Support NeoGAF

[Chococat]

Campaign finance reform is the mother of all issues. A lot of young people know this.

Then they should be focusing on voting for the House and Senate because a President can't change the laws.

Maybe Bernie can't do much with executive action, but it helps to have someone in charge who will at least try. He could also use the bully pulpit and rile up voters for the mid terms.

Answer me, what is so magically different about Bernie that will cause him to get young voters out to mid term that Obama, with his revolutionary ground campaign that survived his election, didn't have. Do not talk to me about his platform. What is the actually ground game that the people have to keep his momentum going.

You guy keep framing as if I view Bernie as the enemy. He is not. He is very good candidate. If he is the best we have, I will vote for him. I passed on Hillary last time cause I went for Obama's youth. Obama did fine giving the shit sandwich he was handed, but he did not bring as much change, because the voters failed him. Unless Bernie supporter can show me how their movement is superior to Obama's, I'm not going to switch just cause the youth are behind him.

You can figuritavely beat up on young voters till you're blue in the face, but that's not really going to be a convincing approach on a large scale.

Here is an amazing fact. Everyone once was a youth voter. Your not special. Everyone knows that guy who didn't vote til they were 30. Or that lady who championed every exciting fringe candidate. Very few took the power of their vote and their voice seriously. We know from experience not to rely on the youth vote cause we were once those flaky people ourselves. In 5, 10, 15 years you'll be one of us. You'll either be a voter, or one of those people who blame everyone but themselves for not voting. If you want to make a change in society, do it yourself. Be that excitement for someone else. Don't wait for someone to come along and excite you. Your failure to act is your own.

 

[HylianTom]

like I said before, it isn't the general yet. bernie's supporters seem fully focused on the primary right now while hillary's supporters are looking to the general which makes sense given their chances at making it there. I think this is why you're seeing such a difference in the types of thoughts coming from both camps. let the nomination be decided and then see where everyone stands.

That makes sense.

I won't bash anyone for backing Bernie. (I'm not even voting in the Democratic primary; I'll be trying to give the Dems their easiest possible opponent, and I'll abide by the decision of my fellow Dems.) 😋

 

[User 463088]

Here is an amazing fact. Everyone once was a youth voter. Your not special. Everyone knows that guy who didn't vote til they were 30. Or that lady who championed every exciting fringe candidate. Very few took the power of their vote and their voice seriously. We know from experience not to rely on the youth vote cause we were once those flaky people ourselves. In 5, 10, 15 years you'll be one of us. You'll either be a voter, or one of those people who blame everyone but themselves for not voting. If you want to make a change in society, do it yourself. Be that excitement for someone else. Don't wait for someone to come along and excite you. Your failure to act is your own.

Yaaas. Thank you for this. Exactly right.

 

[Bronx-Man]

Pretty much. I'll never begrudge anyone for supporting whomever they want in the primaries. Both candidates are compelling; I can understand voting for either one.

But this willingness to throw minorities, women, society's vulnerable, etc into the GOP's woodchipper because they'd be getting 90% of the loaf instead of the full loaf? A willingness to burn-down the possibility that Bernie 2.0's achievements will survive the inevitable challenges in a GOP-stocked judiciary?

That's short-sighted. Selfish. Illogical. And I'll call it out, whether it's coming from a Bernie supporter or a Clinton supporter.

It just reeks of people with nothing to lose going "Fuck it all!" without any regard to the consequences.

 

[Your Entertainer]

Answer me, what is so magically different about Bernie that will cause him to get young voters out to mid term that Obama, with his revolutionary ground campaign that survived his election, didn't have. Do not talk to me about his platform. What is the actually ground game that the people have to keep his momentum going.

This is definitely a good question, to which nobody really knows the answer at this point. The political climate in two years will likely be different.

