I will keep doing, but not worth it! The 2016 Presidential Primary Voting Thread

don't rly want to see what he signs+tweets next

https://twitter.com/JebBush/status/699706718419345408

― mookieproof, Tuesday, 16 February 2016 21:37 (21 minutes ago) Permalink

please clap back

whose name is engraved on the bullets tho

tbh it looks more like a suicide hint than a threat, or what shakey said

cos what this election was totally missing was a Budd Dwyer moment

ugh

One of my bosses described Jeb as "the neighbor you avoid having conversations with." This kind of puts a new spin on that.

omg the america parody tweets are half my feed now, jeb is such a maroon

@ggreenwald
This is basically a version of the self-posted picture that ended Anthony Weiner's political career...

It kind of reminds me of the Dukakis tank photo.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/02/16/sleep-well-baby-boomers-the-millennials-arent-taking-over-politics-yet/?tid=sm_tw

The aforementioned race being that for the presidency, and the unsettling referring to the disruption that's been unsettling baby boomers the country over: The decreasing demographic dominance of America's once-largest generation. "For the first time," reporter Janet Hook writes in her lead, "millennials will match baby boomers as a share of the electorate." Oh my God, boomers think, as they try to catch their breaths. What is this country coming to? Will they elect ... a selfie stick??

Yes. Yes they will.

Selfie Stick/Eyebrows On Fleek '16

An entire 2016 campaign just consisting of "BAE" on lawn signs. Is it a candidate? A slogan? A party? No one knows.

i just want to state that i have no clue what "America." was supposed to mean. i mean really, what was he trying to say? america is the freedom to own a gun with your name on it? that only in america would you have your own name on your gun? america is owning a gun? america is owning a custom gun? wtf does it mean?

so doubling back though, what do we think about clinton's civil rights agenda? i haven't followed all her previous statements on this, so it's hard for me to get a sense of whether this is a small elaboration of things she's already said, a big step forward, more of the same, cover for the fallout of the 1994 crime bill, or what.

xpost that he's pretty determined to get jebbush.com back

I haven't really digested what she's said; the initial Twitter reaction I saw was "this is the most comprehensive statement on civil rights put forward by any of the candidates and it's still short on detail"

maybe this is the first hint that one of Jeb's cost cutting measures will be rolling back his own secret service detail.

"i got this one, boys." *shoots self in foot*

.....current polling indicates Ecco the Dolphin holding a comfortable lead over ASCII art of the Golden Girls in South Carolina

the "America." tweet is the Far Side "Cow Tools" of the 2016 election

xpost that he's pretty determined to get jebbush.com back

Heh, I like that. Not the URL, but the word.

As in: "It was very jebbush to caption that gun tweet with 'America.'"

I haven't really digested what she's said; the initial Twitter reaction I saw was "this is the most comprehensive statement on civil rights put forward by any of the candidates and it's still short on detail"

that is the impression i got from skimming the agenda, and every time it mentions something like govt matching funds for down payments on homes it attaches a who-knows-what-this-means neolib qualifier like "hardworking" to the beneficiaries, but i also gut feel that it is probably Enough electorally -- it made me feel like bernie's opportunity to actually attack the clintons' '90s legacy in racial terms, which despite all his attractive collegiality he needed to do to proceed, has passed, especially since bill got into position a while ago with that "i went too far, sadly, for regrettable technical reasons, and totally not because i was more scared of a tubby moonbase nerd than i was of becoming history's greatest jailor" stuff -- sanders would be attacking an officially different clinton now. i know he is continuing to Surge and clinton's lead in SC is way smaller than hillary clinton's lead in SC over a socialist should be, but i still just think sanders really is about to hit a wall unless he suddenly produces+disseminates a serious intersectional masterpiece of a unified left field theory, which is also a plan, and also punchy, and also seems vaguely like something that might happen in america in the third millennium anno domini without the gutters actually having to run with blood first, and i don't think he is the guy who is going to do that.

i'm sure we've all seen variations on this claim but is there any reason not to believe the argument that many black politicians backed the 1994 crime bill? ppl seem to keep glossing over that fact to make it seem like bill clinton was just doing some tough on crime triangulation bullshit but if that's not historically accurate, and he wasn't the only person to foresee the impact of the bill, then esp if you feel like politicians should take the lead on policies from black leaders it seems kinda shitty to dump it on hillary as a point against her.

wasn't the only person to not* foresee i mean

and should let black leaders take the lead*

May we dump "super-predators" and "bring them to heel" on her? There could've been someone else throwing their voice when she was on camera.

what are you dumping on her exactly? community leaders and politicians wanted to curb the out of control crime in their communities and so they worked with the clintons to pass this bill that ended up having terrible unintended consequences. i feel like - and maybe i'm wrong here - but part of the issue is that there's a narrative about incarceration that it's a conscious attempt to decimate the black community, or keep it under control, or some other nefarious subversive purpose and not that it's the result of bad policies. but to make that case you need to massage the historical facts too much.

