That Pence, by comparison to anyone could look sane.

Post #414,238 by mmoffitt 10/5/16 11:56:58 AM 10/5/16 11:56:58 AM Reply	That Pence, by comparison to anyone could look sane. I have first hand experience with that Tea Bagger troglodyte and it makes me ill that for the majority of people who are not Hoosiers, Pence could be perceived by anyone as "not that bad." It's a little disingenuous to claim I've said Hillary would be worse than Trump with one exception. I do believe that he may be less likely to get us into war with Russia. What I have said is that it is unknown whether he would be worse than Hillary for the simple reason that no one knows what he would actually do as President. If earlier rumors about what he'd said to potential VP's are correct (that he'd let the VP govern) then I know Pence would be far worse than Hillary.
Post #414,247 by rcareaga 10/5/16 1:02:42 PM 10/5/16 1:02:42 PM Reply	Shit ha-Pence then I know Pence would be far worse than Hillary. This knowledge will not, of course, move you to lift even a symbolic finger (as of this morning the folks at 538 put the likelihood of the Hoosiers' eleven electoral votes going to, you know, at 92.1%) in support of The Dread Butch Hillary, the only realistic alternative. OT, but someone pointed me to this 1997 blog entry from future Governor Pence, in which he draws profundity from what many assumed was mere popular ephemera: We stand on the decks of our own modern sophistication and wave goodbye to the old fashioned virtues of faith in God, marital fidelity and the sanctity of life, even though our very prosperity was built upon them. Like the passengers of the Titanic who gave no thought to the strength of the Irishmen who built their vessel at the Harland & Wolf shipyards in Belfast, so do we give no thought to the virtues of those who built our ship of state. And we, like they, do so at our peril. I've read this over a few times, and I still can't puzzle out how the passengers on the RMS Titanic would have been any less imperiled had they spent their waking hours contemplating the burly fitters back in Belfast versus, say, locking Kate Winslet in her stateroom. WTF was Pence talking about here? cordially,
Post #414,255 by mmoffitt 10/5/16 1:59:15 PM 10/5/16 1:59:15 PM Reply	Isn't the blog post obvious? He's lamenting an imagined time when we were all Good Christians™ who believed in the One True Holy Book™ (okay, maybe The Two True Holy Books™) and went to church every Sunday. You remember, don't you? A time when we didn't give a damn about anyone less fortunate because, well, if they weren't so damned lazy (or worse! Un-believers) they'd do well all by themselves. God Fearing Christians™ are what built this country and made it the economic powerhouse that it is. Christian Values™ are the basis for our entire society. If we abandon those ~~myths~~ truths, we will fall out of favor with The One True Almighty God™ and being the loving father he is, he will smite us all. At his core, Pence is a religious lunatic (apologies for repeating myself).
Post #414,257 by mmoffitt 10/5/16 2:20:08 PM 10/5/16 2:20:08 PM Reply	And another thing, did you really need 538 to tell you who would win Indiana? No, you didn't. There is absolutely no way, no way on Earth that a Clinton ever wins Indiana. Obama did - once - when he was able to con the youth vote into believing he was Bernie Sanders. It took them four years to figure out that he was Bill/Hillary Clinton and then Obama lost Indiana in 2012. Bill didn't win Indiana either time. His wife won't win it either. But Bernie has a shot. http://forum.iwethey.org/forum/post/407896/ HRC's nomination insured there'd be no repeat of the general election of 2008 in Indiana. Sanders could have won here.
Post #414,260 by Another Scott 10/5/16 2:33:23 PM 10/5/16 2:33:23 PM Reply	How could Bernie win there and not Hillary http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/indiana In the primary, Trump got 590k votes to Bernie's 335k. The GOP had about 1100k total votes vs 635k for Team D. How can you argue that Bernie would win but Hillary can't? This Guardian piece makes it sound like lots of people in Indiana, while not enthusiastic, are still persuadable. Cheers, Scott.
Post #414,270 by mmoffitt 10/5/16 3:14:57 PM 10/5/16 3:14:57 PM Reply	The same way Barack Obama did in 2008. The youth vote would have been very enthusiastic.
Post #414,275 by a6l6e6x 10/5/16 4:01:35 PM 10/5/16 4:01:35 PM Reply	How is the Hispanic vote there? I believe Trump has them fired up in opposition to him. Alex "There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge." -- Isaac Asimov
Post #414,278 by mmoffitt 10/5/16 4:20:02 PM 10/5/16 4:20:02 PM Reply	I honestly don't know. They're about 6.5% or so of the population. Although down about 1.5 per cent in the last five years, Indiana's still 80% White non-Hispanic non-Latino. I don't know if we're the "Whitest" state or not, but we've got to be in the top 10.
