DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... The Presidential Primaries VIII

Off-color: Hillary Clinton and NYC mayor spoof ‘Colored People Time’ joke, backlash ensues

Just a week from the New York presidential primary, Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton was comfortable enough to join New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio in a comedy skit, but a “CP time” joke left many taking offense to its racial nature.
At events like the annual Inner Circle Dinner, a New York City spectacle bringing together those from the arts, media, and politics, there are always groan-generating jokes and awkward arrangements, but on Sunday, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Mayor Bill de Blasio took it into cringeworthy territory with a racially charged wisecrack.

And it wasn’t when de Blasio called Clinton his “homegirl.”


In their sketch, Clinton comes on stage to join de Blasio and Broadway actor Leslie Odom Jr., who was depicting Aaron Burr from the play Hamilton. Odom happens to be black, and that fact is not ignored in the context of the script they all acted out.

“I just have to say thanks for the endorsement, Bill. Took you long enough,” Clinton said to de Blasio upon her entrance. The New York City mayor was Clinton’s campaign manager during her successful 2000 campaign for a Senate seat in the state, so an issue was made of the fact he endorsed her long after other prominent politicos in the state. Anyway.

“Sorry Hillary, I was running on CP time,” de Blasio said, referencing “colored people time” or “black people time” as it’s also known. “CP time” or “CPT” is a joke about black people always being late, and although it has been adopted as a joke by other minority groups as well, it has also been picked up by racists who don’t use it in a kidding fashion.

“That’s not — I don’t like jokes like that, Bill,” Odom reacted on stage, still scripted.

And then Clinton to the rescue: “Cautious politician time? I’ve been there.”

Ba-dum tis.

The crowd largely reacted with silence, though guffaws and gasps are plainly heard. Twitter, however, was a different story, as many Bernie Sanders supporters pounced. While much of the crowd was made up of the media, many initial reports failed to mention the joke.

https://www.rt.com/usa/339256-hillary-clinton-cpt-joke/

I believe it. You don't wanna know the amount of my deductible and copay on my Obamacare policy.

Affordable? My @&)((-/:"!??/!!!'

man, if the GOP tries to put anybody put Trump out there, it's a wrap.

it doesn't matter if Kasich ends up getting the nod. he might be an equal or better candidate than Clinton, but it won't matter. The GOP went against what the voters wanted, and we thought conservative voters didn't show up in the 2012 election, this one might just be an embarrassment.

but by all means, go into the contested convention!! we liberals support the RNC's decision!!

Ryan to make statement ruling out presidential bid

https://www.yahoo.com/politics/aide-ryan-statement-ruling-president-bid-160709124--election.html

WASHINGTON (AP) — House Speaker Paul Ryan is definitively ruling out a bid for president this year, amid persistent speculation that he could emerge as the GOP nominee from a contested Republican convention.

The Wisconsin Republican scheduled a mid-afternoon statement Tuesday at the Republican National Committee to disavow any interest in the presidency this year.

Earlier in the day, Ryan said in an interview on WISN radio in Milwaukee that there was no scenario under which he would seek the Republican nomination. Ryan said he called the news conference to “categorically” rule himself out as a candidate.

“I will not allow my name to be placed in nomination,” Ryan said. “And it will not be me. I don’t know how I can be clearer than that. … It should be someone who actually wants to be president or is running for president.”

He laughed when asked if he was working behind the scenes to “steal the GOP nomination away from Donald Trump and Ted Cruz.”

“No, I am not,” Ryan said. “This is just amazing. It is just amazing how these things keep going. I am going to try again today to put this to bed. The answer is no, and my strong opinion is if it goes to an open convention … the delegates should pick among the people who actually ran for president this year.”

Ryan’s planned statement comes as a contested convention looks likelier by the day. Ryan and his aides have continually denied the speaker has presidential ambitions this year, but their statements have not put the issue to rest. That’s partly because Ryan also denied he wanted to be speaker last fall after then-Speaker John Boehner announced his resignation, but ended up with the job anyway.

Tuesday’s appearance will be an attempt to shut down the speculation once and for all. Yet it may not be enough to quiet the talk about Ryan, given the unpredictable twists of the GOP presidential primary.

Front-runner Trump looks unlikely to accumulate the necessary delegates to clinch the nomination ahead of the July Republican convention in Cleveland. That would allow his lead challenger, Cruz, to make a play for the job.

