Buttload of Faith: the 2016 Presidential Primary Thread (Pt 2)

lol

lol

if/when rubio doesn't win iowa or new hampshire or south carolina is he then officially 'in trouble' or is he still the 'well eventually it'll be him right? right?' plausible default?

i just looked into it and since the inception of iowa-new hampshire-south carolina sequence (which is admittedly not that long, iowa is 76 and south carolina is 80 for gop and 88 for dems) nobody has won the nomination for either party w/o winning one of those three.

xposts Wow @ jebbush.com. Trump and Jeb! should be a sitcom.

trump is bronson pinchot of course
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vbnLYROCj8

I feel like Bush should a) shut down his campaign and b) commit ritual suicide. It's just pathetic at this point.

how did he let that happen? that's amazing

jeb is obviously the cozzin larry in that relationship

i mean it's still early but it's probably unlikely rubio wins iowa. and i can't see south carolina saving him nor for that matter the sec primary and if he hasn't been competitive w/ delegates by that point it probably too late for him. he's polling ok in new hampshire, second to trump but only barely ahead of cruz (12% vs 10.8%), and that's w/ him barely having visited new hampshire.

apparently a ton of jebbush sites have been parked on for years. jeb didn't want to pony up the $250k they were asking (apparently they'd had it since 1997!), and trump being the master negotiator was able to get them down to $250k.

I have previously asserted that Jeb! doesn't really actually want to be running for president (it's a legacy thing...if his dad and brother had previously run a family-owned paint shop, he'd give it a go as well) and, as supported by evidence such as his hijacked website, I will continue to stand behind this assertion.

it's never been his website, tho

Apparently some FOX dude called Obama a pussy on air lol

GOP has to boil down to rubio and cruz, right? I think it'll go all the way through the primaries though. it'll be hysterical to see if trump gets a majority of delegates but they still refuse to nominate him.

I can't imagine Trump winning Iowa tbh (NH seems more likely)... but what Trump looks like after a defeat is hard to gauge

It's gonna have to be Rubio, ultimately. He's the only one that doesn't come off as profoundly stupid/a hapless nebbish/viscerally horrifying.

plenty of ways to get delegates that aren't related to primary/caucus votes

i am doubtful DT gets anywhere near 50% in any single primary

plenty of ways to get delegates that aren't related to primary/caucus votes

all of which I can't really imagine Trump succeeding at - dude's a populist not an apparatchik, so he either wins primaries/caucuses or its over

yeah i wasn't arguing that was a way for the Howling Rug to sneak in

rubio comes off plenty hapless to me

if anyone's gonna exploit non-primary/caucus delegate commitments it's gonna be Cruz

if a state's Repubs does give Big T 50% or more, i think it should be called "buying the pink rug"

nh went for buchanan twice so i can totally see trump taking it. evangelicals a bigger factor in iowa (ask jimmy carter) which is probably one reason cruz has been able to pick up the carson voters.

trump doesn't have to take 50% of contested delegates fwiw though i do think if he doesn't have the majority and there's someone near him (esp if it's rubio) the superdelegates will throw it to someone/anyone else. good lord imagine the fallout and the carnage.

lookin forward to it tbh

Trump is so hated by the GOP they'd find a way to ratfuck him out of the nom but he ain't gonna win it anyway. anomalies be damned.

At a friend's housewarming party on Saturday I hung out with a longtime bro who works for HRC's campaign. According to their "numbers," only Rubio worries them a bit.

I reminded my friend, who unlike me was born in Cuba, that Rubio will be hated by every other Spanish-speaking minority.

i'm guessing Sanders just drew a knowing chuckle

he doesn't do "chuckles"

*bass solo*
https://images.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fi.kinja-img.com%2Fgawker-media%2Fimage%2Fupload%2Fs--QsNxXhZS--%2Fc_scale%2Cfl_progressive%2Cq_80%2Cw_800%2F18sjq33uxink6jpg.jpg&f=1

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CVpwUqxVAAAv-kZ.jpg

still haven't had a moment to ask a Trump supporter when they felt America was last truly great, and whether this greatness has slowly bled off or if there was a singular moment of transition

i'm not sure how i'd answer that question myself. is America "great" right now? no. when was it last great? i don't know...i guess it was never great.

