FSTDT Forums

Community => Politics and Government => Topic started by: Ultimate Paragon on December 27, 2015, 10:22:39 pm

Title: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: Ultimate Paragon on December 27, 2015, 10:22:39 pm
Because I think this is necessary.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: dpareja on December 27, 2015, 10:49:00 pm
Honestly, I don't think they'll matter much unless someone other than Clinton can leave her in the dust. As long as she stays within shouting distance her gigantic edge in superdelegates will push her over the top.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: Vypernight on December 28, 2015, 04:52:18 am
Here's a question.  If Sanders and Trump both lose their nominations but decide to run in the main election, how do you think this would affect the main election?  Who would a 4-way election help or hurt the most?
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: dpareja on December 28, 2015, 05:59:24 am
Here's a question.  If Sanders and Trump both lose their nominations but decide to run in the main election, how do you think this would affect the main election?  Who would a 4-way election help or hurt the most?

The Republican nominee. If there are four candidates, all of whom could get a reasonable degree of support, there's a decent chance that the election would go to Congress, at which point the President would be elected by the House (voting by states), and the Vice-President by the Senate. The Senate is up for grabs in this case, really, since while the Republicans have 54 to the Democratic Party's 46, they also have 24 Senators up for re-election to the Democrats' 10. But the House is gerrymanded all to hell, and by the current configuration, the Republicans have outright majorities in thirty-three states. I don't think it's likely that either of the candidates not nominated by one of the two parties would be seriously considered by Congress, and so in this event I think the Republican nominee for President would ultimately win.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: nickiknack on December 28, 2015, 01:26:04 pm
At this point, if the Democratic Party wants their Queen in Hillary, they can have her, but I bet we will see a continuous decline in party membership, because people are just sick of the Democratic Party giving us neo-liberal trash in return. This election so far has seen how much they don't want any part of any kind of challenge to the anointed one. I know I'll be changing my party affiliation, was considering it before Bernie decided to run, because I've had it with the party at this point, they've proven that they have no respect for anyone who is the wee bit left of the Clintons.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: pyro on December 28, 2015, 08:54:23 pm
At this point, if the Democratic Party wants their Queen in Hillary, they can have her, but I bet we will see a continuous decline in party membership, because people are just sick of the Democratic Party giving us neo-liberal trash in return. This election so far has seen how much they don't want any part of any kind of challenge to the anointed one. I know I'll be changing my party affiliation, was considering it before Bernie decided to run, because I've had it with the party at this point, they've proven that they have no respect for anyone who is the wee bit left of the Clintons.

Where to?
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: nickiknack on December 28, 2015, 10:17:31 pm
You mean what I'll be changing my party affiliation to?? If that's what you're asking, I was thinking of just registering as "non-affiliated" which is an option in my state. The last couple election's I've been voting third party, given my overall disgust at what the Democratic party has become, I mean it's pretty sad when you have so called liberals defend the for-profit healthcare system, because they want to bitch about an added tax, when in reality it's actually cheaper than what we currently have.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: pyro on December 29, 2015, 11:19:34 am
You mean what I'll be changing my party affiliation to?? If that's what you're asking, I was thinking of just registering as "non-affiliated" which is an option in my state. The last couple election's I've been voting third party, given my overall disgust at what the Democratic party has become, I mean it's pretty sad when you have so called liberals defend the for-profit healthcare system, because they want to bitch about an added tax, when in reality it's actually cheaper than what we currently have.

I see. Oddly, I was planning to change from "non-affiliate" to "registered Democrat." There's pretty much only one palatable choice during the general election (I'm ignoring the third parties because first-past-the-post election system), whereas if I was voting in the Democratic primaries I could choose between more than one non-demented choice. Not to mention, since there are fewer people who vote in the primaries, my vote literally carries more influence.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: Lt. Fred on December 29, 2015, 04:16:00 pm
It's Hillary, but good to see Bernie flying the true flag.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: Ironchew on December 29, 2015, 04:38:49 pm
There's pretty much only one palatable choice during the general election (I'm ignoring the third parties because first-past-the-post election system)

See, this is why Democrats take the progressive vote for granted. The left wing in this country isn't willing to take a stand and vote for the best candidate among all parties running. Progressives are a large enough constituency that, if they jump ship in an organized way, they can guarantee unelectability for any Democrat. That's how you frighten the leadership and push political discussion to the left.

It does involve at least the willingness to bite the bullet and endure four years of Trump or worse, but I don't think the long-term prospect of Democrats becoming even more right-wing is any better. It just happens more slowly.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: pyro on December 29, 2015, 09:47:00 pm
If Donald Trump is elected, I'm leaving; fear for my life would see to that. Jeb Bush, maybe, but not Trump.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: mellenORL on December 29, 2015, 11:12:49 pm
Rubio wouldn't leave quite as bitter a taste, either.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: The_Queen on January 04, 2016, 12:57:27 am
*Fuse runs out*

Ibbles, I am going to start with this. Who the hell do you think you are lighting a fuse and dropping a pipebomb on me? Here I am thinking that you and I are friends and we can talk about these things like sensible adults, as I’ve been trying to do throughout any Democratic primary discussion, and there you go lighting fuses. You can light off a fuse on any other of these posters, but not me. So, because of that, I’m going to say what needs to be said, because you’re my friend and you deserve to hear it.

Now, before I begin, I should address the alcohol consumption. There are a few things at play, but I am fine. First, I’m in VA doing nothing for break. I have some work that I took down here, but it’s not important. I’ve mentioned previously that when I am on break, I just cut back and throw caution into the wind. I’m also on a new medication which reduces my tolerance, so I get drunk a little faster and it is taking some getting used to. But, I would like to thank you for your concern, even though it is misplaced as I’ll be sober and miserable tomorrow when I return to Ohio.

And, to clarify, I did not mentioned my drunkenness to say “OMG, I messed up, totes sorry.” I do not regret making that post in WSJ that utilized the Chewbacca defense. I think it was funny: the post was nothing but over the top and silly. I mentioned that I was drunk to highlight just how not-serious that post was, specifically for those who are lacking the ability to spot sarcasm. If there was any serious portion of that post, then I would’ve waited until sober to post it (as I did here). Again, thank you for your concern, but it is misplaced.

Now, Ironbite, I say this as your friend, but you’re acting like you’re in a fucking cult. Nicki is not acting much better.  Fact of the matter is, ever since Bernie announced that he sought the office of the presidency, his campaign has been mired by its cult like supporters and their bullshit accusations of bias. Literally, just about everyone has been accused: the media, the pundits, the pollsters, Hillary, the debate moderators, and even the DNC. I’m not going to get too in depth with these accusations, but I will go through them individually and chronologically.

The first accusation of bias was born almost immediately after Bernie began his campaign. Senator Sanders traveled the country drawing huge (http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/05/29/the-press-and-bernie-sanders/203813) crowds. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/philip-morton/bernie-sanders-laughing-a_b_7969754.html) The problem with this accusation of bias is that the media did the same thing to Ron Paul in 2008. And again in 2012. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVjfa0Alz5o) So, I’m not convinced by this accusation.

While the supposed media “blackout," a conspiracy that Bernie Sanders fanned the flames of  (http://www.politicususa.com/2015/06/23/bernie-sanders-confirms-media-bias-networks-tv-liberal.html), depressed the following, the cult took solace in the fact that the media could not ignore Bernie on the debate stage, and at that moment, media or not, America would “Feel the Bern.” Memes supporting this idea spread like wildfire that come the debate, America would see Bernie, and would like what they saw. Pundits in Bernie’s camp took it to the extreme, saying that before the debate had happened, Bernie already won (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/why-bernie-sanders-has-already-won-the-democratic-debates_b_8278834.html?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000063). So, according to this site, Bernie could get on stage, “get schwifty,” and leave with a win. To take a quote from Ironbite, many of these supporters believed that rational people could only support Bernie, and when the nation was exposed, they would follow suit. However, intelligent people can see the same issues, evidence, and inferences, and reach different conclusions. That is the human experience.

Then the debate happened, and it changed a lot. The pundits watching the debate declared Hillary the winner: she spoke well, get her neglected campaign back on track, reached out to various blocs of the democratic party, attacked the GOP, and even pandered to republican voters. Bernie had a decent introduction to the American audience, but didn’t quite do as much as Hillary. The cult of Bernie, not content that their guy could lose a debate to “the anointed one,” viscerally disagreed, pointing to the most unreliable of sources, online polls. Convinced that there was a conspiracy, Bernie supports accused the pundits of being bribed by the Hillary campaign and of lying to skew the narrative towards Hillary. The confirmation bias is strong with these people. The fatal flaw of this argument is that every scientifically conducted poll found that Hillary won the debate, I believe the closest was by 17 percentage points and the most extreme was just shy of 40, vindicating the pundits.

After that, the next accusation was that the DNC was trying to skew the election toward Hillary by limiting the number of debates to six. There are several flaws with this argument. First, just because the DNC planned six debates does not mean that the DNC is bound to hosting six debates. In 2008, the DNC only scheduled six debates as well (http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2008/primdeb08/dnc040507pr.html). When all was said and done, the DNC hosted 25 debates! (http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/is-six-democratic-debates-too-few/). So, if Bernie wanted more debates, he should show up and make this an actual race. If he does, then like Obama in 2008, he will get more debates. The second flaw with this is that even if limiting the debates to six was part of a DNC plan to sabotage Bernie, Bernie has not made the most of the debates (actually taking a hit in the polls after each), and therefore I am inclined to treat this as nothing more than a harmless error. The third fatal flaw in this argument is, as noted by progressive and Hillary super delegate Howard Dean,

Quote from: Howard Dean
I don't think the books were cooked and if they were, they were cooked pretty badly because Hillary Clinton is a very good debater. After each debate she gets a bump. If [the six debate schedule] was a strategy to help Hillary Clinton, I don't think it has.

And I think Howard Dean hit the nail on the head. Hillary is a good debater, honed through 25 rounds with Obama in 2008. If the DNC wanted to skew the primary process towards her, then hosting more debates would be a better plan. Finally, Bernie is only asking for more debates due to the conventional wisdom that, as the underdog, more debates would benefit him vis-à-vis Clinton. However, and I will concede that there are conflicting reports, when O’Malley challenged Sanders to a one-on-one debate, Sanders declined. While Bernie denies this, knowing that I do about the two, I am inclined to believe O’Malley, and therefore, I just see the attempt by Bernie’s campaign to get more debates as nothing more than a desperate attempt at catching up in the polls and not as part of a plan to allow Americans to make the most informed choice.

Then, the penultimate conspiracy theory that I heard was that the database scheme was part of a conspiracy to throw the wheels of the Bernie Bus. The problem that I have with this is, again, multifaceted, albeit Davedan said it better than I could,

Quote
  Sanders email scandal really did seem like a big deal to me. They accessed another candidates information and got caught. They didn't get caught running innocent searches either. They were using the information so that they could best undermine Hillary's campaign and promote their own. Now because of the nature of this they got a very unfair headstart. How do you punish them? You lock them out of the system. It seems to me both Hillary and Bernie played this well. Sanders didn't scream conspiracy. He got rid of the people who did it and apologised, Hillary accepted and moved on. As for the DNC, I don't see what else they could do. Now if Hillary gets caught doing the same thing and then doesn't get punished that will be the time to cry conspiracy.

The only two things I have problem with is that, first, Bernie did not cry conspiracy. But, as seen in the Ed interview I posted above and from his website, Bernie has no problem fanning the flames of these accusations of bias. Second, while there is no second instance by which to draw a disparate treatment of Bernie, there is some evidence to the contrary. To put it in context, Ironbite stated earlier,

Quote
She was Clinton's 2008 campaign chair for fuck's sake.  Look me in the eye and tell me that the Dems aren't dirty dealing this as to apologize for letting a black man take what was supposed to be her seat away from her.

