Forums / Fun! / Memeory Lane

"I'm getting donations from all kind of people"
Like Saudi Arabia. And Oman. And Qatar.

The crowd is really not into it.

omg we're trying to prevent people from voting.
This from the party of dead voters.

weeewww no applause at the end of Bernie's whole spiel there… he even ended on weed!

omfg I can't, who is Hillary Clinton right now.

The failing Obamacare… they're just gonna pretend everything is fine.

I'm actually glad this one is almost over. It was… not very good, imo.
O'Malley. No dollar too small. Please. If you donated like two dollars my campaign budget would double. I'm dying. Send help
Also, what's up with Democrats insisting they're the party of the future? All these ideas are well fleshed out and implemented already in many other countries. At this point there isn't any really new ideas among the presidential candidates, bar one or two.
Oh my gosh he even said "I need your help".
Well that was… hardly substantive. I guess I'm just used to having 8+ people talking.

Bernie Sanders won the debate. Now then, let us proceed to read all the news headlines saying "Hillary Clinton literally had the contestants sucking her dick."

I'm surprised that none of them went into any detail about University of Missouri. If the terrorist attack had been delayed by 2 or 3 days then surely that would have been the hot button issue.

Not so keen on the hawkish responses to Paris, either. If even the radical dems are on the warpath then that's a sure sign Congress will be A okay with it.

Climate change doesn't equal terrorism, Bernie, you got it mixed up.

But it was gratifying to see Hilary burst into flames in real time. Oh so satisfying.

Texting my friends in Iowa and they agree that it was a poor showing.

I like that Hillary specifically thanked everyone for the opportunity to debate in closing, when her campaign is the whole reason there are only 6 in the first place.

I thought the exact same thing. Also, if she's really convinced that debating more will cause her to lose, then that shows how much confidence she really has in what she's doing.

Thought we'd take the opportunity to break hearts:

{ Immediately after Saturday night's Democratic debate, CBS News interviewed a nationally representative sample of debate watchers assembled by GfK's Knowledge Panel who identified themselves as Democrats or independents. By a 23 point margin, these debate watchers say Hillary Clinton won the debate. Fifty-one percent say Clinton won, compared to 28 percent who favor Bernie Sanders. Just 7 percent pick Martin O'Malley as the winner. Fourteen percent called it a tie. }

{ Sixty seven percent of Democratic primary voters said Clinton won the debate, Public Policy Polling (PPP) found in its survey, conducted for the pro-Clinton super-PAC Correct The Record. Twenty percent thought Sen. Bernie Sanders (I- Vt.) won the debate, PPP added, while 7 percent picked former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley as the winner. }

Bernie is sweeping the online polls, showing all he has is primarily youth support (worst turnout rate of all voter demographics).

This is a stark contrast to what's taking place in the GOP, where Trump sweeps online polls, phone polls, and in-person polls and the establishment candidates are in the single-digits across the board.

AP Fact Checks the debate:

{ CLINTON: "Since we last debated in Las Vegas, nearly 3,000 people have been killed by guns. Two hundred children have been killed. This is an emergency." She said that in the same period there have been 21 mass shootings, "including one last weekend in Des Moines where three were murdered."

THE FACTS: The claim appears to be unsupported on all counts.

The Gun Violence Archive has recorded 11,485 gun deaths in the U.S. so far this year, an average of just under 1,000 per month, making Clinton's figure appear to be highly exaggerated. The archive had more detailed data for children and teenagers, showing 70 from those age groups killed by firearms since the Democratic candidates debated Oct. 13 – not 200 as she claimed. }

Plz recall that "gun deaths" includes suicides, which makes up over 60% of the total gun deaths. After suicide, the largest cause of gun deaths (over 80% of total gun homicides) is gang violence, which we heard nothing about. O'Malley glazed over "urban violence" and that's about the closest we got.

{ MARTIN O'MALLEY: "Under Ronald Reagan's first term, the highest marginal rate was 70 percent."

THE FACTS: O'Malley's comment suggests that the economic recovery of 1983-84 occurred with a 70 percent tax rate on the richest Americans. Actually, one of President Ronald Reagan's first tax-cut bills, enacted into law in 1981, lowered the top tax rate from 70 percent to 50 percent. And in 1986, Reagan worked with Congress on a bipartisan bill to further lower the top rate to 28 percent. }

{ SANDERS: "People are working longer hours for lower wages, and almost all of the new income and wealth goes to the top 1 percent."

