Re: Democratic debates
 

[quote=FRPLG;1139076][B]Hillary just isn't a very good candidate[/B]. She's a good candidate for 30 years ago when running for president wasn't just a popularity contest based on who seemed the coolest, or gave the best speeches, or could rev up an extreme and vocal element of an ideology. Accomplished politicians inherently suck as candidates now. Hence we have a bunch of what we call "outsiders" running this shit show. Outsider is code for inexperienced and probably unqualified.[/quote]

Not to mention......thief...............charlatan....etc

Re: Democratic debates
 

If you want to legalize weed, or not legalize weed, I don't really care. If you want to smoke weed knock yourself out. But just get yourself educated, the notion that it's not harmful is nonsense perpetuated by those who simply enjoy it:

[QUOTE]For this study, researchers randomly selected more than 5,000 young adults from 18 and 30 and followed up with them at varying points over 25 years. At the end of the 25 years, there were more than 3,400 participants still in the study. Their cognitive function was measured using standardized tests of verbal memory, processing speed and executive function.

They found current marijuana use was associated with poorer verbal memory and processing speed, and lifetime exposure to marijuana was associated with worse performance in all three areas of cognitive function.

The study analyzed IQ at 13, before marijuana was used, and again at 38. The results showed that the early initiators and constant users demonstrated the largest decline in IQ scores.[/QUOTE]

[url=http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/10/health/marijuana-weed-verbal-memory/index.html]Weed users have poorer verbal memory in middle age - CNN.com[/url]

Re: Democratic debates
 

That said I'm not opposed to legalizing it, we allow tobacco and alcohol which you can debate are more or less harmful than weed.

But no, it is not even close to being among my top deciding factors when I think of voting for POTUS.

I tend to put more emphasis on the things that kill people and the things that prevent people from having the opportunity to live a healthy and happy life. Little things, like ISIS, Putin, healthcare, climate, and policies regarding taxes and trade. But who cares about that, let's all toke up!

Re: Democratic debates
 

[quote=Schneed10;1139090]If you want to legalize weed, or not legalize weed, I don't really care. If you want to smoke weed knock yourself out. But just get yourself educated, the notion that it's not harmful is nonsense perpetuated by those who simply enjoy it:



[url=http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/10/health/marijuana-weed-verbal-memory/index.html]Weed users have poorer verbal memory in middle age - CNN.com[/url][/quote]

It's certainly not my top priority but it's definitely something I think should be on the long term presidential agenda. As we all know the war on drugs has been an absolute failure. All the money we've wasted trying to stem the flow of illegal drugs into the country (the fact that we trump about collecting literal tons of drugs coming in yet it only represents 10% of the total amount is ridiculous) when we could be properly taxing it and using that revenue for things that help, like lowering the cost of education/healthcare.

I'm not saying make it totally legal on the state level, because that is up to the states. I'm just saying stop making it illegal on the federal level, which will clear the way for states to make it legal if they want to. And while your link makes a credible point, I will point to the fact that I have grown up with a lot of people that use it (and some of these guys are smart, dedicated professionals who are good at what they do and only use in their free time) while at the same time acknowledging that I know people my age who grow their own, live with their parents, and just get by playing video games and getting high all day. It's different for everyone. There are plenty of people who use it but still are productive members of society.

Not to mention [URL="http://www.ctvnews.ca/health/dad-treating-daughter-s-epilepsy-with-marijuana-oil-relieved-by-scc-ruling-1.2418941"]the medical benefits [/URL] and the fact that there are tons of pro athletes who use it rather than get addicted to pills. As dangerous as you might think it is, I would say alcohol is just is, if not more dangerous than it. Either way, I won't continue this debate. It was one of things I had been thinking about when I wrote that post, but I also agree there are bigger issues at hand, like Daesh, etc. If you want to believe that I think legalizing weed should be a top priority, so be it. I've said my piece though, and I think it's a no brainer with everyone freaking out about how we're going to pay for all these new ideas to fix our country.