Post #414,276 by Another Scott 10/5/16 4:10:09 PM 10/5/16 4:10:09 PM Reply	Yet Bernie beat Hillary by only 35k votes in the primary. Hmm... 2008 Indiana Exit Polls. Obama won by about 26,000 votes overall (of 2.7M). AA voters were 7% of the vote and Obama won 90% of them. 2012 Indiana Exit Polls. Obama lost by about 273,000 votes overall (of 2.5M). AA voters were 8% of the vote and Obama on 89% of them. The AA vote turned out in 2012 as strongly as they did in 2008, or even moreso. Some of the data doesn't make much sense to me... Yes, under 30s had a huge swing against Obama in 2012 (31 points, ~ 20% of the vote). But it all seemed to happen in "mid-sized cities" (27 points, 17% of the vote). Maybe those are the college towns, I dunno. He did much better in the "big cities" than in 2008. 57% of the vote was in the suburbs and Rmoney was +5 there over McCain. It looks like it would have been much closer if all of Obama's 2008 voters had turned out. Why didn't they? Dunno. You may be right that she has no chance, but I think that Hillary has an ace in the hole - women voters. Women were down 3% in 2012 compared to 2008. Bayh running and apparently doing well can't hurt Hillary's chances. Will it help? We'll see. Cheers, Scott.
Post #414,277 by mmoffitt 10/5/16 4:15:12 PM 10/5/16 4:15:12 PM Reply	I've told you why Obama's 08 voters didn't turn out. Sheesh! And please, please, please! I do NOT need reminding that we're probably going to send the Corporatist Evan Bayh back to Washington.
Post #414,280 by Another Scott 10/5/16 4:22:07 PM 10/5/16 4:22:07 PM Reply	Hehe. Bayh voted to save the economy and for the PPACA. Good enough for me. ;-)
Post #414,281 by mmoffitt 10/5/16 4:24:47 PM 10/5/16 4:24:47 PM Reply	And Bayh's "Credit Card Reform" allowed BofA to jack my rate from 9.0% fixed to 12% floating.
Post #414,284 by Another Scott 10/5/16 4:33:25 PM 10/5/16 4:33:25 PM Reply	So, get another bank. You are still able to do that. E.g. https://www.nerdwallet.com/credit-cards There's a whole lot wrong with our banking system that needs to be fixed. The GOP isn't going to fix it though. They want to control the Fed, they want to gut the little regulation that exists, they want to kill the CFPB. Courier Press: The senator said he received nearly 500 letters and e-mails from Hoosiers about how credit card companies had mistreated them. One story came from a woman in Granger, Ind. She missed her bill payment by one day and her interest rate increased from zero percent to 29 percent. One change that will come from the new law is credit card companies will be limited on when rates can be increased and will be required to leave promotional rates the same for at least six months. Currently, payments cover the least expensive parts of a credit card bill. Under the new law, payments will cover the most expensive parts of the bill, which Bayh said will be for "your benefit, not (the credit card company's) profit." Other changes include giving cardholders more time to pay a bill and requiring a co-signer for anyone under 21 years old. "It angered me when I saw how people were being abused," Bayh said. "It's a basic matter of injustice." The credit card reform bill, also known as House Resolution 627, was introduced to the House of Representatives on Jan. 22 by Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y. After passing through committee, the bill passed the House on April 30 by a vote of 357-70. The bill passed the Senate by a 90-5 vote May 19, and President Barack Obama signed it into law May 22. Every Indiana representative and senator voted for the bill. Yeah, it would have been better to defeat the bill!!1 Bayh was the crucial vote!!11 (Groucho-roll-eyes.gif) You know the right way to vote. Stop letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. Vote Candidate in the Primary, Vote the Party in the General. Come join us! ;-) Cheers, Scott.
Post #414,285 by mmoffitt 10/5/16 4:34:26 PM 10/5/16 4:34:26 PM Reply	Bayh's NOT going to fix the banks, see below.