THE FACTS: As he did in the last debate, Sanders leaned on outdated data.

In the first five years of the economic recovery, 2009-2014, the richest 1 percent captured 58 percent of income growth. That's according to Emmanuel Saez, a University of California economist whose research Sanders uses. That's a hefty share, but far short of "almost all." }

He also neglected to mention that ALL of the net new jobs for ages 16-65 since 2000 have gone to immigrants! Gonna be hard to collect taxes to fund all that socialism when no one who actually pays taxes has a job.

{ CLINTON on the health care law: "The Republicans have voted to repeal it nearly 60 times."

THE FACTS: As much as Republicans wish to dismantle President Barack Obama's health care law, they haven't beaten their heads against the wall quite that often.

Many of the votes she is counting were to change or repeal specific parts of the sprawling law, a fine-tuning that Obama acquiesced to at times and some Democrats voted for. In June, the House voted to abolish one part of the law, a tax on medical device makers, with the support of 46 Democrats. }

Man, politicians are having a hard time fact checking themselves before they show up in front of millions of people. Politifact gave a similarly scathing review to the last Republican debate, which I only just now found in trying to find AP's fact check. I guess they are taking advantage of the fact that people are becoming increasingly distrustful of the media?

Oh sorry, sometimes I forget to go back and put links in before I post.

Here's the AP report

PolitiFact was the subject of a media study that found it horribly biased against the GOP. Most "independent" websites that claim to be non-partisan fact checkers aren't. AP usually does a good job of it tho.

They look up stats they know they're going to need before the debate, they've got them written down. They're specifically taken out of context or old stats, when the facts don't support their view. The average voter doesn't really fact check, especially after the fact, so they think they can get away with it. When our generation is the majority it will be a lot harder because we all know how to use the internet and share information.

Irregardless, they certainly are being a bit ridiculous with the half-truths and blatant lies.
I sure hope that'll be true. Although, by then the new minority generation will probably be anxiously looking forward to them becoming the majority. It's the circle of life ~

And another one bites the dust.
From BBC:

Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal has dropped out of the race for the US presidency after struggling for months to gain traction amid a sprawling field of Republican candidates.
…
"This is not my time," Governor Jindal said on Tuesday.
…
Mr Jindal is now the third Republican to drop his presidential bid. All three are current or recent governors, which comes as somewhat of a surprise given the value that voters usually place on candidates with executive-level government experience. This has been the year of the political outsider, however, and that trend shows no sign of changing anytime soon.
…
During his campaign, Governor Jindal sought to appeal to evangelical Christian voters, taking hard lines on gay rights and Islamic extremism.
However, he was courting the same slice of the electorate as rival candidates such as Mr Carson, Texas Senator Ted Cruz and former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee.
Governor Jindal joins former Texas Governor Rick Perry and Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker who have also suspended their campaigns for president.
Fourteen Republicans remain in the race.

Speaking seriously, as far as I could tell from the debates his economic views were almost replicas of mine. However, I can hardly stand other views of his, and the way he treats others.

{ A Reuters poll on Tuesday asked voters which of the candidates was best-suited to deal with the threat of terrorism. Among Republican voters, 36 percent opted for Trump. The next most popular response was “none,” at 17 percent. }

helllllp

Carson has been arsoned, Trump remains unstumped

I don't see Carson standing a chance. He may be popular among Republicans but I'm pretty sure he has little support elsewhere. His lack of knowledge on foreign policy is likely to get him (metaphorically) killed right about now, the concerns over his honesty about his history is damaging, and he just isn't a very charismatic leader.
@Lisa I'm not sure that's very surprising. Trump is still leading by a long shot, with the closest contender having some issues with foreign policy (CNN, and NYT). The next closest candidates for good foreign policy are polling at less than a third of Trump nationally.

It's not surprising, it's hilarious. I mean the fact that the next most popular response was "none", not that Trump was first. That's a bit of a slap in the face to every other candidate's foreign policy.

Carson is exposing his inner cray cray, he really took a hard turn towards the evangelicals.
That's not what the GOP voters who are hellbent on turning the party upside-down want.

That's true. Over half of the surveyed Republican voters basically said "Trump or nothing". That's actually sorta concerning. What if Rubio gets the nomination? Many experts are predicting he has the best shot out of all of them to actually get the bid. Lets hope he's bearable to them.