The problem with this is in 2008, the DNC acted in a similarly heavy-handed way to punish Michigan for holding it’s primaries out of order (I believe between Iowa and New Hampshire). The DNC punished Michigan by taking away all its delegates. About 85% of Michigan’s vote went to Hillary. If the dems wanted Hillary to beat Obama, they could’ve easily allowed Michigan to count in full initially. The DNC did go back and allow Michigan with reduced delegates and some apportioned to Obama. My point being, if you really believe that the dems are sabotaging Bernie to apologize for 2008, and that the DNC acting so heavy-handed in response to the database scandal, then there are a few anomalies to such a plot.

Further complicating the assessment is, as you and Nicki said, "the clear conflict of interest." The problem here is that the assessment is terribly incorrect. First, as in the case I quoted at Paragon regarding gamergate, the conflict of interest would be ameliorated through disclosure. The DNC knew Schultz' past work with Hillary. So, at this point, Schultz did not act on her own via the disclosure (everyone know). So, if there was a conspiracy, against Bernie, at this point, it is not purely on Schultz, but instead on the DNC as an entity, which just adds another layer of complication to the the conspiracy theory. Further, in this theory is no acknowledgement of the fact that within a day, the right to access the database was restored by the DNC. There are a lot of anomalies to this theory undermining its veracity.

Furthermore, the whole plot makes no sense. Why on Earth would the DNC attempt to sabotage Bernie's campaign when Hillary leads him by about 25% in national polls, is up in Iowa, neck and neck in New Hampshire, and slotted to win big in South Carolina? Why would the DNC need to help Hillary when her debates do a good enough job of that? So, not are there serious anomalies with this theory, but there is not a need for the DNC (as an establishment) to take the steps that you ascribe to them.

And finally, Daveden ninja’d me, but the theory that Debbie Wasserman Schultz is pressuring super delegates to break for Hillary. If you really believe this, then I don’t know what to say. There are 800 super delegates. Do you really believe that a conspiracy of 800 could go on without coming to surface? Of course not. Nor has any of the delegates that side with Sanders reported any such pressuring. Further, the worst part about all of this is that I have stated several times that there was a similar early break (albeit nowhere near as pronounced) in 2008. If Bernie wins a few primaries, then some super delegates will switch sides, and unannounced delegates will side with him.

And to add to what Davedan said about both Hillary and Bernie being more than qualified leaders, the one thing he forgot is the Supreme Court. Both Hillary and Bernie will appoint similar justices. Hot button issues like Obamacare, gay marriage, abortion and contraception, and campaign finance reform are all products of the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Constitution, and the appointment of 1 or 2 justices (and the next president may appoint as many as 3) could sway the Supreme Court for the next thirty years and decide these issues favorably or unfavorably towards us. This notion that Hillary is a republican in disguise is incredibly naïve and needs to end. She is without a doubt more conservative than Bernie, but Republican, no.

Which brings me to a last subject of note: I enjoy Bernie. I really do. I’ve said before that I think his contribution to American politics is greater than just being president: he is changing the way we talk about socialism. I enjoy this because I think that things like universal health care, high taxes on the wealthy, a living wage, a strong social safety net, paid family leave, highly subsidized education, and Keynesian economics are great things that we as a nation should take more seriously. I really like that Bernie is dispelling a lot of the negative stereotypes that have surrounded the word “socialism” for the last 70 years. But the important thing to remember is that the democratic party is more diverse than just our section of the internet. FQA is largely white, young, progressive/socialist, and active on the internet. All of these are categories that Bernie is popular in. There are more groups than just ours, and it is important to remember that there are single-issue voters, moderate democrats, working class democrats, Hispanic and African-American democrats, and older democrats. In particular, I try to highlight that each of these groups have an opinion of progressives and socialists, and the reaction of the cult of Bernie affect those perceptions. As an identified socialist well before Bernie was cool, I do not want moderate democrats conflating socialism with the paranoid conspiracy theories of the cult of Bernie. I do not want black democrats conflating young, white socialists at a Bernie rally in Seattle shouting “All lives matter” and racial epithets at Black Live Matter protestors with myself.* In sum, I like that Bernie is erasing negative connotations surrounding socialism. However, as a socialist, I don’t want my political identity to be hijacked by conspiracy theorists and assholes.

And in conclusion, there is no conspiracy, and if there is, the burden of proving it has not been met. Nothing at this point is official, so there is no reason to get worked up. If Bernie wins Iowa, New Hampshire, limits his loss in South Carolina, and does well at Super Tuesday, then he's probably going to be the democratic nominee for president. Polls are not static and they can change. However, if Hillary wins Iowa, and most states on Super Tuesday, I doubt that her win will be that different from what the scientifically conducted polls say. All I'm trying to ask is how far down this rabbit hole of conspiracy theories are we going to go? If Hillary wins Iowa by a vote of 59-41 (which is similar to most recent poll), then are we going to blame the DNC for lying about results, the polls for giving false reports to derail Sanders' support, Hillary's campaign for bribing people? I really just want to know when this will all end.

*My view on this is that Bernie acted 100% in the right. That view got drowned out in any discussion here. However, a friend of mine was there, and her first-hand account is that she contributed to shouting “All lives matter.”
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: Even Then on January 04, 2016, 01:28:30 am
Quote
However, intelligent people can see the same issues, evidence, and inferences, and reach different conclusions. That is the human experience.

I can't really comment on your American politics, but I just think this line is fucking brilliant. That is all.

Actually, do you mind if I put it in my sig or use it on other sites or something?
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: Barbarella on January 04, 2016, 12:26:06 pm
Even if Hillary becomes the Prez, it would be a lot better than "PRESIDENT TRUMP"! I'd rather have a ho-hum Democrat over a GOPer of any stripe, any day!

In the Primaries, I'm voting Bernie. However, if Bernie loses the Primary and out of the race, I'll vote Hillary. I'm not giving up on the elections because that would give the GOPers victory and THAT would be HELL!

All this "All-Or-Nothing"-type Progressive-thinking can be dangerous! If Bernie were to fail, DON'T QUIT VOTING! You need to be pragmatic!
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/12/22/if-your-favorite-dem-doesnt-win-the-nomination-and-you-decide-to-stay-home-youre-a-massive-idiot/
....PLEASE READ THIS!

Look; I'm as frustrated as you. I'd love to see an election FULL of Bernies! I'd love to see a massive Left-turn in our politics and the USA to be a big giant Norway! But that won't happen if we sabotage ourselves by being "candidate perfectionists" or eschew voting all together.

Voter-apathy got us in this mess! If the vast majority of Americans voted in every election for candidates who weren't wingnuts for the past 30-40 years, we wouldn't be in this mess! Sometimes you need to take baby-steps in the ideal isn't available. Over time, the political landscape will improve.

Vote for Bernie...but if Bernie doesn't win the Primary, vote for Hillary! She's far from perfect but she's a HELL of a lot better than all those GOP bozos!
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: nickiknack on January 04, 2016, 11:27:12 pm
Yeah, with your hard core Hillary support and defense of neo-liberalism I don't think you can call yourself a "socialist". The hardcore socialists don't even like Sanders, and they won't be caught dead  supporting a neo-liberal like Clinton. I say this as someone who is more of a "social democrat"and we aren't fans of neo-liberalism for the most part.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: Ironchew on January 05, 2016, 01:58:40 am
Yeah, with your hard core Hillary support and defense of neo-liberalism I don't think you can call yourself a "socialist".

(http://i.imgur.com/DKJhx9l.gif)
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: davedan on January 05, 2016, 02:22:43 am
Look if you're not a Trot you may as well be a laizzes fair libertarian.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: The_Queen on January 05, 2016, 04:08:09 am
Yeah, with your hard core Hillary support and defense of neo-liberalism I don't think you can call yourself a "socialist". The hardcore socialists don't even like Sanders, and they won't be caught dead  supporting a neo-liberal like Clinton. I say this as someone who is more of a "social democrat"and we aren't fans of neo-liberalism for the most part.

Okay, I tried. Now, my initial response was to tell you to "sit in the back of the class with the mercantilists and the luddites." But that would be about as productive as your post, so I'll delve a bit deeper. Now, I get it, in spite of acknowledging that Hillary is a robot sent from the future to enslave humanity so that our robot overlords of the future can have a cheap means of sustenance, I'm still dickriding Hillary. But, and I am invoking the direct question rule, out of the list of conspiracies, biases, and plots against Bernie, how many of them--if any--do you actually believe are occurring or have occurred?

I only invoke this rule because every time we have debated the Democratic nominee and its collateral issues, you elide my points, goalpost shift, or throw your hands up saying "I don't care." I want to get a straight answer from you.

ETA: and the more I think about it, the more I think you're being incredibly hypocritical. You mentioned in several posts being offended that someone implied you couldn't be a feminist because you support Bernie, which is a perfectly reasonable position for you to take. However, now you are implying that I cannot be a socialist, a political identity that I have held for almost half my life, dating back to the times when "liberal" was a dirty word, all because I support Clinton (on mostly pragmatic grounds) and because I support free trade. In simpler words, I feel like this is a "No true Scotsman" argument that you are making to strip me of my political identity for not dickriding a certain politician.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: nickiknack on January 05, 2016, 11:58:38 am
I've never said anything supporting the conspiracies so I don't believe them for the most part, though I do think that The DNC doesn't want any challenge to Hillary, because they have no interest in giving a shit about the progressives within the party. The DNC has proven that they don't care about the opinion of the base, because if they did they would be more inclined to support economic populism over the selling out of the working class in favor of Wall Street. Again, you don't see the damage that neo-liberalism has done to the working class, we replaced our manufacturing jobs that payed a decent wage with Service jobs that pay a poverty wage, which has contributed to wage stagnation. If they continue to run candidates like Hillary, nothing is going to change, she doesn't even want to move to non profit Healthcare, she is part of the problem, and you just don't see that.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: The_Queen on January 05, 2016, 06:13:35 pm
I've never said anything supporting the conspiracies so I don't believe them for the most part, though I do think that The DNC doesn't want any challenge to Hillary, because they have no interest in giving a shit about the progressives within the party. The DNC has proven that they don't care about the opinion of the base, because if they did they would be more inclined to support economic populism over the selling out of the working class in favor of Wall Street. Again, you don't see the damage that neo-liberalism has done to the working class, we replaced our manufacturing jobs that payed a decent wage with Service jobs that pay a poverty wage, which has contributed to wage stagnation. If they continue to run candidates like Hillary, nothing is going to change, she doesn't even want to move to non profit Healthcare, she is part of the problem, and you just don't see that.

Oh, fun. So, to summarize your position "I don't believe there are conspiracies, but the DNC is totally trying to skew the nomination to Hillary and I assert this with no evidence or reliable backing of any kind. I just know it is true." What evidence do you have to support the position that the DNC is trying to push the nomination to Hillary? Second, you've previously asserted that the mainstream media was doing the same, referring to Hillary as the "anointed one." Should I take this to mean that you believe the mainstream media also has a bias against Bernie? If so, what evidence do you have of this?

Second, any democrat would go a long way towards reforming our current system. There is this thing called the Supreme Court. There are nine Justices on it. Four of them are over 75. At the time Citizen's United was decided, one of the Justices was appointed by Obama and two were appointed by Bill Clinton.* Both presidents were corporate democrats. Yet, the three Justices that they appointed came down in favor of upholding the campaign finance regulations in McCain-Feingold. If anyone thinks for a minute that Hillary is going to appoint corporate Justices who will continue Citizens United, then you're making assumptions that have no basis in reality. In fact, in the realm of judicial appointments, since Hillary practiced law and has a Juris Doctorate, I am more inclined to trust her SCOTUS appointments over Bernie, albeit the difference is minor as both will appoint liberal (or as liberal as possible with the obstructionist Congress) Justices.

