Republican debates/primaries.
-
Spock
you guys arguing over who is a better senator is like rearranging deck chairs on the titanic -
majorspark
LOL. Question is will there also be a special place in Hell for blacks and hispanics if they desert Hillary at the rates women are.gut;1780536 wrote:That was BEGGING for the punchline "going to Hell....right next to Hillary"
Can't say I recall an instance where voters were threatened with eternal damnation. -
HitsRus
^^^^Only if they step off the plantation! -
gut
Just imagine if a Republican said that. Vote for Hillary if you're a woman because she's a woman, too. Heck of an endorsement.majorspark;1780545 wrote: Can't say I recall an instance where voters were threatened with eternal damnation. -
BoatShoes
Yeah man because the United States is TOTALLY a sinking ship heading toward inevitable disaster!!! You are spot on! Only Trump can save us!Spock;1780544 wrote:you guys arguing over who is a better senator is like rearranging deck chairs on the titanic -
BoatShoes
The gravy train just switches to the unelected staffers.ZWICK 4 PREZ;1780494 wrote:Yes. Let's throw hundred of years of experience out the window and run our country off a bunch of novices. I can't think of ANY possible downfalls to this plan. -
BoatShoes
This is sad that I know this story but I remember seeing a clip of Taylor Swift quoting Albright with that same quite several years ago so I am guessing that this is kind of a line Albright uses and was going for the applause line but it just didn't work well in this context...especially with the Steinem dust up too.majorspark;1780470 wrote:Hillary may not be going to jail but according to Madeleine Albright women who don't vote for Hillary will be going to Hell.
A classic example of the sorts of stumbles that just seem to grvitate toward Hillary and like on the unlikability which could bring her down. -
wkfan
FIFYZWICK 4 PREZ;1780531 wrote:There's a reason the senior congressmen get the most accomplished. They know what they have to do to get re-elected. -
sleeper
Or vote for Trump if you're a man because he's a man.gut;1780553 wrote:Just imagine if a Republican said that. Vote for Hillary if you're a woman because she's a woman, too. Heck of an endorsement. -
jmog
So, in how many years as a Senator he has one good bill passed and 2 building name changes? And you are really touting THAT as proof he is able to get things through Congress while Cruz/Rubio may not?ZWICK 4 PREZ;1780431 wrote:362 bills he's authored. 3 have passed.
S. 893 (113th): Veterans’ Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act of 2013Sponsor: Sen. Bernard “Bernie” Sanders [I-VT]
Introduced: May 8, 2013
Enacted — Signed by the President: Nov 21, 2013
S. 885 (113th): A bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 35 Park Street in Danville, Vermont, as the “Thaddeus Stevens Post Office”.Sponsor: Sen. Bernard “Bernie” Sanders [I-VT]
Introduced: May 7, 2013
Enacted — Signed by the President: Nov 26, 2014
H.R. 5245 (109th): To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 1 Marble Street in Fair Haven, Vermont, as the “Matthew Lyon Post Office Building”.Sponsor: Sen. Bernard “Bernie” Sanders [I-VT]
Introduced: Apr 27, 2006
Enacted — Signed by the President: Aug 2, 2006
Then you look at the top 3 Republican candidates...
Trump, obviously zero.
Cruz. 1
Rubio 1
So that's means he's gotten more passed than all 3 Republican candidates combined.
Come on Zwick, you just pulled a muscle you are reaching so far. -
jmog
Actually, simple math shows that Bernie has passed less than 1% of the bills he has sponsored.ZWICK 4 PREZ;1780458 wrote:No the reality is Sanders has sponsored 362 bills in 26 years for an average of about 14 a year. 3 have passed.
Cruz has sponsored 44 in 4 years for an averages about 11 a year. 1 has passed
Rubio just 16 in 5 years which proves he's been virtually non-existent as a senator like everyone has claimed. 1 has passed.
Bernie has been an Independent nearly his entire career which means he didn't have partisan support which is preeeeeeeeeeeeeeetty important in Congress.
There's no debate who's more active in congress of the 3.
Rubio over 6% of the bills he has sponsored.
Cruz over 2% of the bills he has sponsored.
Sounds more like Sanders is the crazy guy that spits out so many bills, the guy who throws all kinds of crap on the wall to see what sticks. -
jmog
oops, sleeper beat me to it.sleeper;1780485 wrote:Sanders is only about to pass .83% of the bills he's created. Rubio? 6.25% Cruz? 2.27% Seems that Sanders wastes a lot of people's time instead of focusing more on bills that have a decent chance to pass.