Carson needs to think harder about what he says before he says it. It doesn't matter if you say dogs are the most awesomest species ever in the history of the universe, people aren't going to like the fact that you compared Syrian refugees to them.
Also, for a fun example of media bias, compare that to this. Notice anything different? Reuters conveniently left out the fact that Carson added "That doesn't mean that you hate all dogs", making it seem like he thought all Syrian refugees are akin to rabid dogs. How nice.

Many experts have been predicting the downfall of Trump's campaign since it launched.

Since the last debate the race seems to have shifted to Trump v. Rubio v. Cruz. A few campaigns have stepped up attacks on Cruz because of his post-debate ratings rise.

What the fuck Reuters. That's the main point of his whole terrible metaphor. Still not as bad as the Democrat governor who compared them to/supported putting them in internment camps. The collective PR world must be dying right now.

edit: well I guess it's not a terrible metaphor, it makes the point, but it's not a very polite metaphor.

Donald Trump 'not opposed to Muslim database' in US

At any other time, with any other candidate, a remark like this would've sunk a campaign. But given the recent attacks on Paris, and Trump being Trump… hell, I wouldn't be surprised if he only gains from this.

He also previously suggested using the govt to shut down Mosques linked to extremism.

France passed a bill two days ago that let's them use the government to shut down mosques that endorse terror or extremism, and at least Slovakia is now monitoring all Muslims in the country. ¯\(ツ)/¯

It's only racist when Trump says it, not when other countries do it.

& he has in fact already jumped ~5 percentage points in the post-Paris polls.
He was up at 42% in a Reuters poll on Friday.

Don't we basically already have a database on everyone though?
We already keep tabs on all the crazy groups of people.

lmfao we don't keep track of all Muslims by default, Pooch, and we definitely don't single them out with special ID cards. You have to know who is a crazy person before you can add them to your super special security watch list, that's the problem.

I'm a few days late with this news so anyone who keeps up with it has probably already heard it, but whaddevah. Incoming megapost of polls and news.

First, a stream of news about Donald Trump, because he generates so much. Politifact clarified Trump's comments about a Muslim database, explaining Trump wants a database and watch list for refugees and, of course, a wall on the border. (It's surprising he hasn't said we should have a wall on the Canadian border also, like Walker said.) He also said he wanted to monitor certain mosques, and "surveillance".

Next up on the Trump Train, Trump claimed he saw Muslims celebrating 9/11 in New Jersey. Problem is, as CNN and the NYTimes pointed out, there's no evidence at all it happened.

Somebody took a look at one of Trump's golf courses and noticed that there's a plaque commemorating a nonexistent historical event. When asked about this Trump responded in his unintelligent manner, going "How would they know that? Were they there?"

Trump's Twitter tweeted a completely false image with statistics about homicide, making it seem like blacks commit a large majority of homicides in the country. Problem is, The agency cited doesn't exist and the information is wrong.

An "agitator" shows up at a Trump rally and was promptly beaten up by Trump fans. To show all sides of the story, the local police said that the protester is "always" the agitator for things like this, but c'mon, getting beaten up? Trump even said maybe he deserved it. What the hell.

In the face of all this, Trump bragged that he was going to be "a unifier" for this country if president. That's hilarious.

Now a piece about Carson. Carson at first stood by Trump but then backed off when asked about the cheering Muslims on 9/11. The link there basically explains everything needed for the whole Trump and Carson 9/11 mess.

Bush and Christie also jumped in on the whole 9/11 thing, condemning Trump for his comments.

Rubio made comments about how the Paris attacks were a "positive development" but then "clarified" that he really meant that it was terrible but it's reminding people that it's important to focus on national security. Politics!

Alright, time for the final update – the polls and the so-called "endorsement primary".

In Iowa, Clinton is leading by ~7 points in front of Sanders. However, Trump is only leading by two points – in front of Cruz of all the candidates! Trump has 25% and Cruz 23%.

In New Hampshire, the rolls are reversed for Democrats, with Sanders leading 7% as of the last poll. Trump is leading about 15 points in front of Rubio, with an approximate score of 27%, while Rubio has ~12%.

