I think caulfield caught rubios glitch. Does that get passed through the air or

 

Edited February 9, 201610 yr by caulfield12

This is good stuff on CNN. So if some male celebrity was to say he chooses Bernie over Hillary because he's a man, he'd get roasted by the media. But feminists are saying there's a special place in hell for women who don't support women and that's OK?? This young voter gets it right. Also did you see the clip of Rachel Maddow hugging Hillary and Bernie after the debate. Hilarious. Wink, wink we are all for you Hillary!

 

Via CNN article. ...

"As a young woman who supports Bernie Sanders, I'm frustrated and outraged by being constantly attacked by older feminists for my refusal to vote according to my gender," said Ariana Javidi, a sophomore studying human rights, economics and gender studies at the University of Connecticut.

 

"Like my fellow young feminist women, I recognize that voting for a woman because she's a woman is sexist, just like voting for a man because he's a man is also sexist," said Javidi. "When older feminists like Albright and Steinem engage in increasingly baseless and wild explanations about why young women don't support Hillary, they display the limitations of their brand of feminism, while young women like me realize that one's gender isn't what makes them a feminist."

Edited February 9, 201610 yr by greg775

Sarah Silverman is openly campaigning for Bernie and receiving no backlash that I've noticed.

This is a really interesting conversation we keep having about greg posting things he's watched on cable news and how the media loves hillary.

This is a really interesting conversation we keep having about greg posting things he's watched on cable news and how the media loves hillary.

I think it's VERY interesting that young women voters are being attacked by older women basically saying, "How dare you not vote for a woman since you are a woman!" Again ... if a man said, "Of course I'm voting for Bernie. He's male," that person would be fried on TV.

Greg, how many of those 84% of women under age 30 supporting Sanders in Iowa 1) will still vote in the general election and 2) wouldn't vote for Kasich, Rubio, Bloomberg instead?

 

As things stand now, she probably loses half one way or the other.

 

Plus, her husband, Madeline Albright and Gloria Steinem are polarizing things in a panic just like eight years ago in South Carolina. She's quite fortunate African-Americans can forgive their family after insulting/smearing Obama so openly.

I think it's VERY interesting that young women voters are being attacked by older women basically saying, "How dare you not vote for a woman since you are a woman!" Again ... if a man said, "Of course I'm voting for Bernie. He's male," that person would be fried on TV.

 

Yeah, real tough out there for men these days.

Greg, how many of those 84% of women under age 30 supporting Sanders in Iowa 1) will still vote in the general election and 2) wouldn't vote for Kasich, Rubio, Bloomberg instead?

 

As things stand now, she probably loses half one way or the other.

 

Plus, her husband, Madeline Albright and Gloria Steinem are polarizing things in a panic just like eight years ago in South Carolina. She's quite fortunate African-Americans can forgive their family after insulting/smearing Obama so openly.

 

LOL

Why would someone engaged enough to partake in a caucus for Sanders ever vote for one of those three? What's the ideological overlap there?

This is a really interesting conversation we keep having about greg posting things he's watched on cable news and how the media loves hillary.

You know...I don't really get it. A lot of what Greg has said is actually true. Have you guys watched a lot of the clips. Most of the time I watch any coverage on the election, I just roll my eyes at the absurd arguments made on both sides of the court. You all do realize the vast majority of people who vote know nothing other than some slight aspects from what the media says and more often are going to go and vote based upon party and likeability. For example, someone just not liking someone because of there look is a total normal reason to not vote for someone or how they carry themselves.

 

History has shown how superficial voters are and yet all of you want to ignore those facts. I have talked to numerous people who like trump purely because they here the media say he tells it like it is. None of them know what he actually is saying, he just "tells it like it is". Thats it. You all give people too much damn credit to be frank. And maybe someone will whine and say, well now we are smarter, no we aren't, Howard Dean's speach ended his campaign (did he have other issues, sure, but that one speech sure has hell torpedoed any remaining odds he had and it isn't like he said anything bad).

 

Plus lets be realists, I could make an argument that Trump (and I think by now, all of you know I don't like Trump) is the most selfless of everyone in this campaign as he's the only one who hasn't been totally bought out (of course I'd also tell you he has a gargantuan ego and that is probably more to do with him running). They are all selfish candidates who have all kind of interests with gigantic egos. Anyone thinks otherwise is delusional. The potential exception to this is Sanders, who genuinely seems passionate about what he wants to do (and I'll give him credit for that) and is an extremely rare candidate from that regard.

 

You know...I don't really get it. A lot of what Greg has said is actually true. Have you guys watched a lot of the clips. Most of the time I watch any coverage on the election, I just roll my eyes at the absurd arguments made on both sides of the court. You all do realize the vast majority of people who vote know nothing other than some slight aspects from what the media says and more often are going to go and vote based upon party and likeability. For example, someone just not liking someone because of there look is a total normal reason to not vote for someone or how they carry themselves.

 

History has shown how superficial voters are and yet all of you want to ignore those facts. I have talked to numerous people who like trump purely because they here the media say he tells it like it is. None of them know what he actually is saying, he just "tells it like it is". Thats it. You all give people too much damn credit to be frank. And maybe someone will whine and say, well now we are smarter, no we aren't, Howard Dean's speach ended his campaign (did he have other issues, sure, but that one speech sure has hell torpedoed any remaining odds he had and it isn't like he said anything bad).

