They're Eating The Dogs Presidential Thread

[Monker]

You can troll for arguments all you want. There is no argument here. Saying that electing Clinton would have resulted in WW3 is biased speculation. That is a simple fact. It is not an act of war to say you are going to do something. It is absolutely hilarious for any Trumphead to not understand that. And, then to further that and say that not only would a no fly zone absolutely certain to happen, but to say you know how every government in the world would react and go to war is just plain silly. You can't predict the future and state it as a fact. NOBODY can do that...it is a proven scientific fact. It's been looked into, take any "pendent" and look at all of their future predictions from the past and you will find that they do no better than chance.

You don't know what would happen...it is simply your biased opinion stated as fact....Oh, and I love this:
":You are pretty glib about the Cuban missile crisis. There is a reason why it's known as "13 days that almost ended the world." We came pretty close. Just because we dodged a bullet in 1962 doesn't mean a candidate's dangerous rhetoric should be ignored."

Yes, I know there was a POSSIBILITY of the no float zone causing a war...as some people predicted. But, it didn't...and that proves my point. Thank you! NOBODY can predict the future and state it as a fact as you did...it is your biased opinion, not a fact.

Clinton calling for a no fly zone is as much of an act of war as Trump saying he would take Iraq's oil is a war crime.

When Trump suggested this, we already had invaded Iraq over the alleged threat of WMD.
War reparations are not a war crime if the war has already been waged. Complete nonsense.
Iraq had to pay Kuwait after the Gulf War using oil funds. Japan/Germany had to make all sorts of reparations after WW2.

It is talk, nothing else. The rest is made up in your imagination and is FICTION.

So you are saying that Hillary Clinton is a liar and her words are meaningless?
Andrew expressed dismay that anyone would want Trump in office.
Based on H's bellicose record and rhetoric, I said the alternative was far worse. And I do think we'd be embroiled in a war.

If Clinton were elected, you don't KNOW that a no fly zone would happen. Maybe it would, maybe it wouldn't....you absolutely have no clue.

I am just going by her own statements and actions (voting for iraq, "we came, we saw, he died", turning Libya into a failed state).

Kinda like bombing the shit out of ISIS didn't happen.

Actually that did happen. As usual, you are uninformed.

https://www.newsweek.com/trump-really-b ... sed-664844
http://www.thedailybeast.com/president- ... ns-per-day

Or, Mexico paying for the non-existent wall didn't happen. Or, "Lock her up": didn't happen. You have no clue what decisions Clinton would have made after the election. Your head is inventing those decisions based on your own biases.

This is a bizarre line of reasoning. To absolve Hillary of her own war-loving record, you are citing unfulfilled Trump campaign pledges? I am simply taking Hillary at her own word. A no fly zone is an act of war. Implementing that without Syria's approval could set off a nuclear showdown. She ran on that. Whether she actually would have implemented it in office is, like your idol Mueller says, "outside of my purview."

But, let's say Clinton was elected and a no fly zone became the policy.
You don't know how the world would react. You don't know if it would be positive, or negative. You are only guessing and allowing your biases to make shit up. It is no more credible or fact based than a Clinton fan saying if Clinton were President it would brought peace to Syria because she would have forced the bombings to stop. It is ALL made up bullshit, fiction. Hell, you don't know if a future rebel leader of Syria would have been saved by the no fly zone and he would unite the people behind in a true revolution for the country. You have NO IDEA what would happen if a "no fly zone" existed.

A no fly zone is an act of war. Full stop. When a candidate runs on stuff like that, you don't get my support. Whether it would have had incidental positive consequences is irrelevant.

"an act of war". LOL. It makes absolutely no difference. When JFK put his blockade around Cuba, it was also an act of war. I'll call it a "no float zone", for comparison. WW3 didn't start during that act of war. So, again, you are just making shit up and saying it would cause WW3 because you are anti-Clinton and that is the FICTION that your brain wants to believe is facts.

You are pretty glib about the Cuban missile crisis. There is a reason why it's known as "13 days that almost ended the world." We came pretty close. Just because we dodged a bullet in 1962 doesn't mean a candidate's dangerous rhetoric should be ignored.

Saying Clinton's no fly zone would cause WW3 is FICTION based on YOUR biases. It is NOT a fact, as you are stating it.

I am simply taking Hillary at her own word. A no fly zone is an act of war.