Now, there's this thing called the "endorsement primary". According to FiveThirtyEight, endorsements by politicians have been among the best predictors for who will get the nomination. On the Democrat side, no surprise here, Clinton is winning by a huge margin. On the Republican side, Bush and Rubio having the best score. Using FiveThirtyEight's scoring system, Bush has 41 points and Rubio 29.

Carson's voters jumped to Cruz when Carson went hard evangelical. We now have a choice between ludicrous-crazy, machine gun bacon crazy, and useless establishment crazy. Shaping up to be a real diverse race.

Useless establishment crazy has spoken: { Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) says religious believers are called to “ignore” laws that violate their faith }

To be honest, a bacon machine gun would be fucking great.

Why do Republicans say so many more crazy things than Democrats?
I really dislike Clinton and dislike a lot of what she has said, but, especially lately, she hasn't said anything that is crazy, neither has Sanders.
They might have said stuff that seems unlikely or something, but nothing crazy.

I guess on that note, why are they all super religious? I would atleast consider the Republican side if there were candidates that didn't base most of everything they say off a religion.

Oh boy, discussion melding religion and politics! What can go wrong! Well, I know a bit about this and I just googled the answer to why Republicans seem so religious.

Christianity (generally speaking – people who claim to be Christian are so diverse it's hard to pin anything down) is kind of an "overriding" sort of religion. One of the hardest parts of it is that it's supposed to be ingrained into everything. When that's done wrong you get… well, you get Mike Huckabee.

According to the Washington Post there are a few reasons why Republicans tend to be more religious. The short reason is that conservative Evangelicalism is very good at creating members, mainline Protestantism isn't as good, and the Republican party started out as Christian. You see, Evangelicalism teaches their members to reproduce a lot, teach their children Evangelicalism, and try to convert others. It's rather good at it. It also has a sort of belief system which very strongly roots you in it. Mainline Protestantism isn't as good at any of those.

I don't see how it's necessarily "crazy" that Rubio said that. It's pretty logical – if you believe you have a moral imperative to do one thing, and the government tells you to the other, you should do the moral thing. The only concern I have for that is that he related that to same-sex marriage, and a concern that it might not help him. He's trying to be establishment Republican running for president. Also, what if my religious beliefs make me want to shoot him? Do I get immunity for that? No, of course not.

Poochyena, do you happen to have any concerns with Kasich or Paul? I'm guessing they might be better Republican options for you.

That depends on what you think is crazy. Saying you're going to raise every income tax bracket across the board to pay for social benefits is fucking nuts to me, but you guys love Bernie. Hillary Clinton has literally said the sentence "we're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good" and meant it seriously.

The GOP has traditionally embraced religious rights, so especially today it attracts the religious in a world where more and more are moving away from it completely and trying to force them to do the same. It's nowhere near a majority in the base anyway.

I only like Bernie because he seems like he's honest and isn't offensive and annoying like Trump. Along with the added benefit of taking donations primarily from people and no major corporations, he's not the worst option out there, in my opinion. I don't like his policies though.

"Hillary says "illegal immigrant", later says she'll never say it again.":http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/nov/25/hillary-clinton-pledges-not-to-use-term-illegal-immigrants-again?CMP=share_btn_fb Instead, she'll call them "DREAMers". What? Would a Democrat like to explain this to me, like you'd explain it to a three year old, because I really don't get it?

Rubio's statement is borderline crazy. Saying someone shouldn't marry same sex couples because it interfere's with their religion and "just ignore any law that interferes with your religion" is very different.
The second statement is very vague and and crazy, the first statement means he actually has a focus and agenda.
It just almost sounds like he is saying "just follow what ever laws you want to". I understand if there is a specific law he thinks you should ignore, but saying you can ignore any law is crazy.

I don't know who Kasich, but I know who Paul is. I think Paul is ok. I do wish there were more people like him to mix the party up some. I just hate that he is the best example of a Republican candidate that I like since he is a libertarian, which I think is the worst non-extremist party there is.

I just want a person with the social values of a democrat and the authority of a Republican. Left wing is too nice and PC sometimes and are less likely to really stand up and give a real opinion.

