All purpose news and politics thread part v: The quickening

[aja_christopher]

The nomination process of the party we are discussing is going to essentially sell Bloomberg the debate rules he would like.

People will still have to vote for Bloomberg, and many may see an "establishment" candidate as a better option than Warren or Sanders.

Again -- Sanders lost by millions of votes last time to an "establishment" candidate, so there's no proof whatsoever that he's what voters want.

It has little to do with the DNC and a lot more to do with the fact that other voters don't think Sanders is as great as you do, so respect their choices.

[numberthirty]

People will still have to vote for Bloomberg, and many may see an "establishment" candidate as a better option than Warren or Sanders.

Again -- Sanders lost by millions of votes last time to an "establishment" candidate, so there's no proof whatsoever that he's what voters want.

It has little to do with the DNC and a lot more to do with the fact that other voters don't think Sanders is as great as you do, so respect their choices.

Factoring in that the DNC kept rules in place that kept Castro/Booker off the debate stage while changing them when someone with money turned up, I'd say that assertion is on incredibly shaky ground.

Actually respecting their eventual choice would involve not slanting the debate rules so that they clearly favor money.

[aja_christopher]

Factoring in that the DNC kept rules in place that kept Castro/Booker off the debate stage while changing them when someone with money turned up, I'd say that assertion is on incredibly shaky ground.

Factoring in the fact that you're more "concerned" about Castro/Booker than the votes of millions of Hispanic and African-American citizens, I'd say your assertion is on shaky ground.

I'll also factor in the fact that you refuse to admit -- or even discuss -- that Sanders lost to Hillary by millions of votes, so your bias is clear.

Again -- respect the choices of voters who don't see things as you do and stop trying to attack the DNC just because voters didn't choose your candidate.

[numberthirty]

Factoring in the fact that you're more "concerned" about Castro/Booker than the votes of millions of Hispanic and African-American citizens, I'd say your assertion is on shaky ground.

I'll also factor in the fact that you refuse to admit -- or even discuss -- that Sanders lost to Hillary by millions of votes, so your bias is clear.

Again -- respect the choices of voters who don't see things as you do and stop trying to attack the DNC just because voters didn't choose your candidate.

It's not an "Attack..." when everything someone has said is fact.

The DNC change the rules once money came into play.

Never mind that actual respect for the eventual choice of voters would involve candidates without as much money(Castro/Booker) having the same chance to participate in a debate that someone with money does.

[aja_christopher]

It's not an "Attack..." when everything someone has said is fact.

You're right -- it's a fact that "anti-establishment" Sanders lost to "establishment" Clinton by millions of votes in the last election.

You might want to ignore said fact, but it's still a fact.

[Tami]

Although Sanders winning New Hampshire is incredibly likely. He is, as was stated, right next door and the two states share a lot of local TV stations (I grew up on the other side of the broadcast area across Lake Champlain in upstate NY). Warren doesn't have the same advantage as Sanders since the local broadcasts favor Vermont and, well, to be honest, the right leaning people in New Hampshire blame everything in Massachusetts in the same was as the ones here in Nevada blame California.

Although I'd wait until after the Nevada primary before trying to annoit a real front runner myself.

I'd even hold off until Super Tuesday if possible. Unless something really dramatic happens after NSC and Nevada to suggest a clear front-runner with a large enough gap to be hard to overcome. NH isnot al that important in the larger scheme of things.

If it is a tight race even after Super Tuesday, then that would interest me more.

[Gray Lensman]

The nomination process of the party we are discussing is going to essentially sell Bloomberg the debate rules he would like.

Never mind that "All American Citizens..." gets pretty laughable when the party largely forces a citizen to join the party to take part in it's nomination process.

So...

Talking about that it's other folks who lack a respect for democracy is going to go nose over tail pretty quickly.

Bloomberg is tied for 3rd place in some polls. It isn't so much as him buying the party apparatus, but buying enough voters that he can't be kept off the debate stage if said debate is to be taken seriously. There is a major difference between threatening two digits in your polling numbers and threatening two percent.

[WestPhillyPunisher]

It's not an "Attack..." when everything someone has said is fact.

The DNC change the rules once money came into play.

Never mind that actual respect for the eventual choice of voters would involve candidates without as much money(Castro/Booker) having the same chance to participate in a debate that someone with money does.

Why do you even care? You've got your buddy Trump to support. I'm sure you partied hard yesterday after he was acquitted.

[Michael Watkins]

People will still have to vote for Bloomberg, and many may see an "establishment" candidate as a better option than Warren or Sanders.

Again -- Sanders lost by millions of votes last time to an "establishment" candidate, so there's no proof whatsoever that he's what voters want.