But if neither candidate can get the delegate votes necessary as balloting progresses in the convention, chaos could result and along with it the potential for some other Republican who’s not currently running to emerge. As a young and charismatic conservative, popular with donors and with some conservative activists, Ryan’s name has been at the top of that list for months.

___

Associated Press writer Scott Bauer in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, contributed to this report

I'm not worried. It's not like this hasn't happened before. I think Cruz will end up the nominee if he can keep the delegate count close by the time the convention comes around.

Then again, the last time this happened at the RNC they picked Ford over Reagan.

So who knows?

Picking Ford over Reagan made a great deal of sense. He had more delegate votes and served the remainder of Nixon's term. Ford lost that election to Carter however, so I'm not sure if a contested convention is good for the Republican selection. Selecting anyone but Trump if Trump has the plurality raises concerns for the republican president campaign, not that there isn't some already.

But this election cycle should be showing to the American people that our voice doesn't really matter and our votes are a sham. How does colorado not hold an election? How does Bernie Sanders lose delegates to Clinton after beating her by double digits in Wyoming?

My apathy level is running so high that I'm close to just voting for everything BUT president come November, and leave that spot blank. I wish it wasn't that way but the donor class is really showing up hard this election cycle on both sides of the aisle.

Yeah my apathy is about right there too. I think the way Colorado does it is they way all states used to do it. North Dakota still does it that way as well.

If Trump wanted those delegates he could've 'campaigned' them just like Cruz did.

I liked Ford, the only President we ever had who was never elected!

Back on Topic...

Fox News Latino? another oxymoron!! i wonder if they have a fox news middle east?

this is an opinion piece, by the way. just posting some different things.

Rick Sanchez: By renouncing his Canadian citizenship, Ted Cruz further proved his Canadian citizenship

http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/opinion...her-proved-his/

And so it begins. I told you this would come back to haunt Senator Ted Cruz. He is not eligible to be the president of the United States, and now that eligibility is being officially challenged in New Jersey.

New Jersey’s secretary of state has scheduled a hearing to make Cruz prove he is eligible to run for president under the Constitution, after a write-in presidential candidate in New Jersey filed a challenge. Washington-area law professor Victor Williams is arguing that Cruz’s Canadian birth makes him ineligible.

Even if we strip away the common law and originalists views and replace it with a living constitutionalist view to apply to Cruz’s case, he still falls short
- Rick Sanchez

And you know what? As I see it, Williams is right, and here’s why.

Cruz continues to argue publicly that he’s a citizen of the United States and he’s absolutely correct in that assertion. But here’s the problem: James Madison and his forefather companions did not make just plain old ordinary citizenship the threshold for presidential eligibility. Nope. They established a different threshold, one that Ted Cruz doesn’t seem to meet.

What Madison and gang established as the standard for presidential eligibility is not basic citizenship, it is “natural-born” citizenship. Simple translation: it means you have to be born in the territory of what is or will be the United States. Last time I checked, Canada is neither in the U.S. nor is it about to be annexed.

That was the intent of the term “natural-born citizen,” framers were saying that for every job in the U.S., being a citizen was good enough, but to be president, more was required — a test of hyper loyalty if you will.

In fact, Cruz himself would make the best argument against his own eligibility. That’s right, Cruz believes in originalism — that’s the conservative belief that our constitution should be interpreted not as it applies to our laws and standards today, but rather how ordinary people would have understood it to mean at the time it was ratified in 1788.

Using Cruz’s own measure, most constitutional law scholars – including Cruz’s own Harvard law professor Lawrence Tribe – have concluded that Cruz is simply not eligible, “because the legal principles that prevailed in the 1780s and 90s required that someone actually be born on U.S. soil to be a 'natural-born' citizen.”

In fact, Tribe says that our forefathers would have argued “even having two U.S. parents wouldn’t suffice. And having only an American mother, as Cruz did, would have certainly been insufficient at a time that made patrilineal descent decisive."

So what does the term “natural-born” really mean and why? Well, for starters if all we needed to be president was citizenship, why then doesn’t the constitution say that? Exactly!

Legal scholars like Tribe and Mary Brigid McManamon, a constitutional law professor at Widener University, say that to understand what the men who wrote our constitution meant, you have to understand the legal principals that guided them. And those principals are rooted in English Common Law, which state “unequivocally” that "natural-born subjects had to be born in English territory."

In fact, even if we strip away the common law and originalists views and replace it with a living constitutionalist view to apply to Cruz’s case, he still falls short.