Third, this whole time you've been complaining about free trade, and I'm trying not to get too into the issue. I believe you've mentioned that your dad lost his job due to NAFTA. Him losing his job does not make me happy. That said, I repeat from a post I previously made, that you ignored, that free trade doesn't kill jobs, it just shifts jobs from sectors that rely on government intervention, to more productive markets that can thrive without government intervention. The link I gave you, by Professor Blinder, indicates that protectionist policies may cost the American economy as much as $1,000,000 per job to maintain, which is not very feasible when the job pays $35,000 a year. Also, as Captain Random indicated in WSJ, if not for NAFTA, then Random probably wouldn't have the job that he has. And then, even if I am wrong and this hurts America jobs, this isn't the kind of thing to shout and be aggressive about. We are both motivated by a desire to help people, and simply debating the issues is a far more productive way to change my mind then telling me I'm not a real socialist because I support free trade.

Finally, I can admit that Hillary was dead wrong about Universal Healthcare. Thing is that you never asked me about this: you just assumed that I would dickride Hillary as though she were Barack Obama. Universal healthcare will save America money relative to our current system.** The thing is, look at what both of them are proposing. Hillary is endorsing altering Obamacare. Bernie is insisting on universal healthcare. I don't think Bernie could get 50% of democrats on board with this plan, let alone a single Republican. Hillary's idea is far more likely as democrats are more inclined to take the smaller step, more willing to work with Hillary, and since Hillary is arguing from a position of power (the last SCOTUS case on Obamacare gives off the impression that SCOTUS is done with the issue and will not get involved, meaning a presidential veto wins out), she is in a better position to give the GOP little things that they want in return for more pragmatic changes to the law that will help people out today (er, well, relatively sooner than otherwise). Or, if the GOP plays intransigent, nothing changes and Obamacare is still law. In contrast, a Republican president all but ensures the repeal of the Affordable Care Act, and sets us back a great deal in fixing our broken healthcare system. I would also appreciate it if you  would stop acting like people who are not dickriding Bernie cannot see obvious truths.

*The fourth, John Paul Stevens, was appointed by Ford.
*There is some debate as to how much. Relative to other countries, America spends vastly more on research and development for treatments, and utilizes treatments that may have no positive effect more often. Regardless of how much is saved, getting corporate hospitals and insurance out of healthcare would only help.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: nickiknack on January 05, 2016, 10:35:44 pm
And why won't Democrats want to sign on, Oh I know why Because they're too beholden to Wall Street, and they have no business being part of the damn party because they want to be GOP lite. But god forbid the DNC actually listen to the base and run progressives, oh no we have to run corporate shrills that just keep to the status quo and nothing ever changes, and we wonder why we have a voter apathy problem, especially among the working class. Also you fail to understand we didn't get jobs that pay a decent wage in return, instead we got jobs that pay poverty wages, which is the damn problem, meanwhile some pos CEO is making killing off of the profits from cheap labor, but you keep on calling yourself a socialist, even though you're a ok with that happening.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: The_Queen on January 05, 2016, 10:55:58 pm
And why won't Democrats want to sign on, Oh I know why Because they're too beholden to Wall Street, and they have no business being part of the damn party because they want to be GOP lite. But god forbid the DNC actually listen to the base and run progressives, oh no we have to run corporate shrills that just keep to the status quo and nothing ever changes, and we wonder why we have a voter apathy problem, especially among the working class. Also you fail to understand we didn't get jobs that pay a decent wage in return, instead we got jobs that pay poverty wages, which is the damn problem, meanwhile some pos CEO is making killing off of the profits from cheap labor, but you keep on calling yourself a socialist, even though you're a ok with that happening.

You do realize that wages have been stagnating since the 70's, and free trade took off in the 90's. You also realize that there were many other things occurring throughout this time: Reagan re-writing the tax code to favor the 1%, union-busting, defunding state college education, gutting the social safety nets, and the CIA inventing crack cocaine played a much bigger role in the stagnating wages than free trade.

Likewise, you completely elided my point about SCoTUS and how a Hillary presidency would very likely be the end of Citizen's United. At the least, more democrats in power means less union-busting, means more powerful unions, means more union donations, to one specific party... You catch my drift.

And you know what, I've played nice long enough, two can play this game. Why don't you go back to your protectionist policies that favor your oligarchical family, because that is what the government exists to do: help you at the expense of everyone else. Meanwhile, people like myself who live paycheck to paycheck and still give what they can must absorb the cost of those jobs through a weaker economy, less jobs, and increased taxes. But go ahead, keep on saying you care about helping the poor, even though your policies exacerbate our poverty. You only care about helping yourself.

The last paragraph was jest. I don't actually believe it, although I do feel it shows just how hostile you're being. If you really think that I hate poor people and that is why I support free trade, as opposed to simply being mistaken on the effects it has while having my heart in the right place, then you have been ignoring just about every post I've made since I've joined this forum, left, and rejoined.

Finally, a certain someone brought your facebook post about me to my attention. Let's not pretend that this whole you denying my socialism thing is about free trade. It's all about Bernie and Hillary. If you were any more transparent, birds would fly into you.

ETA: Going back to your claim that I cannot be a socialist who supports free trade, I think it is noteworthy that Sweden and Finland are often referenced by Bernie when discussing socialism, and yet are part of the European Union, one of the larger free trade zones in the world. Norway, the third Scandinavian Socialist Nation, while not part of the EU, is still part of European Free Trade Association. So, your comment ("Yeah, with your hard core Hillary support and defense of neo-liberalism I don't think you can call yourself a 'socialist'.") does not mesh with reality.

I also think it is worth getting on the same page. I've never said anything specific about neo-liberalism (with the exception of a time that you used it almost interchangeably with free trade, and I really did not think you were arguing free trade). So, for purpose of clarity, I would like if we didn't use different words (like neo-liberal and free trade), if only because that leads to assumptions that may be inaccurate.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: rookie on January 05, 2016, 11:32:51 pm
Queen, I do have one honest question for you. One I do so hope you take as intended, slightly a touch more than idle curiosity and not an attack. And one I tend to ask staunch supporters of any candidate.
Hillary or Bernie. The two are different, have different ideals and so on and so forth. So my question is this. With a (currently) hostile congressional body (one either will likely have to face either this cycle or in two years), what good can Sanders do that Clinton can't or won't? The president may indeed set the tone, even direct conversation. But the executive branch is by far the weakest of the three. It's it his force of personality that'll bring about the changes you seek, as Presidents Clinton and Reagan did? Seizing advantage where it may be found like Cheney?
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: The_Queen on January 05, 2016, 11:44:48 pm
Queen, I do have one honest question for you. One I do so hope you take as intended, slightly a touch more than idle curiosity and not an attack. And one I tend to ask staunch supporters of any candidate.
Hillary or Bernie. The two are different, have different ideals and so on and so forth. So my question is this. With a (currently) hostile congressional body (one either will likely have to face either this cycle or in two years), what good can Sanders do that Clinton can't or won't? The president may indeed set the tone, even direct conversation. But the executive branch is by far the weakest of the three. It's it his force of personality that'll bring about the changes you seek, as Presidents Clinton and Reagan did? Seizing advantage where it may be found like Cheney?

A good question. But, if there is any chance of working across the aisle, then it is imperative that the president get his or her party on board with his or her agenda. Bernie's history of alienating colleagues already hampers him vis-a-vis Clinton. Further, Obama, with a supermajority of Congress took almost a year to pass Obamacare. While in part due to the obstructionist Republicans, a large reason was that Obama could unify the democrats to pass the bill. Hillary has a better track record of crafting legislation and putting together the coalitions to pass laws than Bernie. I mentioned above that Bernie's plan of universal healthcare, while better, has no chance of happening, unlike making minor alterations to the law. I've said it already, but two of the largest, if not the largest, socialists bills in the last fifty years to have a chance of passing (Hillary Care) and that did pass (SCHIP) have her name on them. That is not a coincidence.

So, in sum, if the GOP maintains its uber obstructionism, nothing changes between the two. If there is working across the aisle, I feel that Hillary is in the better position to get more from negotiations than Bernie. I've stressed this for months now, but my support for Hillary is not due to policy platforms, but pragmatism and getting piecemeal improvements as opposed to holding out for idealism that may not materialize.

ETA: Also, don't step on eggshells. If you have a question to ask, ask it.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: rookie on January 06, 2016, 12:06:33 am
First off, you've been kind of on a warpath lately. Granted, mostly in That Other Thread but I didn't want to take chances. Things don't anyways come out the way they sound in my head, if that makes sense.

But I do want to apologize. For some stupid reason I had it in my head you were for Sanders. I know why you're for Clinton. Sane reasons Mrs Rookie is and more than likely the same reasons I'll eventually end up voting for her. I'm sorry about that.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: nickiknack on January 06, 2016, 02:18:50 am
You really can't compare the Nordic countries to US, when they have a strong safety net already in place, when we have a pile of poo for a safety net, they have cushioning to break the fall all while we hardly have anything to catch people. Again with the issue of trade, you don't get that we got the crappy end of the bargain, we didn't get the  better paying jobs that were promised, we got jobs that pay poverty wages, that's not a trade, that's called getting ripped off, it may not be the sole factor but it still plays a part whether you like to acknowledge it or not. Also a lot of my problem is that Democratic party have moved more to the center right of the political spectrum, and running someone like Hillary isn't going to move the party any place at all, it's just going to be the same old tune, and a fair number of people are sick of it, and does nothing to move the party in better direction.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: davedan on January 06, 2016, 04:00:22 am
Then again if the Dems keep winning the Republicans may move closer to the centre, which will push the Dems further left.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: Lt. Fred on January 09, 2016, 08:34:35 pm
Then again if the Dems keep winning the Republicans may move closer to the centre, which will push the Dems further left.

Never happen. The party's either going to die or win, it will never compromise.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: Vypernight on January 10, 2016, 05:18:52 am
Planned Parenthood endorses Clinton.  Don't they have enough bad publicity?

Though Sanders could use this in the next debate.  He could congratulate Clinton and speak highly of PP.  But then he could point out that PP helps middle and lower classes women and families, in other words people not at the top of corporations and Wall Street.  So if she truly plans to fight those two groups, she has nothing to worry about.  But if she ends up being full of **** and only supports Wall Street and corporations, in the next election, she'll not only lose the support of PP but a lot of women and families as well.

Hopefully this either forces her to do things correctly if she wins, or it blows up in her face. 
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: ironbite on January 10, 2016, 06:18:04 pm
Next debate?  I have the feeling the DNC is done with televised debates between Sanders and Clinton.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: The_Queen on January 10, 2016, 08:11:28 pm
Next debate?  I have the feeling the DNC is done with televised debates between Sanders and Clinton.

Really? Not this again. There is no plot by the DNC to rig the primaries. I repeat my previous point, if there were a plot, the DNC would be wanting MORE debates, because every scientific poll that has been conducted confirms that Clinton won and after every debate, the polls tend to show a slight bump for Clinton and a slight dip for Bernie.*

*With the exception of the Garvis poll after the first one, which happens to also be one of the closest polls between Clinton and Sanders.

ETA: After looking at the polls, it looks like Bernie might be moving on up. Last time I checked, on average, he trailed by 25%. Now, it appears to be about 17%. So, if he continues his rise, and if he wins a few primaries, then he could become the front-runner. And, if this does occur, I will tell you what the DNC will do about it: NOTHING. Because they're not in the game of rigging shit for one politician. There is no conspiracy, and without evidence you just sound like you're in a cult.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: Vypernight on January 11, 2016, 05:23:32 am
Next debate?  I have the feeling the DNC is done with televised debates between Sanders and Clinton.

There are 3 left; January 17 (NBC), Feb 11 (PBS), and March 9 (Univision).  Either I misread it or they added two more.