[Monker]

I am no t claiming to be an expert on anything and explicitly said I'm not paying that much attention. The last poll I saw had Bernie beind Biden, Kamala and Warren. Now Biden is back up by 15pts...that really does not make a good case for any of the other candidates.

So post the poll.

The bottom line for me is that I have already made up my mind that I am voting straight Democrat next year. The Republicans have failed the country in an almost treasonous way. The Democrats also failed, by not impeaching Trump, but IMO it is not nearly as egregious.

Wow. A democratic hack pledges to vote straight democrat.
In other breaking news...water is wet, the pope wears a funny hat, and a bear shits in the woods.

I don't care.

But, I do find it hilarious that the person who declared himself the most liberal person on the forum, and a life long Democrat would make a post like this. Too funny.

[The_Noble_Cause]

You can troll for arguments all you want. There is no argument here.

I stated that voting for Clinton over Trump likely would have resulted in WW3. When told there was absolutely no evidence of that, I simply pointed to her own words on the campaign trail. I stand by that. Now, you can dismiss her words and call her a liar. However, in doing so, you are just bolstering my decision to vote for someone besides her. I choose to taker her at face value.

Saying that electing Clinton would have resulted in WW3 is biased speculation.

Where is the bias in citing her own words?

That is a simple fact. It is not an act of war to say you are going to do something.

I never said rhetoric constitutes an act of war.

It is absolutely hilarious for any Trumphead to not understand that. And, then to further that and say that not only would a no fly zone absolutely certain to happen, but to say you know how every government in the world would react and go to war is just plain silly.

If I said these things, please quote me. You can't because it's all made up bullshit. I said a no-fly-zone is an act of war, which is true.

You can't predict the future and state it as a fact. NOBODY can do that...it is a proven scientific fact. It's been looked into, take any "pendent" and look at all of their future predictions from the past and you will find that they do no better than chance.

And maybe Goldwater wouldn't have actually used atomic weapons. Doesn't matter. He said it. Words have consequences and he lost.

Yes, I know there was a POSSIBILITY of the no float zone causing a war...as some people predicted. But, it didn't...and that proves my point. Thank you! NOBODY can predict the future and state it as a fact as you did...it is your biased opinion, not a fact.

All you are doing is trying to limit the parameters of discussion in this thread. Hillary's words and actions are fair game - even if you would prefer to hide them.

[The_Noble_Cause]

I don't care.

Because the poll doesn't exist. This is just another lie.

But, I do find it hilarious that the person who declared himself the most liberal person on the forum, and a life long Democrat would make a post like this. Too funny.

Being liberal doesn't mean voting for any corporatist with a D next to their name. It also doesn't mean welcoming lower lifeforms into the party.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Everyone who’s asking for ‘Apprentice’ tapes. Burnett has them locked up at MGM. Here’s the worst of the quotes on them imo: “Look at all those sp*cs, n*ggers and muslims..when I was a kid this was all white” Trump looking out helicopter window at Queens, NYC.

Understandably, you didn't provide a source for this quote. For anyone who cares, it's from some unknown comedian trying to make a name for himself. Even conservativetreehouse was more credible.

It doesn’t matter why any RWNJs say or try and wash away. The good thing is that a Drumpf will forever be known as the most racist and divisive president in American history. That’s already a given fact.

Go tell it to the 3,000 federal inmates (many black) set to be released thanks to Trump.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Well, this aged poorly.

https://vimeo.com/304407302

[Andrew]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JpCqStOG0E

Great recap!

OMG!!!!

The Poster Formerly Known As TNC has hit Peak Nutjob. Fucker Tarlson. I never thought I would see the day. OH MY!

[Monker]

You can troll for arguments all you want. There is no argument here.

I stated that voting for Clinton over Trump likely would have resulted in WW3. When told there was absolutely no evidence of that, I simply pointed to her own words on the campaign trail. I stand by that. Now, you can dismiss her words and call her a liar. However, in doing so, you are just bolstering my decision to vote for someone besides her. I choose to taker her at face value.

How pathetic. Now you are trying to rewrite your own conversation with me:

If the alternative had won, we would probably be in the middle of World War 3 right now. So yeah, I'm more than ok with it.

That is biased and nutty thinking. Republicans wrote the same nutty words about Al Gore. It is simple unprovable alternate history...the only thing it truly is evidence of is the writers biases and how active their imagination is.