My take is that Bernie, being a true progressive, has struck a chord with a lot of people. He's a self-proclaimed "socialist", making ideas that weren't commonly talked about before in the national stage center-pieces of his campaign; yet still has managed to gather so much support in his party so far. I think having someone like that in the White House is the perfect thing to act on the growing discontent with the way a lot of things are done and get people out there voting. I think he'd do a better job at all of that than Hillary would. Of course that is all conjecture at this point. But if the "Tea Party" was able to organize and force their way into Congress, I think (hope) progressives can do the same.

 

[phanphare]

(I'm not even voting in the Democratic primary; I'll be trying to give the Dems their easiest possible opponent, and I'll abide by the decision of my fellow Dems.) 😋

lol, that's actually a really smart strategy

if both candidates on your side are more or less to your liking, go "help" the other side

 

[Gozer the Gozerian]

For all the talk about the system being archaic etc., I really had a lot of fun at my caucus event in Iowa. There were only about fifty people at my precinct event so it made it easy to interact with others and try to sway the undecideds into joining our team. It's a different kind of experience than a traditional vote but I really liked the element of interaction and discussion with your fellow caucus-goers that it encourages.

 

[TheLaughingStock]

But for many folk, the difference is that Bernie is a contrast to Hillary when it comes to the single most important issue. The influence of money in politics.

The biggest issue is the influence of ideas in politics. Voters don't necessarily have to pick between the campaign I help finance unless they more or less agree with the ideas. Look at Jeb. Nobody cares that certain rich individuals put him out there for the people to evaluate. And look how far Bernie has come even though he seems to have hit a ceiling.

At the end of the day, the issue with the ACA for example...is that proponents believe that a market-based system is best regardless of universal health care systems that suggest otherwise. And they've convinced other people mostly by using words rather than money. I don't need to shove money in Obama's face if he believes without prompting from me that the private sector is better than the public sector when it comes to health care. Generally speaking, I'm just nudging politicians in the direction they were already leaning.

People right now are having their lives ruined by lead poisoning in Flint, Michigan because they believe/believed balanced budgets are good and a goverment should run a certain way. That's the fault of people and their interpretation of numbers on computers. That's not money or the accounting software's fault. People, particularly poor people, do a poor job of satisficing simple as that.

 

[pigeon]

Hillary Clinton remains the pro-war candidate on the Democratic side, hence I cannot see how her and Bernie are comparable.

Since Bernie has no foreign policy to speak of, I'm not sure how you can judge this.

Here's my contrarian view for the day: I think Bernie Sanders actually is much more likely to take us into a war than Hillary Clinton.

When it comes to avoiding armed conflict, I don't think it's really that much about what the President wants. The dangerous hawks in the establishment aren't in the Oval Office -- they're in the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the CIA. They're theoretically the experts, they theoretically have the responsibility of guiding military policy, but they have a vested interest in American adventurism. So I actually think the most important skill necessary for a dove is managing and filtering information coming out of the pro-war factions within the government. Every president acknowledges that there are SOME reasons to go to war -- all the hawks have to do is argue that those reasons are present. The difficult part is knowing when they're being deceptive.

Obama, to be frank, failed at this. Bill Clinton failed at this as well. W obviously didn't try. The last president who was reasonably effective at this was George H. W., which I suspect is because of his experience as the director of the CIA. He certainly wouldn't get suckered by a report of WMDs in Iraq! He knew the limitations of the intelligence.

So the question really is, between Sanders and Clinton, which of them is best suited to managing the hawks? I think the answer is clearly Clinton. She has lots of experience actually working shoulder to shoulder with the military and the CIA and knowing their tendencies and limitations, as well as handling an intrinsically political government bureaucracy herself. She has a coherent and clear foreign policy viewpoint and plenty of knowledge, both overt and covert, about the state of the world. It would not be easy to convince her of hidden dangers without meaningful evidence.

