Clinton Campaign to spend half of it's campaign budget on advertising as it faces increasing pressur - Polidicks

[QUOTE=codemaster85;49540630]if i asked for one million dollars to start my business from the actual working class, they would throw me in the loony bin.[/QUOTE] Depending on your bank and sales pitch you may just get denied a loan. Why would you go to the looney bin, have you ever taken a business class in college?

[QUOTE=JohnFisher89;49540690]Depending on your bank and sales pitch you may just get denied a loan. Why would you go to the looney bin, have you ever taken a business class in college?[/QUOTE] the average working class person hasn't been to college, let alone can afford it.

[QUOTE=codemaster85;49540736]the average working class person hasn't been to college, let alone can afford it.[/QUOTE] Nice source page 9 [url]http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/nlsyth.pdf[/url] The majority actually has been to college [img]http://i.imgur.com/idpw6zV.png[/img] Please continue

[QUOTE=CrumbleShake;49538494]Starting to look more and more like Sanders may actually win the nomination based off the polls coming out of Iowa and New Hampshire. This is exciting. [editline]15th January 2016[/editline] lots and lots and lots of travelling around different states[/QUOTE] Well not just that, Nevada and some of the super Tuesday states are already tight races, so a win in Iowa and a win in NH, he could tip the balance, NH Hillary has essentially written off for a while now though since its in his backyard but Iowa would be a devastating way to start the primaries [editline]16th January 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=JohnFisher89;49540819]Nice source page 9 [url]http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/nlsyth.pdf[/url] The majority actually has been to college [img]http://i.imgur.com/idpw6zV.png[/img] Please continue[/QUOTE] Kind of prooves the point that things are bad when the majority of workers are not middle class yet the statistics show both highschool graduation and college graduation rates are at historical highs

Honestly, if they start going into a shit-flinging contest, it will inevitably drain their warfunds. Most people saying that, "oh yeah I'm voting Bernie!" will most likely not vote Hillary and the same vise versa. For myself, I'm probably going to vote locally and if it comes down to Clinton vs. Trump, I'll probably vote Trump. If it comes down to Sanders vs. Trump, it really depends on a few things for me. Recently Sanders has been tickling my, "Holy fuck, stop being retarded" button with his antics proclaiming that gun manufacturers should be liable for crimes committed with weapons, that we should abolish banks with no reasonable solution to what replaces them, and in general just saying things with no reasonable idea of how exactly they should be done. Which is something which has struck me as odd with Trump and maybe Cruz at the moment. Trump has pretty much already showed where most of his political leanings are. His policies regarding immigration may sound unreasonable, but at least he is saying something about it. Same goes for his fiscal concepts, stuff relating to domestic issues, and dealing with issues on the foreign scale. So far from the likes of Clinton and Sanders, we have been hearing their big marvelous ideas about what they will do if elected, but they hardly, if ever mention the matters of how they plan on doing it. That's going to become a much, much larger problem for all campaigns down the road. No one is just saying what they plan on doing, and instead are trying to sell ideas, which is fucking stupid.

[QUOTE=JohnFisher89;49540819]Nice source page 9 [url]http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/nlsyth.pdf[/url] The majority actually has been to college [img]http://i.imgur.com/idpw6zV.png[/img] Please continue[/QUOTE] your source just says majority dropped out, please continue.

[QUOTE=Conscript;49538516]Trump represents the white working class.[/QUOTE] No, he represents their bosses. I do not want that man in office solely because I know where his loyalties lie and I know he is going to absolutely gut every worker's protection law he can in the name of making life easier on employers.

[QUOTE=codemaster85;49540880]your source just says majority dropped out, please continue.[/QUOTE] Some college means certificate degree or Associate. [QUOTE=codemaster85;49540736]the average working class person hasn't been to college, let alone can afford it.[/QUOTE] Yet they have, over 50% has meaning that is more than average