It has little to do with the DNC and a lot more to do with the fact that other voters don't think Sanders is as great as you do, so respect their choices.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xA0aCEb2Qxk

[Michael Watkins]

As usual, you have a dog in this race to be as biased as possible.
People in here crack me up with the bias.

Waiting for someone to mention Deval Patrick somehow being given votes meant for Sanders.

[Zauriel]

I'd even hold off until Super Tuesday if possible. Unless something really dramatic happens after NSC and Nevada to suggest a clear front-runner with a large enough gap to be hard to overcome. NH isnot al that important in the larger scheme of things.

If it is a tight race even after Super Tuesday, then that would interest me more.

I'd also wait until Super Tuesday to see if who in my opinion could be the nominee.

We also should wait to see how many of those candidates with zero delegates from Iowa Caucus will announce that they are dropping out of the race.

[Zauriel]

.

-----
"Around 87% of Iowans are white and non-Hispanic, compared to just 61% of the country as a whole. Yet every four years the state gets to fire the starting gun in the presidential primaries and caucuses...

Any discussion of Iowa’s blanched population usually also implicates New Hampshire, where the population is even less diverse by a small margin. The state, which has long held the second primary contest in presidential election years, is 91% non-Hispanic white."

https://time.com/5778635/iowa-new-ha...rimary-caucus/
[/I]

Then the Democratic Party should maybe host the first primaries in the D.C., Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico. Half of The population of the District of Columbia is African Americans. Three-quarters of the U.S. Virgin Islands population is African-American.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...can_population

D.C. Virgin Islands and PR participate in the presidential election primaries, although Puerto Rico and Virgin Islands are still forbidden to take part in the Electoral College, since they are not states.

[aja_christopher]

Then the Democratic Party should maybe host the first primaries in the D.C., Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico. Half of The population of the District of Columbia is African Americans. Three-quarters of the U.S. Virgin Islands population is African-American.

No, they shouldn't.

It should be more representative of the demographics of America as a whole, not of any specific group, including "whites".

Stop trying so hard to be contentious.

[The Darknight Detective]

just because the fight seems pointless, doesn't mean it's pointless to fight.

What the House should have done was charge Trump with an actual impeachable offense - treason, bribery, high crimes (or, as what we call it today, felonies) and/or misdemeanors. If they had done that (as was suggested early on during the impeachment process, but rejected) and had the evidence to back it up, yesterday's vote tally would have been different.

Does that mean Trump would have been removed? Hard to say - if his approval numbers were the same, then probably not. Nixon would have remained in office had his own numbers stayed around 50%, - Clinton himself stayed on, despite committing a felony(s), due to his high approval ratings. Nevertheless, the Democrats would be in a better place politically than they are now, while Republicans would be dinged up more.

[Tami]

DHS suspends Global Entry, Trusted Traveler Programs for New York residents in response to sanctuary law

Acting Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolf exclusively told Fox News' "Tucker Carlson Tonight" Wednesday that DHS was immediately suspending enrollment in Global Entry and several other Trusted Traveler Programs (TTP) for all New York state residents -- a dramatic move in response to the liberal state's recently enacted sanctuary "Green Light Law."

The sweeping order came a day after President Trump, in his State of the Union address, condemned left-wing states and local governments that "release dangerous criminal aliens to prey upon the public," and called on Congress to pass a law establishing civil liability for sanctuary cities.

In a letter to top New York state officials obtained exclusively by Fox News, Wolf noted that the New York law prohibited state DMVs from sharing criminal records with Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

-----

DHS bans New Yorkers from Global Entry and other programs over state law allowing undocumented immigrants to get driver's licenses

(CNN)The acting secretary of Homeland Security announced on Wednesday that New York state residents can no longer participate in certain Trusted Traveler Programs, including Global Entry, due to provisions in the state's new "Green Light Law" supporting undocumented immigrants.

The law, which went into effect in December, allows undocumented immigrants to apply for New York driver's licenses while protecting applicants' information from immigration enforcement agencies.

"Today, we sent a letter to New York indicating, because they took these measures, that New York residents are no longer eligible to enroll in these Trusted Traveler Programs," acting Secretary Chad Wolf told Fox News host Tucker Carlson on Wednesday.

New York state residents cannot "enroll or re-enroll" in the programs "because we no longer have access to make sure that they meet those program requirements, so we need to do our job," Wolf added.

The letter states that the Green Light Law will impede Immigration and Customs Enforcement's "objective of protecting the people of New York from menacing threats to national security and public safety," according to a copy obtained by Fox News and confirmed to CNN by a source familiar with the letter.