Sanders, by contrast, has that most dangerous quality -- a lack of interest. Sanders has made it pretty clear that foreign policy is simply not his priority. That means he'll have to choose advisors and leave it up to them to guide his choices -- obviously no President can do everything themselves, they've all got gaps. But Sanders will be relying much more than Clinton on the advice of the intelligence agencies and the military, since he has limited focus on it -- and he won't easily be able to know when they're exaggerating problems or downplaying risks. This to me is exactly how Obama became the drone-flinging president he is.

If your concern is primarily stifling the warmongers in the Pentagon, I think the choice is honestly clear.

 

[cpp_is_king]

Not sure if it's been posted but Rand Paul dropped out

 

[Chococat]

However... look at what your wrote. You say that the ideals matter, not the person right? Then you say that they abandoned Obama. Soooo... they did not care about the person (Obama), but rather the ideals themselves. The reason they abandoned Obama is because his ideals changed. He was still the same person.

Obama did not change that much that justified the lower voter turnout on both midterm election were to true legislative power resided. IF people really believe in their ideals (like the Tea Party does), they would be out at every election in force supporting candidates who can make their ideals a reality.

The President is the Commander-in-Chief, making him head of the military and the enforcer of laws. President has the power either to sign legislation from Congress into law or to veto bills- he/she can't create the laws themselves. They can inspire members of Congress to pass laws that match their platform, but they can force their ideas though.

So yes the people failed Obama, by not giving him the tools to do what they wanted aka House and Senate members. Cause that is the only way he can do what the people want with the job of President. Bernie and Hilliary will run into the same problem- the majority of the people fail to understand how their own government functions.

 

[noshten]

Since Bernie has no foreign policy to speak of, I'm not sure how you can judge this.

Here's my contrarian view for the day: I think Bernie Sanders actually is much more likely to take us into a war than Hillary Clinton.

When it comes to avoiding armed conflict, I don't think it's really that much about what the President wants. The dangerous hawks in the establishment aren't in the Oval Office -- they're in the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the CIA. They're theoretically the experts, they theoretically have the responsibility of guiding military policy, but they have a vested interest in American adventurism. So I actually think the most important skill necessary for a dove is managing and filtering information coming out of the pro-war factions within the government. Every president acknowledges that there are SOME reasons to go to war -- all the hawks have to do is argue that those reasons are present. The difficult part is knowing when they're being deceptive.

Obama, to be frank, failed at this. Bill Clinton failed at this as well. W obviously didn't try. The last president who was reasonably effective at this was George H. W., which I suspect is because of his experience as the director of the CIA. He certainly wouldn't get suckered by a report of WMDs in Iraq! He knew the limitations of the intelligence.

So the question really is, between Sanders and Clinton, which of them is best suited to managing the hawks? I think the answer is clearly Clinton. She has lots of experience actually working shoulder to shoulder with the military and the CIA and knowing their tendencies and limitations, as well as handling an intrinsically political government bureaucracy herself. She has a coherent and clear foreign policy viewpoint and plenty of knowledge, both overt and covert, about the state of the world. It would not be easy to convince her of hidden dangers without meaningful evidence.

Sanders, by contrast, has that most dangerous quality -- a lack of interest. Sanders has made it pretty clear that foreign policy is simply not his priority. That means he'll have to choose advisors and leave it up to them to guide his choices -- obviously no President can do everything themselves, they've all got gaps. But Sanders will be relying much more than Clinton on the advice of the intelligence agencies and the military, since he has limited focus on it -- and he won't easily be able to know when they're exaggerating problems or downplaying risks. This to me is exactly how Obama became the drone-flinging president he is.

If your concern is primarily stifling the warmongers in the Pentagon, I think the choice is honestly clear.