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;49540876]Honestly, if they start going into a shit-flinging contest, it will inevitably drain their warfunds. Most people saying that, "oh yeah I'm voting Bernie!" will most likely not vote Hillary and the same vise versa. For myself, I'm probably going to vote locally and if it comes down to Clinton vs. Trump, I'll probably vote Trump. If it comes down to Sanders vs. Trump, it really depends on a few things for me. Recently Sanders has been tickling my, "Holy fuck, stop being retarded" button with his antics proclaiming that gun manufacturers should be liable for crimes committed with weapons, that we should abolish banks with no reasonable solution to what replaces them, and in general just saying things with no reasonable idea of how exactly they should be done. Which is something which has struck me as odd with Trump and maybe Cruz at the moment. Trump has pretty much already showed where most of his political leanings are. His policies regarding immigration may sound unreasonable, but at least he is saying something about it. Same goes for his fiscal concepts, stuff relating to domestic issues, and dealing with issues on the foreign scale. So far from the likes of Clinton and Sanders, we have been hearing their big marvelous ideas about what they will do if elected, but they hardly, if ever mention the matters of how they plan on doing it. That's going to become a much, much larger problem for all campaigns down the road. No one is just saying what they plan on doing, and instead are trying to sell ideas, which is fucking stupid.[/QUOTE] For the gun manufactures, wait a minute, wasn't that Hillary Clinton? Have you taken a look at the [url]http://feelthebern.org/[/url] website?

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;49540876] Recently Sanders has been tickling my, "Holy fuck, stop being retarded" button with his antics proclaiming that gun manufacturers should be liable for crimes committed with weapons, that we should abolish banks with no reasonable solution to what replaces them, and in general just saying things with no reasonable idea of how exactly they should be done.[/QUOTE] I'm guessing you read the SH headline about Sanders gun stance and not much more. In 2005, Sanders voted for legislation to protect gun manufacturers from lawsuits. Have an actual quote from Sanders instead: [quote] “If you were a gun shop owner in Vermont, and you sell somebody a gun, and that person flips out and then kills somebody, I don't think it's really fair to hold the [gun shop owner] responsible. … On the other hand, where there is a problem is there is evidence that gun manufacturers do know that they're selling a whole lot of guns in an area that really should not be buying that many guns — that many of those guns are going to other areas, probably for criminal purposes,” he said. “So can we take another look at that liability issue? Yes.”[/quote] From: [URL]http://www.ibtimes.com/protection-lawful-commerce-arms-act-controversial-gun-law-bernie-sanders-voted-has-2141492[/URL] Even the article linked in that SH post had a quite clear quote: [quote]Weaver [Sanders’s campaign manager] said that Sanders would support changes to the law that if protections are still provided to “actors who are following the law and doing what they’re supposed to do. We don’t want to subject them to liability.”[/quote] From: [URL]https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/01/09/sanders-tells-iowa-crowd-he-supports-changes-to-gun-manufacturers-liability-law/[/URL] Also, the only new quote that washington post article had from Sanders was: [quote]“I think we should take another look at that legislation and get rid of those provisions which allow gun manufacturers to act irresponsibly,”[/quote] "act irresponsibly" doesn't seem to be well defined though. [quote] Which is something which has struck me as odd with Trump and maybe Cruz at the moment. Trump has pretty much already showed where most of his political leanings are. His policies regarding immigration may sound unreasonable, but at least he is saying something about it.[/quote] He may be racist, but at least he's talking about it? [quote] Same goes for his fiscal concepts, stuff relating to domestic issues, and dealing with issues on the foreign scale. So far from the likes of Clinton and Sanders, we have been hearing their big marvelous ideas about what they will do if elected, but they hardly, if ever mention the matters of how they plan on doing it. That's going to become a much, much larger problem for all campaigns down the road. No one is just saying what they plan on doing, and instead are trying to sell ideas, which is fucking stupid.[/quote] Sanders has plans on how to fund his ideas though, helpful infographic covering some of them: [URL]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CYTzn6UWAAAxsiR.jpg[/URL]

Please for the love of fuck, make Sanders win.