Sanders, though, needs to get aggressive with these if he wants to win.  Since the media is all but ignoring him, he needs to channel Trump.  Yes, I just said that!  And I don't mean he needs to sling mud left and right.  But he does need to fight to get noticed.  That means talking less about his usual points and more about national security while slamming Clinton's relationship with Wall Street, etc., as well as jumping in whenever she says something stupid, instead of just standing there laughing.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_democratic_presidential_nomination-3824.html (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_democratic_presidential_nomination-3824.html)

He's closing on her, and he still has a chance, but he needs to force the media to talk about him if he wants to get ahead.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: The_Queen on January 11, 2016, 05:40:26 pm
(https://scontent-ord1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xla1/v/t1.0-9/12524208_10153969225271336_460045732007383588_n.jpg?oh=abbabddcf9fbc29304af0b14aa04d257&oe=56FCA4A1)

Bernie speaking on Bill Clinton's affairs... In my opinion, the only thing that is totally disgraceful and unacceptable is Bernie's comments. First, Bill Clinton's extramarital affairs are personal issues between Bill and Hillary. Second, why is this even coming up unless, to some extent, Hillary is being defined by her husband... yay sexism. Third, Sanders saying "let's talk about the bloody issues" afterwards does not negate that he brought it up, or at least made the comment that Bill was "totally disgraceful and unacceptable." It would be as though I said "Bernie is a rat bastard, but let's not get into personal attacks." While I support her, I acknowledge that there is plenty in Hillary's past--that is not the Monica Lewinsky fiasco--that Sanders could've, and should've, attacked.

At the very least, maybe now the dems will start getting a little catty. Should make watching their race a bit more fun.

Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: mellenORL on January 11, 2016, 07:54:23 pm
Ooooooooo-weee, Queen! I can hear nickinack revving up all the way from here!
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: The_Queen on January 11, 2016, 09:16:37 pm
Ooooooooo-weee, Queen! I can hear nickinack revving up all the way from here!

That's cool, you can hallucinate all the sounds you want to hear.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: mellenORL on January 11, 2016, 09:27:45 pm
I just think it'll be a very intense response. Doesn't take hallucinations to imagine a likely event. Not taking sides on this, btw.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: Art Vandelay on January 11, 2016, 09:40:28 pm
I thought she left (because people who didn't worship Bernie posted here, no less).
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: The_Queen on January 11, 2016, 11:03:36 pm
I just think it'll be a very intense response. Doesn't take hallucinations to imagine a likely event. Not taking sides on this, btw.

I did not post anything to elicit a response from her. I saw the statement, had an opinion on it (not favorable), and I posted it here trying to encourage discussion about it. I did not want to take a "jab" at any individual poster. Instead, I sought a discussion of this event on its merits. Therefore, let's stop speculating about how she would react in this thread. Thank you all in advance.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: Sigmaleph on January 11, 2016, 11:38:53 pm
(https://scontent-ord1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xla1/v/t1.0-9/12524208_10153969225271336_460045732007383588_n.jpg?oh=abbabddcf9fbc29304af0b14aa04d257&oe=56FCA4A1)

Bernie speaking on Bill Clinton's affairs... In my opinion, the only thing that is totally disgraceful and unacceptable is Bernie's comments. First, Bill Clinton's extramarital affairs are personal issues between Bill and Hillary. Second, why is this even coming up unless, to some extent, Hillary is being defined by her husband... yay sexism. Third, Sanders saying "let's talk about the bloody issues" afterwards does not negate that he brought it up, or at least made the comment that Bill was "totally disgraceful and unacceptable." It would be as though I said "Bernie is a rat bastard, but let's not get into personal attacks." While I support her, I acknowledge that there is plenty in Hillary's past--that is not the Monica Lewinsky fiasco--that Sanders could've, and should've, attacked.

At the very least, maybe now the dems will start getting a little catty. Should make watching their race a bit more fun.

Sanders didn't bring it up though? He was asked a question about Bill Clinton, and the first thing he said was "Hillary Clinton is not Bill Clinton."

You can say that he shouldn't have even said the quoted sentence, and yeah that was unnecessary, but his response in context seems like a clear "No, I'm not doing this, I'm running against Hillary, not Bill"
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: davedan on January 11, 2016, 11:49:11 pm
What was the question which elicited this answer? Because I think there is a valid distinction between condemning the affair with Monica Lewinsky and condemning Clinton's response to the affair being made public. That is, who cares if he rooted his intern, but he shouldn't have dissembled about it.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: Eiki-mun on January 12, 2016, 02:29:22 am
That looks like an out-of-context quote to me.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: Vypernight on January 12, 2016, 04:39:36 am
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/bernie-sanders-calls-bill-clintons-white-house-sex/story?id=36177942 (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/bernie-sanders-calls-bill-clintons-white-house-sex/story?id=36177942)

Quote
I hear what you’re saying,” Sanders interjected. “Look Hillary Clinton is not Bill Clinton. What Bill Clinton did, I think we can all acknowledged was totally, totally disgraceful and unacceptable, but I am running against Hillary Clinton. I am not running against Bill Clinton, though I understand he has been in Iowa recently.

Quote
We have more things to worry about than Bill Clinton’s sexual life

Yep, let's question Sanders on Clinton, rather than on himself.  At least B.S. like this, the 90% tax, and the so-called 'sexist story' he wrote show people are seeing him more as a threat every day. 
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: davedan on January 12, 2016, 05:16:58 am
The whole quote doesn't seem inconsistent with let's get on with it. Perhaps a gratuitous moralising condemnation but you yanks seem to love it. Personally I think the only thing he did wrong was lying about rooting her.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: nickiknack on January 12, 2016, 01:40:37 pm
Maybe you should look at the source next time. I may dislike Hillary greatly, but if I saw some quote with her name attached, and the source being Fox News of all places, I'm not going to take it on face value given how untrustworthy, they've proven themselves to be.

Also my main beef is that those on the left in this country are far too willing to roll over an accept politicians who are in reality center-right on the political spectrum as representatives than those who are at least center-left, and we then complain why the public is getting shafted. You know that may just be the problem why we lack a social democracy here, and continue the "America is center-right" bs, add some personal issues that I've been having and you get a whole lot of misery on my part.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: Ultimate Paragon on January 12, 2016, 02:46:05 pm
Maybe you should look at the source next time. I may dislike Hillary greatly, but if I saw some quote with her name attached, and the source being Fox News of all places, I'm not going to take it on face value given how untrustworthy, they've proven themselves to be.

Also my main beef is that those on the left in this country are far too willing to roll over an accept politicians who are in reality center-right on the political spectrum as representatives than those who are at least center-left, and we then complain why the public is getting shafted. You know that may just be the problem why we lack a social democracy here, and continue the "America is center-right" bs, add some personal issues that I've been having and you get a whole lot of misery on my part.

Hate to nitpick, but Sanders is a democratic socialist, not a social democrat.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: Dakota Bob on January 12, 2016, 02:46:20 pm
What Bill Clinton did was shitty, tho. Fight me, casuals. Also, that's some typical media bullshit asking him about some completely irrelevant shit instead of the actual issues, like "hey Bernie you really wanna break up those big banks? why not elaborate on that?"
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: nickiknack on January 12, 2016, 04:06:28 pm
And I didn't call Sanders a "Social Democrat" in my post(though to be fair one could make the argument that's he's more a Social Democrat than a Democratic Socialist, but both are very, very similar to the point that the difference between the labels are murky at best), I didn't  even mention his name. My rant was about how a subset of "the left" in this country is more than willing to roll over an accept center-right people as representatives and continue the "America is center-right" mind set, which in my opinion undermines the left and what it has to offer.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: Ultimate Paragon on January 12, 2016, 08:33:13 pm
And I didn't call Sanders a "Social Democrat" in my post(though to be fair one could make the argument that's he's more a Social Democrat than a Democratic Socialist, but both are very, very similar to the point that the difference between the labels are murky at best), I didn't  even mention his name. My rant was about how a subset of "the left" in this country is more than willing to roll over an accept center-right people as representatives and continue the "America is center-right" mind set, which in my opinion undermines the left and what it has to offer.

Alright.  Sorry I misunderstood you.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: rookie on January 12, 2016, 10:34:58 pm
Nikki, I'm curious as to how you'd do that given the political reality that exists as it is today. To put it another way, how do you do this and pass it?
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: The_Queen on January 15, 2016, 06:22:40 pm
-snip-

Bernie speaking on Bill Clinton's affairs... In my opinion, the only thing that is totally disgraceful and unacceptable is Bernie's comments. First, Bill Clinton's extramarital affairs are personal issues between Bill and Hillary. Second, why is this even coming up unless, to some extent, Hillary is being defined by her husband... yay sexism. Third, Sanders saying "let's talk about the bloody issues" afterwards does not negate that he brought it up, or at least made the comment that Bill was "totally disgraceful and unacceptable." It would be as though I said "Bernie is a rat bastard, but let's not get into personal attacks." While I support her, I acknowledge that there is plenty in Hillary's past--that is not the Monica Lewinsky fiasco--that Sanders could've, and should've, attacked.

At the very least, maybe now the dems will start getting a little catty. Should make watching their race a bit more fun.

Sanders didn't bring it up though? He was asked a question about Bill Clinton, and the first thing he said was "Hillary Clinton is not Bill Clinton."

You can say that he shouldn't have even said the quoted sentence, and yeah that was unnecessary, but his response in context seems like a clear "No, I'm not doing this, I'm running against Hillary, not Bill"

Ah, thanks for providing that context. When I saw it, I only saw a video with a question, a clip of him saying what he did about Bill, and then the "bloody issues" comment as it was so close to when it happened, that other videos were not available. But, while that negates point #2 (Hillary being defined by Bill) it doesn't negate that marital affairs are nobody's business or that the comment on Bill was unnecessary to "the issues." Further, as a personal issue, I don't like those who delve into other's business of this sort.

Also, welcome back Nicki. I know you think this comment is insincere, but I do mean it.

ETA: I am not playing the "trans-card" but I do think that it factors into how I feel about personal matters. I have noticed that trans people, often being "in the closet" for years tend to value privacy. In that vein, I do not like when the media or paparazzi jump into other's lives and matters. Further, I do feel that the whole Monica Lewinsky fiasco was nothing more than a right wing attack on the Clintons to destroy them. Sure, Bill was the primary target, but the GOP was more than happy to collaterally injure Hillary. I also do not like smear campaigns of this sort.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: guizonde on January 15, 2016, 11:46:27 pm
there's no easy way to put it. i agree with queen. however, if my outsider's two cents could be accepted...

when the clinton debacle blew up, i was young, but it became a staple of political science in france. one of my teachers summed it best as national hypocrisy on the part of the usa that is to be expected to understand the country. it's a puritan and morally conservative country on the outside, while remaining one of the most depraved on the inside. don't believe me? please refer to the number of churches, overt references to faith, and traditional values in american speech and politics and compare that to the world's first porn industry (i believe. india and japan were close behind before, now i don't know) and the rate of child teen pregnancies.

needless to say, it was seen as farcical from over here when it was a common occurence for our presidents to be accompanied to presidential functions by their presidential prostitutes and mistresses. i put those plural because one president actually had two simultaneously, not counting his wife (mitterand, 81-95, before you ask). i mean, sure adultery's bad, but it's to be expected from the political elite. a blowjob is not reason enough for a political scandal. unless it kills them (félix faure, 1895-1899, death by snoo-snoo. in office).

hell, françois hollande was the first president to divorce in office. it says a lot, but i don't know whethe it says more about one country or another.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: Askold on January 18, 2016, 01:42:43 pm
Here's a funny interview with Bernie Sanders:

Quote
Do you think it’s fair that Hillary’s hair gets a lot more scrutiny than yours does? Hillary’s hair gets more scrutiny than my hair?


Yeah. Is that what you’re asking?

Yeah. O.K., Ana, I don’t mean to be rude here. I am running for president of the United States on serious issues, O.K.? Do you have serious questions?