Would a Democrat like to explain this to me, like you’d explain it to a three year old, because I really don’t get it?

something something dream act

@Jarbox thanks

@poochyena
>Libertarian is worst non-extremist party
Fggin' fite me 1v1 m8
Speaking seriously, Christianity has a long history of not following laws. From most of the Apostles of Jesus to the martyrs ironically created by the Catholic Church, all the way to recent ones like the Christians killed by ISIS, Christianity places itself over government rules. That certainly creates some philosophical and moral issues, but that's the way it works. Given I have no respect for government whatsoever anyways it actually turns out well, but that's political philosophy and that's a rabbit hole for a different thread.
Unfortunately, you're unlikely to find someone like that. I wish we had a candidate everyone could find satisfactory but the state of American politics is crap at the moment so we can just hope this minor revolution with all the outsiders lasts and causes some nice change.

poochyena said:

I guess on that note, why are they all super religious? I would atleast consider the Republican side if there were candidates that didn’t base most of everything they say off a religion.

It's the primaries. Iowa, the first state to hold a primary (well, caucus), is pretty conservative and religious, so the candidates try to appeal to Iowa's voters as much as possible, as a good showing in Iowa can really boost a candidate (see: Kerry). Same for the Democrats. That's why you never hear a word about farm subsidies from Rep candidates even though it's a pretty big government hand out.

There's also the desperation. Every R is trying to claw in as many voters as possible, so there's a tendency to say whatever they can to get the votes in. The Ds don't have as bad of a problem (although you are seeing Hillary flip more than flapjacks do to catch as many hard left voters as possible) due to there only being two real candidates.

ProfessorRivers said:

I wish we had a candidate everyone could find satisfactory…

I don't think that'll happen for a long time, if ever. Washington was pretty much the only one who everybody loved--and even then you had the Whiskey Rebellion. Every one since has been hit by the curse of political parties and ideology.

Bad phrasing on my part. I didn't mean one candidate for everyone, I meant enough candidates and the right candidates so each person could find at least one person they can go "Hey, there's a candidate who is really representative of me!"

THE TRUMP TRAIN NEVER STOPS, CHOO CHOO!

Once again I'm a little late, but ah well.

On Tuesday Trump was at a rally in South Carolina. During that he once again made the claim that he saw thousands of Muslims celebrating the attack on the World Trade Center. He cited a 2001 Washington Post article which said that there were allegations that people in New Jersey were celebrating the attack. (Of course, the police later said they investigated that and it never happened, but Trump never mentions this.) The reporter of this responded, and Trump did his thing and said something that got him in trouble.
Quoted from NBC:

"Now, the poor guy -- you ought to see the guy: 'Uh, I don't know what I said. I don't remember,'" Trump said, as he contorted his arms in an apparent imitation of Kovaleski, who suffers from arthrogryposis.

Arthrogyrposis messes with the movement of the arms. Obviously, people didn't like this.

Trump responded to this criticism. From the same article:

"I have no idea who this reporter, Serge Kovalski (sic) is, what he looks like or his level of intelligence. I don't know if he is J.J. Watt or Muhammad Ali in his prime -- or somebody of less athletic or physical ability," Trump said in a statement released to NBC News. "If Mr. Kovaleski is handicapped, I would not know because I do not know what he looks like."

Trump claimed that he had "merely mimicked what I thought would be a flustered reporter trying to get out of a statement he made long ago." He added he has "tremendous respect for people who are physically challenged."

Problem is, according to the NYTimes:

In an interview on Thursday, Mr. Kovaleski said that he met with Mr. Trump repeatedly when he was a reporter for The Daily News covering the developer’s business career in the late 1980s, before joining The Post. “Donald and I were on a first-name basis for years,” Mr. Kovaleski said. “I’ve interviewed him in his office,” he added. “I’ve talked to him at press conferences. All in all, I would say around a dozen times, I’ve interacted with him as a reporter while I was at The Daily News.”

This is even worse than it sounds, because Trump said (quoted from the same NYTimes article)

“Despite having one of the all-time great memories, I certainly do not remember him,” he continued.

Trumps amazing memory of course isn't all that great. Other than that lovely example, we have:

During the third Republican debate, the moderator claimed Trump called Rubio "Zuckerberg's personal senator", which he denied. Problem is, as you can see here, he most certainly has. At the moment it's still there. Screenshot is just there in case he decides to cover up his tracks.

As Colbert points out in his show here, (I couldn't find just the news report anywhere in a few minutes of searching, so this'll have to do) while Donald claims to have the world's best memory, he somehow can't remember where he saw the footage. Amazing.memory amirite guyz

Today is not a good day for Obama.

Instagram link new Trump ad strings clips from Obama's BuzzFeed video with the selfies with ISIS footage and declares we need a serious leader.

