The Official World Politics Thread - All Breaking News here.

AggyAF wrote: »

Lmao is it funny to anyone else that the guy with the most posts in here is a Canadian lol

tupacfan12 wrote: »

The super delegates are not gonna jump to Bernie cause he won another round of white states like Washington, Idaho, and Alaska sorry. I respect the fact that Sanders supporters are holding on hope but....the delusion is real.

Stiff wrote: »

In a Trump vs Clinton general..i'm SERIOUSLY considering voting for Trump. The Republican party as we know it won't survive a Trump presidency and it's time for that party to die. Also he'll bring overt racism back in-style and I think Black people handle that better...get people woke. Covert racism been kicking Black people's ass.

I'm in Georgia so it's gonna go red anyway.

Stiff wrote: »

In a Trump vs Clinton general..i'm SERIOUSLY considering voting for Trump. The Republican party as we know it won't survive a Trump presidency and it's time for that party to die. Also he'll bring overt racism back in-style and I think Black people handle that better...get people woke. Covert racism been kicking Black people's ass.

I'm in Georgia so it's gonna go red anyway.

R.D. wrote: »

Stiff wrote: »

In a Trump vs Clinton general..i'm SERIOUSLY considering voting for Trump. The Republican party as we know it won't survive a Trump presidency and it's time for that party to die. Also he'll bring overt racism back in-style and I think Black people handle that better...get people woke. Covert racism been kicking Black people's ass.

I'm in Georgia so it's gonna go red anyway.

You been watching my post bro

Sion wrote: »

(ob)Scene wrote: »

Sion wrote: »

Sanders is not going to win Cali Bwahahahahahhahaha and looooollloolololol @ "if Ohio went to Bernie we'd be tied" you ? maaaannn loooolllloooolllllloooolllllloooolllll. As if Trillary wasn't killing him prior on all fronts. And now we're "amateurs" because Sanders should drop out so she can prepare for Trump because Trillary Clinton has her foot on his neck and from here he can only get pyrrhic victories AHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAAA !!!!


Same question goes that yall seem to avoid and dance around - "why do you think the majority of the democrats are so heavily on her side and not Sanders ??" And it's not because "well there's no one else to vote for!" No one wants to raise an eyebrow as to why they're not really supporting the man at all.

Alright, it's getting to the point where we're incapable of having a civil discussion because your comprehension has gone completely out the window. I said, "if Sanders is ahead after California votes on the last day..." Meaning if Sanders is ahead after all the voting is completed (Cali is the last state to vote).

And the answer to why are they so heavily on her side is the same reason why they were so heavily on her side against Obama until the end. She's the favorite & it serves their careers better to do so as long as that's the case. Nobody anywhere believes Hillary got those pledges based on some type of principled stand. I hope you aren't playing yourself by insinuating that.

Implications implications implications out the ass. It has nothing to do now with the fact that Bernie Sanders disses the democrats calling them the establishment ? It has nothing to do with the fact that he's against corporate America for no good reason at all ?? It has nothing to do with the fact that Sanders' plans have many loopholes disastrous for the economy or misleading ? Why can't yall give Hillary any props that she's a good politician, she's running a good campaign, has a solid base within and outside her party and to root out the Republicans and has a strong plan for the economy ? Yeah we can't have a civil discussion if y'all wont give her any props. As if to imply ppl are "stupid" because they see through Sanders and feel Hillary is someone more suited to lead the country and carries a deeper symbolic and historical message if she wins (first female president). But this is about yall dislike for a woman and not that she can actually run the country well. None of yall have yet to objectively point out the flaws in your deities Sanders policies we pointed out earlier yall always wanna change the subject or say "well Hillary...". You say we playing ourselves when 2 pages ago yall were trying to say Sanders had no flaws and was an angel. These people are politicians they play a game for votes and quid pro quo for favours.


Yall are implying that Sanders can win, how when Hillary is just a few hundred votes shy of clinching the nomination and Sanders would literally have to win every single stage from here on out at no less than 60% (John King's words) to win LOOOOOLLLOOLOLOLOL.

Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting’s Jim Naureckas has called attention to the fact that the Times used to report delegate counts as if they were only a result of “voters who mattered.” Naureckas wrote, “The unpledged superdelegates can only indicate who they intend to vote for, which is not necessarily who they will actually vote for; they can and in the past have changed their minds. Counting them the same as pledged delegates is a bit like counting delegates from states that haven’t voted yet because voters in those states tell pollsters they intend to vote for one candidate or the other. They may or may not feel differently when the time comes.”

In 2008, when Clinton ran against then-Senator Barack Obama, the Times treated the number of pledged delegates as the accurate and current delegate count in the race. The Times counted “only delegates that have been officially selected and are bound by their preferences.”

“The way the media has been reporting this is incorrect,” DNC chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz said on MSNBC on February 27. “There aren’t pledged delegates, i.e. super delegates, earned at any of these primary or caucus contests. Those unpledged delegates are elected officials, party leaders, people who have spent years and years in the Democratic Party. Members of Congress, our DNC members are super delegates. And they have the ability to decide who they choose to support at the convention at any point.”