Re: Democratic debates
 

[quote=mooby;1139099]It's certainly not my top priority but it's definitely something I think should be on the long term presidential agenda. As we all know the war on drugs has been an absolute failure. All the money we've wasted trying to stem the flow of illegal drugs into the country (the fact that we trump about collecting literal tons of drugs coming in yet it only represents 10% of the total amount is ridiculous) when we could be properly taxing it and using that revenue for things that help, like lowering the cost of education/healthcare.

I'm not saying make it totally legal on the state level, because that is up to the states. I'm just saying stop making it illegal on the federal level, which will clear the way for states to make it legal if they want to. And while your link makes a credible point, I will point to the fact that I have grown up with a lot of people that use it (and some of these guys are smart, dedicated professionals who are good at what they do and only use in their free time) while at the same time acknowledging that I know people my age who grow their own, live with their parents, and just get by playing video games and getting high all day. It's different for everyone. There are plenty of people who use it but still are productive members of society.

Not to mention [URL="http://www.ctvnews.ca/health/dad-treating-daughter-s-epilepsy-with-marijuana-oil-relieved-by-scc-ruling-1.2418941"]the medical benefits [/URL] and the fact that there are tons of pro athletes who use it rather than get addicted to pills. As dangerous as you might think it is, I would say alcohol is just is, if not more dangerous than it. Either way, I won't continue this debate. It was one of things I had been thinking about when I wrote that post, but I also agree there are bigger issues at hand, like Daesh, etc. If you want to believe that I think legalizing weed should be a top priority, so be it. I've said my piece though.[/quote]

Anecdotal evidence (I know a few guys who...) does not hold up well against scientific studies where they track progress against a baseline for 3500 people. Besides, the point isn't whether your friends are productive members of society, the point is how much more productive can they be? If you start with an IQ of 140 and it drops to 130 because of weed, you're still in good shape. But I still wouldn't do it personally. The power of the brain is too significant.

But that should be a value judgment for each person to make on his own.

As for medical benefits, that should be done only under the direction of a physician. Nobody should be trying to decide whether it provides medical benefit for them without the guidance and prescription from a physician. So unless you're a doctor whose job it is to balance the pros and cons of each medicinal option, I'm uninterested in that argument. It can only be made by medical professionals.

And on drug cartels, legalizing weed will have hardly any impact on them. They make most of their money from cocaine, heroin and similar narcotics, not weed. Taking away that business from them would be like telling McDonald's they can't sell the Filet o Fish and McRib anymore. There would be some disappointment but they'd survive just fine on their Big Macs and Egg McMuffins.

Re: Democratic debates
 

But forgive me, I read your original post on the matter and thought it to mean it was a high priority for you. I misread.

Re: Democratic debates
 

So the whole marginal tax rates of 70 - 90 in the 50's 60's and 70's got me curious. I was aware the rates existed and that these rates really only applied to the very rich. (i.e. multi-millionaires). I was also aware that, unlike today's four tax brackets, back in the day the had 24 tax brackets. In 1969, the marginal rate for those earners making ~$112K (adjusted for inflation) was at 36% as opposed to today where income of $143K is taxed 28%.

So yes, tax rates were much higher the 50's -70's. For everyone.

To me, however, tax rates are only part of the story. Yes, taxes were higher. However, what effect has lowered marginal rates had on the total federal income [I]from[/I] taxes.

Also, tax laws change, and while marginal rates were high, without an understanding of allowable exemptions, credits and deductions, marginal tax rates are guidelines but not indicative of the real tax rates.

Here are a couple sites that are useful - they have all sorts of charts for number nerds.

This site shows the historical tax rates in nominal and adjusted income: [url=http://taxfoundation.org/article/us-federal-individual-income-tax-rates-history-1913-2013-nominal-and-inflation-adjusted-brackets]U.S. Federal Individual Income Tax Rates History, 1862-2013 (Nominal and Inflation-Adjusted Brackets) | Tax Foundation[/url]

This is the OMB website with tons of charts and stuff:
[url]https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals[/url]

I looked at the chart: Table 2.1—Receipts by Source: 1934–2021
It shows income in nominal (unadjusted) dollars.

To really get a sense of tax rates v. income, you would need to correlate the two in 2016 dollars to see where or if marginal rate changes had an effect on actual govt. income.