As mentioned ad nauseum, Hillary called for a no fly zone during the debates. That's an act of war. Sorry.

In the above quote you explicitly say that CALLING for a no fly zone is an act of war. It isn't. In the context of our conversation you are saying that CALLING for a no fly zone and electing Clinton President would lead to WW#.

Saying that electing Clinton would have resulted in WW3 is biased speculation.

Where is the bias in citing her own words?

The bias is your nutty jump to WW3. It would be bias towards Clinton say calling for a no fly zone would lead to peace in the middle east. You took ONE statement, extrapolated a fictitious future and the outcome of that fiction is driven by your own bias.

That is a simple fact. It is not an act of war to say you are going to do something.

I never said rhetoric constitutes an act of war.

You said, "Hillary called for a no fly zone during the debates. That's an act of war. Sorry."

Calling for a no fly zone is not an act of war. Only in your imagination is that true.

And maybe Goldwater wouldn't have actually used atomic weapons.

Maybe he would have, maybe not. To make that decision and state it as fact is inventing an alternation and fictitious history from your own bias. Just as JFK and the no float zone, just as Clinton and the no fly zone.

Thank you for continuing to prove my point.

All you are doing is trying to limit the parameters of discussion in this thread. Hillary's words and actions are fair game - even if you would prefer to hide them.

LOL...That's just too funny.

[Monker]

I don't care.

Because the poll doesn't exist. This is just another lie.

But, I do find it hilarious that the person who declared himself the most liberal person on the forum, and a life long Democrat would make a post like this. Too funny.

Being liberal doesn't mean voting for any corporatist with a D next to their name. It also doesn't mean welcoming lower lifeforms into the party.

I don't care what you find acceptable for a "liberal"...I don't consider myself a follower of being "liberal". I also do not care who they allow into the Democrat party...I have no desire to join.

Do you even hear what these candidates say about Trump?

"He's a racist, sexist, xenophobe, and homophobe" - Bernie Sanders

ALL of them are saying shit like that. On that important issue, the character of Donald Jackass Trump, I agree with ALL of the Democrat candidates. So, no I don't care who is specificaly "winning". And, I'm not paying nearly as close attention as I usually do. The standard of Donald Trump is so low that any of these people will be an incredible President by comparison.

[The_Noble_Cause]

OMG!!!!

The Poster Formerly Known As TNC has hit Peak Nutjob. Fucker Tarlson. I never thought I would see the day. OH MY!

1) Links to his show have been posted on MR before.
2) You never complained about him when he had shows on PBS or MSNBC. Why is that?

I've admired Tucker since his days on Crossfire when he had the intellectual honesty to criticize the Bush administration.

[The_Noble_Cause]

How pathetic. Now you are trying to rewrite your own conversation with me:

Not at all. A no fly zone is an act of war. Others have said similar things (see below).

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ar ... ar/276319/

If the alternative had won, we would probably be in the middle of World War 3 right now. So yeah, I'm more than ok with it.

Accurate. So?

As mentioned ad nauseum, Hillary called for a no fly zone during the debates. That's an act of war. Sorry.

In the above quote you explicitly say that CALLING for a no fly zone is an act of war. It isn't. In the context of our conversation you are saying that CALLING for a no fly zone and electing Clinton President would lead to WW#.

And in other quotes, which you dishonestly did not include, I said the following:

"During the debates, Hillary said she wanted to establish a no-fly zone. That is an act of war. Sorry."

I've said similar things about sanctions also:

"Sanctions btw are an act of war that almost always hurt the lowest of society."

"Sanctions, which the US has convinced the EU to go along with, are an act of war.

In both cases, I am obviously referring to ACTIONS that amount to an act of war. Campaign rhetoric by itself is not an act of war. Duh. Your reading comprehension issues are not my problem.

The bias is your nutty jump to WW3. It would be bias towards Clinton say calling for a no fly zone would lead to peace in the middle east. You took ONE statement, extrapolated a fictitious future and the outcome of that fiction is driven by your own bias.

Oh, there are plenty of other statements, as well as actions.
For starters...Libya is a failed state with an open slave market due to her interventionism.
Happy to discuss her record in detail.

You said, "Hillary called for a no fly zone during the debates. That's an act of war. Sorry."

Calling for a no fly zone is not an act of war. Only in your imagination is that true.