“They’re really free to decide all the way up until July,” Wasserman Schultz added. She later added that combining “super delegates” with “pledged delegates” from primaries or caucuses at each phase of the contest does not provide an “accurate picture” of how this works.

Who Is Ted Cruz?
Ross Douthat

ENOUGH, for one week at least, about the strange victories of Donald Trump. Let’s talk about the mysteries of his last real competitor, Ted Cruz.

On the surface, Cruz is a straightforward figure: The ideological zealot, the politician-as-activist, the unbending embodiment of True Conservatism. He’s the scourge of Obamacare, the bane of the G.O.P. establishment, the evangelical moralist with a flat-tax plan and a Reagan quote for every occasion. If Trump has dynamited Republican orthodoxy and tapped out nasty tweets from the rubble, Cruz has kept pace by promising to rebuild that same orthodoxy stronger than before.

In this framing, Cruz is basically Barry Goldwater come again, an ideological crusader who might still grab his party’s nomination, but whose general election prospects are limited by his own extremism.

I’ve used this framing myself, and it might be the best way to approach a Hillary-Cruz race. But it also seems inadequate to understanding Cruz’s strange ascent.

Start at the intuitive level. Despite what you may have heard, true belief is pretty common among politicians. Listen to Rand Paul talk about liberty or Marco Rubio dilate on the promise of America; watch Bernie Sanders rail against inequality or President Obama defend technocratic liberalism. They all radiate sincerity. Watch a Goldwater speech: you can tell the man believed it.

With Cruz, though, even the most fervent peroration always feels like a debater’s patter, an advocate’s brief — compelling enough on the merits, but more of a command performance than a window into deep conviction.

This doesn’t mean that Cruz’s conservatism isn’t sincere. But the fact that he seems so much like an actor hitting his marks fits with the story of how he became Mr. True Conservative Outsider in the first place. Basically, he spent years trying to make it in Washington on the insider’s track, and hit a wall because too many of the insiders didn’t like him — because his ambition was too naked, his climber’s zeal too palpable. So he deliberately switched factions, turning the establishment’s personal disdain into a political asset, and taking his Ivy League talents to the Tea Party instead.

Then once installed as a leader of the counterestablishment, he walked a line that looks, again, far more calculated than most conviction politicians. While his fellow Tea Party senators, from Paul to Rubio to Utah’s Mike Lee, built detailed policy portfolios that fit their interests and inclinations, Cruz never seemed to take a step on any contentious issue without gaming it out 17 moves ahead.

His push for the Obamacare shutdown, and the bill of goods he sold the party’s base, was a particularly remarkably exercise in self-serving political cynicism. But on many fronts — Edward Snowden, trade policy, immigration, the fate of Middle Eastern Christians — Cruz has proceeded with several fingers in the wind; every time the conservative mood has shifted even a little, he’s shifted quickly too.

The same pattern has prevailed in the presidential campaign, in his complicated relationship to Trump — obsequious at first, cynically imitative on issues where Trump’s demagogy has worked, and finally self-righteous and dudgeon-filled now that the name-calling and scandal-mongering have been turned against his reputation and his family.

Throughout this rise, Cruz has often seemed less like Goldwater than like American conservatism’s own Kenneth Widmerpool, the most memorable character in the English novelist Anthony Powell’s series, “A Dance to the Music of Time.”

A dogged, charmless, unembarrassed striver, Widmerpool begins Powell’s novels as a figure of mockery for his upper-class schoolmates. But over the course of the books he ascends past them — to power, influence, a peerage — through a mix of ruthless effort, ideological flexibility, and calculated kissing-up.

Enduring all manner of humiliations, bouncing back from every setback, tacking right and left with the times, he embodies the triumph of raw ambition over aristocratic rules of order. “Widmerpool,” the narrator realizes at last, sounding like a baffled, Cruz-hating Republican senator today, “once so derided by all of us, had in some mysterious manner become a person of authority.”

This is not exactly a flattering comparison. But the American reader, less enamored of a fated aristocratic order, may find aspects of Widmerpool’s character curiously sympathetic. And some of that strange sympathy could be extended to Cruz.

Unloved, unattractive, a Simpsons-quoting nerd still chasing the teenage dream of world ? , the Texas senator has outworked, out-organized and outlasted the candidates who were supposed to beat him, from the blueblood to the ? .

His cynicism can be repellent, his message discipline exhausting, and his Reagan-vintage policy proposals induce a mild despair. But in the drama of this insane campaign, he has actually earned his position, and if his doggedness wins the Republican nomination on the second ballot it will be one of the most fascinating triumphs in recent political history.

Though it will also probably be short-lived. But if you think a little thing like losing a general election will dispose of Ted Cruz’s ambitions, you don’t know Ted Cruz.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/27/opinion/who-is-ted-cruz.html

Sion wrote: »

You guys hate Trillary because she's a woman and a thoroughbred politician, point blank, through and through. You want Sanders to win because you hate what it represents if Trillary Clinton wins. You guys hate that ? . Accept that the head of your country is going to be a woman.

*drops mic*