To me, the question, "should we go back to this model of super-high tax brackets for the super rich?" involves a much more nuanced approach than "taxes bad v. tax the rich." Fundamentally, I oppose taxation as a method of enforced wealth transfer because, in today's economy and as long as the govt. is doing the redistribution, I do not believe it solves the underlying problem of income inequality and is, instead, treating the symptom rather than the illness.

Would we face economic ruin if we reinstituted the 70-90% tax rates on the wealthiest of the superwealthy? No. Would we expand income dependency on the central govt. and, in turn, lessen real economic freedom? Yes.

Re: Democratic debates
 

[quote=Schneed10;1139101]Anecdotal evidence (I know a few guys who...) does not hold up well against scientific studies where they track progress against a baseline for 3500 people. Besides, the point isn't whether your friends are productive members of society, the point is how much more productive can they be? If you start with an IQ of 140 and it drops to 130 because of weed, you're still in good shape. But I still wouldn't do it personally. The power of the brain is too significant.

But that should be a value judgment for each person to make on his own.

As for medical benefits, that should be done only under the direction of a physician. Nobody should be trying to decide whether it provides medical benefit for them without the guidance and prescription from a physician. So unless you're a doctor whose job it is to balance the pros and cons of each medicinal option, I'm uninterested in that argument. It can only be made by medical professionals.

And on drug cartels, legalizing weed will have hardly any impact on them. They make most of their money from cocaine, heroin and similar narcotics, not weed. Taking away that business from them would be like telling McDonald's they can't sell the Filet o Fish and McRib anymore. There would be some disappointment but they'd survive just fine on their Big Macs and Egg McMuffins.[/quote]

I agree that anecdotal evidence shouldn't hold up against scientific evidence, but my point is that amongst the younger members of society today, its' use is widespread enough that its' harmfulness has been totally destigmatized. I won't argue about its' longterm degenerative effects, but I would say it's probably on par with tobacco or to a lesser degree alcohol, both of which will continue to be legal even as studies come out showing how unhealthy they are.

I also agree on the medical benefits, obviously those that truly need it should consult with a doctor first. But from cancer patients using it to epileptics that control their seizures with it, I feel like it's obvious there are medical benefits to it.

As for the cartels, no doubt there are far worse drugs that make plenty of money for them. But weed remains one of the most popular drugs out there and probably still makes up a decent chunk of their business percentage wise. I'd argue heroin use is on the rise thanks to the prescription drug abuse, but weed is probably the Big Mac of the cartels. It might not be their money maker compared to other drugs but it still remains one of the most popular products on the market (though with states like Colorado/Washington/I think Alaska as well leading the way the process of legalization is starting to come around, which might be making a slight dip in cartel pockets.)

Anyways, nice debating with you. I realize it's mostly for naught but I appreciate the civility.

Re: Democratic debates
 

[quote=Schneed10;1139101]Anecdotal evidence (I know a few guys who...) does not hold up well against scientific studies where they track progress against a baseline for 3500 people. Besides, the point isn't whether your friends are productive members of society, the point is how much more productive can they be? If you start with an IQ of 140 and it drops to 130 because of weed, you're still in good shape. But I still wouldn't do it personally. The power of the brain is too significant.

But that should be a value judgment for each person to make on his own.

As for medical benefits, that should be done only under the direction of a physician. Nobody should be trying to decide whether it provides medical benefit for them without the guidance and prescription from a physician. So unless you're a doctor whose job it is to balance the pros and cons of each medicinal option, I'm uninterested in that argument. It can only be made by medical professionals.

And on drug cartels, legalizing weed will have hardly any impact on them. [B]They make most of their money from cocaine, heroin and similar narcotics, not weed.[/B] Taking away that business from them would be like telling McDonald's they can't sell the Filet o Fish and McRib anymore. There would be some disappointment but they'd survive just fine on their Big Macs and Egg McMuffins.[/quote]

Not true, Marijuana is their biggest cash crop and money maker do to the amount of demand based the enormous amount of users compared to the heroin, meth and cocaine users. Cocaine consumption is way, way down. Regardless, the cartels aren't hurt because they have a ton of business verticles these days...drugs, extortion, human traffic, etc.

