The DNC stripped Michigan of all its delegates because of Michigan changed the date of their primary which the DNC decided that moving the primary violated the partys rules, they also did this to florida. Because of this Obama chose to not even have his name on the ballot. Both Clinton and Obama both agreed that Michigan and Florida wouldn't be counted and agreed not to campaign in either state, Hillary flipped on that later when she won both states and it was a close race so she tried to get the DNC to count the two states.
The rules do matter. Clinton loses the popular vote only if you start discounting Michigan (which she won, he didn't get any votes at all).
Under what kind of democracy do you not count the votes?
"Obama didn't run in Michigan, so Clinton's votes shouldn't count?"
It's not that the popular vote matters, except in each state where the EVs are awarded.
Fruit Loop fuckin post of the century.Wrong again, my friend MarAzul. Public debt is a good thing. One reason is that
"issuing debt is a way to pay for useful things, and we should do more of that when the price is right. The United States suffers from obvious deficiencies in roads, rails, water systems and more; meanwhile, the federal government can borrow at historically low interest rates. So this is a very good time to be borrowing and investing in the future."
I know, I know, you can't stand Paul Krugman. Argue with his Nobel Prize in Economics then!
"Having at least some government debt outstanding helps the economy function better. How so? The answer, according to M.I.T.’s Ricardo Caballero and others, is that the debt of stable, reliable governments provides “safe assets” that help investors manage risks, make transactions easier and avoid a destructive scramble for cash."
Wrong again, my friend MarAzul. Public debt is a good thing. One reason is that
"issuing debt is a way to pay for useful things, and we should do more of that when the price is right. The United States suffers from obvious deficiencies in roads, rails, water systems and more; meanwhile, the federal government can borrow at historically low interest rates. So this is a very good time to be borrowing and investing in the future."
I know, I know, you can't stand Paul Krugman. Argue with his Nobel Prize in Economics then!
"Having at least some government debt outstanding helps the economy function better. How so? The answer, according to M.I.T.’s Ricardo Caballero and others, is that the debt of stable, reliable governments provides “safe assets” that help investors manage risks, make transactions easier and avoid a destructive scramble for cash."
Wrong again, my friend MarAzul. Public debt is a good thing. One reason is that
"issuing debt is a way to pay for useful things, and we should do more of that when the price is right. The United States suffers from obvious deficiencies in roads, rails, water systems and more; meanwhile, the federal government can borrow at historically low interest rates. So this is a very good time to be borrowing and investing in the future."
I know, I know, you can't stand Paul Krugman. Argue with his Nobel Prize in Economics then!
"Having at least some government debt outstanding helps the economy function better. How so? The answer, according to M.I.T.’s Ricardo Caballero and others, is that the debt of stable, reliable governments provides “safe assets” that help investors manage risks, make transactions easier and avoid a destructive scramble for cash."
I laughed harder at this then I probably should have.
Hmmmmmmmm...............for a guy who was so snotty, disdainful and dismissive of those who struggled to get over Trump being elected, you sure can't let go of Obama. It's almost pathological. Here's a clue Denny......the man is longer president. He's left no bigger mess than any other previous president (see Reagan, Ronnie and Bush, George W. in particular) and the country, like it or don't is better off (or at least was until this past January) than when he took over. Cite all the statistics you want and post all the simpatico links you can find. They are a lot more easily dismissed than the stuff about Trump you (in particular) label "fake news". Worry about the clown currently in office and quit beating on the one who is no longer relevant. You make the Trump haters look rational................Obama.
(within a couple of weeks of winning his award, he was bombing at least six countries, only one of those was leftover from W).
https://theintercept.com/2017/01/30...emen-trump-just-killed-his-8-year-old-sister/
just weeks after he won the Nobel Prize, Obama used cluster bombs that killed 35 Yemeni women and children. Even Obama-supporting liberal comedians mocked the arguments of the Obama DOJ for why it had the right to execute Americans with no charges: “Due Process Just Means There’s A Process That You Do,” snarked Stephen Colbert. And a firestorm erupted when former Obama press secretary Robert Gibbs offered a sociopathic justification for killing the Colorado-born teenager, apparently blaming him for his own killing by saying he should have “had a more responsible father.”
The U.S. assault on Yemeni civilians not only continued but radically escalated over the next five years through the end of the Obama presidency, as the U.S. and the U.K. armed, supported, and provide crucial assistance to their close ally Saudi Arabia as it devastated Yemen through a criminally reckless bombing campaign. Yemen now faces mass starvation, seemingly exacerbated, deliberately, by the U.S.-U.K.-supported air attacks. Because of the West’s direct responsibility for these atrocities, they have received vanishingly little attention in the responsible countries.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/article124842824.html
US drops more bombs in Obama’s final year of office than in 2015
The U.S. dropped 26,171 bombs last year, 3,027 more than 2015.
According to an analysis of Defense Department data from the Council on Foreign Relations, a non-partisan think tank, the majority of the bombs were dropped in Iraq and Syria. The U.S. leads an international coalition fighting the Islamic State group in both countries and has carried out air operations in attempt to reduce the area controlled by the terrorist organization.
(Neither Iraq nor Syria were combat operations in Jan 2009)
Yeah, right.......and your Republicans buddies are bending over backwards to try and fix that.......they wanted even more folks to lose medical coverage with their ill conceived attempt at "reform". Will them putting more people in your shoes make you feel better??? Careful what you wish for, you might just get it.......
As President Trump approaches the end of his first 100 days in office, he has received by far the most hostile press treatment of any incoming American president, with the broadcast networks punishing him with coverage that has been 89% negative. The networks largely ignored important national priorities such as jobs and the fight against ISIS, in favor of a news agenda that has been dominated by anti-Trump controversies and which closely matches what would be expected from an opposition party.
For example, President Trump’s push to invigorate the economy and bring back American jobs received a mere 18 minutes of coverage (less than one percent of all airtime devoted to the administration), while his moves to renegotiate various international trade deals resulted in less than 10 minutes of TV news airtime.
Eight years ago, in contrast, the broadcast networks rewarded new President Barack Obama with mainly positive spin, and spent hundreds of stories discussing the economic agenda of the incoming liberal administration.
For this study, MRC analysts reviewed all of ABC, CBS and NBC’s evening news coverage of Trump and his new administration from January 20 through April 9, including weekends. Coverage during those first 80 days was intense, as the networks churned out 869 stories about the new administration (737 full reports and 132 brief, anchor-read items), plus an additional 140 full reports focused on other topics but which also discussed the new administration.
Five big topics accounted for roughly two-fifths (43%) of the whopping 1,900 minutes of total network airtime devoted to the Trump administration. But those five topics accounted for a much larger share (63%) of the negative coverage hurled at the administration, as the networks covered each with an overwhelmingly hostile (more than 90% negative) slant.