If rhetoric itself constituted an act of war then nearly every single politician is a war criminal. This is beyond dumb.

Maybe he would have, maybe not. To make that decision and state it as fact is inventing an alternation and fictitious history from your own bias.

The perception of Goldwater as a war monger was an important factor in LBJ's victory. Those voters made a choice in 1964 based upon a candidate's words, record, and hypothetical outcomes. Similarly, I made a choice in 2016. You just can't handle it.

Just as JFK and the no float zone, just as Clinton and the no fly zone.

In the presidential debates, it was Nixon who called for for quarantining Cuba (link below) not JFK. He lost btw. You are the one attempting to rewrite history.

https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4725795/ ... peaks-cuba

All you are doing is trying to limit the parameters of discussion in this thread. Hillary's words and actions are fair game - even if you would prefer to hide them.

...That's just too funny.

You have repeatedly used this forum to lie for Hillary ("she had permission to use a private server"). Nothing new here.

[The_Noble_Cause]

I don't care what you find acceptable for a "liberal"...I don't consider myself a follower of being "liberal". I also do not care who they allow into the Democrat party...I have no desire to join.

Do you even hear what these candidates say about Trump?

"He's a racist, sexist, xenophobe, and homophobe" - Bernie Sanders

ALL of them are saying shit like that. On that important issue, the character of Donald Jackass Trump, I agree with ALL of the Democrat candidates. So, no I don't care who is specificaly "winning". And, I'm not paying nearly as close attention as I usually do. The standard of Donald Trump is so low that any of these people will be an incredible President by comparison.

Yeh, so about that poll showing "Bernie behind Biden, Kamala, and Warren"....?
You got a link or is this just another Monker lie?

[The_Noble_Cause]

Of the two CNN Democratic debates this week...

First debate

Winner - Bernie/Warren tie
Runner up - Marianne Williamson. The crowd loved her. Somewhere around the second hour, her new age gobbledygook started to sound almost coherent and persuasive.

Second debate

Winner - Tulsi Gabbard. Her epic take-down of Kamala Harris was beautiful.
Runner up - Bill de Blasio

[Memorex]

Of the two CNN Democratic debates this week...

First debate

Winner - Trump
Runner up - Marianne Williamson. The crowd loved her. Somewhere around the second hour, her new age gobbledygook started to sound almost coherent and persuasive.

Second debate

Winner - Trump
Runner up - Bill de Blasio

Fixed it for ya.

[youkeepmewaiting]

Of the two CNN Democratic debates this week...

First debate

Winner - Bernie/Warren tie
Runner up - Marianne Williamson. The crowd loved her. Somewhere around the second hour, her new age gobbledygook started to sound almost coherent and persuasive.

Second debate

Winner - Tulsi Gabbard. Her epic take-down of Kamala Harris was beautiful.
Runner up - Bill de Blasio

You nailed it there. I think Bernie got ahead in front of Warren, but that might be my Bernie bias

[Monker]

How pathetic. Now you are trying to rewrite your own conversation with me:

Not at all. A no fly zone is an act of war. Others have said similar things (see below).

That is EXACTLY what you are doing. I am not debating that a no fly zone is an act of war. YOU said that Clinton CALLING for a no fly zone is an act of war. It isn't...only in your imagination is that an act of war.

In the above quote you explicitly say that CALLING for a no fly zone is an act of war. It isn't. In the context of our conversation you are saying that CALLING for a no fly zone and electing Clinton President would lead to WW#.

And in other quotes, which you dishonestly did not include, I said the following:

That is irrelevant bullshit. In this conversation you said that CALLING for a no fly zone is an act of war. It' isn't.

I've said similar things about sanctions also:

"Sanctions btw are an act of war that almost always hurt the lowest of society."

"Sanctions, which the US has convinced the EU to go along with, are an act of war.

In both cases, I am obviously referring to ACTIONS that amount to an act of war. Campaign rhetoric by itself is not an act of war. Duh. Your reading comprehension issues are not my problem.

Neither of those examples say that CALLING for sanctions is an act of war. They are simply NOT THE SAME THING.

The bias is your nutty jump to WW3. It would be bias towards Clinton say calling for a no fly zone would lead to peace in the middle east. You took ONE statement, extrapolated a fictitious future and the outcome of that fiction is driven by your own bias.