Remember Mooby, you want the weed from Canada, not mexico.

lil bit of stats...1 million kilos of weed seized at the border...they usually get 10% of being imported...so looking at 10 million kilos of weed yearly from the southwest border.

Heroin: 1,855 kilos seized...10%...18,555 being imported yearly.

[url]http://www.dea.gov/resource-center/DIR-017-13%20NDTA%20Summary%20final.pdf[/url]

guess whats the biggest drug threat to our country? the legal prescription business per the DEA. Shocker? We let these big Pharm hook up and kill more folks than illegal drugs.

Re: Democratic debates
 

[quote=Schneed10;1139095]
I tend to put more emphasis on the[B] things that kill people and the things that prevent people from having the opportunity to live a healthy and happy life. Little things, like ISIS, Putin[/B], healthcare, climate, and policies regarding taxes and trade. But who cares about that, let's all toke up![/quote]

drug deals/drug violence kill more americans than isis or putin. legalization increases revenue, lowers jail populations, and results in harm reduction by removing it as a grey/black market item with no legal framework for oversight or regulation.

not saying that it's the end all/be all, but it is a practical/pragmatic solution. like prohibition, making it illegal really hasn't done much to slow the demand.


as for taxes, the US gets a much larger share of it's revenue through income taxes compared to most countries, which rely more heavily on consumption/service taxes instead, which is why there's always so much hand wringing about it.

Re: Democratic debates
 

Not a big issue eh? For tax revenue alone it's huge.

[url]http://time.com/4037604/colorado-marijuana-tax-revenue/[/url]

And then there's the issue of our overcrowded prisons, wasted law enforcement $$, etc.

Re: Democratic debates
 

[quote=MTK;1139133]Not a big issue eh? For tax revenue alone it's huge.

[url=http://time.com/4037604/colorado-marijuana-tax-revenue/]Colorado Brings in $70 Million in Pot Tax Revenue[/url]

And then there's the issue of our overcrowded prisons, wasted law enforcement $$, etc.[/quote]

Matty hate to burst the bubble. But you have to keep the dollar values in perspective. 70 million doesn't even register as a drop in the bucket for a state's budget. It is by monetary definition, a very small issue.

Re: Democratic debates
 

[quote=That Guy;1139131]drug deals/drug violence kill more americans than isis or putin. legalization increases revenue, lowers jail populations, and results in harm reduction by removing it as a grey/black market item with no legal framework for oversight or regulation.

not saying that it's the end all/be all, but it is a practical/pragmatic solution. like prohibition, making it illegal really hasn't done much to slow the demand.


as for taxes, the US gets a much larger share of it's revenue through income taxes compared to most countries, which rely more heavily on consumption/service taxes instead, which is why there's always so much hand wringing about it.[/quote]

I feel like I'm having a coversation with a bunch of stoners. Eye on the ball, That Guy. Most drug deaths and violence is not tied to weed, it's tied to narcotics. And nobody in their right mind would suggest it's in the best interests of society to legalize heroin or cocaine because of the explosive addictive nature combined with major health and death risk.

Legalizing marijuana will not reduce drug related deaths significantly. Legalizing narcotics would trade criminal drug deaths for many many more overdose deaths.

Re: Democratic debates
 

[quote=Schneed10;1139135]Matty hate to burst the bubble. But you have to keep the dollar values in perspective. 70 million doesn't even register as a drop in the bucket for a state's budget. It is by monetary definition, a very small issue.[/quote]

Colorado's total revenue in 2014 was ~7.8 billion. So pot tax was about .9% of their total revenue picture.

Re: Democratic debates
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;1139138]Colorado's total revenue in 2014 was ~7.8 billion. So pot tax was about .9% of their total revenue picture.[/quote]

Exactly. I'm not a Coloradan (Coloradoan? Colorodite?) but I am a Pennsylvanian. If PA were to legalize and tax it, I'd be fine with it because live and let live, but how can anyone possibly consider it a big issue?

What's bigger, raising 1% of revenues, or figuring how to best spend the existing 99%?

Whatever, legalize it or don't, I don't care. But you guys are REALLY stretching if you think it's a big consequential thing.