Thousands of shills across social media have launched damage control:

I literally can't facepalm any harder you guys. Literally.

In other news that will undoubtedly get comments from our candidates within the next few days, in response to Obama agreeing to send a “expeditionary force” of special op troops in an unknown number to the ground in Syria in addition to the 50 special ops going to coordinate air attacks, many Democrats questioned the legality of a move that evokes large-scale mobilizations and House Democrat Tulsi Gabbard (HI) said the more direct US approach along with our anti-Assad stance risks nuclear war with Russia in the region.

The CEO of the country's largest healthcare provider made statements about ObamaCare that will undoubtedly be picked up on by the GOP.

{ The CEO of UnitedHealthCare on Tuesday said he regretted the decision to enter the ObamaCare marketplace last year, which the company says has resulted in half a billion dollars in losses.

UnitedHealth, the country’s largest insurer, announced last month that it would no longer advertise its ObamaCare plans over the next year and may pull out completely in 2016 -- a move that sent shockwaves across the healthcare sector.

Hemsley’s remarks double down on his earlier warning that the ObamaCare exchanges remain weaker than expected after two years and that it will take far longer for insurers to profit from the millions of new enrollees.

Hemsley said it was smart to sit out of the exchanges for the first year, but that the company should have held out another year.

“We did not believe it would form this slowly, be this porous, or become this severe,” he said. }

The CEO of UnitedHealthCare on Tuesday said he regretted the decision to enter the ObamaCare marketplace last year, which the company says has resulted in half a billion dollars in losses.
UnitedHealth, the country’s largest insurer, announced last month that it would no longer advertise its ObamaCare plans over the next year and may pull out completely in 2016 -- a move that sent shockwaves across the healthcare sector.
Hemsley’s remarks double down on his earlier warning that the ObamaCare exchanges remain weaker than expected after two years and that it will take far longer for insurers to profit from the millions of new enrollees.
Hemsley said it was smart to sit out of the exchanges for the first year, but that the company should have held out another year.
“We did not believe it would form this slowly, be this porous, or become this severe,” he said.

This is the point where millions of people scream that they were right… and are ignored.

I don't understand how Obama taking selfies with silly faces is a bad thing. I don't remember there being a clause in the oath you take to become president saying you can't be silly from time to time. It's not like every single waking moment you are making life-or-death decisions.

It gets a 100% as an attack ad. He picked a point he wanted to attack and he slayed it. To you and me this is not very effective, or to anyone else who even moderately pays attention to politics, but that's not who it was designed for. Populist Trump showed the blue collar voters a very unserious series of Obama clips they probably haven't seen (being from a BuzzFeed vid) next to a very serious series of terrorist footage and then called himself a serious leader. The angry people eat it up, we've seen the polls.

The first poll in several days came in, and it shows a significant shift from the pre-thanksgiving polls.

• Trump-27%
• Rubio-17%
• Cruz-16%
• Carson-16%
• Bush-5%

Looks like the Establishment is desperately trying to hang on and gain a position, while the outsiders are just trampling everything. Cruz and Rubio have jumped while Trump and Carson have fallen. From the last poll that looked at Republican nomination numbers

• Trump-32%
• Carson-22%
• Rubio-11%
• Cruz-8%
• Bush-6%

I guess Trumps ability to cause endless controversy is hurting him.

Carson is going down in the polls while Cruz and Rubio have gone up.

I guess its now Cruz and Rubio's turn to take on Trump.

Trump demands 5 million dollars or he won't go to the next CNN debate, CNN says no, and Donald "The Greatest Negotiator of All Time" Trump gives in almost instantly. I couldn't make this stuff up if I wanted to.

saying the $5 million would be donated to veterans.

I keep seeing people twist this to act like the money is going to him. He wants 5 million sent to veterans, not to him.

They should add CNN to the list of unwelcome news networks after last night's embarrassing coverage. Ask for 10 million to harbor specifically Christian refugees from the Middle East or go screw.

It doesn't matter whether or not it's going to veterans. Trump's net worth is 4.5 billion dollars and he keeps bragging about how rich he is. If he wanted to give 5 million to veterans he could have, easily. I think this was a set-up that could only go well for him: he either sets a precedent of forcing networks to do things to get him to come to their debates, or he makes them look bad for apparently not caring about veterans.
Remember, he said he got a small loan of one million dollars. He said it was small because he built up a lot more money from it, so in comparison it's small. No matter how you put it, there was no good motive for this.
My point is, if he wanted to give five million dollars to veterans he could do it whenever he felt like it. He doesn't need to force networks to break precedent by holding their ratings hostage.

