B-Man
-
Posts
69,611 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by B-Man
-
-
You're giving him too much credit. Racists, to Gatortard, are defined by which political party they vote for. Otherwise, why would he be on here supporting a woman who called the former head of the KKK "noble" and her "mentor"?
Gator doesn't care about race issues. His full blown support of a candidate who has supported racist sentencing and mass incarceration of "super predators".
He's a fraud.
I like how yesterday he misinterpreted the "Donald Trump phenomenon is like the Obama one in 2008" stories as,
Obama is responsible for Trump...............................and he went scrambling to find an article to counter it
Oh well, it keeps him busy til dinnertime at least
poor comprehension.....imagine that......
.
-
WELL, TO BE FAIR, THE WHOLE THING IS ABOUT VIRTUE-SIGNALING AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR GRAFT. PLANET-SAVING IS JUST AN EXCUSE, AND THUS OPTIONAL.
A Hollow Treaty: The EU Can’t Keep Its Climate Promises.
-
So far, Trump wins open primaries and Cruz wins closed … and the calendar is starting to change toward more closed primaries
By Todd Zywicki March 2 at 8:30 AM
Following the South Carolina primary, an interesting article by Michael Harrington went around Facebook that speculated that Donald Trump’s victory in the South Carolina primary was attributable to Democrats voting in the Republican (open) primary. One of the good things about Harrington’s article is that he put out a testable hypothesis — that turnout in the Democratic primary a few days later would be less than 390,000. In fact, it was 367,000. Harrington concludes that had South Carolina had a closed primary, Ted Cruz would have won the primary there. I don’t know him and the author seems to be anti-Trump based on other things he has written — but the fact that his prediction was borne out adds some independent verification to his thesis. So that got me to thinking.
If true, why does this matter? Because so far the primary calendar has been heavily tilted toward open primaries. But there have been four closed elections: the Iowa caucus, the Nevada caucus, and Super Tuesday’s Oklahoma primary and Alaska caucus. Ted Cruz won three of those four closed elections.
So here’s where it potentially gets interesting. Although the media are looking forward to March 15, this Saturday (March 5) there are four Republican primaries/caucuses: Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana and Maine. All are closed.
Then, once the winner-takes-all states begin, a large number of those are closed primaries and caucuses as well (including Florida, for what it’s worth).
That suggests at least two things.
First, the fact that South Carolina and most of the SEC primaries were open primaries may very well explain why those states did not turn out to be Ted Cruz’s firewall or launch states as he had predicted. Oklahoma did perform as expected, being a fairly comfortable win for Cruz. The timeless Pauline Kael quote that has been back in circulation lately may not necessarily be incorrect among actual Republicans.
Second, the four closed primaries and caucuses this Saturday could be very interesting to watch, particularly to see whether Trump can maintain his momentum in closed primary states where he will have to appeal to the traditional Republican base. I haven’t gone through the remainder of the states to calculate in detail how many delegates will be selected through this series of closed primaries and whether those are enough to win. Trump also might start winning closed primaries and caucuses. But this has been his Achilles heel so far.
As I read the headlines today, I have seen no discussion of this bimodal phenomenon that has held so far. The Wall Street Journal’s front page, for example, doesn’t mention it. This suggests that although the media are focusing on Florida and Ohio, there is another story here that is being overlooked as to whether Trump can consistently establish himself with the traditional Republican base.
-
Why not Hillary?
by Jane
Look, Trump is spectacularly awful. Cruz is just bad. And Rubio? Well, I support him, but his chances of pulling this off and getting the nomination are discouragingly slim. At the same time, if you asked me whether I’d vote for Trump if it came to that, I’d admit that I’m not ready to contemplate that scenario, because it’s such a nightmare.
At the same time, there are Republicans who are saying, “I’ll vote Hillary over Trump.” I can’t say that, either. There’s a good chance that I’d just not vote for that election, just the down-ticket ones.
And, no, it’s not because I’d vote for a chimpanzee if he had R behind his name — I have voted for a few Democrats, especially the pro-life ones (hard to believe that they once existed) or when both candidates were abortion-rights anyway, or for local offices where social issues don’t matter, though these days in federal elections anyway, the particulars of a candidate’s own platform don’t matter as much.
But I just can’t vote for Hillary. Three reasons:
- Corruption
- Incompetence
- Policies
{snip}....multiples example of corruption given
Second, incompetence. Just a few words here.
