I've had people say it's a hardening, actually ~ US presidential election 2016 part 9/11 never forget

check out sex tape: makes mission much harder!!!!

all your sex tape are belong to us

go in there and take the sex tape

check out sex tape in the conference room

i'd certainly have an affair with Huma Abedin if i was wed to that shitstain

― The Hon. J. Piedmont Mumblethunder (Dr Morbius), Monday, October 3, 2016 2:26 AM (seven hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

she wouldn't have you

Her taste in men isn't the greatest, so don't count out Morbz yet.

i was projecting myself into a Clintonskin, no reason to indulge in your slimiest schoolyard shit

lol the standards of Anthony Weiner's wife, you kids are adorrrrrable

and remember to vote for the Lying Neoliberal Laaaaady, it's important

seriously, does killfile still work?

no reason to indulge in your slimiest schoolyard shit

Says the guy who repeatedly wishes other posters dead, and sends hate emails

RE: Bullying

Hi Pipsqueak,

Give me all your lunch money tomorrow or I'll give YOU another swirly!

Best,
The Bully

surely it should be

Give me all your lunch money tomorrow or you'll sequentially meet my fist and the pavement!

Good morning, all!

the thanks i get for finally endorsing HRC!

(Morrison, learn to read and/or stop lying)

:O

Fellas, let's save it for the Trump rally, huh?

go in there and take the sex tape

Take the oil, leave the sex tape

https://www.icij.org/blog/2016/09/trumps-organization-did-business-iranian-bank-later-linked-terrorism

'Can we fit all the dirt into a month? What do we do the day before the election - spend 24 hours recapping it all?'

so far what sanders's plan has in common with "build the wall" seems to be that they are both proposals, made by politicians, that are unlikely to be swiftly implemented. as such, sanders's plan is also practically the same as innumerable other politician's statements and heavily-flogged campaign issues. i submit that the differences between sanders's plan and 'build the wall,' which i attempted to lay out a few posts ago in some long brilliant and tragically overlooked paragraphs, are meaningful enough that it becomes hard to see what's gained by the comparison. unless one's just trying to leave the stink of trump's hateful con job on sanders without having to make a case for it. it's like, hey, sanders and trump both wear clothing, and stand behind lecterns and appear in TV commercials! it's uncanny how similar they are really.

parallels go beyond 'these things will obviously never happen'. there's similar slight of hand when it comes to costs. this seems expensive, but we've planned it all out. the enemy's gonna pay for it - and don't worry, we're gonna make them - so it's actually free.

Isn't it more feasible to make corporations or rich individuals in your own country pay higher taxes than to make a foreign country pay for a border wall?

that's a lot less appealing a soundbite than 'keep the furriners out, make the furriners pay fer it'

Fox News host Tucker Carlson asserted on Sunday that "science" was on the side of a doctor claiming male Hillary Clinton supporters suffered from low testosterone.

"A doctor [is] under fire for claiming men who support Hillary Clinton likely suffer from low testosterone," Carlson teased before a commercial break. "It's science. You can't deny it."

"Are you a Low T denier?" he quipped.

making wall st swallow a 300 billion dollar tax is probably close to being as difficult as convincing mexico to build a wall

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAjDmw6IrFg

exactly, thanks for bringing up the filibuster

lol okay so sanders was conning america because he proposed taxing the rich to pay for something. glad we got that sorted.

but let's play along. okay so let's say once it hits congress, $30 billion a year tax coming from financial transactions (300 was a ten-year estimate) hits a wall. the lobbying is intense, wall street is too powerful! suppose in the end it's $20 billion. or 15, or 10 or even 5. tied (as sanders's plan was) to states matching a portion of the funds, that would still be... a very helpful piece of legislation that addresses a real problem in america. particularly if it came with any of the carrot/stick stuff sanders indicated would be involved to control costs. or, as i put it in a tragically overlooked paragraph:

but it's more than that: free college would actually solve a real problem that matters in people's lives, and even a watered-down crappy compromise version of it would also be real fucking helpful, so shifting the window of possibility on this is totally worth doing on its own merits. i said something like this at the time - - - okay, suppose imaginary president sanders can't get free college through the legislature. what if he only got college discounted fifty percent? what if that was enough carrot-and-stick to rein in half (or pick another number) of the insane surges in tuition around the country? what if free college stalled in congress but the other three or four things he was pushing for on student loan interest (etc.) made it through? hell, even the tax on wall street financial transactions he proposed to pay for it would be a good in itself, as part of the project of containing out-of-control income inequality.

whereas - again - the watered-down compromise version of "build the wall" would be just as much of a racist non-solution con job as "build the wall." it would just cost less. oh okay they're clearly the same got it.