I judge his foreign policy based on his stance of trying to normalize relations with Iran instead of attacking them every chance he gets like Clinton. During one of the debate when asked who her biggest enemies are Clinton pointed out it's Iranians, that's a very dangerous form of rhetoric which I'd fully expect the Republican candidates to be paddling but hardly surprising considering Clinton's close ties and allies in Israel and Saudi Arabia.
I judge it based on his comments on Syria and Libya and also the fact he is able to bring up other examples in the last 50 years of failed nation building or support ruthless dictators.
Sanders is not advocating for "no fly zone" which is basically a proposal to declare war on Syria. That's Clinton's position and she has been saying that for a while.
She Part of the people who wanted to oust Gaddafi, part of the people looking to oust Assad, part of the people with no plan of what happens afterwords. The US needs to be more evenhanded in the region otherwise the constant posturing would simply lead to more conflicts in the region between sunni and shia.
Despite her experience - Clinton has a history of making misguided decisions. If it was just the Iraq War you'd have a point but there is trend of Hillary pushing for conflicts that are misguided and lack the actual foresight to address seriously volatile environment around the World.

Clinton is a hawk, you are trying to paint her as someone that stands up to the hawks but she is actually part of them.

 

[SamVimes]

Since Bernie has no foreign policy to speak of, I'm not sure how you can judge this.

Here's my contrarian view for the day: I think Bernie Sanders actually is much more likely to take us into a war than Hillary Clinton.

When it comes to avoiding armed conflict, I don't think it's really that much about what the President wants. The dangerous hawks in the establishment aren't in the Oval Office -- they're in the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the CIA. They're theoretically the experts, they theoretically have the responsibility of guiding military policy, but they have a vested interest in American adventurism. So I actually think the most important skill necessary for a dove is managing and filtering information coming out of the pro-war factions within the government. Every president acknowledges that there are SOME reasons to go to war -- all the hawks have to do is argue that those reasons are present. The difficult part is knowing when they're being deceptive.

Obama, to be frank, failed at this. Bill Clinton failed at this as well. W obviously didn't try. The last president who was reasonably effective at this was George H. W., which I suspect is because of his experience as the director of the CIA. He certainly wouldn't get suckered by a report of WMDs in Iraq! He knew the limitations of the intelligence.

So the question really is, between Sanders and Clinton, which of them is best suited to managing the hawks? I think the answer is clearly Clinton. She has lots of experience actually working shoulder to shoulder with the military and the CIA and knowing their tendencies and limitations, as well as handling an intrinsically political government bureaucracy herself. She has a coherent and clear foreign policy viewpoint and plenty of knowledge, both overt and covert, about the state of the world. It would not be easy to convince her of hidden dangers without meaningful evidence.

Sanders, by contrast, has that most dangerous quality -- a lack of interest. Sanders has made it pretty clear that foreign policy is simply not his priority. That means he'll have to choose advisors and leave it up to them to guide his choices -- obviously no President can do everything themselves, they've all got gaps. But Sanders will be relying much more than Clinton on the advice of the intelligence agencies and the military, since he has limited focus on it -- and he won't easily be able to know when they're exaggerating problems or downplaying risks. This to me is exactly how Obama became the drone-flinging president he is.

If your concern is primarily stifling the warmongers in the Pentagon, I think the choice is honestly clear.

Didn't Clinton have a report that claimed that there was a reasonable chance there weren't WMDs in Iraq? Sounds like she got led by the nose anyway.

Shit, she talked about no fly zones not so long ago.

 

[Squirrel Killer]

Time to own up to my predictions, thankfully no avatar was on the line. First the expectation predictions:

First, the D's since they're so easy. If the expectation is that Clinton will win, Sanders will keep it close and that O'Malley will be a rounding error, then:

• Clinton (45%) Meet
• Sanders (42%) Meet
• O'Malley (3%) Meet

Basically, I think Sanders will make it very close (closer than that poll predicts,) but Clinton holds on to win. I think O'Malley's absolute ceiling is 6%, 5% being possible, but neither would be high enough to call it exceeding expectations.