Does Hillary have any signature legislation from her time as Senator? No, not really. Her credentials rest solely on her tenure as Secretary of State, during which time:
The Obama administration supported the regime change in Libya, then enabled Islamists to come to power, leading to the failures at Benghazi.
At the same time, they sat silent as the Iranian people tried their hand at the Arab Spring, as Clinton herself later admitted was a mistake.
The claimed Russian “reset” ended with Russia building its power and becoming a threat to the West.
Third, policy.
Let’s take a gander at her website.
She supports, perhaps not as massive an expension of federal governement entitlement and other spending programs as Sanders, but pretty nearly so
Much more at the link: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/janetheactuary/2016/03/why-not-hillary.html
.
-
-
Federal Government Tells Parents: “We Are Your Equals”
William A. Estrada
Last December, the United States Department of Education and the Department of Health and Human Services released a draft policy document outlining how the federal government can better “help” children and families. On page one, the federal agencies made this stunning declaration:
“It is the position of the Departments that all early childhood programs and schools recognize families as equal partners in improving children’s development, learning and wellness across all settings, and over the course of their children’s developmental and educational experiences.” (emphasis added)This one sentence unmasks the federal government’s true philosophy behind decades of federal involvement in welfare, kindergarten through 12th grade education spending and policies, programs like Head Start, and now the push to create universal early education for young children from birth through age 5: the federal government believes that its role is equal with the role of parents.
A redefinition of the family
Not only does this draft document expose the federal government’s breathtaking arrogance, a footnote at the bottom of page one goes so far as to redefine the family:
The term “family” is used to includeall the people who play a role in a child’s lifeand interact with a child’s early childhood program or school. This may include fathers, mothers, grandparents, foster parents, formal and informal guardians, and siblings,among others.“All the people who play a role in a child’s life.” All those who “interact with a child’s early childhood program or school.” “Informal guardians.” According to this footnote, a close family friend (an “informal guardian”) could be considered part of a child’s family. This could include a parent’s boyfriend or girlfriend, even if the relationship is temporary or uncommitted. There have already been cases in which custody of a child was granted to the parent’s former lover, against the parent’s wishes. And a child’s siblings are also important to family, but siblings shouldn’t have the legal authority to make parenting decisions.
Having a relaxed definition of family is fine at Thanksgiving and Christmas, but parents, not the government, should be the sole decisionmakers where their children are concerned. This casual and open-ended (“among others”) definition of family sets up a slippery slope for parental rights and family freedom.
More at the link: http://www.hslda.org/docs/news/2016/201603010.asp
-
ANGELO CODEVILLA: Donald Trump Is The Next Barack Obama.
“Obama has been our first emperor. A Donald Trump presidency, far from reversing the ruling class’s unaccountable hold over American life, would seal it. Because Trump would act as our second emperor, he would render well-nigh impossible our return to republicanism.”
Trump and the Obama Model -
-
Clinton checks with staff to see if a message on her email is classified. If not, she says, send to the @nytimes
So she didn't KNOW what is or is not classified & forwarded it to people without clearance to check?
.
-
Americans Don’t Know What ‘Single Payer’ Means: And when they find out, they don’t like it.
Not really a surprise.........
ADDED:
From Hillary's e-mail dump......................"dirty little secret"..............not to anyone with common sense. (Click to enlarge)
-
Trump and the Obama Modelby Kevin WilliamsonDonald Trump, all the best people insist, represents something radical and new on the American political scene. There’s something to that, though it’s not entirely true: Woodrow Wilson had similar strong-man fantasies, and Franklin Roosevelt had admiring words for Benito Mussolini. But Donald Trump also represents something that should by now be utterly familiar.He is, of course, the second coming of Barack Obama.As David French points out today, every election is a test of character, and Americans are just now giving every indication that they intend to flunk this test in spectacular fashion. Why shouldn’t they? They flunked the last two, too, for similar reasons.Barack Obama had, and has, a remarkable ability to inspire irrational devotion among his minions, whom he holds in more or less open contempt. The Hollywood types were literally singing hymns to his name, you’ll recall. Trump inspires a similar abject devotion. Observe that his actual history in business suggests very strongly that he was lucky to inherit a great deal of money – 2006 was “a great time to start a mortgage company,” he insisted – or that the man himself has confessed to exaggerating his wealth, and you’ll get a stammering: “B-b-b-b-b-b-but, you’re not a billionaire!” Suggest that his fundamental rejection of basic things like property rights and free speech means that he isn’t a conservative, much less a constitutionalist, and they’ll scoff that you’re a purist.{snip}Like Obama before him, Trump promises his followers that they can have their cake and eat it, too, so long as they invest him with power. For Obama, the promise was that we could enact universal health-insurance coverage and end up spending less money on health care, because he was so goddamned smart. For Trump’s whey-faced horde, the promise is that they can have more welfare benefits, lower taxes, and less debt, all at the same time, because Trump, who doesn’t know how a bill becomes a law, is so goddamned smart.“If you like your plan, you can keep your plan” was last season’s “I’ll build a wall and make the Mexicans pay for it.” This season’s version will work out the same same, if American voters are in fact childish and unpatriotic enough to invest Trump with the power of the presidency in a fit of pique.I hope they don’t. But I don’t put it past them, either. They’ve done it before. Immediately before, in fact. Yes, Trump is a con artist. No, he isn’t the first. The last one didn’t work out too well.