That list at this rate will include any news network that asks a hard question.

For the first time, Senate and House approve bill repealing core pillars of Obamacare.

{ The measure guts the law by repealing authority for the federal government to run healthcare exchanges, and scrapping subsidies to help people afford plans bought through those exchanges. It zeros out the penalties on individuals who do not buy insurance and employers who do not offer health insurance.

The Senate bill also repeals the over-the-counter medicine tax, the prescription drug tax, an annual fee on health insurers and the tax on indoor tanning services. It reduces the threshold of healthcare costs that can be deducted from 10 percent to 7.5 percent of adjusted gross income.

The repeal would be phased in over two years to give the federal government and states time to come up with a replacement program. }

Bernie Sanders missed the final vote.

Latest CNN poll shows support for Jeb at 3%.

Since we won't have much beyond news fringing on gossipy until the debate on Dec. the 15th (I think that's the date), here's some stuff about some things the candidates were saying.

From the Washington Post:

“If I am elected president, we will utterly destroy ISIS," the Texas senator and Republican presidential candidate told reporters. "We won’t weaken them. We won’t degrade them. We will utterly destroy them. We will carpet bomb them into oblivion. We will arm the Kurds. We will do everything necessary so that every militant on the face of the earth will know if you go and join ISIS, if you wage jihad and declare war on America, you are signing your death warrant.”

Asked whether it was time for voters to apply more scrutiny to Donald Trump and Ben Carson, both political outsiders who have shown limited foreign policy expertise on the campaign trail, Cruz said that in the wake of recent attacks in Paris and San Bernardino, voters should more carefully evaluate every candidate's credentials.

I can mostly agree with this. Except I don't. I think we should have more soldiers on the ground and we shouldn't arm the Kurds. You do know arming the people we are fighting with is how Al-Qaeda was made right?

Ben Carson… I think a song expresses my feelings on him well: "You had me at 'hello' and then you opened up your mouth, and that's when it started going south."
From MSNBC because I didn't see a better source…

Republican presidential candidate Dr. Ben Carson told veterans at a town hall here Saturday that while he would never deny qualified women from combat positions, he doesn’t appreciate “using our military as a laboratory for social experimentation.”

“You know, we have too many important things to do,” Carson said at a “Veterans and Military Town Hall” hosted by the Concerned Veterans for America. “When our men and women are out there fighting the enemy, the last thing that we need to be doing is saying what would it be like if we introduced several transgender people into this platoon.”

“You know, give me a break, deal with the transgender thing somewhere else,” Carson added before saying he prefers the old “don’t ask, don’t tell” military philosophy that ended in 2011. Enacted under President Bill Clinton in 1993, DADT prevented gays from serving openly in the military.

The retired neurosurgeon’s comments come as a Pentagon-imposed deadline nears for the armed services to figure out the logistics of how to incorporate transgender troops into the military. Though the repeal of DADT cleared the way for gay, lesbian and bisexual troops to serve openly, an estimated 15,000 transgender troops continue to keep their gender identities hidden for fear of being discharged. In July, Defense Secretary Ash Carter ordered the creation of a Pentagon working group “to study over the next six months the policy and readiness implications of welcoming transgender persons to serve openly.”

“I mean why do you have to go around flouting your sexuality, it’s not necessary, you don’t need to talk about that, we need to talk about how we eliminate the enemy,” Carson said at the town hall.

Carson, DADT wasn't about not flaunting your sexuality. Respect and seriousness in the military covers that. Any "flaunting" you did was likely hammered out of you by the time you finished training. DADT was about being discharged if it was discovered you were gay.

Whether or not Carson has a point, his whole phrasing is disrespectful and rude. "Deal with the transgender thing somewhere else." Dude, this is something real people deal with and are discriminated against. This is sorta akin to saying "deal with the psychosis thing elsewhere" or "deal with the Muslim thing elsewhere" (for a lack of a better analogy off the top of my head). At least have decency if you're going to be a moron.

Good thing he's currently polling at 14% according to the most recent Republican nomination poll.

lisalombs said:

Latest CNN poll shows support for Jeb at 3%.

