Donald Trump running for President.
Posted: Tue Jun 16, 2015 9:37 am
Oh man...
The Jane's Addiction Discussion Forum
http://aintnoright.org/
When Donald Trump strode on to the stage at Trump Tower on Tuesday to announce that he would enter the Republican race for president, a rock and roll anthem blared: Neil Young’s "Rockin’ in the Free World." It was an odd choice, given that the 1989 song seemed to slam a Republican administration for not giving a damn about the poor. And Young has taken exception to Trump's appropriation of his tune. A statement issued to Mother Jones for Young by his longtime manager Elliot Roberts suggests Young was not pleased by Trump's use of the song:
Donald Trump's use of "Rockin' in the Free World" was not authorized. Mr. Young is a longtime supporter of Bernie Sanders.
In other words, it may be a free world, but you're not free to steal my song.
that's the only positive thing about hillary being president.kv wrote:first dude Bill...it's happening...there is no stopping it
John Ellis Bush "Jeb"Adurentibus Spina wrote:'Jeb' is actually John. I assume, like George, that 'Jeb' is an attempt to portray an East Coast elitist Republican as a folksy backwoods conservative.
Honestly, he's probably less stupid than George W., and we survived those eight years, and I really think it's absurd that Clinton is the only viable candidate, though I would have voted for her 8 years ago.
There is no real left wing in the United States. Candidates who would be moderate leftists anywhere else (like members of the Canadian Liberal party which is centre-left by our standards) are cast as fringe unelectables before they even have a chance. Ah well.
So he's basically G.O.B. from Arrested Development...mockbee wrote:John Ellis Bush "Jeb"Adurentibus Spina wrote:'Jeb' is actually John. I assume, like George, that 'Jeb' is an attempt to portray an East Coast elitist Republican as a folksy backwoods conservative.
Honestly, he's probably less stupid than George W., and we survived those eight years, and I really think it's absurd that Clinton is the only viable candidate, though I would have voted for her 8 years ago.
There is no real left wing in the United States. Candidates who would be moderate leftists anywhere else (like members of the Canadian Liberal party which is centre-left by our standards) are cast as fringe unelectables before they even have a chance. Ah well.
Really? Was McCain a good candidate?creep wrote:with the republican candidates they have now how can they possibly win? they do the worst job of getting the right candidate. john mccain was the last decent one but unfortunately he was old as shit and then his vp choice happened. i'm not a hillary fan at all. hopefully something happens to shake up this election.
Really? I didn't think that Bernie Sanders was a predictable candidate. Is it predictable that he's not a viable candidate? Sure, but he's interesting, and should have some effect on Clinton's eventual policies should she be elected.mockbee wrote:I used to be interested in politics, but it's just actually a mind numbingly predictable game that goes round and round ad nauseam.
We are all complicit, can't believe the degree that people buy in. The media is something else.
I'm not even so upset at the candidates anymore. Everyone has the right to be an idiot.
Let me off this ride, just wake me when it's time to vote..............
Warren isn't running, or going to run, she's emphatic about it. People, really really really want her to run, yes, but that is different. I would be shocked if she did.Adurentibus Spina wrote:Really? I didn't think that Bernie Sanders was a predictable candidate. Is it predictable that he's not a viable candidate? Sure, but he's interesting, and should have some effect on Clinton's eventual policies should she be elected.mockbee wrote:I used to be interested in politics, but it's just actually a mind numbingly predictable game that goes round and round ad nauseam.
We are all complicit, can't believe the degree that people buy in. The media is something else.
I'm not even so upset at the candidates anymore. Everyone has the right to be an idiot.
Let me off this ride, just wake me when it's time to vote..............
There is an undercurrent of stronger leftist policymaking that goes beyond presidential candidates. There hasn't been someone like Elizabeth Warren in a long time.
Presidents are important, but so are all the other cogs in the machine.
Forgive the skepticism, but how can that be? Warren hasn't budged in her longstanding disavowals of interest, no matter how deeply they are parsed for the possibility of a hedge. If anything, her denials have become more firm in 2015, as she has wandered from the present tense ("I am not running," she said in December) to the future ("I'm not going to run," she told Savannah Guthrie on the Today Show just three weeks ago). Warren had long ago written a letter of "formal disavowal" to the FEC regarding the Ready for Warren effort, but her supporters shook that off just as they have dismissed her more recent statements. Groups backing her responded to Clinton's announcement last week by releasing videos made by dozens of Warren fans (including the actor Mark Ruffalo) imploring her to run.
mockbee wrote:Warren isn't running, or going to run, she's emphatic about it. People, really really really want her to run, yes, but that is different. I would be shocked if she did.Adurentibus Spina wrote:Really? I didn't think that Bernie Sanders was a predictable candidate. Is it predictable that he's not a viable candidate? Sure, but he's interesting, and should have some effect on Clinton's eventual policies should she be elected.mockbee wrote:I used to be interested in politics, but it's just actually a mind numbingly predictable game that goes round and round ad nauseam.
We are all complicit, can't believe the degree that people buy in. The media is something else.
I'm not even so upset at the candidates anymore. Everyone has the right to be an idiot.
Let me off this ride, just wake me when it's time to vote..............
There is an undercurrent of stronger leftist policymaking that goes beyond presidential candidates. There hasn't been someone like Elizabeth Warren in a long time.
Presidents are important, but so are all the other cogs in the machine.
Forgive the skepticism, but how can that be? Warren hasn't budged in her longstanding disavowals of interest, no matter how deeply they are parsed for the possibility of a hedge. If anything, her denials have become more firm in 2015, as she has wandered from the present tense ("I am not running," she said in December) to the future ("I'm not going to run," she told Savannah Guthrie on the Today Show just three weeks ago). Warren had long ago written a letter of "formal disavowal" to the FEC regarding the Ready for Warren effort, but her supporters shook that off just as they have dismissed her more recent statements. Groups backing her responded to Clinton's announcement last week by releasing videos made by dozens of Warren fans (including the actor Mark Ruffalo) imploring her to run.
Bernie Sanders is your Ralph Nader or your Howard Dean or your Warren Beatty, that's great and all, just the political climate needs to shift a little to have any sort or impact. I agree it's important to have these second/third tier people on the left, but unfortunately in the end we end up in the same spot. I think things will change soon though, the social/economic climate is still a little to stable for real change (for better or worse).
I am not sure why you think he was ever leading. Do you mean before any actual primary/caucus votes? After the Iowa and NH fiascos, he ended up winning the Vermont primary (but he had dropped out of the race by then).Adurentibus Spina wrote: I don't understand your Howard Dean reference, since he was the leading Dem. candidate in 2004 until he screamed like a girl and got ridiculed out of an otherwise strong campaign.
I meant before any of the primary votes. Isn't that where we are now?chaos wrote:I am not sure why you think he was ever leading. Do you mean before any actual primary/caucus votes? After the Iowa and NH fiascos, he ended up winning the Vermont primary (but he had dropped out of the race by then).Adurentibus Spina wrote: I don't understand your Howard Dean reference, since he was the leading Dem. candidate in 2004 until he screamed like a girl and got ridiculed out of an otherwise strong campaign.