Let’s say because people travel more today, we could argue that Cruz’s parents were on vacation or even on an extended business trip when he was born — OK, but that’s not true. They were there for years and chose to become Canadians. It would also be reasonable to exempt Cruz from the constitutional threshold if his parents were serving as diplomats or in some military capacity (as in the case of John McCain), mandating them to live outside the U.S. Unfortunately for Cruz, that scenario also does not apply.

Ted Cruz is born in Canada in 1970, to two parents who had lived there, of their own choosing, for at least four years. What’s worse, each of his parents applied for and received Canadian citizenship under Canadian Immigration and Naturalization Laws, as described by Cruz’s father Rafael who was, ironically, a natural-born Cuban citizen at the time he became a Canadian.

In 1974, the Cruz family moves to the U.S., but Rafael Cruz remains a Canadian citizen and doesn’t become a U.S. citizen until 2005, at which time he applies for and becomes naturalized. That, in and of itself, does not make his son an automatic citizen and certainly doesn’t make him a "natural-born citizen." (I know this because I too am the son of foreign-born parents who filed for citizenship when I was still a minor).

Here’s the clincher: In 2014 (yes, that’s only two years ago), sensing he had a serious problem, Cruz on the advice of his lawyers, “renounces” his Canadian citizenship so he can run for president. Of course, by doing so Cruz finally confirms what many suspected – that he’s a Canadian citizen – a simple, but crucial revelation. Here’s the point: By renouncing his original citizenship, Cruz has only further proven his original citizenship.

Fact is this: Ted Cruz is a natural born Canadian citizen, not a natural born American citizen. Does that mean he is “fraudulently representing himself as constitutionally qualified for the office of president?"

It’s a question that will be asked again and again in state after state. New Jersey is only the first.


Rick Sanchez is a contributor for Fox News Latino.

Why you racist xenophobes trying to keep a guy looking for a job down man?

he has a job though

I know, just pullin' yer leg my friend!

i know.

but i need to ask you a serious question Ted....

did your boy put botox in his face?

-Facebooks Zuckerberg was giving a lofty speech yesterday and couldn't help but throw a little jab Trumps way...
---------------------------------------------------
"As I look around and I travel around the world, I'm starting to see people and nations turning inward, against this idea of a connected world and a global community," he said. "I hear fearful voices calling for building walls and distancing people they label as others. For blocking free expression, for slowing immigration, reducing trade, and in some cases around the world even cutting access to the internet.

Today, Trump answered through his spokeswoman...

Katrina Pierson, a spokeswoman for GOP front-runner Donald Trump's presidential campaign, said Wednesday that she can't take Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg seriously after the tech billionaire made a thinly-veiled reference to her candidate's positions.

"Self-righteousness isn't very proactive: We can talk about taxes, we can talk about jobs and even immigration, but that doesn't really put food on the table and save lives," she told CNBC's "Squawk on the Street."

"I think I'll take Mark Zuckerberg seriously when he gives up all of his private security, moves out of his posh neighborhood, and comes live in a modest neighborhood near a border town, and then I'm sure his attitude would change," she added.

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/04/13/trump-spokeswoman-comes-out-swinging-against-zuckerberg.html
-------------------------------------------------
KAABAAM!!!
Gotta love it.

damn all these shots being fired.

guess we gotta low crawl during election year. She has a point though.

it's easy to talk tough when you don't deal with everyday problems.

However, my problem with both of them is you got a harvard drop out guy talking trash about a guy who inherited his money, but turned it into billions.

you'd think they would try to collaborate on some projects instead of mud slinging.

He probably did!

Wait which one? You know I'm a Cruz guy right?

Self righteousness?

Like talking about what great deals you make? That you always make great deals? And how you're a winner? How he's such a winner the American people will become sick of winning?

That kind of self righteousness?

Pot meet kettle.

Zuck is looking to sell his products.

Trump is looking out for the American People.

Pot, Kettle? Only to a blind man. Or perhaps a Biased man.

both of them hahaha

yea i know you're a Cruz dude. man....i don't like Cruz, but he SEEMS to have way more patience that is needed to be president than Trump?

man i don't wanna see trump as president, talking trash about Putin or a G20 summit on twitter.

good god bro.

who says Trump isn't trying to push product on the american people indirectly though?

What I stated in my post is math, not bias. Did you know that just Walmart employees alone receive 6.2 billion in government assistance?

My point is a very simple one. Those who object to increasing minimum wage most certainly promote more government assistance being handed out even possibly without intending to.

I'm not really concerned about the bias of Trump, who is far more about using the anger of people to gain political power or Zuck looking to sell products. Both have a personal agenda.