Re: Democratic debates
 

[quote=Schneed10;1139139]Exactly. I'm not a Coloradan (Coloradoan? Colorodite?) but I am a Pennsylvanian. If PA were to legalize and tax it, I'd be fine with it because live and let live, but how can anyone possibly consider it a big issue?

What's bigger, raising 1% of revenues, or figuring how to best spend the existing 99%?

Whatever, legalize it or don't, I don't care. But you guys are REALLY stretching if you think it's a big consequential thing.[/quote]

It's like a 3rd tier issue IMO...but it's a subject that intertwined with larger problems: justice system reform, drug war in Mexico & failed US drug war, and immigration and our loose border.

Re: Democratic debates
 

The rabbit hole is much deeper than taxes. How about what keeping it illegal costs us.

[url]http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/marijuana-prohibition-costs_n_3123397.html[/url]

Re: Democratic debates
 

[quote=Chico23231;1139112]Not true, Marijuana is their biggest cash crop and money maker do to the amount of demand based the enormous amount of users compared to the heroin, meth and cocaine users. Cocaine consumption is way, way down. Regardless, the cartels aren't hurt because they have a ton of business verticles these days...drugs, extortion, human traffic, etc. .[/quote]

I know we're basically in agreement, the cartels won't be affected by whatever the US does with weed. But do you have any facts to back up your assessment that marijuana is the biggest cash crop?? Remember, a Kilo of heroin and a kilo of weed have very different street values.

Weed has higher demand but you're not talking about the same price, not even remotely.

Re: Democratic debates
 

[quote=MTK;1139143]The rabbit hole is much deeper than taxes. How about what keeping it illegal costs us.

[url=http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/marijuana-prohibition-costs_n_3123397.html]Marijuana Prohibition Now Costs The Government $20 Billion A Year: Economist[/url][/quote]

Matty, again, he's saying it costs all state and federal governments combined $20 billion. Do you know what the federal budget is, in total? $3.8 trillion. So let's not even bother adding in the 50 state budgets into that and just stick with the $3.8 trillion.

$20 billion as a % of $3.8 trillion is 0.5%.

If I convert that in terms of the NFL salary cap, because you know I like that shit, 0.5% of the $153 million salary cap is $765,000. In other words it's one veteran minimum (! lol) salary player.

It's not a big issue.

Re: Democratic debates
 

[quote=Schneed10;1139144]I know we're basically in agreement, the cartels won't be affected by whatever the US does with weed. But do you have any facts to back up your assessment that marijuana is the biggest cash crop?? Remember, a Kilo of heroin and a kilo of weed have very different street values.

Weed has higher demand but you're not talking about the same price, not even remotely.[/quote]

yeah...there is a ton of different data out there, but hectares of tweed grown is mexico is down. Poppy is way up over the last 5 years. in comparison of cartel price based on seizure figures, if you give the cartel max price of 5,000 for kilo of heroin and the farmer wholesale price (the lowest possible for cartel) of $25 for marijuana still totals due to volume is much higher for marijuana. cheap marijuana not going away, but the cartel marketshare certainly dented due to legalization in the US.

These figures don't take into consideration of cartels marijuana grows in the US, this has become preferable. You could probably add an additional 10-15% in total kilo.

cash crops hay, sugar still higher than marijuana at this point.

Re: Democratic debates
 

[quote=Chico23231;1139148][B]yeah...there is a ton of different data out there[/B], but hectares of tweed grown is mexico is down. Poppy is way up over the last 5 years. in comparison of cartel price based on seizure figures, if you give the cartel max price of 5,000 for kilo of heroin and the farmer wholesale price (the lowest possible for cartel) of $25 for marijuana still totals due to volume is much higher for marijuana. cheap marijuana not going away, but the cartel marketshare certainly dented due to legalization in the US.

These figures don't take into consideration of cartels marijuana grows in the US, this has become preferable. You could probably add an additional 10-15% in total kilo.

cash crops hay, sugar still higher than marijuana at this point.[/quote]

Can I please see some of that data? Or I'm calling bullshit.

