All-purpose news and politics thread: Two Steps Beyond!

[worstblogever]

In both 2015, as well as 2016, "Crazy/Stupid Republican of the Day" published profiles of Pat McDonough, a member of the Maryland House of Delegates who is also a conservative talk radio host (yes, this is going the way you think it will) whose entire political lifeblood seems to be to subsist on a constant stream of race-baiting to motivate conservatives. Since 2010, there have been multiple instances of McDonough complaining about Mexican immigrants not speaking English (in Maryland) and people celebrating pro-immigration victories by "popping their tequila corks", whining about "black youth mobs" running amok, and campaigning for all immigrants to have driver's licenses rejected by falsely claiming 9/11 hijackers got their licenses in Maryland. He responded to the Baltimore riots in 2015 after the death of Freddie Gray by suggesting protesters' parents should "have their food stamps taken away" for those people using their First Amendment rights to protest, and wanted the death penalty to be reestablished in Maryland and instituted in any case where a police officer is attacked. McDonough's legislative playbook is much the same, as he tends to submit the most extreme anti-immigrant legislation his warped mind can come up with. In 2016, though, he began a new focus on transphobia, as he supported legislation on transgender bathroom access.

And, as we predicted in our original profile of McDonough, he took a shot at higher office in 2016, trying to get elected to the U.S. House of Representatives Maryland's 2nd Congressional District and winning the primary with a staggering 70% of the vote. The good news, though? He was crushed by incumbent Democrat Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger, and only got 33% of the vote in the general election.

McDonough will hopefully begin fading from relevance, as he’s currently trying to weasel his way back into some political office by running for Baltimore County Executive, and he’s back to using his radio talk show for propaganda purposes, such as lying about how the FBI raided the office of a Maryland GOP consulting firm. Hopefully by this time next year, CSGOPOTD be able to talk about anybody else other than this racist piece of trash when June 10th rolls around. For now, we’re just glad to say he lost, and hope he would take a further hint and just go away.

[numberthirty]

Like, the intelligence community can say, "Putin wanted Bernie supporters to spread negative Hillary stories and screw her chances", and they just do not connect that those reports are literally identifying what they did as the end game that stole the election. They were the active suckers, but they're still the only ones who don't know it.

The problem is that you have to ignore actual historical reality to buy into that nonsense.



What happened is what has happened to Clinton repeatedly. Unless you want to buy into some kooky conspiracy theory where every election Clinton has ever ran has had been rigged.

[Mister Mets]

The more time goes by, the more I realize that Bernie Sanders is the left's version of Ron Paul. "Out there" ideas, inspiring to those who don't identify as strongly with establishment politics. But most importantly, gets the wackiest supporters that they have no hope of keeping from doing stupid, stupid things, and being unacceptable to give a fair assessment of their fellow supporters when they cross a line, or an ability to accept any responsibility for any ratf***ing they might do in a primary even if it plays into the hands of the polar opposite on the other side. It's never that their ideology isn't palatable to a majority, they were always "robbed" in a "rigged system" and the passion they feel and see from their own point of view is so correct and appropriate, that it outweighs actual votes, and delegate votes. And the more that reality gets challenged, and the more frustrated those supporters get, the less Sanders or Paul did to reign in the predictable chaos that would stem from it.

It's a comparison that makes sense. Both were elderly independents who differed from their party in big ways.

Paul didn't do as well as Sanders, although it is worth noting he ran in a more crowded field.

Ron Paul did have a legacy on the party. His son was elected to the Senate, and some of his supporters have been elected to the US House.

Sanders might very well have a similar legacy, as people active in his campaign run for office.

Weirdly, Ron Paul's supporters ended up going for Trump in 2016, despite major differences in stated policies, suggested that what people wanted wasn't necessarily exactly what he offered.

The Democrats did put their thumb on the scale against Sanders, and that is something Sanders fans can be upset about. Sanders and Trump both essentially ran third-party campaigns within a presidential primary. Both got between 43 and 45 percent. The Republican establishment didn't change procedures against Trump, partly because they realized it was in their long-term interests not to piss off his voters. And Trump's in the White House.