My point is if people are going to continue to whine about government handouts, quit whining about increasing minimum wage. Because the math dictates at the current levels, minimum wage creates a situation where many of those workers qualify for government programs.

So in actually,6.2 billion of tax dollars go to subsidize the Walton family profits. I guess that's a nice gig if you can get it.

"Like talking about what great deals you make? That you always make great deals? And how you're a winner? How he's such a winner the American people will become sick of winning?"

That kind of self righteousness?"

"Pot meet kettle."

-Hmmmmm Must be that New Math I've been hearing about.

The other side of that, pit, is this: Mandated minimum wage increases of the magnitude they want, is: fewer minimum wage jobs will be available.

For those that keep their jobs, it's good news. For those that lose their jobs due to kiosks/robots, etc, it's even worse news. They won't have any income. Consequently, they'll rely entirely on the gov't.

And, those making the "new" minimum will still get some gov't. benefits. So, fewer people working, more getting benefits (some much more) helps us.......how?

Oh, hey, who said a minimum wage job worker stays at that minimum wage forever?

And, when the price of products go up, the demand generally goes down. Let's take fast food restaurants. If every person working there is getting $15 an hour - guess what happens? Fewer people eat there, AND/or machines replace the workers - or some of them anyway.

Businesses don't just eat these costs. Same with business tax. Prices go up, and overhead goes down to compensate.

I'm not sure if it's something you've been hearing about or something you simply refuse to hear.

Trump is just as guilty of self righteousness as anyone else and more than most. All you have to do is listen to him talk.

While possibly true, the queen of self righteousness is...........wait for it






hillary.

did hilary refuse to date you in high school or something?

I don't disregard your points Arch. Both yours and mine are valid.

One point you're trying to make I disagree with is that "fewer people will be working".

I don't buy that. Every business there is keeps staff to a minimum. They're not simply working people now that they don't absolutely need. It's not like they keep extra staff around just for giggles.

My point is you can pick your poison. Both sides simply carry their own brand of poison. I know it does kind of rub me the wrong way when we subsidize the richest family in America with 6.2 billion dollars in federally funded programs being doled out to their workers.

And you're right, minimum wage workers don't stay there forever, but there are many people now working well above minimum wage that still qualify for government assistance. That's what happens when minimum wage has been kept so artificially low for so long.

I won't argue with you about Hillary either.

This presidential election will be a crap storm. While I feel it's my Patriotic duty to vote, it seems to me there won't be a turd that will polish up enough for me to vote for.

Neither party is offering a choice that I believe deserves the vote of our people.

V

Great points! As a retired substitute teacher, things will change for the taxpayers mightily if this minimum wage raise comes to PA. In the district I work in as a substitute teacher (after teaching for 32 years), the substitutes make just under $10.00 an hour.

If WalMart employees are making $15.00 an hour, what will that mean for substitute teachers with Masters degrees plus and, furthermore, what will that mean for the taxpayers? This will be a giant dominoe effect that will tumble the house of cards in a big way!

damn you guys are beefing real hard.


RNC chairman to Trump: 'Give us all a break'

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/pres...-us-all-a-break

Republican National Committee (RNC) chairman Reince Priebus late Tuesday pushed back at criticism from GOP front-runner Donald Trump that the primary process is unfair.

"Nomination process known for a year + beyond. It's the responsibility of the campaigns to understand it. Complaints now? Give us all a break," Priebus tweeted.


It is the second time in as many days that the RNC chairman has taken to Twitter to push back on Trump, tweeting late Monday that "the rules were set last year. Nothing mysterious --nothing new."


His latest remarks came after Trump claimed during a town hall Tuesday night on CNN that he didn't think the RNC wanted him to secure the nomination, blasting the "very unfair" nomination process.

SPONSORED CONTENT


Obama's Refinance Program
By LowerMyBills

Obama Eliminates Fee For Homeowners Who Switch To A 15yr Fixed Read More
"I know the rules very well, but I know it's stacked against me by the establishment," Trump said during the town hall in New York ahead of the state's primary next week.

In an exclusive interview with The Hill earlier in the day on Tuesday, Trump blasted the party system for selecting a nominee as a "scam" and a "disgrace," adding, "Reince Priebus should be ashamed of himself."