I wonder who'll get all the establishment donor money once he drops out. My guess is Rubio and Cruz will split it refuse to accept money from the establishment and it'll instead conveniently go to PACs which back them.

My conservative family* firmly believe he doesn't even want to be president and is just doing it out of expectation. It would certainly explain his horrible debate performance and lethargy whenever he's on camera. He behaves like a guy who doesn't want to go to work, but knows he has to.

*technically, my brother's an "anarcho-capitalist,", so he's not actually a conservative.

@Carson
Could have seen his slide down coming. Remember 2012 and Cain's "9 9 9" Plan? There'll be at least one more flare up before Iowa starts to settle things.

I wonder who’ll get all the establishment donor money once he drops out. My guess is Rubio and Cruz will split it refuse to accept money from the establishment and it’ll instead conveniently go to PACs which back them.

Cruz may reject it but Rubio is full Establishment . There's no outsider that I can see from him. He's solid Republican and is second in terms of number and importance of endorsements from politicians.

“anarcho-capitalist,”

Why's that in quotes? That is a thing that exists…

Trump makes emergency speech, calls for total shutdown of Muslims entering the US until Congress sorts through the security issues surrounding vetting immigrants from Middle Eastern countries.

His calls come as members of both parties voice opposition to the current administration's handling of national security.

Democrat Rep. Stephen Lynch this morning blew this whistle and revealed an internal investigation found 72 (seventy-two) active employees at the Department of Homeland Security were also on terrorist watch lists. He also reignited discussion over an investigation at 8 major airports which found the TSA failed to stop 95% of undercover investigators who were attempting to bring restricted items onto planes.

{ “I have very low confidence based on empirical data that we’ve got on the Department of Homeland Security. I think we desperately need another set of eyeballs looking at the vetting process,” he said. “That’s vetting that’s being done at major airports where we have a stationary person coming through a facility, and we’re failing 95 percent of the time.”

“I have even lower confidence that they can conduct the vetting process in places like Jordan, or Belize or on the Syrian border, or in Cairo, or Beirut in any better fashion, especially given the huge volume of applicants we’ve had seeking refugee status,” Lynch said. }

Again, Lynch is a Democrat. He was one of the Democrats who voted with Republicans on tightening the vetting process for Middle Eastern refugees.

Trump's speech also comes mere hours after the FBI revealed both San Bernardino killers were radicalized and 'had been for some time', which has caused even more concern that neither were on the FBI's radar despite increasingly alarming warning signs in their behavior.

The FBI also announced Farook's father has been placed on the terror watch list. He gave an interview earlier.

{ "He said he shared the ideology of al-Baghdadi to create an Islamic state, and he was obsessed with Israel," the father told a reporter in an interview outside the home of this other son, Syed Raheel Farook, in Corona, Calif.

The father said he counseled his son to be patient because, he said, in time political changes in the Middle East will accomplish his desires.

"I kept telling him always: stay calm, be patient, in two years Israel will no longer exist," the elder Farook told the newspaper. "Geopolitics is changing: Russia, China, America too, nobody wants the Jews there."

But Syed Rizwan Farook was not dissuaded, the father said.

"Rizwan was the mama's boy, and she is very religious like him," he said. "Once we had a dispute about the historical figure of Jesus, my son yelled that I was an unbeliever and decided that marriage with my wife had to end." }

He says he was estranged from the family when his son started getting more conservative and told his mother to divorce his father because he . The mother is also extremely conservative.

& finally, many are paralleling Trump's speech to FDR's actions 74 years ago today, in which he upheld the Hoover administration's restrictive ban on immigration of persons “likely to become a public charge” when confronted with taking on a large population of German-Jewish refugees.

They're also drawing parallels to Winston Churchill's infamous PM speech.

{ You will ask what’s our policy. Our policy is to wage war. War at all costs. War with all the strengths and mights that God can give us. You will ask what thy aim is. I will answer in one word. Victory; victory at all costs; victory despite all terror; victory no matter how long or hard the road is for without victory there can be no survival. We have resolved to destroy Hitler and every vestage of the Nazi regime. We will not parlay, we will not negotiate with Hitler and the grizzly gang that works his wicked will. We shall fight him by sea; we shall fight him by land; we shall fight him in the air until, with God’s help, we have rid the world of his shadow. }