Make America Great For The First Time

america is exceptional and only became not-quite-great seven years and one month ago obvs

it was great when Trump's dad was getting fed handouts for his building projects

yeah idk I think "greatness" is wrapped up in this whole idea of exceptionalism and drum-beating nationalism and patriotic bullshit

"make america an even better place to live" doesn't have much of a ring to it, though

mookie might be on to something

You'd get a lot of "America was great in WWII" answers, overlooking the fact that during WWII the government ran almost everything, controlled wages, prices and rationed most commodities.

but we did bomb a lot of ppl

http://www.pcdon.com/Waving_Flag_on_3D_Pole-160x120.gif

Clinton wrote an op piece for the NYT today: "How I'd Rein In Wall Street"

someone report

left out the g

reign, more likely, right

omg I think I just Morbsed myself

we're all morbs today

she ain't no g

xxxpost

man

went to get yer story for you morbz and the times BREAKING NEWS banner popped back up again to reiterate

Donald J. Trump has called for the United States to bar all Muslims from entering the country for the time being 3:49 PM

anyhoo the tail end of hilz' op-ed goes

My comprehensive plan has already won praise from progressives like Sherrod Brown and Barney Frank. Here’s what it would do.

First, we need to further rein in major financial institutions. My plan proposes legislation that would impose a new risk fee on dozens of the biggest banks — those with more than $50 billion in assets — and other systemically important financial institutions to discourage the kind of hazardous behavior that could induce another crisis. I would also ensure that the federal government has — and is prepared to use — the authority and tools necessary to reorganize, downsize and ultimately break up any financial institution that is too large and risky to be managed effectively. No bank or financial firm should be too big to manage.

My plan would strengthen the Volcker Rule by closing the loopholes that still allow banks to make speculative gambles with taxpayer-backed deposits. And I would fight to reinstate the rules governing risky credit swaps and derivatives at taxpayer-backed banks, which were repealed during last year’s budget negotiations after a determined lobbying campaign by the banks.

My plan also goes beyond the biggest banks to include the whole financial sector. Some have urged the return of a Depression-era rule called Glass-Steagall, which separated traditional banking from investment banking. But many of the firms that contributed to the crash in 2008, like A.I.G. and Lehman Brothers, weren’t traditional banks, so Glass-Steagall wouldn’t have limited their reckless behavior. Nor would restoring Glass-Steagall help contain other parts of the “shadow banking” sector, including certain activities of hedge funds, investment banks and other non-bank institutions. My plan would strengthen oversight of these activities, too — increasing leverage and liquidity requirements for broker-dealers and imposing strict margin requirements on the kinds of short-term borrowing that also played a major role in spurring the financial crisis. We need to tackle excessive risk wherever it lurks, not just in the banks.

Second, I would appoint tough, independent regulators and ensure that both the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission are independently funded — as other critical regulators are now — so that they can do their jobs without political interference. I would seek to impose a tax on harmful high-frequency trading, which makes markets less stable and less fair. And we need to reform stock market rules to ensure equal access to information, increase transparency and minimize conflicts of interest.

Finally, executives need to be held more accountable. No one should be too big to jail. I would seek to extend the statute of limitations for major financial crimes to 10 years from five and enhance rewards for whistle-blowers. I would work to ensure that financial firms admit wrongdoing as part of settlements in instances of egregious misconduct, and increase transparency about the terms of settlement and the fines actually paid to the government. Fines should be more than just the cost of doing business to these companies — they should be an effective disincentive for illegal behavior.

And it shouldn’t just be shareholders and taxpayers who feel the pain when banks make bad decisions; executives should have skin in the game. When a firm pays a fine, I would make sure that the penalty cuts into executives’ bonuses, too. And I would fight to close the carried interest loophole that gives some fund managers billions of dollars in tax breaks: They should be taxed like every other citizen.

Republicans may have decided to forget about the financial crisis that caused so much devastation — but I haven’t. The proper role of Wall Street is to help Main Street grow and prosper. When our financial sector works the right way, it helps families buy their first homes, entrepreneurs start and grow small businesses and hardworking Americans save for retirement. Rather than pursuing the kind of high-stakes speculation that devastated our economy before, Wall Street should focus on building an economy that creates good-paying jobs, rising incomes and sound investments so that more families can achieve the security of a middle-class life.

xp yeah, me too.
i have to think this is trolling now, it's too completely insane.

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/12/07/donald-trump-calls-for-banning-muslims-from-entering-u-s/?module=Notification&version=BreakingNews®ion=FixedTop&action=Click&contentCollection=BreakingNews&contentID=55556649&pgtype=article

“Until we are able to determine and understand this problem and the dangerous threat it poses, our country cannot be the victims of horrendous attacks by people that believe only in jihad, and have no sense of reason or respect for human life,” he said.

A spokeswoman for Mr. Trump confirmed the authenticity of the statement. Asked what prompted it, Mr. Trump said, “death,” according to the spokeswoman.