Re: Democratic debates
 

[quote=Schneed10;1139149]Can I please see some of that data? Or I'm calling bullshit.[/quote]

dude seriously? First take the link from the "Drug threat assessment" report from the DEA I first posted which will give you the volume.

[url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/national/2015/09/24/pellets-planes-and-the-new-frontier/]Following heroin's path from Mexico to the Midwest | The Washington Post[/url]

heroin resurgent report from the post...cartel price of 5K which actually seems a little high.

Then $25 a kilo farmer price!!!!...I mean, Im giving on the absolute bottom price for a farmer in the mexico. You can probable add 50%(again minimum) on top of that for the cartel because he is the one-stop, wholesale purchaser.

Democratic debates
 

[QUOTE=Schneed10;1139145]Matty, again, he's saying it costs all state and federal governments combined $20 billion. Do you know what the federal budget is, in total? $3.8 trillion. So let's not even bother adding in the 50 state budgets into that and just stick with the $3.8 trillion.



$20 billion as a % of $3.8 trillion is 0.5%.



If I convert that in terms of the NFL salary cap, because you know I like that shit, 0.5% of the $153 million salary cap is $765,000. In other words it's one veteran minimum (! lol) salary player.



It's not a big issue.[/QUOTE]


I understand in terms of the numbers, but all this over a relatively benign substance, putting people in prison and ruining lives over it, is absurd.

And $20b is still $20b, I'm sure that could be allocated more wisely.

Re: Democratic debates
 

[quote=MTK;1139152]I understand in terms of the numbers, but all this over a relatively benign substance, putting people in prison and ruining lives over it, is absurd.

And $20b is still $20b, I'm sure that could be allocated more wisely.[/quote]

Yeah no argument that its about as benign as alcohol and tobacco, maybe even more so. But it's a freakin recreation. We have serious injustices to deal with in this country, from healthcare costs and coverage to equal pay for women to how we deal with international terror threats, etc. etc.

You can't prioritize a recreational activity over these much more serious matters, not on the basis of $ cost and not on the basis of the gravity of the impact on the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness (the most important being life).

Re: Democratic debates
 

who's saying we're prioritizing it? i'm just saying it makes sense to do things that make sense. the cons of legalization are pretty low, so it's not like there's a strong financial or safety risk compared to some of the more intractable issues.

again,, you're saying :why don't we deal with terror first" because terror is an arbitrary term and kills less americans than drug violence. how many americans died to foreign terrorism last year?

if we're prioritizing harm reduction, international terrorism falls very low on the list. alcohol and drugs land much much higher. and people definitely die to pot deals too, any time you put big money and people that aren't afraid of committing crimes in the same place, bad things can happen.

Re: Democratic debates
 

[quote=That Guy;1139158]who's saying we're prioritizing it? i'm just saying it makes sense to do things that make sense. the cons of legalization are pretty low, so it's not like there's a strong financial or safety risk compared to some of the more intractable issues.

again,, you're saying :why don't we deal with terror first" because terror is an arbitrary term and kills less americans than drug violence. how many americans died to foreign terrorism last year?

if we're prioritizing harm reduction, international terrorism falls very low on the list. alcohol and drugs land much much higher. and people definitely die to pot deals too, any time you put big money and people that aren't afraid of committing crimes in the same place, bad things can happen.[/quote]

K follow me here.

Unless you're a complete sheep, I'm sure there are subjects upon which you agree with the democrats and subjects upon which you agree with the republicans.

Parenthetically, if you line up entirely behind one party or the other on every single issue, then you're not really much of an independent thinker. But you guys are all sharp.

So when you decide who to vote for, how do you reconcile those conflicts? For example, I personally can't stand that republicans are opposed to gay marriage rights, but I'm also very supportive of their stance on trade policy, particularly with China. How do you decide how to break those kinds of ties?

You prioritize. You decide which policies are more important to you, and you put more weight on them.

All I'm saying is this weed issue can't possibly factor big into your voting choice, or I worry about how you think through your priorities.

I jumped on Mooby because I read his post to mean that this is a big issue for him. I since realized I misunderstood. While I agree that legalizing pot just makes practical sense, I can't believe it would factor into anybody's decision on who to vote for.