My take on the results is that Clinton met expectations, Sanders exceeded them by getting so close, and O'Malley managed to fail to meet the low expectations. 1 for 3. I think the viability requirement killed O'Malley. I had thought that he had pockets of support that would make him viable in more precincts, but he really just had a slight smattering of support that made him unviable everywhere.

As for the R's, it's a little more messy. If the expectation is that Trump will win, Cruz will be a clear second, Rubio and Carson will fight for third, and the rest will be rounding errors, then:

• Trump (28%) Fails to meet
• Cruz (23%) Meet
• Rubio (15%) Exceed
• Carson (10%) Fails to meet
• Paul (5%) Exceed
• Christie (3%) Meet
• Bush (2%) Exceed
• Fiorina (2%) Meet
• Huckabee (2%) Fails to meet
• Kasich (2%) Exceeds
• Santorum (2%) Meet

Trump and Carson definitely failed to meet expectations (2 for 2,) Cruz and Rubio exceeded them (1 for 2,) and Paul, Christie, Bush, Fiorina, Huckabee, Kasich, and Santorum met them (3 for 7.) I thought Carson cratered harder than he had and that Paul has a shot at over-taking him. Only quibble with my ratings might be that it could be argued that Christie failed to meet expectations, but since he was always in the 1-3%ers, I'm not too concerned about the exact order - he beat Santorum and Gilmore and statistically tied the other 1-3%ers, nothing to be proud of, but within the range of expectations.

Now for the placement predictions:

Oh, what the hell, let me make a specific placing prediction for shits and giggles:
D: Clinton, Sanders, O'Malley
R: Cruz, Trump, Rubio, Paul, Bush, Carson, Christie, Fiorina, Kashich, Santorum, Huckabee

6 for 6 for the top thee in each party, keeping in mind that the rankings past Carson were just a crap shoot (call it 6 for 9 for the positions I cared about.)

 

[Macam]

Sanders isn't "more likely" to lead us into war than Clinton. I understand the argument being laid, but it's not consistent with his general views and actions up this point.

 

[Horns]

I was waiting on Snopes to set the record straight on the coin flips, but CNN has some of the details. The conspiratorial nature of hardcore Sanders supporters is one of his biggest turnoffs.

Who won these coin flips?

Of the seven coin flips/games of chance that were held in precincts using the Microsoft app, six of those were flips to determine whether a county delegate slot went to Clinton or Sanders. Of those six Clinton-vs.-Sanders coin flips, Sanders won five and Clinton one. The seventh coin flip was used to determine whether a county delegate slot went to Sanders or Martin O'Malley. Sanders won that coin flip as well. So in the seven coin flips that the Iowa Democratic Party has a record of, Sanders won six of them.

So it's incorrect to say that Clinton won every coin flip.

As for the less-than-half of the precincts that didn't use the Microsoft app, it's unclear how many coin flips took place. Only anecdotal information is available on these flips, such as web videos that circulated Monday night.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/02/politics/hillary-clinton-coin-flip-iowa-bernie-sanders/index.html

 

[fantomena]

Hillary wants to overturn Citizens United. She was the person they were trying to smear from the get go. This would, obviously, be a personal fight for her. So....

Source?

 

[B-Dubs]

Source?

Every time she's even been asked about supreme court justices she's said that would be a litmus test. She hasn't exactly been hiding it, it's just not the only thing she talks about.

 

[fantomena]

Every time she's even been asked about supreme court justices she's said that would be a litmus test. She hasn't exactly been hiding it, it's just not the only thing she talks about.

Okay, still need a source.

 

[andythinkpad]

The arcane caucus system that the Dems still use in Iowa and many other states needs to go. People are confused about it because it makes no sense to begin with.

I think they are awesome. And delegates should be required to wear civil war reenactment clothes to participate.

 

[B-Dubs]

Okay, still need a source.

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/05/19/today-in-politics-clinton-says-citizens-united-would-guide-her-supreme-court-picks/

It's not exactly news, she's been saying this for months and months now.