-
New York Times won´t release off-the-record tape of Trump
The Hill, by Rebecca Savransky
Original ArticleNot til they are told to
-
DNC Vice Chairman Tulsi Gabbard Stepping Down to Support Bernie Sanders http://www.youngcons.com/dnc-vice-chairman-tulsi-gabbard-stepping-down-to-support-bernie-sanders/ …
.
-
Fixed? She maintained government records outside of government control, and maintined classified information in an insecure environment.
You don't "fix" that. It's illegal. You can't "fix" that any more than you can argue your way out of a DWI charge by saying "Yeah, but I sobered up later."
You are correct Tom.................it can't be fixed in the "repair" definition......
But al later meaning could fit....................
adjective: fixed; #3 - influence the outcome of (something, especially a race, contest, or election) by illegal or underhanded means.
-
-
HuffPost PoliticsVerified account @HuffPostPol 16h16 hours ago Democrats should be very nervous about their terrible turnout numbers.......... http://trib.al/veG3lVo
MICHAEL BARONE: Honey, They’re Shrinking The Democratic Primary (Cont’d):
I’m not the only one who has noticed that Democratic caucus and primary turnout so far has been down as compared to 2008 and that Republican caucus and primary turnout has been up as compared to either 2012 or 2008.Anna Greenberg, the Democratic pollster, made the same observation on a joint American Enterprise Institute/Brookings Institution/Center for American Progress panel last Thursday. The results of the South Carolina Democratic primary Saturday confirm the trend. Total turnout was 370,000, down from 30 percent from 2008′s 532,000 (I’m rounding off figures to the nearest thousand, and the 2016 numbers may be off a little from the final returns and exit poll numbers).Many commentators have noticed that blacks constituted a higher percentage of South Carolina Democratic voters this year, 65 percent according to the exit poll, than they did in 2008, 55 percent.But this represents not a surge of blacks into the electorate, but rather the fact that black turnout declined by only 18 percent, whereas white turnout fell nearly in half, by 44 percent.Well, when you run two old white people after 7 years of saying that it’s time we quit listening to old white people. . . .
.
-
Before you racist bigots start leaping to conclusions, we don't know the facts. That child may have criticised Mohammad.
-
Last week's South Carolina GOP primary vote, a record 740,000 people cast ballots.
Last night's democrat primary, 370,000.....................................................................(Of which Hillary won 70% !!.......lol)
End of story.
.
-
It was three years ago, you dumb ****.
You are correct.
But the larger point is....................it doesn't matter if it was 50 years ago......................that is a 'squirrel' by gator and seconded by EiI
The point of the "meme" picture was to illustrate that Secretary of State Clinton made a conscious decision to use a much less safe server.
to benefit Herself.
but you knew that.
.
-
Maybe government is too big?..................................."I didn't even know this agency existed!"
The State Department released another batch of Hillary Clinton’s emails last night, and American Commitment President Phil Kerpen spotted one the speaks volumes:
but I thought Clinton prided herself on having all this experience...
When Secretary of State doesn't know US Trade and Development Agency exists, you've got a problem.
-
-
-
-
The Hill @thehill 18h18 hours ago JUST IN: State Dept quietly dumps more Clinton emails on eve of SC primary http://hill.cm/CLR2sHd
Trump Alone at the Top
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted
You only have yourselves to blame.....................
Correcting a fool never works.
Proverbs 19:19: “A man of great anger shall bear the penalty, for if you rescue him, you will only have to do it again.”
One of the reasons we keep trying to get through to our fools is that we believe that if we could just come up with the right words or the right way to say them, our fool will finally “get it” and change. The light bulbs will turn on. They’ll cry out, “Oh! NOW I GET IT! I will change my foolish ways!”
Not happening.