Trump has lashed out for days after rival Ted Cruz swept all 34 delegates last week in Colorado. Republican Party officials in August said they were scrapping Colorado's presidential preference poll for a more complex system of precinct-level caucuses leading up to the state convention.

lmao...oh man too good to not post:


Ted Cruz once argued to ban sex toys. His college roommate just revealed why that was hypocritical.
11:28 a.m. ET

http://theweek.com/speedreads/618186/ted...at-hypocritical

Darren Hauck/Getty Images
Back in 2004, Ted Cruz's solicitor general office fought to defend a ruling in Texas that found selling sex toys was not protected by the Constitution. In his brief, Cruz's office defended the obscenity law by saying that "any alleged right associated with obscene devices" is not "deeply rooted in the nation's history and traditions."

Then came the real whammy. The brief went even further, asserting that, "There is no substantive-due-process right to stimulate one's genitals for non-medical purposes unrelated to procreation or outside of an interpersonal relationship." In other words, as Mother Jones explains, Cruz effectively argued that "the pursuit of such happiness had no constitutional standing."

Now at least one person is calling Cruz a hypocrite for holding such an opinion — his college roommate.

Oh yes.

Craig Mazin was Cruz's freshman roommate at Princeton University, and you might say he isn't too big of a fan of the Texas senator. As the Sun Times reports, Mazin has been nipping at Cruz's heels since he was elected to the Senate in 2012. This, however, might be Mazin's crowning reveal:


Well. Have a good rest of your day! Jeva Lange

Nah. There's a slight age difference. As in, when she was in high school, I wasn't born.

However, HAD we been similar in age, wow, just her cackle would've made me want to puke.

Now, I do like how she has broken so many rules and laws in order to benefit herself. That's an admirable trait, right?

Ever hear of a kiosk? Or an ATM?, Or a self checkout scanner at a grocery store?

Where did those come from? Ah, businesses trying to replace people with machines. Big up front investment, but a definite long term value.

Jack wages up, we'll see those things more than ever. Did you know, if I call my small local bank on the phone and ask to transfer money from one account to another, I get a $2 charge? So, I do it on line. For free.



Agreed, 100%. And when a place figures out that they can spend a set fee on a "machine" that does what 2 people used to be, and they don't have to worry about sick days, vacation days, people just not showing up for work, payroll taxes, etc.........they choose the machine.

What used to take 20 people in a fast food restaurant now takes 15. When you can have 1 "overseer" overseeing 10 self checkout machines, as opposed to having 10 cashiers, what would you do?



The gov't. doesn't subsidize the Walton family any more than I subsidize you. The gov't. subsidizes employees of walmart. Can the Waltons afford to pay more? I don't know. On paper, it sure looks like it. But, do some math. How much cash profit does walmart make per year, and divide that by the employees they have.

I'm not talking stock increases (heavens, for the last 2 plus years I've seen our investments stay the same, even though we contribute the same amount).

And really, when you get right down to it, does stocking shelves deserve $15 an hour?

I'm simply providing you with the choice we all have. You either pay a higher wage or you continue with bloated social programs that help make up for poor wages. Pick your poison.

Actually, you're not providing a choice.

Jacking minimum wage up will also cause problems for those that are making $15 an hour now, or more.

Are you saying, if you've put in 5 years somewhere and are making $15 an hour, that you should be paid the same as the kid off the street?

Or, would you want a raise? Cause I guarantee, the cog is going to go up.

Okay, then we should all just quit complaining about the cost of social programs. That works.

I have 2 older brothers. 1 is a die hard liberal. He works for the gov't. 1 has his own business, employing about 25 people. He's a conservative, and his employees love him.

I'll have more on this later.

I'm not sure how that is relevant when it comes to how keeping wages low have a direct impact on creating a ballooning of the cost of social programs.

Let me tell you about working for a residential contractor and my self employment experience. My prices were expensive. Not the highest, but above average.

The reason? I had three concrete finishers that worked as a team. They did a special finish on concrete we called a spin finish. Much like a textured ceiling only done on concrete. When these three men did this finish together, it made a perfect pattern as if one person had done it. All of them had over 20 years experience and had worked together as a team for many years.

I paid those guys top dollar. I used the highest quality of materials. So the customers that sought out and purchased my services wanted the best. They wanted quality and attention to detail. They wanted the edge of their yards repaired with sod and top soil so other than the new concrete, it looked as though nobody had been there.

Now let me say 1 thing here, some people live to work and some people work to live. Some set themselves up with jobs that are easier and have more guarantees and others take bigger risks. To each their own.

So are you saying there's no conservatives working in the government?

How can Arch leave us with this cliffhanger?