Mwahaha! The more I hear about Sanders the more I like him. Honestly, the kinds of questions the politicians get asked is sad on several levels. But luckily the interview did get better:
Quote
I can defend that as a serious question. There is a gendered reason — When the media worries about what Hillary’s hair looks like or what my hair looks like, that’s a real problem. We have millions of people who are struggling to keep their heads above water, who want to know what candidates can do to improve their lives, and the media will very often spend more time worrying about hair than the fact that we’re the only major country on earth that doesn’t guarantee health care to all people.

It’s also true that the media pays more attention to what female candidates look like than it does to what male candidates look like.
That may be. That may be, and it’s absolutely wrong.

Source: http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/08/23/magazine/bernie-sanders-has-heard-about-that-hashtag.html?referer&_r=1
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: Askold on February 04, 2016, 02:20:18 am
I heard from Wheaton that apparently there is a bunch of Bernie Sanders supporters who throw around racist and sexist comments on the net and otherwise attack Hillary supporters and non-whites.

Unfortunately I was distracted by the picture on the article...
(http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/articles/technology/users/2016/02/160202_USERS_BernieFans.jpg.CROP.promo-xlarge2.jpg)
...Because no matter how you feel about these people you have to admit that a guy who looks like he could fit in a post-apocalyptic raider gang and is armed with a club that has a sticker saying "FEEL THE BERN" is damn good comedy and someone should mod a gang that looks like him into Fallout 4.

http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/users/2016/02/bernie_bros_are_bad_the_conversation_around_them_is_worse.html

Anyway, it does seem like the "Bernie Bros" are doing a lot of damage to their cause and honestly I don't see how they could even think that insulting people and smear campaigns could be helpful. (But then again, Finnish politics are lame compared to USA.)
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: RavynousHunter on February 04, 2016, 09:19:30 am
Anyway, it does seem like the "Bernie Bros" are doing a lot of damage to their cause and honestly I don't see how they could even think that insulting people and smear campaigns could be helpful. (But then again, Finnish politics are lame sensible compared to USA.)

Fix'd that for ya.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: Delirium on February 07, 2016, 07:15:26 pm
As a staunch feminist, it's really pissing me off how people *coughs Gloria Steinem coughs* are trying to spin supporting Hillary Clinton as some sort of feminist obligation. I'm sure all the women who will be negatively affected by her policies will feel so much better knowing that a woman fucked them over.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: nickiknack on February 08, 2016, 01:18:08 am
As a staunch feminist, it's really pissing me off how people *coughs Gloria Steinem coughs* are trying to spin supporting Hillary Clinton as some sort of feminist obligation. I'm sure all the women who will be negatively affected by her policies will feel so much better knowing that a woman fucked them over.

It's really fun knowing that I just want to not only get laid, but I'll be going to a special place in hell(according to former Sec. Of State Albright) while doing so (https://scontent-lga3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xlp1/v/t1.0-9/7045_1720243334916416_4158612591173904582_n.jpg?oh=9824ab9b6774077174f0d90525b7b2b9&oe=573C7D9C)
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: mellenORL on February 08, 2016, 07:59:36 pm
Daaannng. That's two major "senior moments" from otherwise venerable women. Wisdom is definitely not dependent on age.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: The_Queen on February 13, 2016, 01:12:14 am
I saw an interesting stat that got me thinking. Sanders and Hillary vote together 93% of the time. So, first, I really doubt that this 7% amounts to a huge revolution. And second, the real difference is not between the two of them, but between either of them in November and whatever paint-huffing luddite the GOP puts up for the presidency.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: dpareja on February 19, 2016, 01:27:33 am
Quinnipiac University poll:

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2324

Briefly:

For every single head-to-head matchup (Clinton/Sanders vs Trump/Cruz/Rubio/Bush/Kasich), Sanders wins all of them (with a statistical tie against Kasich) and Clinton loses all but Trump (and she's in a statistical tie with him) and isn't even in a statistical tie with Rubio and Kasich. Even putting Bloomberg in as an independent doesn't quite change things in the two cases they polled: Sanders-Trump-Bloomberg sees a tie between Sanders and Trump, and Sanders-Cruz-Bloomberg still has Sanders winning outside the margin of error.

Sanders has a 51% favorability rating to 36% unfavorable. Only Kasich (35-18) and Rubio (39-37) have higher favorability ratings than unfavorability ones; every other candidate has a higher unfavorability rating, with Clinton's and Trump's above 50%.

When it comes to whether people think the candidates are "honest and trustworthy": more than half say yes for Sanders, Bush, and Kasich, more than half say no for Clinton, Trump and Cruz, and Rubio is at 47% yes and 41% no.

"Strong leadership qualities": More than half think Clinton, Trump and Sanders do. No candidate polled over 50% no on this question. Bush and Kasich had more "yes" than "no," Rubio was the reverse, and Cruz had a tie.

"Cares about the needs and problems of people like you": Only Sanders polled above 50% yes on this question. Clinton, Trump and Cruz polled above 50% no (Bush polled at 50% no), while Rubio and Kasich had more yes than no.

"Right kind of experience to be President": Clinton, Sanders and Bush polled above 50%, with Clinton and Bush over 60%. Trump and Rubio polled over 50% no, Cruz had more no than yes, and Kasich had more yes than no.

"Shares your values": Only Sanders even touched 50% yes on this question. Clinton, Trump and Cruz had 50% no (Bush was at 50% no), while Rubio and Kasich had more no than yes.

"Would have a good chance of defeating <other party> nominee": Clinton and Trump polled over 50% yes. Sanders polled more yes than no, while Bush, Rubio, Cruz and Kasich all polled at over 50% no.

Methodology: http://www.quinnipiac.edu/images/polling/us/us02182016_demos_Urpfd42.pdf
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: Askold on February 21, 2016, 03:14:52 am
https://twitter.com/BNONews/status/701157957929668608

...USA, why do you still claim to be Democracy? I mean, I have to admit that this type of "voting" is fitting when you're so close to Vegas but it still seems a bit silly and if the media won't run with this using headlines about "cards being stacked to favour Hillary" or even how the "house always wins" or something I am seriously disappointed.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: Vypernight on February 21, 2016, 04:50:13 am
https://twitter.com/BNONews/status/701157957929668608

...USA, why do you still claim to be Democracy? I mean, I have to admit that this type of "voting" is fitting when you're so close to Vegas but it still seems a bit silly and if the media won't run with this using headlines about "cards being stacked to favour Hillary" or even how the "house always wins" or something I am seriously disappointed.

I really hope this is false.  I changed my voting party for the first time ever just so I can vote for Sanders.  If he loses Florida (or the entire primary) because of tricks like this, and I feel my vote no longer counts, I voting in November for myself. 
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: SCarpelan on February 21, 2016, 09:25:09 am
Bernie also won at least one district when his representative drew the higher card. In a caucus I would prefer additional time for discussion and a new vote, but breaking a tie by drawing lots isn't fundamentally undemocratic. The way the caucus itself was (dis)organized is a bigger issue since the possibility of a human mistake is quite big.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: RavynousHunter on February 21, 2016, 10:13:16 am
Honestly...is there any real benefit of a caucus over a real primary?  Because, as it looks to me, we've got a bunch of people in the room shouting shit like a bunch of dumbasses.  Just do a real vote and do tie-breakers by coin toss or something.  Create a god damned standard and enforce it.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: The_Queen on February 21, 2016, 12:44:54 pm
https://twitter.com/BNONews/status/701157957929668608

...USA, why do you still claim to be Democracy? I mean, I have to admit that this type of "voting" is fitting when you're so close to Vegas but it still seems a bit silly and if the media won't run with this using headlines about "cards being stacked to favour Hillary" or even how the "house always wins" or something I am seriously disappointed.

I really hope this is false.  I changed my voting party for the first time ever just so I can vote for Sanders.  If he loses Florida (or the entire primary) because of tricks like this, and I feel my vote no longer counts, I voting in November for myself. 

How is this any different than breaking a tie by a coin flip?
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: Ironchew on February 21, 2016, 02:42:33 pm
People are getting too worked up over seemingly simple solutions to tiebreakers. No, it wasn't perfectly random. Yes, there is some determinism involved in the setup.

It's good enough that I don't care. We don't need phototubes for quantum levels of randomness here.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: Askold on February 21, 2016, 02:48:49 pm
How about better counting? Is math illegal in USA?
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: Svata on February 21, 2016, 02:50:29 pm
Or actual primary elections. That might work.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: The_Queen on February 21, 2016, 03:27:26 pm
How about better counting? Is math illegal in USA?

How about better reading comprehension? Is reading difficult in Finland? Does all that sitting in an igloo, lighting tires on fire affect your ability to read?

It was a tie. The precinct has to give it's delegate to one of the two candidates. Nevada's tie-breaking procedure has representatives of the candidates draw cards. As it was in Iowa, I doubt that a few of these tie-breakers here or there seriously affected the end-delegate apportionment. It's not like states are willy-nilly saying "oh, let us flip coins and draw cards to decide your delegate total." It is purely what they do in the result of a tie vote among the local electorate to send a representative or an answer to the next level of delegate apportionment. The concept really isn't that outrageous.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: SCarpelan on February 21, 2016, 03:46:54 pm
Yeah. Since there is nobody whose vote is the tie breaker the ties need to be resolved in some other way. A coin toss can be subjectively seen as a more transparent way but that can be manipulated as well. It's simply not practical to cheat: to gain any practical benefit from it the cheating would have to be so organized and widespread that the risk of getting caught is way too big compared to the advantage you get.

If you want to find an actually outrageous example of a coin toss solving a political gridlock - not even an actual tie - just search how the issue of criminalizing weed was solved back in the day by the Finnish politicians.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: ironbite on February 21, 2016, 05:01:29 pm
I'd just as soon do away with the caucus system as is and just do a straight up primary.

Ironbite-but then again I'm an advocate for the Bern Lord Sanders so what do I know?
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: The_Queen on February 21, 2016, 05:06:48 pm
I'd just as soon do away with the caucus system as is and just do a straight up primary.

Ironbite-but then again I'm an advocate for the Bern Lord Sanders so what do I know?

I doubt you'll be singing the same song in dance in a few months. The final apportionment of these delegates is very dependent on enthusiasm of supporters. Hillary won Nevada in 2008, but lost the delegate count to Obama. Ron Paul won the delegate count for both Nevada and Iowa in 2012, IIRC, while not wining the popular vote, or anything near the popular vote, in either.

But then again, you're an advocate for the Bern Lord Sanders, so what do you know?
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: dpareja on February 21, 2016, 05:14:41 pm
Honestly...is there any real benefit of a caucus over a real primary?

The argument I generally hear put forward is that since in a caucus all the voters gather in one place at one time, it gives supporters one last opportunity to persuade the voters to support their candidate.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: Vypernight on February 22, 2016, 04:59:24 am


How is this any different than breaking a tie by a coin flip?

I'm pretty sure that was proven false.  In fact I hope they both were.  I don't care how close the votes are; I don't like the idea of our country's future, and whether we have to look forward to another recession or worse, being decided by a game of chance.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: Askold on February 22, 2016, 05:09:14 am


How is this any different than breaking a tie by a coin flip?

I'm pretty sure that was proven false.  In fact I hope they both were.  I don't care how close the votes are; I don't like the idea of our country's future, and whether we have to look forward to another recession or worse, being decided by a game of chance.

The coin flips happened, but they weren't the only thing that allowed Hillary to win. They simply decided the outcome in few locations with a coin flip and Sanders won some of those.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: The_Queen on February 22, 2016, 10:45:17 am


How is this any different than breaking a tie by a coin flip?