Fwiw, from the Alexander piece that Neyfakh refers to:

Of course, it can be said that it’s unfair to criticize the Clintons for punishing black people so harshly, given that many black people were on board with the “get tough” movement too. It is absolutely true that black communities back then were in a state of crisis, and that many black activists and politicians were desperate to get violent offenders off the streets. What is often missed, however, is that most of those black activists and politicians weren’t asking only for toughness. They were also demanding investment in their schools, better housing, jobs programs for young people, economic-stimulus packages, drug treatment on demand, and better access to healthcare. In the end, they wound up with police and prisons. To say that this was what black people wanted is misleading at best.

Selfie Stick/Eyebrows On Fleek '16

― its subtle brume (DJP), Tuesday, 16 February 2016 22:21 (28 minutes ago) Permalink

An entire 2016 campaign just consisting of "BAE" on lawn signs. Is it a candidate? A slogan? A party? No one knows.

― on entre O.K. on sort K.O. (man alive), Tuesday, 16 February 2016 22:24 (26 minutes ago) Permalink

dying

I'm not an expert in Clinton era politics so I can't speak to where Bill did or didn't try to address those other elements. But Alexander isn't claiming that he tricked black leadership into signing off on the crime bill by promising a bundle of laws that he didn't push, right? She's just claiming that they wanted this bill alongside other bills. But to then say that means it's misleading to say black people wanted it is itself pretty misleading xp

there's a narrative about incarceration that it's a conscious attempt to decimate the black community, or keep it under control, or some other nefarious subversive purpose and not that it's the result of bad policies.

http://i0.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/006/759/both.png

idk i'm sure there's some way you can square the circle of "we passed this bill because we wanted to help the black community" and "we passed this bill because we wanted to hurt the black community" but to me the 2 are pretty exclusive.

they didn't give a fuck about the black community beyond winning elections

their calculus was simple as that

I'm not a Hillary fan, but tarring her with Bill's record is silly imo.

they didn't give a fuck about the black community beyond winning elections

who cares what their motivation was (or is). shouldn't politicians be judged on their results not their motivations?

the ole rockism debate

tarring her with Bill's record is silly imo.

see "super-predators" comment etc. These are things Hillary said in public about this bill, in support.

shouldn't politicians be judged on their results not their motivations?

the results were terrible.

I'm not a Hillary fan, but tarring her with Bill's record is silly imo.

― never have i been a blue calm sea (collardio gelatinous), Tuesday, February 16, 2016 6:06 PM (16 minutes ago)

it's very clearly not, particularly on the issues she publicly supported at the time

apparently bernie also voted for the crime bill?

he did

yup. it was a bipartisan success!

I suspect if Bernie hadn't voted for it he would've been making hay out of it by now

part of the hillary sales package is that her first lady experience counts as experience. which it does!

xps yeah, whoops, had forgotten the salient fact that bernie's in the same boat wrt 1994, tho not, tbf, at its helm.

http://rs270.pbsrc.com/albums/jj107/ChoklitReign/Siren.gif~c200 BREAKING: "Knuck If You Buck" played at Bernie Sanders rally http://rs270.pbsrc.com/albums/jj107/ChoklitReign/Siren.gif~c200

there's a narrative about incarceration that it's a conscious attempt to decimate the black community, or keep it under control, or some other nefarious subversive purpose and not that it's the result of bad policies.

i am on unexpert ground too, but in the clintons' case the alternative explanation to "they had no idea any of this would happen" is not "they were once ideologically committed to the destruction of black people but have now repented" but simply "they needed votes from people to whom the destruction of black people seemed just, and now they need votes from people to whom it seems unjust". this is a question about authenticity and rockism only up until the moment you wonder whose votes an incumbent hillary clinton will be more concerned about in 2020.

well put.

I think I'm recoiling at what feels like a Hillary pile-on here sometimes, and so tried to provide the other side of the argument, but I'm doing a half-assed job of it (partly because I'm not convinced myself of the merits of my argument).

i can only imagine that obama singling out trump for ridiculousness will help him in the polls