If Hillary Clinton had gotten every vote Jill Stein had, she'd have won Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan, and be in the White House right now. You can blame the far-left here, although this was a move that demonstrated their power in elections.

On a side note if everyone who had voted for Ed McMullin or Gary Johnson had voted for Trump, he'd have won New Hampshire, Minnesota, Nevada, Colorado, Maine's at-large votes and New Mexico. so that does cut both ways.

[Tami]

So far as I have heard, here in NJ there are already 4 democrats getting started their campaigns to unseat Rodney Frelinghasen. Of course the primary isn't until next year, but it is a good sign.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

And I've maintained that if Sanders was the Democratic candidate, he would've lost to Trump too. Because while Bernie probably would had the support of midwesterners which Hillary didn't, more than likely, he wouldn't have had the black vote as minorities didn't much trust him. And don't discount the GOP smear machine which would've worked overtime painting Sanders and his socialist views as being hand in hand with Russian communism, a negative in the eyes of the low I.Q. voters Republicans attracted. On top of that, it's been almost thirty years since one party won the presidency three straight times (Republicans: Reagan in 1980 & 1984, George H.W. Bush in 1988), so the Dems were up against history, hell, if Barack Obama had been allowed to run for a third time, there was no guarantee even he would've won, so what chance would Sanders have had? Short answer, none.

People always imply this. Still the truth is athe voting demographics that Hillary supposedly had an advantage over Sanders in, she ended up under performing with in the general anyways. Then we know there were certain demographics where she got killed that Bernie had locked down.

Also no offense the GOP used the socialist attack line with Obama and they got killed with it. It's hard to imagine a scenario where Sanders somehow winds up any worse in a smear campaign than Clinton did who had been attacked for years and had the whole email thing hovering over her.

Clinton had 2-3 years of the party preparing for her, really had a clear field in the primary because nobody really wanted to go against her this time, admittedly had the preference of the DNC and Sanders still caused massive issues for her and she underperformed in nearly every key demographic. She's just not a good candidate. She might have been a better President but she has a track record of making lay up campaigns into real competitions. Her team got the opponent they wanted the entire primary. As much as she had going against her, she had a lot of advantages and still should have won regardless. She ran a terrible campaign. Yeah Bernie ran hard against her. She ran hard if not harder against Obama when she had no shot of winning and didn't concede until the very end. Obama still crushed a much better and more respected politician. She's not blameless and at the end of the date, Bernie was well within his rights to not support her at all, and he did. Not to mention we found out that her emails were an effective campaign strategy, and Bernie took that off the table in the first debate.

[Mister Mets]

People always imply this. Still the truth is athe voting demographics that Hillary supposedly had an advantage over Sanders in, she ended up under performing with in the general anyways. Then we know there were certain demographics where she got killed that Bernie had locked down.

Also no offense the GOP used the socialist attack line with Obama and they got killed with it. It's hard to imagine a scenario where Sanders somehow winds up any worse in a smear campaign than Clinton did who had been attacked for years and had the whole email thing hovering over her.

Clinton had 2-3 years of the party preparing for her, really had a clear field in the primary because nobody really wanted to go against her this time, admittedly had the preference of the DNC and Sanders still caused massive issues for her and she underperformed in nearly every key demographic. She's just not a good candidate. She might have been a better President but she has a track record of making lay up campaigns into real competitions. Her team got the opponent they wanted the entire primary. As much as she had going against her, she had a lot of advantages and still should have won regardless. She ran a terrible campaign. Yeah Bernie ran hard against her. She ran hard if not harder against Obama when she had no shot of winning and didn't concede until the very end. Obama still crushed a much better and more respected politician. She's not blameless and at the end of the date, Bernie was well within his rights to not support her at all, and he did. Not to mention we found out that her emails were an effective campaign strategy, and Bernie took that off the table in the first debate.

The Socialist smears failed against Obama, but there are two big differences.

1. Obama ran in historically favorable political environments. In modern politics, it's good to run for President when the other party has held the White House for two terms, and voters will typically vote for a second term once a party gets in. In 2008, the economy had collapsed and W's approval rating was underwater. In 2012, the economy was recovering, and Obama had gotten credit for major accomplishments in defense (Osama Bin Laden 1957-2011) and handled a national emergency well with Hurricane Sandy. A generic Democrat would have had trouble in 2016.