Post #414,283 by mmoffitt 10/5/16 4:33:24 PM 10/5/16 4:33:24 PM Reply	You and the Banksters want him to win. Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, is currently the top Democrat on the panel and widely considered the next in line for the chair if his party succeeds in retaking the chamber. But a Bayh victory in Indiana could upset that plan. The former two-term Democratic senator, who sat on the Banking Committee from 2000 to 2010, may have more seniority than Brown, allowing Bayh to leapfrog his colleague. The scenario has been quietly discussed among financial services lobbyists, most of whom prefer the more moderate and bank-friendly Bayh to the progressive Brown. Bayh "has seen upfront a lot of the problems with Dodd-Frank and we are hoping he would be somebody who could stand up to the extremists who don't think there should be any changes to Dodd-Frank," said Howard Headlee, head of the Utah Bankers Association and treasurer of the Friends of Traditional Banking, a financial services super political action committee. A financial services lobbyist who declined to speak on the record said financial lobbyists are all "talking about this and nobody knows" whether Bayh could get his seniority back and the chairmanship. http://www.americanbanker.com/news/law-regulation/could-bank-friendly-bayh-seize-chair-of-banking-committee-1090616-1.html But hey, you liked trillions to banksters in the form of TARP, so the possibility of a Bankster Tool as head of the Senate Banking Committee is a good thing, amirite? Omnes relinquite spes, o vos intrantes.
Post #414,286 by Another Scott 10/5/16 4:40:13 PM 10/5/16 4:40:13 PM Reply	Recycled "news" http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-04-04/banks-prefer-schumer-over-sherrod-brown-for-panel-chair The Senate flipped so it became moot. We'll see what happens, but I don't expect Sherrod to roll over if he wants the job. Cheers, Scott.
Post #414,287 by mmoffitt 10/5/16 4:44:55 PM 10/5/16 4:44:55 PM Reply	If Bayh wins and the Senate goes "D", ... the owners of the Senate (that'd be the same Wall Street gangsters funding Clinton) will make damned certain their former lobbyist is head of the Banking Committee. You heard it here first.
Post #414,288 by Another Scott 10/5/16 4:51:30 PM 10/5/16 4:51:30 PM Reply	Yaya. http://www.rollcall.com/news/policy/bayh-wont-booting-brown-banking-panel (from August 9): Former Democratic Sen. Evan Bayh won't be allowed to reclaim seniority and leapfrog a champion of progressive causes on the Senate Banking Committee should Bayh win the Indiana Senate race. Financial services insiders in an American Banker report broached the possibility that Bayh, who is viewed more favorably by the industry, could cut in front of Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, and be in line to take the committee's chairmanship if Democrats retake control of the Senate. A senior Democratic aide effectively ended that speculation Tuesday afternoon. "There's no doubt Senator Brown will have the top slot on the banking committee next year," the aide told Roll Call. [...] The truth is that precedent is squarely on the side of incumbents like Brown being favored over potential returning former senators. Neither Frank R. Lautenberg of New Jersey, Hubert H. Humphrey of Minnesota or Alben Barkley of Kentucky was able to reclaim seniority for past years served when they returned to the chamber. And unlike Bayh, both Barkley and Humphrey had originally left the Senate to become vice president. Sorry. ;-) Cheers, Scott.
Post #414,307 by mmoffitt 10/6/16 8:12:17 AM 10/6/16 8:12:17 AM Reply	At the risk of sounding even more the conspiracy theorist. Bayh has been a Bankster Lobbyist ever since he left the Senate. You know, the usual way a Senator goes to cash in on all the good work he did for his masters while (cough, cough, wheez, gag) representing the people. So now it looks like maybe a somewhat Progressive might be the new Senate Banking Chairman. I don't think it's too much of a stretch for the Bankster owners to go to their tool Bayh and say, "Hey, why don't you run for Senate again? Here's some money. Nobody in Indiana can beat you because of your daddy and because it's an incredibly weak field. If we get lucky, you'll either knock off the Progressive and be Chairman yourself or have at least some influence on the banking committee. We need one of our own on that committee." The cover Bayh came up with to leave the Senate so he could cash in with his Bankster buddies, that "gridlock" was the reason, is laughable now. He's going back because it's gotten better? Give me a break. His candidacy is nothing more than the Bankster Community getting one of their reliable stooges back in the Senate. And, regrettably, most Hoosiers will allow them to do exactly that.
Post #414,263 by rcareaga 10/5/16 2:45:17 PM 10/5/16 2:45:17 PM Reply	Of course I didn't "need" 538 for that. I cited them for the figure. Sanders could have won here. And Mike Pence could announce tomorrow that he's going to impose Sharia Law on Indiana. These imaginary scenarios are not impossible, but they are equally implausible. cordially,

Welcome to IWETHEY!