 

[Macho Madness]

Okay, still need a source.

First result for "Hillary citizens United"

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/fir...s-united-would-guide-her-supreme-court-picks/


Also Citizens United started as an "anti-Clinton" group so this is actually pretty personal. Some history and her plans to get rid of it: http://www.politicususa.com/2015/09...emocracy-killing-nemesis-citizens-united.html

 

[fantomena]

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/05/19/today-in-politics-clinton-says-citizens-united-would-guide-her-supreme-court-picks/

It's not exactly news, she's been saying this for months and months now.

First result for "Hillary citizens United"

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/fir...s-united-would-guide-her-supreme-court-picks/

That's good, but what about "get-go" Adam mentioned? Has she been against Citizens United since the start? Has she tried overturning it?

 

[Macho Madness]

That's good, but what about "get-go" Adam mentioned? Has she been against Citizens United since the start? Has she tried overturning it?

Citizens United started as an "anti-Clinton" group so this is actually pretty personal. Some history and her plans to get rid of it: http://www.politicususa.com/2015/09...emocracy-killing-nemesis-citizens-united.html

 

[Lkr]

A tie is a win for Bernie in my books, I didn't expect him to do this well and I'm a huge supporter. Got my registration updated the other day, can't wait for the primary here

 

[pigeon]

Okay, still need a source.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=hillary+clinton+citizens+united+litmus

 

[Alcander]

Hahaha oh man. Defeated Jeb is best Jeb. (no idea how reliable this site is)

http://www.mediaite.com/print/jeb-bush-has-to-tell-new-hampshire-crowd-please-clap/

"please clap"

 

[User 463088]

That's good, but what about "get-go" Adam mentioned? Has she been against Citizens United since the start? Has she tried overturning it?

Citizens United was decided in 2010. By that time, she was Secretary of State, and had no power whatsoever to overturn it. Nor does the President, no matter who he or she is, have the power to overturn it. It can be overturned only by a new ruling at the Supreme Court or by a Constitutional Amendment. The latter would never happen, because it would require a 2/3s majority in the House and Senate to pass the joint resolution. Then 3/4 of the states would have to ratify it (which ain't happening with the way the GOP controls so many state legislatures.)

The only way Citizens United is over turned is through getting a liberal majority on the court. That means flipping either Scalia or Thomas, most likely. And making sure we get a good replacement for Ginsburg.

 

[Macho Madness]

Hahaha oh man. Defeated Jeb is best Jeb. (no idea how reliable this site is)

http://www.mediaite.com/print/jeb-bush-has-to-tell-new-hampshire-crowd-please-clap/

"please clap"

That site is conservative leaning but yes that happened.

 

[Psychoward]

How legal is it for Hillary to nominate Bill as VP?

 

[BoboBrazil]

Trump doing the good work in this election. First he called out Jeb on the "my brother kept us safe during 9/11" shit. Then he pointed out the bullshit in Carson's storied past. Now he is calling out Cruz for his garbage. Thank you Trump.

 

[Macho Madness]

How legal is it for Hillary to nominate Bill as VP?

Not legal at all since the 22nd amendment makes him ineligible to be president. Same qualifications for both.

 

[Eidan]

Hahaha oh man. Defeated Jeb is best Jeb. (no idea how reliable this site is)

http://www.mediaite.com/print/jeb-bush-has-to-tell-new-hampshire-crowd-please-clap/

"please clap"

Goddammit. Does NO ONE have video of this?

 

[boiled goose]

Bernie wants to make it easier for unions, who by the way contribute way more money than wall street to politicians
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/oct/06/bernie-sanders-launches-pro-union-bill-battle-for-organized-labor-intensifies
I find it intriguing that Bernie never criticizes Unions the way he does "Wall Street" despite them actually giving way more money to politicians.
Bernie is to the right on gun control
Maybe Bernie should start by naming names and the laws they broke instead of vague anti-wallstreet populism.

