Along those lines of thought, we should have left Saddam in place too. Both of those strongmen kept the lid on their populations and by extension, peace in their regions. Another reason why we should also leave Iran alone. However that line of thinking didn't really apply to the Beirut bombing when Reagan was POTUS. To their credit, there was no ongoing political witchunt about it dragging on and on. Putin has the right idea. Time for the US to GTFO of the ME and leave it to the locals to sort out. They'll always need money and we'll need oil for the forseeable future. Leave it at that.
Iran is different. They are making threats and acquiring ballistic missile technology, along with development of nuclear weapons. Not to mention that Iran is sponsoring multiple terrorist groups and is trying to influence the Middle East. If Saddam was still there, as a counterweight to Iran, then sure we could leave Iran alone but now we can't....
https://www.rollingstone.com/politi...mes-sandbagged-bernie-sanders-20160315?page=3 Found this interesting. Not the way NY Times operates, but rather how Sanders has worked across the aisle to get things done, since not being able to implement things has been one of the things people seem to have against him.
Posting a clip cut off in mid-sentence is disingenuous at best, outright dishonest at worst. Whether you cut it or it was already chopped up at your source might speak to the motivation but including the complete statement would be the right thing to do and eliminate the question.
So you continue to say you don't want the uneducated to make, what you consider, the wrong decision, yet you continue to deny you are saying just that. This has nothing to do with whether the masses are right or wrong. They have made stupendously wrong voting decisions for long before I was around and will long after I am gone. You thinking someone should be able to take away that right or weaken their voting power is what I questioned. Bringing up policies that you believe "make absolutely no sense" thinking it bolsters your argument is neither here nor there, that is why I did not bother to address it. I addressed weakened power of a single vote and how you seem to want only those people voting for policies you approve of, what you deem the educated voter, having the power of the vote.
Something happening well before something else happening is not a direct cause in any meaningful sense. Donald Trump inherited a lot of money. So that means all the things that he did afterward was the result of his inheriting money, and not of any cause in the interim, such as his own initiative, right? Works for me.
Should have saved yourself the trouble. Sack up. Be a man. Don't hide behind stupid cut and paste jobs. Other than her being a woman, what policies does she have that you don't like? THat's a rhetorical question, since you obviously prefer to attack her with stupid shit like you just did.
Your reading comprehension skill is a stuff of a legend. Kudos to you. 1. Did I ever say I didn't want the uneducated mass to make wrong decision? [You need to pinpoint where I said it - because I have no recollection of saying dumb shit of that magnitude.] 2. Did I ever say anything about [taking away the voting right of the mass]? You thought of the superdelegate system as that. Yes. That happened entirely [in your nice little delusion.] 3. All I said was - any power should be in within checks and balances, and the mass shouldn't be an exception. [You should be able to find this reference.] On top of that, you have answered your own question in this nice little diatribe; the mass has made a lot of wrong decisions throughout history. [Hence - the need for checks and balances.] So here's the question for you. Should you let the country derail into disaster [simply because that is the will of the general public]? [This isn't entirely hypothetical situation either; Just look at the Republican primary 2016.] Because - you are suggesting just that. And you are calling out any attempt to put a brake in the situation as [taking away the right of the mass.] [Jesus. You really need to learn how to read first. A close second would be how to think.]
Except your argument has nothing to do with uneducated voters as a whole having a system that balances their voting decisions, it has to do with you simply declaring them uneducated because you don't agree with them.
So birdie swept yesterdays primaries in Washington State, Hawaii and Alaska. Not a ton of delegates but maybe some momentum for the bern.
You'll like this one. I was just reading "Days of Fire" an account of the Bush/Cheney administration. Back in 2008, he expected that Hillary!ous would be next POTUS. He is quoted,directly as saying to his staff in the Oval Office "Wait till her fat ass is behind this desk" I LMAO.
If they split NY and CA at 50:50 [A tall order. Birdie is down by some 40% in NY] then Hillary picks up near 450. Add that to her current count [1700+] and she's almost there at 2150. Birdie will have to win, and win BIG from now on. [I just don't see how that happens.]
Most people are following the numbers exclusive of super delegates. They're effectively the ultimate swing voters. If Bernie pulled ahead somehow on pledged delegates, you might see a swing in those numbers come June.
Back in 2008 - Hillary couldn't overtake 100 vote differential. Birdie is down by how much? [Good 250 on pledged votes alone, off my head.] I don't see how Birdie overtakes Hillary. True - you shouldn't trust the poll result too much, but when the result comes in like it does in NY and CA [in NY, Birdie is down by some 30%, as in 65-35, while he's still down by double digit in CA], I don't see how Birdie can come away with anything better than an even split. [And as I showed above, that's a losing scenario; and unfortunately for Birdie, that's the best case scenario, unless the polls are completely flubbing.]
It's still a long shot for sure, but mathematically possible. I'm still young and optimistic about such things haha. I personally think NY will be the big teller. If Birdie matches Hilary there or at least pulls within single digits, he has the strength to pull back. I could easily see CA swinging in his favour very quickly.
