Political Forums - The OFFICIAL Hillary Comeback Thread!

Political Forums (http://www.politicalchat.org/index.php)

- Politics (http://www.politicalchat.org/forumdisplay.php?f=25)

- - The OFFICIAL Hillary Comeback Thread! (http://www.politicalchat.org/showthread.php?t=10205)

It helps everyone that has a steady income can afford the mortgage. Since we have a progressive (Feel the Bern ;)) tax system, higher income people can shelter more. So in that sense it does help the rich more so than the not so rich.

PS: Whatever happened to Hillary on this thread? Is she still going to make a comeback? :)

My house was about 2/3rds what the bank approved me for. The mortgage deduction got me something for the first 5 or 6 years, but I was paying extra against the prinicipal and quickly got to the point of no benefit.
If it didn't exist, maybe people wouldn't be as inclined to get into debt over their heads.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeamOn (Post 301477)

:cool:
PS: Whatever happened to Hillary on this thread? Is she still going to make a comeback? :)

Funny you should ask. Maybe this is why she is so self assured.

Quote:

CNN's Jake Tapper seemed to have this scenario in mind when he interviewed Democratic National Committee chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz on Thursday:

TAPPER: Hillary Clinton lost to Bernie Sanders in New Hampshire by 22 percentage points, the biggest victory in a contested Democratic primary there since John F. Kennedy, but it looks as though Clinton and Sanders are leaving the Granite State with the same number of delegates in their pockets because Clinton has the support of New Hampshire's superdelegates, these party insiders. What do you tell voters who are new to the process who say this makes them feel like it's all rigged?

WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: Well, let me just make sure that I can clarify exactly what was available during the primaries in Iowa and in New Hampshire. The unpledged delegates are a separate category. The only thing available on the ballot in a primary and a caucus is the pledged delegates, those that are tied to the candidate that they are pledged to support. And they receive a proportional number of delegates going into the — going into our convention.

Unpledged delegates exist really to make sure that party leaders and elected officials don't have to be in a position where they are running against grass-roots activists. We are, as a Democratic Party, really highlight and emphasize inclusiveness and diversity at our convention, and so we want to give every opportunity to grass-roots activists and diverse committed Democrats to be able to participate, attend and be a delegate at the convention. And so we separate out those unpledged delegates to make sure that there isn't competition between them.

TAPPER: I'm not sure that that would — that answer would satisfy an anxious young voter, but let's move on.

Tapper was clearly in a time crunch (the entire live interview lasted only five minutes) and had other subjects to cover. Wasserman Schultz was saved by the bell.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...schultz-video/

Carl

Quote:

Originally Posted by CarlV (Post 301481)

Funny you should ask. Maybe this is why she is so self assured.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...schultz-video/

Carl

Yeh, I read that. What a crock of shit.

OTOH, with today's public gravitating toward the unelectable (in a general election) fringes of both parties, the parties want to have a method to field somebody other than a loony (e.g., Trump, Sanders). The trouble with the Democratic side is that the choice is between a loony and someone perpetually drowning in the scandal(s) du jour. On the GOP side, everybody but Kasich is compromised in some fashion, but Kasich isn't crazy enough to get the nomination.

Sanders plays by the rules and is getting screwed, T-rump even sign the dumbass GOP pledge/contract and the powers that be are trying to screw him. What a country! :rolleyes:

Carl

Quote:

If you look at a Democratic delegate tracker like this one from The New York Times, you’ll find that Hillary Clinton has a massive 394-44 delegate lead over Bernie Sanders so far, despite having been walloped by Sanders in New Hampshire and only essentially having tied him in Iowa. While Sanders does have a modest 36-32 lead among elected delegates — those that are bound to the candidates based on the results of voting in primaries and caucuses — Clinton leads 362-8 among superdelegates, who are Democratic elected officials and other party insiders allowed to support whichever candidate they like.

If you’re a Sanders supporter, you might think this seems profoundly unfair. And you’d be right: It’s profoundly unfair. Superdelegates were created in part to give Democratic party elites the opportunity to put their finger on the scale and prevent nominations like those of George McGovern in 1972 or Jimmy Carter in 1976, which displeased party insiders.

.................................................. ......

Back to bad news for Sanders supporters: Clinton begins with a far larger superdelegate lead over Sanders than she ever had over Obama. It’s easy to imagine why they might resist switching, furthermore. Unlike Obama, who was perhaps roughly as “electable” as Clinton, Sanders is a 74-year-old self-described so************************t. Unlike Obama, who had the chance to become the first black president, Sanders is another old white guy (although he would be the first Jewish president). Sanders wasn’t even officially a Democrat until last year. I’m not saying these are necessarily great arguments, but they’re the sorts of arguments that Clinton-supporting superdelegates will make to themselves and one another, in part because the superdelegate system was created precisely to help nominate candidates considered more electable by party leaders.

Meh.

Carl

Quote:

Originally Posted by finnbow (Post 301484)

Yeh, I read that. What a crock of shit.

OTOH, with today's public gravitating toward the unelectable (in a general election) fringes of both parties, the parties want to have a method to field somebody other than a loony (e.g., Trump, Sanders). The trouble with the Democratic side is that the choice is between a loony and someone perpetually drowning in the scandal(s) du jour. On the GOP side, everybody but Kasich is compromised in some fashion, but Kasich isn't crazy enough to get the nomination.

I really resent that remark. Bernie is a self proclaimed soshialist but a loony? He has been in public service since 1981, quite an accomplishment.

Quote:

Synopsis

Born in 1941, politician Bernie Sanders started out his career as the mayor of Burlington, Vermont. He served four terms as the leader of Vermont's biggest city from 1981 to 1989. Sanders then moved on to the national political arena by winning a seat in the House of Representatives. From 1991 to 2007, he distinguished himself as one of the country's few independent legislators. In 2007, Sanders won election to the U.S. Senate and was reelected in 2012. He announced his plans to run for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2015.

http://www.biography.com/people/bernie-sanders

I say, cease and desist putting down my hero. ;)

Quote:

Originally Posted by finnbow (Post 301484)

You don't really think Bernie's a "loony", do you? I don't. In fact, I don't think Trump is a loony. As we've just seen here, he just plays to them. AFAIK, the only candidate on either side that qualifies for your description is Carson.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boreas (Post 301490)

Maybe he isn't a loony, but supporters who believe that he will actually succeed in implementing any of his promises are. I am, by nature, a pragmatist. That said, listening to Hillary makes me want to stick pencils in my ears. What a sorry slate on the Democratic side. If this is the best they have, they probably deserve to lose.

I think the only non-compromised pragmatist without a load of baggage is probably Kasich, though he has some views on social issues that I don't agree with. His ability to do anything meaningfully bad on abortion or gay rights are constrained by SCOTUS precedent, so I can live with it.