And maybe it's not factoring into your decision on who to vote for. In which case I'm sorry I even engaged in the discussion, because who cares.

Re: Democratic debates
 

yeah, no, it has nothing to do with deciding who i vote for, it's really not the president's job either, it's congress's, i just think it's a reasonable thing to do. I don't think anyone is using it as issue #1 in who to pick, so i guess we were kind of talking past each other. that's for the articulation, the thread makes a lot more sense now.

i really wish our political process didn't cater to short sighted, self-serving a-holes. it just seems like every 4 years i have to make a binary decision between different shades of terrible/

Re: Democratic debates
 

From a CNN entrance poll in Nevada



Top candidate quality
1024 total respondents
[I]Can win in November HC-80 BS - 15
[/I][B]Cares about people HC 26 BS - 72
Honesty and Trust HC 12 BS - 82
[/B][I]Right Experience HC 92 BS - 8[/I]

Those are some stark numbers.

Re: Democratic debates
 

[url=http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/17/politics/democrat-bernie-sanders-revolt/index.html]Dems' new fear: Sanders revolt could upend Democratic convention - CNNPolitics.com[/url]


Sen. Barbara Boxer, a veteran of Democratic politics, says she never saw anything quite like this before.

Loud cursing, shouting, obscene gestures and vile insults, including crude comments about the female anatomy. It was all on display over the weekend as supporters of Bernie Sanders turned the Nevada State Democratic Convention into chaos.

"I was not able to stop these people for doing what they did," Boxer, a Hillary Clinton supporter, told CNN. "Apparently they've done it before. .... This group of about 100 were very vocal, and I can't describe it -- disrespectful doesn't even explain it, it was worse than that."



READ: Changing super delegate rules would still leave Sanders behind

Boxer is hardly the lone Clinton supporter to experience such harassment on the campaign trail. Several top Democrats told CNN publicly and privately that the energy and enthusiasm of Sanders supporters has at times descended into incendiary attacks that threaten to tear apart efforts to unite Democrats against Donald Trump. Several female senators told CNN the attacks have been misogynistic.



Feel the burn bitches

Re: Democratic debates
 

Hillary just gave Bernie and his supporters the ultimate fuck you...lololololol with the Tim Kaine choice.

Kaine is a really nice guy...normal guy. Met him at a small bar/music venue bout 5'years ago. Really cool guy. Very moderate with his views. He isn't a Vice President type IMO, but he is a good choice for Hillary.

Kaine actually lives about a mile from my sister in a very ordinary house in a cool neighborhood. He isn't and never been an elitist like Clintons or the Obamas.

Re: Democratic debates
 

Richmond Law professor. Spider Pride.

Re: Democratic debates
 

Bernie got hosed? The DNC is rigged? Shocking....lol

[url=http://www.snopes.com/2016/07/22/wikileaks-dumps-dnc-emails/]Wikileaks Dumps Democratic National Committee E-Mails : snopes.com[/url]

Re: Democratic debates
 

[url=http://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/23/wikileaks-hits-dnc-ahead-of-convention-competes-with-kaine-vp-nomination.html]Wikileaks hits DNC ahead of convention, competes with Kaine VP nomination[/url]

[url=http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/22/politics/dnc-wikileaks-emails/]DNC chair won't speak at Dem convention following Wikileaks fallout - CNNPolitics.com[/url]

Everyone, lets watch how the national media handles the biggest scandal of the presidential election...wikileaks and how the dnc party colluded to screw Bernie.

Trump was right the whole time, the system was rigged against Bernie.

It's so funny how the Democrats portray themselves as the party who is totally inclusive of ideas and people, therefore are morally higher than the gop. But guess what? They aren't, they do the opposite and even take it a step farther to collude against its own electorate.

How in the hell do you vote for Hillary now? Especially if for any second you supported Bernie?

Did the gop collude to replace trump? No, they moved forward...but the democrats, the party came together to do everything they could to put Hillary as their candidate.

Trump is right, Bernie got screwed and Hillary and the DNC are clearly to blame.