 

Plus lets be realists, I could make an argument that Trump (and I think by now, all of you know I don't like Trump) is the most selfless of everyone in this campaign as he's the only one who hasn't been totally bought out (of course I'd also tell you he has a gargantuan ego and that is probably more to do with him running). They are all selfish candidates who have all kind of interests with gigantic egos. Anyone thinks otherwise is delusional. The potential exception to this is Sanders, who genuinely seems passionate about what he wants to do (and I'll give him credit for that) and is an extremely rare candidate from that regard.

Trump is taking on HUGE sums of money from private donors now.

You know...I don't really get it. A lot of what Greg has said is actually true. Have you guys watched a lot of the clips. Most of the time I watch any coverage on the election, I just roll my eyes at the absurd arguments made on both sides of the court. You all do realize the vast majority of people who vote know nothing other than some slight aspects from what the media says and more often are going to go and vote based upon party and likeability. For example, someone just not liking someone because of there look is a total normal reason to not vote for someone or how they carry themselves.

 

History has shown how superficial voters are and yet all of you want to ignore those facts. I have talked to numerous people who like trump purely because they here the media say he tells it like it is. None of them know what he actually is saying, he just "tells it like it is". Thats it. You all give people too much damn credit to be frank. And maybe someone will whine and say, well now we are smarter, no we aren't, Howard Dean's speach ended his campaign (did he have other issues, sure, but that one speech sure has hell torpedoed any remaining odds he had and it isn't like he said anything bad).

 

Plus lets be realists, I could make an argument that Trump (and I think by now, all of you know I don't like Trump) is the most selfless of everyone in this campaign as he's the only one who hasn't been totally bought out (of course I'd also tell you he has a gargantuan ego and that is probably more to do with him running). They are all selfish candidates who have all kind of interests with gigantic egos. Anyone thinks otherwise is delusional. The potential exception to this is Sanders, who genuinely seems passionate about what he wants to do (and I'll give him credit for that) and is an extremely rare candidate from that regard.

 

Kasich strikes you as selfish?

Why would someone engaged enough to partake in a caucus for Sanders ever vote for one of those three? What's the ideological overlap there?

 

Kasich isn't very far off from her classical triangulating moderate/centrism. Better personality.

 

Bloomberg is fiscally conservative but socially liberal...he won't get as many from Sanders, although polls stiil how him splitting off 5-7% in a three way race from Bernie.

 

Rubio is just much younger, attractive, hopeful/optimistic and reminiscent of Obama to many. See his speech at Timberland and you'll understand why young voters would be drawn to him.

Edited February 9, 201610 yr by caulfield12

Younger women trend toward Bernie because younger women are more liberal. You should write for politico thou

Kasich isn't very far off from her classical triangulating moderate/centrism. Better personality.

 

Bloomberg is fiscally conservative but socially liberal...he won't get as many from Sanders, although polls stiil how him splitting off 5-7% in a three way race from Bernie.

 

Rubio is just much younger, attractive, hopeful/optimistic and reminiscent of Obama to many. See his speech at Timberland and you'll understand why young voters would be drawn to him.

The problem with Rubio is he is a republican so he has to change his personal views to those of the people giving him money which doesnt jive with the younger, more diverse voting base. PLus he's a windup doll.

"I'd vote for 75 year old Bernie Sanders because he really speaks to me, but absent him, I'll probably go for the younger Rubio because he's younger and hopeful and optimistic, like when he says that the current democratic president that I liked is purposefully destroying america. Appealing to hope. And I'm really into his policies." - Young women

Kasich is not a moderate.

I also don't think the "Rubio is an inspiring speaker" ever made sense, but it really doesn't look too hot right now

"I'd vote for 75 year old Bernie Sanders because he really speaks to me, but absent him, I'll probably go for the younger Rubio because he's younger and hopeful and optimistic, like when he says that the current democratic president that I liked is purposefully destroying america. Appealing to hope. And I'm really into his policies." - Young women

I just dont see any anti-gay anti-abortion candidate EVER being able to capture the younger audience.

Republicans really need to drop the social issues schtick. Their voters will be pissed but I really doubt they'd switch parties for that reason.

Why is everyone assuming that Rubio won't tack back to the middle on other equally important social issues like immigration were he to be the nominee?

 

Rubio keeps repeating that Obama line for the same reason everyone says certain things in primary season and then differentiates themselves for the general.

 

Finally, what is the actual likelihood Roe vs. Wade is ever overturned?

 

 

 

Why is everyone assuming that Rubio won't tack back to the middle on other equally important social issues like immigration were he to be the nominee?

 

He can't tack back to the middle on immigration. That would be hailed as the biggest flip-flop in history and no one would believe it.

He can't tack back to the middle on immigration. That would be hailed as the biggest flip-flop in history and no one would believe it.

 

The two leaders for the party nomination lead the world on flip-flops.

Hillary on Keystone and trade pacts, for example.

She rips Sanders about voting yes for derivatives/swaps legislation her husband pushed and helped enact.

Gay rights, another example.

She claims to be tough on big banks and that she pre-emptively confronted Wall Street about mortgage crisis but zero evidence to support that.

A lot of her votes on use of military force have flipped as well, certainly 2002 still haunts her as a Democrat.

She has always been more conservative than her husband and volunteered for Goldwater.

 

Trump has flipped on almost every public stance he held a decade ago.

Edited February 9, 201610 yr by caulfield12