Any reform should definitely prevent unions from donating as well.
To the right of Hillary, at least historically, yes.
Sure.

The point is that if you limit the influence of money in politics, it doesn't matter where one politician stands or another. We can start having an actual discussion based on what the people want or what is good for the people vs donors.

Single-issue voters are what's gotten us years and years of the eroding of the right to choose. Single issue kept same-sex marriage off the table for decades. Voting based on a single issue, regardless of what that issue is, just doesn't make sense to me.

On top of that, Bernie's going to have two choices if he manages to get the nomination: stick to public/small donation funding and get absolutely slaughtered by the $1B+ GOP messaging machine, or he's going to have to go the traditional SuperPAC/big money donation route to be competitive. He can't have both, regardless of how much his supporters think he can. The realities of politics are going to set his supporters up for huge disappointment.

A caveat that is important. Money in politics as a single issue is not the same as gay marriage because as many have explained, it skews all issues. People are already on the right side on many issues, yet for whatever reason legislation is not on the table.

I disagree with the second paragraph to an extent. In presidential elections there is enough free press. It's not the same as smaller elections. Jeb Bush has spent like 20x as much as others in Iowa and look at the results... It does matter, but not as much here. Your concern highlights the problem. Donors can "buy" elections.

 

[User 463088]

How legal is it for Hillary to nominate Bill as VP?

Probably unconstitutional, although there's been no definitive decision on it.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/09/18/bill-clinton-for-vice-president/

It would never happen, though.

 

[B-Dubs]

That's good, but what about "get-go" Adam mentioned? Has she been against Citizens United since the start? Has she tried overturning it?

She's never been in a position to do anything about it, the decision came while she was at the State Department. The only things that can be done about Citizens United are realigning the court or getting a constitutional amendment passed, those are literally our only two options and one of them is impossible. Keep in mind that it started as an anti-Clinton group as well.

 

[jmdajr]

Trump doing the good work in this election. First he called out Jeb on the "my brother kept us safe during 9/11" shit. Then he pointed out the bullshit in Carson's storied past. Now he is calling out Cruz for his garbage. Thank you Trump.

Some good heel vs heel action.

 

[GaimeGuy]

I would agree with the idea that the argument is reaching if Bernie could come up with a convincing argument for why he doesn't support reparations other than "it's divisive." Bernie, your entire platform is divisive.

Wait, what?

 

[Bronx-Man]

Some good heel vs heel action.

But is it a shoot or a work?

 

[Psychoward]

Not legal at all since the 22nd amendment makes him ineligible to be president. Same qualifications for both.

True, forgot about that. Oh well.

 

[Slackerish]

Rick Santorum Suspending Presidential Campaign

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/03/politics/rick-santorum-dropping-presidential-bid/index.html

 

[Squirrel Killer]

Rick Santorum Suspending Presidential Campaign

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/03/politics/rick-santorum-dropping-presidential-bid/index.html

See America, Iowa took care of Santorum too. You're welcome.

 

[cpp_is_king]

See American, Iowa took care of Santorum too. You're welcome.

Curious to see who he endorses

 

[Chococat]

See America, Iowa took care of Santorum too. You're welcome.

Thanks for correcting your 2012 mistake. Though I don't see how Cruz is any better....

 

[TCKaos]

Two more ELECTION BALL Z shops:

 

[chadskin]

Made in the USA! https://store.marcorubio.com/product/bae-t-shirt/

 

[Prodigal Son]

Made in the USA! https://store.marcorubio.com/product/bae-t-shirt/

This isn't real.

 

[jmdajr]

Santorum dropped.

He was doing so well.

 

[E-Cat]

Goddammit. Does NO ONE have video of this?

There's a video in the link.

 

[Miles X]

Two more ELECTION BALL Z shops:

O'Malley is so hot, hottest president ever if he was elected.