i'm amazed more of you are not named Robby Mook

A US politician could hope to make rules taxing wall street, but has no power in Mexico. It's, like, two fundamentally different things. No need to explain how hard it is, you're the President of the USA, you can say you want to tax Americans. You can't say you want to tax Mexicans. Iatee, I agree with you to a degree, but this is kinda ridiculous.

xp I'm amazed you haven't wandered into traffic accidentally

there's no 'once it hits congress'. this is something far more ambitious than anything that got passed in congress during obama's first 2 years, which is likely going to remain the most favorable congress we'll have in decades and was only possible because we were lucky enough to get a second great depression.

in any case the bill doesn't address the root problem, which is that we already have a system where the costs of educating a student are higher than they should be. the solution to 'as a country, we spend too much on this / we have a really bloated monster of a higher education system' isn't 'we'll put it on someone else's tab.' his solution isn't actually ambitious, it's lazy and easy to communicate.

I don't think bernie sanders and donald trump are the same human being. they are different human beings. I don't even dislike bernie sanders. but I think that clinton doesn't get enough credit for the fact that she doesn't want to make promises she can't keep. that's a form of dishonesty that's easy to get away with.

xp

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TswwON_Hs1M

but (as i keep alluding to re: carrot/stick) sanders recognized bringing costs down as a key part of the plan. i freely concede that this part wasn't fleshed out at all, perhaps in recogniton of the political realities you would have him and his supporters blithely ignoring. nor would we expect any candidate to get into that level of detail tbh. so it would surely end up being a very long and complex piece of legislation to get at these issues. it would need to be complemented by other efforts at the state level, and with reforms in student loan practices, etc. (which sanders also specified explicitly).

btw though the ambitious aspect has to do with giving access to people who currently can't go to college at all. it's not just that the same people would be going, but someone else would pay for it. see also: single-payer health care. this doesn't have a huge bearing on the current discussion but it's probably worth keeping in mind.

bringing down future costs is given a line, there's no mechanism to lower existing costs.

anyway, you're fleshing out a bill that - again - wouldn't exist to begin with. all of these discussions essentially start with 'let us presume a political climate where this could actually happen'. we don't have that, we're not close to having that, and even were bernie sanders to sneak into the oval office due to the historical accident of donald trump - totally possible - we still wouldn't have that. I'm willing to consider sanders' theoretical presidency in the context of actual american politics not the politics of an imaginary bernieworld.

and in that context the difference between what kinda major legislation could pass under him vs under clinton is marginal. otoh no doubt he'd drop fewer bombs on people.

what has Clinton promised, other than we'll be Stronger Together?

very little! and she will accomplish very little!

and you think she deserves more credit for this

she deserves credit for not pretending otherwise

the principle of being more honest about getting nothing done apparently more important than killing fewer people

off the top of my head: federal minimum wage increase, equal pay for women

She'll be in jail anyway as well as all of her voters

Elimination of in-state tuition fees at public colleges for families making less than $125,000

xp

i assume if sanders were the nominee his longstanding pitch for a federal minimum wage increase and equal pay for women would be filed under "build the wall"

comprehensive immigration reform (whatever that means - and tbf everybody promises this)

if sanders started claiming the fed min wage increase / equal pay for women across the country will also be funded by wall street, then yes

bringing down future costs is given a line, there's no mechanism to lower existing costs.

for the record, he says that to qualify for the federal funding, states must "reduce ballooning costs." i guess there's room for interpretation but i read that as him "giving a line" to reducing existing costs. i agree that the mechanism for doing this is not spelled out. how this becomes tantamount to trump's racist fire-kindling, problem-non-solving, pep rally wall scam is still escaping me.

anyway, you're fleshing out a bill that - again - wouldn't exist to begin with.

er... why not? which universe is this, where sanders wins the presidency but the house becomes 100% republican and there is no one there to introduce legislation? very confusing to me. so what, he should have only run on things that were already likely legislative winners the day before he started his campaign? or what?

https://frinkiac.com/meme/S05E18/432881.jpg?b64lines=VEhFIExFU1NPTiBJUywKTkVWRVIgVFJZLg==

I've worked in state universities systems in the Big Ten & now in Paris & while there's some kind of sense that American state unis will end up looking like the Univ of Paris system eventually, I don't know you get between those. we have free university here but not only are taxes quite a lot higher, the resources available to students are quite a lot lower. of course there are climbing walls etc at our municipal public sports complexes but those aren't exclusive to students. there aren't much in the way of dorms, and comparably little in the way of organised student life. and we fail about 40% of first year students, keeping class sizes down in years 2 and 3. our facilities are pretty basic.

But how do you get from the current USA experience to the future experience? You can't just make Wall Street pay for that, because money won't suffice: you have to change these slow-moving, battleship-like institutions, and strip them down, and then find a way to pay for what results. Both the Sanders and Clinton ideas say nothing about this, and so they're both just empty ideas to me.