I'm pretty sure that was proven false.  In fact I hope they both were.  I don't care how close the votes are; I don't like the idea of our country's future, and whether we have to look forward to another recession or worse, being decided by a game of chance.

link (http://www.snopes.com/iowa-caucus-coin-toss/)
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: Vypernight on February 23, 2016, 07:16:06 am
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BYZzzxn4hU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BYZzzxn4hU)

Once again, I hope this is false.  The more I hear about dirty tricks to help Clinton, the more I'd rather vote for myself in November if she wins the primary.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: The_Queen on February 23, 2016, 07:21:55 am
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BYZzzxn4hU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BYZzzxn4hU)

Once again, I hope this is false.  The more I hear about dirty tricks to help Clinton, the more I'd rather vote for myself in November if she wins the primary.

There are no dirty trick, and is so, then the burden of proof is on you to establish.

And, there are countless ways that Hillary would be better than the alternative, and I am sure if you calmed down a little, then you could see this.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: Vypernight on February 23, 2016, 08:00:32 am
The problem is that; 'countless' as in how much $ she's receiving from Wall Street etc.  If someone can convince me that she actually will regulate them and follow the will of the people so we don't end up in yet another recession, I'll be more 'calm.'

"Vote for me I have a vagina" doesn't cut it.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: The_Queen on February 23, 2016, 02:23:06 pm
The problem is that; 'countless' as in how much $ she's receiving from Wall Street etc.  If someone can convince me that she actually will regulate them and follow the will of the people so we don't end up in yet another recession, I'll be more 'calm.'

"Vote for me I have a vagina" doesn't cut it.

1. Nobody said to vote her for cause vagina, but nice side-track.
2. She has the same chance of regulating Wall Street as Sanders, and that chance just got a lot better with the passing of Scalia. Obama acceepted corporate money, why should we accept that Hillary would govern any different than Obama.
3. You mention, "The more I hear about dirty tricks to help Clinton" while making no mention of what these dirty tricks are outside of getting corporate donations.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: nickiknack on February 23, 2016, 03:52:16 pm
The problem is that she seen as not being trustworthy to people because her "political evolution" seems to come with the ever blowing wind. I don't blame people for this, I feel the same way. The Democratic party has been selling out the ideas of the New Deal for quite some time, and it's sad.  I don't really trust Hillary on a lot of issues, but as an child of New Deal Democrats, the Clintons have left a bad taste in our mouths, while I've been paying attention to what Bernie has to say for about a decade, and it's been the the same message then as it is now.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: Damen on February 23, 2016, 04:02:44 pm
So, typically, I've been trying to stay out of this discussion for much the same reason I avoid gun threads; it's just a source of drama.

However, there are reasons I won't vote for Hillary. First, there's the ongoing email (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/feb/23/judge-threatens-subpoena-against-clinton-emails/) investigation. Second, there's the fact that some of her top donators are lobbyists for the private prison industry (https://theintercept.com/2015/07/23/private-prison-lobbyists-raising-cash-hillary-clinton/) and she only pledged to stop taking their money (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-private-prisons_us_562a3e3ee4b0ec0a389418ec) after she was caught with her hand in the cookie jar. She was on the board of Wal-Mart for 6 years and said nothing (http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4218509&page=1) as the company started union busting. She touts her "foreign policy experience" and defended her actions urging an invasion (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/10/hillary-clinton-debate-libya/410437/) in Libya. What happened as a result of ousting Gadhafi? It created a political power vacuum that allowed al Qaeda and fucking ISIS (http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/08/politics/hillary-clinton-libya-election-2016/) to come in and set up shop. And while, yes, I dislike guilt by association, let's just say I'm skeptical when you have Donald Trump giving over $100,000 dollars to her foundation (http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/donald-trump-donations-democrats-hillary-clinton-119071) and inviting her (http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20146758,00.html) to (one of) his weddings. There's also the fact that she's outright refusing to consider single payer healthcare (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dan-arel/hillary-clintons-war-on-u_b_9080772.html) pretty much ensures that underemployed people remain flapping in the wind. I can barely afford to eat, so how can I afford to cough up monthly insurance payments? Hillary Clinton doesn't know how to negotiate, either. She is so caught up in her "pragmatism" that she's forgotten that in politics, if you ask for a mile, you might get an inch if you're lucky and scream loud enough. But if you go in asking for an inch because you think they'll likely agree to that, you get a handful of wishes and pixie dust. So her only asking for a $12 dollar minimum wage (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/miles-mogulescu/the-campaign-promises-hil_b_9276318.html) will be shot down and we'll get absolutely nothing because she'll have nothing to fall back on. You have to go in asking for the moon while the other side says you get nothing and work your way from there. And while I don't frown at a politician for changing a position or stance, as Nickiknack said, she is a ship without a rudder. She's "evolved" more than a Pokemon at this point and I absolutely do not trust her to look out for any interests other than her own.

As for no one saying to vote for Hillary because she has a vagina? No offense, Queen, but (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jillian-gutowitz/im-voting-for-hillary-clinton-because-shes-a-woman_b_8684910.html) yes (http://www.redstate.com/ironchapman/2015/04/17/college-students-vote-hillary-shes-woman/) they (http://www.thestranger.com/blogs/slog/2015/04/17/22064461/yes-you-should-vote-for-hillary-just-because-shes-a-woman) have (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jan/15/go-ahead-and-vote-for-hillary-clinton-because-she-is-a-woman).
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: davedan on February 23, 2016, 05:01:08 pm
Once again it is a crying shame that the democratic nomination is not the actual presidential campaign. However should your preferred democratic candidate not win the nomination, please still vote in the presidential election for the democrats. The rest of the world is still recovering from the last time you guys voted in republican.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: ironbite on February 23, 2016, 05:02:18 pm
Boom.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: The_Queen on February 23, 2016, 05:12:19 pm
As for no one saying to vote for Hillary because she has a vagina? No offense, Queen, but (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jillian-gutowitz/im-voting-for-hillary-clinton-because-shes-a-woman_b_8684910.html) yes (http://www.redstate.com/ironchapman/2015/04/17/college-students-vote-hillary-shes-woman/) they (http://www.thestranger.com/blogs/slog/2015/04/17/22064461/yes-you-should-vote-for-hillary-just-because-shes-a-woman) have (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jan/15/go-ahead-and-vote-for-hillary-clinton-because-she-is-a-woman).

/me facepalms

So, not FQA. Not FQA. Not FQA. Not FQA... Nice try. That is as asinine as me saying that Nicki and Ironbite vote for Bernie due to sexism and citing to BernieBros on Reddit and 4-chan. Or finding the liberal white saviors in the Cult of Bernie and use them to portray posters on here as having racial bias. Just because some idiot on the internet says that does not mean that it is being argued as a legitimate point between people here.

Nobody on here has said "vote for Hillary because vagina." That said, as often as it has been said about her supporters relative to how ofter her supporters on here say that concerns me. Why is the notion that Hillary gets vote because vagina any more concerning than Bernie getting votes cause of dick or Jewish? Or Ted getting Hispanic vote? Or Carson getting the black vote? When so many posters on here have mentioned "vote Hillary because Vagina" but no one argues that point, it seems to me to be a subtle sexism. It implies that unlike Cruz, Carson, or Bernie, Hillary is not qualified to be President, and she must get this support for some other reason (i.e. vagina). It makes her supporters jump through an additional hoop of verifying that they aren't voting for her because of her gender while not being equally employed to any other candidate. It is also simply not true, as she is the most experienced candidate running. Aside from experience, there are plenty of reasons to support Hillary that do not involve her genitals, and I've more than articulated them for the past several months. Anyone that is not familiar with them has deliberately been ignoring those points. Often times, after I post, Nicki tells me to crawl back into Hillary's vagina or something along those lines.

That said, I do not have any problem with those who vote for her for vagina. Not my style, but nevertheless, one of the most salient points I heard someone make after Obama was elected was that "now I can look my son in the eyes, tell him that you can be anything that you want to be, and mean it." Obama's election was revolutionary from a social perspective and will be taught in history classes as one of the defining, and indeed revolutionary, moments of our generation. Electing Hillary, (assuming she wins) would be nothing short of the same level of revolutionary.* Today, 1 in 5 women will be sexually assaulted, women will be paid 78% of a man for the same work, and women will often be overlooked for promotions while being more qualified. The fact that Hillary made it this far, as a women, speaks a lot to her inner courage. Similarly, because it is easier to follow a trail that has been cleared, Hillary would embolden a nation of young women in much the same way that Obama has emboldened a nation of young African-Americans (indeed, there are 9 year old black children who have known nothing but an African-American first family, and that matters).

I think that revolution, in particular the kind that Bernie speaks of, belies itself when it is narrowly interpreted to support one candidate, as opposed to the broader understanding of what our society is and how it can be improved.

*While Bernie calls her "establishment," he also calls Planned Parenthood "establishment." Women's health needs are so establishment... But, I don't think that word means what he thinks it means.

Once again it is a crying shame that the democratic nomination is not the actual presidential campaign. However should your preferred democratic candidate not win the nomination, please still vote in the presidential election for the democrats. The rest of the world is still recovering from the last time you guys voted in republican.

Too hard. Let's be short-cited and vindictive to ensure a GOP clowns win.

Once again, I hope this is false.  The more I hear about dirty tricks to help Clinton, the more I'd rather vote for myself in November if she wins the primary.

And once again, all of this is terribly tangential as I am trying to figure out with specificity what "dirty tricks" are being pulled, and by whom, to help Clinton.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: mellenORL on February 23, 2016, 06:11:42 pm
Just to reassure Lord Cracker, yes, I think it's safe to say even Nicki would vote Hillary if she becomes the nominee. The GOP roster hasn't a single less-than-toxic alternative. I do hope that if she gets the nomination that she does in fact choose Sanders as her running mate, because that would keep the momentum going enough to get the youth and disenfranchised voters out to the fucking polls.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: nickiknack on February 23, 2016, 06:49:30 pm
Yeah, I live in a pretty safe blue state, so I have wiggle room, and I intend on going Green if Hillary is the nom. I'm probably going to change my party affiliation also, was seriously considering it before Bernie threw his hat into the ring.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: mellenORL on February 23, 2016, 06:50:33 pm
Ah, I stand corrected.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: The_Queen on February 23, 2016, 07:08:22 pm
Don't care, if Hillary doesn't win, I'm voting for Trump because vindictiveness. It's simple and ignores pragmatism and nuance.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: davedan on February 23, 2016, 07:12:07 pm
You know on the Republican side it is going to be Trump, Cruz or Rubio. Or in D&D terms, Chaotic Evil, Neutral Evil and Lawful Evil.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: dpareja on February 23, 2016, 07:16:51 pm
It's such an interesting contrast between this forum and another one I frequent where there are people who actually support the Republican Party (and some who support the Democratic Party).
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: mellenORL on February 23, 2016, 07:17:09 pm
Posted by: The_Queen
« on: Today at 07:08:22 pm »

Don't care, if Hillary doesn't win, I'm voting for Trump because vindictiveness. It's simple and ignores pragmatism and nuance.

(sorry, MS Edge browser doesn't do "insert quote", or any other macros on the post reply screen)

Well, you're living in Ohio now, correct? Swing state, usually, so every vote counts. Nicki is in Mass, and it is solidly blue just about every presidential election, so no loss of electoral college votes from there, but still I see your point.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: davedan on February 23, 2016, 07:19:39 pm
It's such an interesting contrast between this forum and another one I frequent where there are people who actually support the Republican Party (and some who support the Democratic Party).

What are the Republican supporters saying about their nominations? Who is the most popular and why?
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: dpareja on February 23, 2016, 07:27:39 pm
It's such an interesting contrast between this forum and another one I frequent where there are people who actually support the Republican Party (and some who support the Democratic Party).

What are the Republican supporters saying about their nominations? Who is the most popular and why?