Oh, there are plenty of other statements, as well as actions.
For starters...Libya is a failed state with an open slave market due to her interventionism.
Happy to discuss her record in detail.

None of this means ANYTHING. The simple scientific FACT is that you can't predict the future. All you are doing is putting your biased opinion out for display.

You said, "Hillary called for a no fly zone during the debates. That's an act of war. Sorry."

Calling for a no fly zone is not an act of war. Only in your imagination is that true.

If rhetoric itself constituted an act of war then nearly every single politician is a war criminal. This is beyond dumb.

CORRECT...and that is EXACTLY WHAT YOU SAID.

Maybe he would have, maybe not. To make that decision and state it as fact is inventing an alternation and fictitious history from your own bias.

The perception of Goldwater as a war monger was an important factor in LBJ's victory. Those voters made a choice in 1964 based upon a candidate's words, record, and hypothetical outcomes. Similarly, I made a choice in 2016. You just can't handle it.[/quote]

I really couldn't care less about any of this. The simple FACT is that the no float zone did not start WW3, despite some people's predictions.

Just as JFK and the no float zone, just as Clinton and the no fly zone.

In the presidential debates, it was Nixon who called for for quarantining Cuba (link below) not JFK. He lost btw. You are the one attempting to rewrite history.

https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4725795/ ... peaks-cuba

Again, I am not even arguing with who said what in 1964. I am speaking directly to the FACT that JFK put a naval blockade around Cuba, an act of war...AND IT DID NOT START WW3.

You have repeatedly used this forum to lie for Hillary ("she had permission to use a private server"). Nothing new here.

All you are doing is trolling to post meaningless bullshit that has nothing to do with the current conversation. You take any conversation as a way to try to disparage, discredit and insult...to divert from the fact that it is you who posted an argument that you can't defend...distract and avoid, that is what you are doing. And, I'm done with it....because there is nothing constructive left to say.

[The_Noble_Cause]

That is EXACTLY what you are doing. I am not debating that a no fly zone is an act of war. YOU said that Clinton CALLING for a no fly zone is an act of war. It isn't...only in your imagination is that an act of war.

Presidential candidates don't yield presidential powers to do ANYTHING.
If campaign rhetoric had the power to start wars, we'd already be burnt to a radioactive crisp.
I was talking about the act itself.
And YES, Hilary called for a no fly zone, ran on it, promoted it - whatever. On all sorts of foreign policy issues, Trump outflanked her on the left.

That is irrelevant bullshit. In this conversation you said that CALLING for a no fly zone is an act of war. It' isn't.

You obviously fall somewhere on the full-blown Asperger's spectrum and take everything literally. Your reading comprehension disability is not my problem.

Neither of those examples say that CALLING for sanctions is an act of war. They are simply NOT THE SAME THING.

But I didn't just say "calling for." I also mentioned "establishing" a no fly zone (quote below). I am talking about actions - not words.
You are an Aspie so I wouldn't expect you to understand.

"During the debates, Hillary said she wanted to establish a no-fly zone. That is an act of war. Sorry."

None of this means ANYTHING. The simple scientific FACT is that you can't predict the future. All you are doing is putting your biased opinion out for display.

I don't need clairvoyant powers to exercise my right to vote.

I took into consideration Hillary's record and rhetoric when voting in 2016. This includes her promotion of, (or "calling-for"), a no-fly-zone.
Based upon all of these factors, I believe we would be at war if she had won. I don't care if you disagree. You are wrong and misinformed on everything.

CORRECT...and that is EXACTLY WHAT YOU SAID.

Again, your obvious mental disability is not my problem.

I really couldn't care less about any of this. The simple FACT is that the no float zone did not start WW3, despite some people's predictions.

If Kennedy called for a no float zone while running for president, there might be some parallel to what we are discussing. But he didn't.
Should a current candidate call for a blockade, I will likely say the same thing I did about Clinton's push for a no fly zone. It's an act of war.

Again, I am not even arguing with who said what in 1964. I am speaking directly to the FACT that JFK put a naval blockade around Cuba, an act of war...AND IT DID NOT START WW3.

The fact that this country came perilously close to nuclear destruction in 1962 doesn't mean that the threat of war should be taken any less seriously.
Candidates that promote actions that could spark a new war, like Hillary, do not get my vote.