Sanders only has 4 years to get stuff done and with his current pass rate, we can expect 0 bills that he sponsors as President to be passed into law. Math doesn't lie. Sanders is already a failure. Why vote for a failure? -
jmog
By his math Cruz is almost 3 times as effective as Sanders and Rubio is over 7 times more effective.ZWICK 4 PREZ;1780487 wrote:By your math, they're all failures and so is every Congressman. Good logic. -
jmog
Our country has gone literally 100s of years without a socialist running things, so why throw that out the window now?ZWICK 4 PREZ;1780494 wrote:Yes. Let's throw hundred of years of experience out the window and run our country off a bunch of novices. I can't think of ANY possible downfalls to this plan.
Your logic used against ya huh? -
jmog
No doubt about it, Governors almost always make much better POTUS's, because they have actually had to run a government before and not just "vote".Wolves of Babylon;1780508 wrote:Specific candidates aside I would usually choose a Governor over a Senator all things being equal.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk -
ZWICK 4 PREZ
its only been about 55 years.jmog;1780614 wrote:Our country has gone literally 100s of years without a socialist running things, so why throw that out the window now?
Your logic used against ya huh? -
ZWICK 4 PREZ
3 times an effective rate of an ineffective rate doesn't make one effective.jmog;1780613 wrote:By his math Cruz is almost 3 times as effective as Sanders and Rubio is over 7 times more effective. -
jmog
I'll give you that, FDR was rather socialist, Obama is rather close but not really, so call it 1.5 POTUS's in 200+ years of a great history is not something to double down on.ZWICK 4 PREZ;1780622 wrote:its only been about 55 years.
The New Deal spent more money on a GDP basis than any POTUS plan in history. The most notable successes were infrastructure built by previously unemployed workers (meaning you work to get a 'welfare' check...novel idea for a liberal...that would get ridiculed by modern liberals).
The amount of sheer wasted money was insane. The unemployment never really went down once those temporary jobs went away. Another recession came almost right after it in 1937, which was only overcome due to WW2. -
jmog
That we can agree on, but your own numbers showed that the guy you support is actually less effective than the ones you don't.ZWICK 4 PREZ;1780623 wrote:3 times an effective rate of an ineffective rate doesn't make one effective.
Epic Fail there Z4P, especially since it was with numbers, it really surprises me that you didn't think that one through. -
ZWICK 4 PREZ
The point is every congressman's rate is around there. it's not unique to those 3.jmog;1780627 wrote:That we can agree on, but your own numbers showed that the guy you support is actually less effective than the ones you don't.
Epic Fail there Z4P, especially since it was with numbers, it really surprises me that you didn't think that one through. -
jmog
Your original point was not that, your original point was that Sanders was better at getting things done in Congress than Rubio and Cruz.ZWICK 4 PREZ;1780639 wrote:The point is every congressman's rate is around there. it's not unique to those 3.
The math disagreed with you so are you are now changing the narrative? -
ZWICK 4 PREZ
No the original point still stands... which is he's gotten more done.jmog;1780646 wrote:Your original point was not that, your original point was that Sanders was better at getting things done in Congress than Rubio and Cruz.
The math disagreed with you so are you are now changing the narrative? -
ZWICK 4 PREZ
It's funny how you spin Rubio's paltry numbers into how "effective" he is when everyone else in the world see those numbers proving how absent he is from Congress.
-
jmog
This post states otherwise.ZWICK 4 PREZ;1780458 wrote:No the reality is Sanders has sponsored 362 bills in 26 years for an average of about 14 a year. 3 have passed.
Cruz has sponsored 44 in 4 years for an averages about 11 a year. 1 has passed
Rubio just 16 in 5 years which proves he's been virtually non-existent as a senator like everyone has claimed. 1 has passed.
Bernie has been an Independent nearly his entire career which means he didn't have partisan support which is preeeeeeeeeeeeeeetty important in Congress.
There's no debate who's more active in congress of the 3.
Your original post did as well until you edited it out.
More "active" is still hilariously bad.
You are a golfer. If I take 300 strokes to finish 18 holes and you take 60. One could say I was the more "active" golfer, even though obviously I sucked and you did not.
Same thing here, Sanders has tried 300+ bills (analogous to throwing shit on the wall and hoping something sticks) and only 3 has passed. The two you are comparing to have better hit rates.
You and I both know you are incorrect on the effectiveness/accuracy/etc. Just because one throws out 1000s of bills doesn't mean any of them are worth a shit (as evidence by his 0.8% success rate). -
jmog
It's funny how you used Bernie's numbers to show he can get things done when his success rate is probably one of the worst in all of Congress. And seriously, to even get CLOSE to 1% he had to get 2 bills passed that just changed the names of 2 buildings! He really only got 1 bill passed that had anything at all to do with the real world.ZWICK 4 PREZ;1780651 wrote:It's funny how you spin Rubio's paltry numbers into how "effective" he is when everyone else in the world see those numbers proving how absent he is from Congress.