We haven't been talking much about that, actually. It's more focused on specific results from primaries and caucuses, the probable impact of various drops from the race (like Bush) or not (Carson), and I just got through a lengthy, abstruse discussion with a hardline Republican (the sort who considers Clinton and Sanders objectively worse than any Republican in the race) over the impact of Scalia's death on the race, why the Senate Republicans aren't going to do squat with Obama's nominee (whoever it is), where that began (his claim: Roe, which he claims led directly to Bork's rejection), and a discussion of originalist textualism vs the living tree doctrine.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: ironbite on February 23, 2016, 07:29:11 pm
Posted by: The_Queen
« on: Today at 07:08:22 pm »

Don't care, if Hillary doesn't win, I'm voting for Trump because vindictiveness. It's simple and ignores pragmatism and nuance.

(sorry, MS Edge browser doesn't do "insert quote", or any other macros on the post reply screen)

Well, you're living in Ohio now, correct? Swing state, usually, so every vote counts. Nicki is in Mass, and it is solidly blue just about every presidential election, so no loss of electoral college votes from there, but still I see your point.

Psssst...New York actually.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: dpareja on February 23, 2016, 07:31:00 pm
Further to my previous post, here's a direct quote from that person after I posted the Quinnipiac poll I linked earlier:

Quote
As a Republican voter, I am really crossing my fingers that the (false) Democratic conventional wisdom that Hillary is more electable holds long enough for her to be nominated.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: mellenORL on February 23, 2016, 07:33:16 pm
Posted by: The_Queen
« on: Today at 07:08:22 pm »

Don't care, if Hillary doesn't win, I'm voting for Trump because vindictiveness. It's simple and ignores pragmatism and nuance.

(sorry, MS Edge browser doesn't do "insert quote", or any other macros on the post reply screen)

Well, you're living in Ohio now, correct? Swing state, usually, so every vote counts. Nicki is in Mass, and it is solidly blue just about every presidential election, so no loss of electoral college votes from there, but still I see your point.

Psssst...New York actually.

I swear, I'm already turning into a "junior" senior. Need to double check profiles for that kind of mention.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: nickiknack on February 23, 2016, 07:34:49 pm
Damn it, beat me to it. And No I don't live in NYC, I live about 2 hours north, in Dutchess County. Though I was in MA yesterday.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: davedan on February 23, 2016, 07:46:24 pm
The Republican Senate Majority has already stated that they won't endorse any nomination for the Supreme Court. Which is fucking outrageous given they havent' been given any nominees yet.

So they aren't worried about Trump?

Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: The_Queen on February 23, 2016, 07:54:25 pm
The Republican Senate Majority has already stated that they won't endorse any nomination for the Supreme Court. Which is fucking outrageous given they havent' been given any nominees yet.

So they aren't worried about Trump?

It's debatable how long the Senate can hold out. While the GOP does vote as a bloc, a lot of them are up for reelection this year, and being obstructionist about something as simple as this could hurt them with the base. Or help them. Who knows. All I know is that if something like 3-5 Republicans waiver in opposition, then confirmation happens. I don't think like this really hasn't happened before (a party even trying to obstruct for a year until after election).
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: davedan on February 23, 2016, 08:08:44 pm
I do think it will (and should) a big impact on the election. I think if the republicans can hold out it will really mobilise their base to turn up for the elections.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: RavynousHunter on February 23, 2016, 08:11:59 pm
I say Obama goes full-on troll and nominates Brian Johnson to take over for...erm...the corpse, whoever he is whose name I've since forgotten.  Alternatively, we could nominate the corpse.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: nickiknack on February 23, 2016, 08:16:39 pm
Scalia the douche was his name, lol
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: dpareja on February 23, 2016, 08:23:34 pm
The Republican Senate Majority has already stated that they won't endorse any nomination for the Supreme Court. Which is fucking outrageous given they havent' been given any nominees yet.

So they aren't worried about Trump?

It's debatable how long the Senate can hold out. While the GOP does vote as a bloc, a lot of them are up for reelection this year, and being obstructionist about something as simple as this could hurt them with the base. Or help them. Who knows. All I know is that if something like 3-5 Republicans waiver in opposition, then confirmation happens. I don't think like this really hasn't happened before (a party even trying to obstruct for a year until after election).

The Senate once held out a very long time on Supreme Court nominations. Smith Thompson died in December 1843; his replacement wasn't confirmed until February 1845. Henry Baldwin died in April 1844; his replacement wasn't confirmed until August 1846.

Cruz was right about one thing: whoever Obama nominates, they will swing the ideological balance of the Court to the left. That is something the Republicans cannot abide, since (among other things) it would mean things like tighter restrictions against states limiting access to abortion. But if they bring the nominee to a debate and a floor vote, it would destroy whatever thin veneer of justification for blocking that person they've come up with via this "eighty-year" bullshit. Republican moderates (what few remain) might well vote for Obama's nominee in that case, and (assuming that every Democrat votes for the nominee--not a given, Ben Nelson voted against Kagan) they only need four in favour to confirm, since Biden would break the tie. So the Republican leadership is bound and determined not to let the nominee come to any sort of discussion in the Senate. It doesn't matter who it is, since there's a snowball's chance in hell that Obama would nominate a textualist in the mold of Scalia, and that would put the Court out of Republican hands for a long, long time unless a Republican wins the Presidency this year and Ginsburg or Breyer dies during his term.

And as for Trump, yes, he's preferable to Clinton or Sanders. (That said, the two Republicans I've been mostly discussing this with are in Maryland and Minnesota respectively, which are both pretty reliably Democratic in the Electoral College these days, admittedly Maryland rather more so than Minnesota, so if Trump gets the nod they might decide that since their states aren't close, they'll vote third-party rather than vote for Trump.)
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: The_Queen on February 23, 2016, 08:35:52 pm
The Republican Senate Majority has already stated that they won't endorse any nomination for the Supreme Court. Which is fucking outrageous given they havent' been given any nominees yet.

So they aren't worried about Trump?

It's debatable how long the Senate can hold out. While the GOP does vote as a bloc, a lot of them are up for reelection this year, and being obstructionist about something as simple as this could hurt them with the base. Or help them. Who knows. All I know is that if something like 3-5 Republicans waiver in opposition, then confirmation happens. I don't think like this really hasn't happened before (a party even trying to obstruct for a year until after election).

The Senate once held out a very long time on Supreme Court nominations. Smith Thompson died in December 1843; his replacement wasn't confirmed until February 1845. Henry Baldwin died in April 1844; his replacement wasn't confirmed until August 1846.

Cruz was right about one thing: whoever Obama nominates, they will swing the ideological balance of the Court to the left. That is something the Republicans cannot abide, since (among other things) it would mean things like tighter restrictions against states limiting access to abortion. But if they bring the nominee to a debate and a floor vote, it would destroy whatever thin veneer of justification for blocking that person they've come up with via this "eighty-year" bullshit. Republican moderates (what few remain) might well vote for Obama's nominee in that case, and (assuming that every Democrat votes for the nominee--not a given, Ben Nelson voted against Kagan) they only need four in favour to confirm, since Biden would break the tie. So the Republican leadership is bound and determined not to let the nominee come to any sort of discussion in the Senate. It doesn't matter who it is, since there's a snowball's chance in hell that Obama would nominate a textualist in the mold of Scalia, and that would put the Court out of Republican hands for a long, long time unless a Republican wins the Presidency this year and Ginsburg or Breyer dies during his term.

Not quite sure that is exactly on point. You did have to go back almost 170 to find those examples, and I think with modern media, and the rise of the Bully Pulpit, things are a bit different.

And I don't think the calculus is that the GOP would auto go obstructionist. There is the possibility that an obstructionist front to an appointment could hurt them in the general, and then give the dems another 4 or 8 years in the White house (during which time they may get to replace Ginsburg, Kennedy, and Breyer). In that sense, it would make more sense for the GOP establishment to allow Obama to appoint a justice, let the Court go liberal for a year or two, wait for Ginsberg to die, and then replace her with a conservative to reset the balance.

I would honestly be surprised to see the senate not have a replacement appointed before August.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: RavynousHunter on February 23, 2016, 08:42:13 pm
Scalia the douche was his name, lol


Thaaaaaaaat's right.  Eeh, I like "the corpse" better.  Far more snide and disrespectful.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: niam2023 on February 23, 2016, 08:46:17 pm
The sheer amount of spite in this thread...all I need say is it is PURE! APPLESAUCE!

This amount of voting jiggery-pokery is nothing short of astounding and presents clear and potent division where there should be a unifying strength. Spite-voting has never been a legitimate way of handling yourself, no matter what argle-bargle you puke up in its defense. To see a once good board become this pitched into two divided camps makes it obvious to me that such diggleybiggety notions are both utterly harmful and completely stultifying to watch!

Unless you all dislodge your heads from such buggaladocious notions, I fear this rather than UP's persistent baggledaggle will sink any hope of decent conversation going forward.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: The_Queen on February 23, 2016, 08:49:02 pm
The sheer amount of spite in this thread...all I need say is it is PURE! APPLESAUCE!

This amount of voting jiggery-pokery is nothing short of astounding and presents clear and potent division where there should be a unifying strength. Spite-voting has never been a legitimate way of handling yourself, no matter what argle-bargle you puke up in its defense. To see a once good board become this pitched into two divided camps makes it obvious to me that such diggleybiggety notions are both utterly harmful and completely stultifying to watch!

Unless you all dislodge your heads from such buggaladocious notions, I fear this rather than UP's persistent baggledaggle will sink any hope of decent conversation going forward.

Can we all agree that Niam can shut up?
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: davedan on February 23, 2016, 08:50:52 pm
The sheer amount of spite in this thread...all I need say is it is PURE! APPLESAUCE!

This amount of voting jiggery-pokery is nothing short of astounding and presents clear and potent division where there should be a unifying strength. Spite-voting has never been a legitimate way of handling yourself, no matter what argle-bargle you puke up in its defense. To see a once good board become this pitched into two divided camps makes it obvious to me that such diggleybiggety notions are both utterly harmful and completely stultifying to watch!

Unless you all dislodge your heads from such buggaladocious notions, I fear this rather than UP's persistent baggledaggle will sink any hope of decent conversation going forward.

Can we all agree that Niam can shut up?

Yes the sooner the better.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: RavynousHunter on February 23, 2016, 08:57:42 pm
I think we broke his language centre, somehow.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: niam2023 on February 23, 2016, 08:59:10 pm
I was parodying Scalia's old man words in reference to the divide going on between Camp Hillary and Camp Sanders.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: The_Queen on February 23, 2016, 09:02:26 pm
I think we broke his language centre, somehow.

You. You there. Sir, I beg you good morrow. Dost though have an opinion on whether Niam should shutteth the blue hell up?
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: RavynousHunter on February 23, 2016, 09:25:41 pm
I think we broke his language centre, somehow.

You. You there. Sir, I beg you good morrow. Dost though have an opinion on whether Niam should shutteth the blue hell up?

Not particularly.  I've been too tired for too long to care.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: The_Queen on February 23, 2016, 09:32:55 pm
I think we broke his language centre, somehow.

You. You there. Sir, I beg you good morrow. Dost though have an opinion on whether Niam should shutteth the blue hell up?

Not particularly.  I've been too tired for too long to care.

I'll mark you down here as a "strong maybe."
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: nickiknack on February 23, 2016, 09:45:26 pm
No matter if you're Camp Hillary or Camp Bernie, all that matters is that Niam shuts the hell up
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: The_Queen on February 23, 2016, 09:46:54 pm
No matter if you're Camp Hillary or Camp Bernie, all that matters is that Niam shuts the hell up

I'm glad we could see past such trivialities to agree on what really matters.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: niam2023 on February 23, 2016, 09:48:09 pm
Well then, I think I'll keep prattling~
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: Lt. Fred on February 23, 2016, 09:51:09 pm
So, typically, I've been trying to stay out of this discussion for much the same reason I avoid gun threads; it's just a source of drama.

However, there are reasons I won't vote for Hillary. First, there's the ongoing email (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/feb/23/judge-threatens-subpoena-against-clinton-emails/) investigation.

Which is a deadshit witch hunt. Nothing to it whatsoever.