Bernie's ONLY actual threat is getting the nomination over Hillary. One on one, I have no doubt in my mind that Bernie would steamroll any of the GOP candidates, especially Trump. Only people not paying attention can say Bernie can't stand up to Trump's personality. It was Bernie's comments on the wage gap that actually pressured DONALD TRUMP into flip-flopping on his previous stance that the minimum wage was "too high" and they needed to compete with other countries... like Bangladesh I'm guessing... Bernie's qualities, substance, history, and his damn near incorruptibility would shine through against any smear campaign they can dish out, because once the press can no longer minimize him and HAVE to talk about the goddamn Democratic candidate, it's going to be clear with anyone remotely paying interest who is worth voting in... even among Republicans. Current polls show Bernie would win over Trump by a nine-point margine, and this is with all the early dismissal and misinformation about his marginal tax rates and healthcare plans. Once he's got more spotlight, he'll make short work of clearing these things up, because even during bullshit "gotcha" interviews he can't be swayed off-point and clarifies his position and methods in no uncertain terms. He's the guy we need, the best candidate I've EVER seen, and if you're not voting for him then I think it's almost fair to say you've given up either on America, or your senses, because we've never had a better shot at beginning to fix what's truly wrong with this country. The man's gonna be the next fucking FDR, but he needs the public's help and support to make it happen.

[QUOTE=Vigilante2470;49542307]He's the guy we need, the best candidate I've EVER seen, and if you're not voting for him then I think it's almost fair to say you've given up either on America, or your senses, because we've never had a better shot at beginning to fix what's truly wrong with this country. The man's gonna be the next fucking FDR, but he needs the public's help and support to make it happen.[/QUOTE] He isn't going to be the next FDR. There has to be another crisis on the scale of the revolution (Washington), Civil War (Lincoln), Great Depression and WWII (FDR) for there to be another president on the same scale as those three. That's why Reagan doesn't make it in - although he won the Cold War, the Cold War wasn't a crisis that threatened America like the other three. No crisis, no presidential greatness.

I hope nothing happens to sander if he gets elected in. Like, in terms of a weird, creeping shift in his politics. Not to get all conspiratorial, but I feel that something weird happened to Obama after he got the office. Like he fundamentally changed. If anyone ever saw that Bill hicks routine, it explains how I kinda feel about the whole election thing, With the president being sat down in a smoky room, being shown footage of the Kennedy assassination from an angle nobody has ever seen before. And the guy goes, "Any questions?" And the president goes, "What's my position?"

[QUOTE=Sprockethead;49542843]I hope nothing happens to sander if he gets elected in. Like, in terms of a weird, creeping shift in his politics. Not to get all conspiratorial, but I feel that something weird happened to Obama after he got the office. Like he fundamentally changed. If anyone ever saw that Bill hicks routine, it explains how I kinda feel about the whole election thing, With the president being sat down in a smoky room, being shown footage of the Kennedy assassination from an angle nobody has ever seen before. And the guy goes, "Any questions?" And the president goes, "What's my position?"[/QUOTE] It's very obvious. Obama wasn't evil and wasn't trying to lie to everyone. Its simply that when he gained the presidency and sat down in the Oval Office and was briefed by the intelligence services and defence, he suddenly was able to see what George W. Bush was seeing, and, although not necessarily agreeing with his course of action, understanding why he took it and understanding that nothing is really that simple, especially when you can see the whole picture. Additionally, the President has limited political power in the US. Obama spent almost all of his passing his key domestic reforms (Obamacare and the fiscal stimulus), which exhausted him and the Democratic party and led in part to losing control of both Houses and losing most of his power with it.

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;49540876]Honestly, if they start going into a shit-flinging contest, it will inevitably drain their warfunds. Most people saying that, "oh yeah I'm voting Bernie!" will most likely not vote Hillary and the same vise versa. For myself, I'm probably going to vote locally and if it comes down to Clinton vs. Trump, I'll probably vote Trump. If it comes down to Sanders vs. Trump, it really depends on a few things for me. Recently Sanders has been tickling my, "Holy fuck, stop being retarded" button with his antics proclaiming that gun manufacturers should be liable for crimes committed with weapons, that we should abolish banks with no reasonable solution to what replaces them, and in general just saying things with no reasonable idea of how exactly they should be done. Which is something which has struck me as odd with Trump and maybe Cruz at the moment. Trump has pretty much already showed where most of his political leanings are. His policies regarding immigration may sound unreasonable, but at least he is saying something about it. Same goes for his fiscal concepts, stuff relating to domestic issues, and dealing with issues on the foreign scale. So far from the likes of Clinton and Sanders, we have been hearing their big marvelous ideas about what they will do if elected, but they hardly, if ever mention the matters of how they plan on doing it. That's going to become a much, much larger problem for all campaigns down the road. No one is just saying what they plan on doing, and instead are trying to sell ideas, which is fucking stupid.[/QUOTE] Breaking up banks =\= abolishing them. Read about what it means.