2. Bernie Sanders was an actual socialist. He was elected to Congress as a Socialist. Voters aren't going to think there's hyperbole in the claim. If someone was elected to the Senate on the White Nationalist ticket, Democrats calling him a white nationalist would be descriptive rather than a smear.

[worstblogever]

So far as I have heard, here in NJ there are already 4 democrats getting started their campaigns to unseat Rodney Frelinghasen. Of course the primary isn't until next year, but it is a good sign.

Already noticed that there's a Democratic challenger to 19-term Congressman Chris Smith of NJ, as well. And, I'd mock the fact that Rep. Smith has also been dodging town halls while rushing past protesters and into meetings with campaign donors only... but then again, Chris Smith has done that for literally the past quarter century. Not a single town hall, and only meets with donors and anti-abortion groups in his district.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

The Socialist smears failed against Obama, but there are two big differences.

1. Obama ran in historically favorable political environments. In modern politics, it's good to run for President when the other party has held the White House for two terms, and voters will typically vote for a second term. In 2008, the economy had collapsed and W's approval rating was underwater. In 2012, the economy was recovering, and Obama had gotten credit for major accomplishments in defense (Osama Bin Laden 1957-2011) and handled a national emergency well with Hurricane Sandy. A generic Democrat would have had trouble in 2016.

2. Bernie Sanders was an actual socialist. He was elected to Congress as a Socialist. Voters aren't going to think there's hyperbole in the claim. If someone was elected to the Senate on the White Nationalist ticket, Democrats calling him a white nationalist would be descriptive rather than a smear.

Yeah I just don't think it matters as much to the people that Sanders is trying to get. It scares the Republican base. It's never been proven to be a boogeyman for Democrats or Independents and certainly not millennials. I think the strategy of placating after Republican voters has failed the Democrats enough in the past that you only have to worry if it scares everyone else. Also if hypothetically he ran again, he would run in a more favorable environment than Obama.

Let's face it, the 2016 general was razor thin close at the end of the day. We know the email smears did work on her. Maybe the socialist smears would have worked, but we have two clear examples of them failing.

[ed2962]

Other than undoing it just because Obama did it, I'm not understanding the point of Trump's Cuba policy. Like what is even the symbolic point? He can't even pretend that it has anything to do with jobs or national security.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-cu...-live-updates/

[worstblogever]

Other than undoing it just because Obama did it, I'm not understanding the point of Trump's Cuba policy. Like what is even the symbolic point? He can't even pretend that it has anything to do with jobs or national security.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-cu...-live-updates/

There are rumors that he's only doing it to c***block other hotels that are building there, and trying to set up an end-around so only Trump Organization hotels can side-step his mini-embargo and get a monopoly on American luxury motels on the island.

And while that is a blatant and egregious violation of the emoluments clause to line the pockets of his business (that his sons are totally running independent of him), it's something that he's stubbornly brazen enough to just do, even though there would be obvious consequences.

[TheInvisibleMan]

There are rumors that he's only doing it to c***block other hotels that are building there, and trying to set up an end-around so only Trump Foundation hotels can side-step his mini-embargo and get a monopoly on American luxury motels on the island.

that would make sense

also, he tried to backdoor a deal into Cuba in the 80s and got shut down

[The Darknight Detective]

Prosecutors plan to retry the Cos: what did I tell you?

[WestPhillyPunisher]

Just got this alert on my phone: well, it's official, boys and girls, the Cosby case has ended in a mistrial.

[TheInvisibleMan]

Just got this alert on my phone: well, it's official, boys and girls, the Cosby case has ended in a mistrial.

disgusting

I hear Cosby is slowly going blind, that means his body is shutting down

[WestPhillyPunisher]

disgusting

I hear Cosby is slowly going blind, that means his body is shutting down

With the prosecution planning to retry the case, in the time it'll take to choose a new venue and seat another jury, Cosby will be probably be pushing 81. Who knows what sort of condition he'll be in by then. I know this will sound horrible, but I wouldn't take any bets on his living through a second trial.