraising then it might be prudent to reconsider. Anyway, now that Bloomberg is in the conversation, if the voters like what he has to say more than Bernie then he will get the nomination - because of the will of the voters. If you're trying to say that allowing Bloomberg onto the stage is the same as stealing the nom from Bernie, then you're surely saying that you don't think Bernie can beat Bloomberg on merit when voters have heard what they both have to say. In which case why have a problem with Bloomberg potentially winning? on the flip side, I absolutely don't think anyone else should drop out now that Bloomberg is in, especially not Bernie or Buttegieg. And I think it would be good for Bloomberg to pledge a lot more money to support whoever gets the nom if it isn't him. That would then be definitely not slimy.

I actually had not. My apologies, it looks like a very good idea and a really interesting concept. Thanks for bringing it up!

Yes necessarily. "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress" How else are you going to change that?

Yes, I saw that and yes, it's a perfect example of the hyperbole you're throwing around and the misleading assumptions you're making. By the way, nothing to say about the substantive part of my post, and why EC college reform isn't happening?

No, after you accused them of meaning something they didn't. Cool it with the lying then. Ball's in your court on that one, it's up to you to show what kind of guy you are.

Liar. Everyone has told you eactly what they meant. You're just choosing not to believe it. Probably because it would take a Constitutional amendment to change, and that's functionally impossible unless the Rs decide to grow some principles. But that doesn't mean they have to stop talking about it.