Re: Democratic debates
 

[url=http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/twitter-accused-of-suppressing-dnc-wikileaks-story/article/2597460]Twitter accused of suppressing DNC Wikileaks story | Washington Examiner[/url]

Looks like social media platform Twitter has already attempted to censor the dnc wiki leaks story.

Folks, like I said...watch how the media covers this story. They suppress stuff they don't want to report

Re: Democratic debates
 

[url=http://www.msnbc.com]MSNBC — Breaking News, Top Stories, & Show Clips[/url]

The dnc wiki leaks story is nowhere to be found on msnbc. Lol...unbelievable


Good article here:

[url=http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/bernie-sanders-campaign-chief-accountable-dnc-emails-show/story?id=40825318]Bernie Sanders Campaign Chief Says Someone Must Be 'Accountable' for What DNC Emails Show - ABC News[/url]

So true, the media talks about two lines of a speech by Melina trump for 3 straight days, but folks want to suppress this story. Unbiased much?

Re: Democratic debates
 

Biased media?????

Several of the emails released indicate that the officials, including Wasserman Schultz, grew increasingly agitated with Sanders and his campaign as the primary season advanced, in one instance even floating [B]bringing up Sanders' religion to try and minimize his support.[/B]
"It might may [sic] no difference, but for KY and WA can we get someone to ask his belief," Brad Marshall, CFO of DNC, wrote in an email on May 5, 2016. "[B]Does he believe in God. He had skated on saying he has a Jewish heritage. I read he is an atheist. This could make several points difference with my peeps. My southern baptist peeps would draw a big difference between a Jew and an atheist."[/B]

Re: Democratic debates
 

I tell you, Hillary is a master politician...Bernie, the only burn he feels now is from getting bent over. Bernie has to go along with Hillary now...the progressives were used and abused by Hillary and her crew, now she has pivoted back to the center with the Kaine choice AFTER the endorsement of Bernie.

Bernie and the progressive movement ain't gonna do shit about the wikileaks...they are just gonna bend over...that's this generation, all talk. Not tough enough to stand up and do anything about it. P*ssies. Lol Hillary played y'all big time!

Re: Democratic debates
 

Well...who is all that surprised there was something wrong with the outcome of the Dem Primary? By appearance, Bernie kept winning the states..BUT could not get any traction.
It is the way the Hill & Bill show has always done business and will continue to. It just took some inspired email work by "Debbie does the DNC" to bring it to light........
AND what did the 220m in donations collected by Bernie go for?
.....nothing

Re: Democratic debates
 

Amazed at the silence of certain posters who called the Republican convention a clown show. The DNC Chair got booed and sounded like a kindergarten teacher BY HER OWN STATE DELEGATION, AT THEIR OWN EVENT. Let's settle down people(her words). Behave like good boys and girls(my interpretation). Amazing!!!

I know it's not exactly related, but how in the hell should any Democratic nominee be trusted with national security, when they a) don't understand what Classified means, and b) can't control their own email servers. Don't get me wrong, I am sure it will be a matter of moments before some RNC emails are leaked and the media says see no one can be perfect....

both parties are soooo screwed up ! it's really sad.

Re: Democratic debates
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;1144884]Amazed at the silence of certain posters who called the Republican convention a clown show. The DNC Chair got booed and sounded like a kindergarten teacher IN HER OWN STATE, AT THEIR OWN EVENT. Let's settle down people(her words). Behave like good boys and girls(my interpretation). Amazing!!!

I know it's not exactly related, but how in the hell should any Democratic nominee be trusted with national security, when they a) don't understand what Classified means, and b) can't control their own email servers. Don't get me wrong, I am sure it will be a matter of moments before some RNC emails are leaked and the media says see no one can be perfect....

both parties are soooo screwed up ! it's really sad.[/quote]

When all else fails blame the Russians...lol

But seriously, these are both just clown shows. Watching MSNBC and CNN talking heads try talk up another democratic embarrassment is rich though. Like I said, complain about 2 sentences from Ms Trump for 3 straight days but make up bullshit excuses for the DNC colluding to get Hillary as the nominee. I mean, its fraud...

These 2 clown shows once again highlight the fact we need more options in this country. I don't see how anybody in their right mind could vote for Hillary or Trump.