My greatest concern would be foreign policy under Sanders. It would probably be all of the problems of Obama but even more extreme.

I said it in that thread and I'll say it hear, that legislation wouldn't even be mentioned again in the Sanders administration if he won. It was political rhetoric aimed at preventing Clinton trying to appear on Sanders left by bringing it up on a talk show. Frankly, outside of the Republican field, Sanders is likely the best pro-gun candidate. I can't see him doing anything with firearms during his presidency, much like Obama's.

[QUOTE=Mr._N;49543538]Breaking up banks =\= abolishing them. Read about what it means.[/QUOTE] I understand what it means, but all it'll do is cause over-speculation within the stockmarket and most likely cause downfalls within stocks and the like. Our current financial system is not stable by any means, but at this current moment in time, going about breaking up the major banks would be not only near-suicidal, it'll most likely cause another recession as we do not have anything to backup the financial instabilities within small communities and states. Unless his plan also has some fine-print saying, "Force every state to have a bank like North Dakota's Bank of North Dakota" then he shouldn't really discuss economics in such matters, as he'll come across as just another crazy socialist who thinks that everything can be solved by blowing shit up.

There should be a cap on how much can be spent on political campaigns like in the UK. Not saying it'll be perfect (We still got the Tories but that's partially the media's fault) but yeah.

[QUOTE=GordonZombie;49543896]There should be a cap on how much can be spent on political campaigns like in the UK. Not saying it'll be perfect (We still got the Tories but that's partially the media's fault) but yeah.[/QUOTE] There are limits on how much can be donated to a campaign, but there are so many loopholes and vague definitions it hardly matters.

[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;49542685]He isn't going to be the next FDR. There has to be another crisis on the scale of the revolution (Washington), Civil War (Lincoln), Great Depression and WWII (FDR) for there to be another president on the same scale as those three. That's why Reagan doesn't make it in - although he won the Cold War, the Cold War wasn't a crisis that threatened America like the other three. No crisis, no presidential greatness.[/QUOTE] If an ever-present threat of global war and nuclear annihilation doesn't qualify as a crisis, I don't know what does. The cold war had an impact on our parent's and grandparent's everyday lives. Don't tell me it wasn't a crisis.

To say the cold war wasn't a crisis is naive because I have no doubt the tensions between US and the Soviets would've eventually led to some panicking and nukes being fired. Humanity is dumb enough to do it.

Crises are about immediacy. The Cold War wasn't a crisis but the Cuban Missile Crisis did occur during it, as an example.

[QUOTE=Sprockethead;49542843]I hope nothing happens to sander if he gets elected in. Like, in terms of a weird, creeping shift in his politics. Not to get all conspiratorial, but I feel that something weird happened to Obama after he got the office. Like he fundamentally changed. If anyone ever saw that Bill hicks routine, it explains how I kinda feel about the whole election thing, With the president being sat down in a smoky room, being shown footage of the Kennedy assassination from an angle nobody has ever seen before. And the guy goes, "Any questions?" And the president goes, "What's my position?"[/QUOTE] If Bernie goes the way of JFK and gets shot by another Oswald that could be the breaking point for the political machine. The tools available through social media, youtube, the camera on our phones will make it impossible for a government coverup to happen like it did with JFK.

[QUOTE=Psychokitten;49544681]If an ever-present threat of global war and nuclear annihilation doesn't qualify as a crisis, I don't know what does. The cold war had an impact on our parent's and grandparent's everyday lives. Don't tell me it wasn't a crisis.[/QUOTE] I think that by Reagan, the USSR was so far behind the US that what Reagan achieved was victory in a shorter than expected period rather than victory from the jaws of defeats, as the three 'greats' achieved. I'm not denying the importance of the Cold War, but the main battles which ensured the survival of the US had already been won (economic, military and to a lesser extent ideological/intellectual), but the war hadn't been. [editline]16th January 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=LtKyle2;49544873]If Bernie goes the way of JFK and gets shot by another Oswald that could be the breaking point for the political machine. The tools available through social media, youtube, the camera on our phones will make it impossible for a government coverup to happen like it did with JFK.[/QUOTE] what the hell are you talking about lol