All you are doing is trolling to post meaningless bullshit that has nothing to do with the current conversation. You take any conversation as a way to try to disparage, discredit and insult...to divert from the fact that it is you who posted an argument that you can't defend...distract and avoid, that is what you are doing. And, I'm done with it....because there is nothing constructive left to say.

In the wake of St. Mueller being revealed as a senile old fart, you are now resorting to cherry-picking quotes and playing word games.
My argument has always been, and remains, that a no fly zone is an act of war. Same as sanctions.
You may now resume alphabetizing your Peter North DVDs, aspie.

[The_Noble_Cause]

You nailed it there. I think Bernie got ahead in front of Warren, but that might be my Bernie bias

I like Yang alot. Not sure if he's making an impact during the debates. He should just continue to hammer the idea of the $1k a month idea - no matter the question asked.

As for Biden....he sounds like he has new veneers or dentures. His voice has dropped and sounds older. Also, what was with the Biden3030 gaffe? Oof.

[youkeepmewaiting]

You nailed it there. I think Bernie got ahead in front of Warren, but that might be my Bernie bias

I like Yang alot. Not sure if he's making an impact during the debates. He should just continue to hammer the idea of the $1k a month idea - no matter the question asked.

As for Biden....he sounds like he has new veneers or dentures. His voice has dropped and sounds older. Also, what was with the Biden3030 gaffe? Oof.

Biden doesn't want it. He's been pushed and convinced by the Dems to stand. Trump will tear him apart.

I like Yang a lot on one to one interviews. Especially Joe Rogan.

[RPM]

I like Yang alot as well. its very nice of him to pay all of us 1k a month

[The_Noble_Cause]

I like Yang alot as well. its very nice of him to pay all of us 1k a month

Hell yea. Yang may be a one issue candidate ("the robots are coming!"), but at least it's a big issue.
Anyway, the idea of a guaranteed income has been floating around since Nixon.

[youkeepmewaiting]

I like Yang alot as well. its very nice of him to pay all of us 1k a month

Hell yea. Yang may be a one issue candidate ("the robots are coming!"), but at least it's a big issue.
Anyway, the idea of a guaranteed income has been floating around since Nixon.

And more and more people are coming round to the idea that it's not completely bonkers

[verslibre]

Yang's not getting the nom, and neither is Castro, for the simple fact that the vast majority of voting-age Americans are not ready to see an Asian OR Latin president in the White House.

Pathetic..but that's the reality of it.

[verslibre]

I like Yang alot as well. its very nice of him to pay all of us 1k a month

Hell yea. Yang may be a one issue candidate ("the robots are coming!"), but at least it's a big issue.
Anyway, the idea of a guaranteed income has been floating around since Nixon.

You realize RPM's was a flippant remark, don't you?

[RPM]

I like Yang alot as well. its very nice of him to pay all of us 1k a month

Hell yea. Yang may be a one issue candidate ("the robots are coming!"), but at least it's a big issue.
Anyway, the idea of a guaranteed income has been floating around since Nixon.

You realize RPM's was a flippant remark, don't you?

I would say "half flippant" I do like him as he is not a conventional politician.
do I think giving people money is a good idea? No I dont. I also think he is over
selling the automation view as well. but he is sincere in what he believes and you
know where he stands so I can respect that.

[Andrew]

Thoughts and prayers to the victims of the 4 mass shootings this past week or so.

[Marabelle]

Sad time in America. So many deaths. So much rhetoric. So much hate. I’m afraid prayers and putting blame on mental illness or video games is not going to fix the problems in this country. Thanks for the thoughts and prayers but after all these years of praying and wishing we stand together in the face of evil and hate; hate still dances across the country releasing evil and threatening and killing people going about their everyday lives.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Yang's not getting the nom, and neither is Castro, for the simple fact that the vast majority of voting-age Americans are not ready to see an Asian OR Latin president in the White House.

Pathetic..but that's the reality of it.

Obama broke the racial ceiling. I don't see what you base this on.

[The_Noble_Cause]

You realize RPM's was a flippant remark, don't you?

Not how I took it. I think RPM genuinely likes the guy. So do I.

[verslibre]

Yang's not getting the nom, and neither is Castro, for the simple fact that the vast majority of voting-age Americans are not ready to see an Asian OR Latin president in the White House.

Pathetic..but that's the reality of it.

Obama broke the racial ceiling. I don't see what you base this on.

That in no way ensures Booker or Yang will get the nom.