That is all.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: Art Vandelay on February 23, 2016, 09:53:36 pm
(https://i.imgflip.com/zq10y.jpg)
I couldn't resist.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: The_Queen on February 23, 2016, 09:55:14 pm
I endorse that use of the meme.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: Eiki-mun on February 23, 2016, 10:22:07 pm
You kids and your political debates.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: ironbite on February 23, 2016, 11:03:56 pm
....you know he was kinda perfectly clear.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: Askold on February 24, 2016, 01:23:44 am
I still think that Niam was more sensible than the people who say that they'll vote for the candidate they think is the worst one as a revenge if the one they think is the best does not get a chance.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: Vypernight on February 24, 2016, 06:47:22 am
Oh, FYI, I live in Florida, so no matter what happens, we (and by 'we' I mean Rick Scott and the rest of our state gov't) will **** up the election somehow.  Last time, he closed half the voting locations, thinking it would cause Obama voters to not show up.  Fortunately it failed, but he's always up to something.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: mellenORL on February 24, 2016, 09:45:54 am
Florida gets blue-er by the minute, though. Third most populous state, now, and every vote really counts this time. If I were back in Georgia, I wouldn't be so adamant about that. The Electoral College winner take all thing is such infuriating bullshit.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: pyro on February 24, 2016, 10:33:01 am
I still think that Niam was more sensible than the people who say that they'll vote for the candidate they think is the worst one as a revenge if the one they think is the best does not get a chance.

To be fair, Queen was obviously being sarcastic. #AnybodyButTrump
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: dpareja on February 24, 2016, 04:05:16 pm
Florida gets blue-er by the minute, though. Third most populous state, now, and every vote really counts this time. If I were back in Georgia, I wouldn't be so adamant about that. The Electoral College winner take all thing is such infuriating bullshit.

Then pressure your state government to change how it allocates its electors. Maine and Nebraska allocate one elector to the winner of the vote in each Congressional seat (so two to the statewide winner, for the two Senate seats, and one for each House district), but this system would probably favour Republicans due to gerrymandering. There's also the National Popular Vote compact, which, once states with at least 270 electoral votes between them sign on, would kick in and make all those states allocate their electors to the winner of the, as the name suggests, national popular vote. It's left exclusively to each state to decide how to allocate its electors (I can't find a link to the decision, but I believe the Supreme Court's 1966 decision Delaware v New York settled this firmly).
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: davedan on February 24, 2016, 05:30:40 pm
I am beginning to think Trump is a real chance in the general election. In Nevada he polled well with the Hispanics, Women and well educated. Congratulations America you have managed to turn your electoral system into reality television.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: dpareja on February 24, 2016, 06:13:39 pm
And I don't think the calculus is that the GOP would auto go obstructionist. There is the possibility that an obstructionist front to an appointment could hurt them in the general, and then give the dems another 4 or 8 years in the White house (during which time they may get to replace Ginsburg, Kennedy, and Breyer). In that sense, it would make more sense for the GOP establishment to allow Obama to appoint a justice, let the Court go liberal for a year or two, wait for Ginsberg to die, and then replace her with a conservative to reset the balance.

I would honestly be surprised to see the senate not have a replacement appointed before August.

I'd be surprised to see them even holding hearings on anyone considering McConnell's reaction to news that Gov. Brian Sandoval may be Obama's pick (http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/brian-sandoval-scalia-supreme-court-1.3462700):

Quote
This nomination will be determined by whoever wins the presidency in the fall.

Sandoval would seem to be a good compromise candidate: Republican, supports gun rights, supports abortion rights, former federal judge appointed by George W. Bush. But McConnell's having none of it.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: davedan on February 24, 2016, 06:39:33 pm
I think it would be crazy for Obama to appoint a republican even a moderate one.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: Canadian Mojo on February 24, 2016, 06:53:44 pm
I think it would be crazy for Obama to appoint a republican even a moderate one.

Why?

He is a moderate republican.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: davedan on February 24, 2016, 06:57:47 pm
I think it would be crazy for Obama to appoint a republican even a moderate one.

Why?

He is a moderate republican.

Booom. Although I think Obama is pretty firmly centrist which makes him dangerously left wing in US politics at the moment. Even ST Ronald would be considered a pinko by these guys.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: dpareja on February 24, 2016, 07:16:49 pm
I think it would be crazy for Obama to appoint a republican even a moderate one.

No, it wouldn't.

Gun issues can be done via executive order--just enforce the laws on the books. (I'm sure plenty of Republicans, not just ones in Congress, would say that at least some of Obama's recent executive orders on that went beyond what those laws allow, but even if that's true, executive orders can be changed.)

Abortion is another matter, and Sandoval supports abortion rights (presumably freer access than what Reagan favoured, which regularly gets anywhere from 40% to 60% support in polls). That's not something the President can do via executive order, so in the balance, it's probably more important to find someone who'll support abortion rights than someone who will support firearm restrictions.

But the real clincher with Sandoval (if he's the nominee) is that he was a judge appointed by Bush, and he's a sitting Republican governor. That will make it very difficult for the Senate GOP to continue their attacks, and nominating Sandoval could probably get Collins, Graham and McCain (the only remaining members of the Gang of 14) onside, and possibly the one more Obama would need to get the nominee through.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: davedan on February 24, 2016, 07:35:05 pm
I suppose that is very astute politically and will put the Senate republicans between a rock and  a hard place. Where does he stand on campaign finance reform?
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: dpareja on February 24, 2016, 07:40:10 pm
I suppose that is very astute politically and will put the Senate republicans between a rock and  a hard place. Where does he stand on campaign finance reform?

No clue, but it's not like he could make the situation much worse than it is now.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: RavynousHunter on February 24, 2016, 07:58:55 pm
Its even more cunning than that.  If Obama were to put up a hard-left candidate for the SCotUS, Congress could spin it as him giving them intentionally unconfirmable candidates, basically trolling them, giving them a chance to go "clearly, the Democrats don't understand the art of compromise."  By giving them a compromise candidate, any obstructionism can't be spun as anything other than what it truly is.  If they stonewall him, Obama can spin it as them being intentionally obtuse and essentially throwing a tantrum.  However, if they confirm said centre candidate, then little, if anything, is truly lost.  Not going balls-deep is a good move, and gives Obama the chance he needs to either expose the GOP for the frauds they really are, or give liberals enough push to get things done in yet another branch of government.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: davedan on February 24, 2016, 08:39:06 pm
Except he can appoint someone who will sway the balance of the Court for decades. What I find astounding though is that being a current judge/practicing lawyer doesn't appear to be a necessary qualification.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: RavynousHunter on February 24, 2016, 08:54:39 pm
Except he can appoint someone who will sway the balance of the Court for decades. What I find astounding though is that being a current judge/practicing lawyer doesn't appear to be a necessary qualification.

I think the general rule is either practicing lawyer or current legal scholar for the SCotUS, and being...45+, I think.  Also, someone that'd actually sway the Court would be impossible in the current climate and could very well badly backfire for the Democratic Party.  Getting someone that's on your side at least half the time is a reasonable compromise and, in the long run, will help.  It wouldn't be a massive shift in the right direction, but any progress is good progress.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: dpareja on February 24, 2016, 09:16:44 pm
Except he can appoint someone who will sway the balance of the Court for decades. What I find astounding though is that being a current judge/practicing lawyer doesn't appear to be a necessary qualification.

I think the general rule is either practicing lawyer or current legal scholar for the SCotUS, and being...45+, I think.  Also, someone that'd actually sway the Court would be impossible in the current climate and could very well badly backfire for the Democratic Party.  Getting someone that's on your side at least half the time is a reasonable compromise and, in the long run, will help.  It wouldn't be a massive shift in the right direction, but any progress is good progress.

There are actually no mandated qualifications for service on the Court, although there are undoubtedly informal ones.

And yeah, it would be impossible to get a hard liberal on the Court right now. And backing off and rolling the dice on November could backfire. Better to choose a moderate who will side with the liberals on at least one bugbear (abortion, in Sandoval's case), who will embarrass the Senate GOP if they refuse to consider him (because he's a GOP governor and former GOP-appointed judge, in Sandoval's case), and won't make things any worse on other bugbears (but only because things probably can't get worse than Heller and Citizens United).

Then either you get said judge, or you make the GOP look bad (or worse, considering people have a very low opinion of the Congressional GOP). Win-win.

EDIT: Oh, never mind. Someone just pointed me to this letter:

http://www.grassley.senate.gov/sites/default/files/judiciary/upload/SCOTUS%2C%2002-23-16%2C%20member%20signed%20letter%2C%20no%20hearings.pdf

Basically, Grassley (Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman) and every other Republican on that committee have promised not to hold hearings on any Supreme Court nominee until after January 20, 2017.

So, if there's no hope for getting anyone through for now, should Obama nominate a hard-left justice (to mobilize the base with the promise that if the Democratic nominee for President wins, he or she will nominate the same person to the vacancy), or a moderate justice (to embarrass the GOP)?
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: SCarpelan on February 24, 2016, 09:51:06 pm
The risk is that enough of the more moderate republicans change their stance and confirm the nomination. If that happens the republicans have scored a defensive victory specially if democrats win the presidential election and even more clearly if Sanders wins the presidency. In a healthy political atmosphere where the republicans hadn't had so much success with the temper tantrum politics during the Obama presidency this might be a tolerable compromise. In the current situation it's just another success for them.

Maybe the risk is worth the potential payout if the republicans stick to their guns, though.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: dpareja on February 25, 2016, 04:31:03 am
Further to the above, apparently, Sandoval's anti-union. Which means there's a good chance he's pro-corporation, which means there's a good chance he'll uphold Citizens United.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: mellenORL on February 25, 2016, 09:18:12 am
Fuck no to Sandoval, then. C.U. is the SCOTUS ruling most immediately in need of reversal. It's a lynchpin for de facto plutocracy.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: dpareja on February 25, 2016, 06:28:47 pm
Fuck no to Sandoval, then. C.U. is the SCOTUS ruling most immediately in need of reversal. It's a lynchpin for de facto plutocracy.

And this is how progressives find themselves on the same side of a debate as hard-right Republicans.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: Ironchew on February 25, 2016, 06:57:19 pm
Fuck no to Sandoval, then. C.U. is the SCOTUS ruling most immediately in need of reversal. It's a lynchpin for de facto plutocracy.

And this is how progressives find themselves on the same side of a debate as hard-right Republicans.


And this is how the "Both sides do it!" fallacy fails to accurately represent reality.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: The_Queen on February 27, 2016, 02:11:10 pm
I think within a week, Hillary will have the nomination wrapped up.

Fortunately, the tragic comedy that is the GOP race should get better.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: Vypernight on February 27, 2016, 03:32:47 pm
I think within a week, Hillary will have the nomination wrapped up.


Yes, i'm sure it's a huge inconvenience for her to actually work for her nomination and defend all her B.S. when she could be out giving more $100,000 speeches.

Hopefully Sanders hands her her ass in the end. 
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: The_Queen on February 27, 2016, 04:29:31 pm
I think within a week, Hillary will have the nomination wrapped up.


Yes, i'm sure it's a huge inconvenience for her to actually work for her nomination and defend all her B.S. when she could be out giving more $100,000 speeches.

Hopefully Sanders hands her her ass in the end.

Oh, you again! I thought you disappeared from this thread after I asked for specifics as to the "dirty tricks" Clinton was playing. I won't hold my breath on expecting an answer--such has been the norm with Nicki and Ibbles for the past 6 months. I'm just sorry to see you join them.

But, between South Carolina (today) and Super Tuesday (Tuesday, obviously), there are a shit ton of pledged delegates up for grabs. Focusing on the five biggest Super Tuesday states and South Carolina, there are a total of 640 pledged delegates at stake. The five biggest Super Tuesday states are Texas, Virginia, Minnesota, Massachusetts, and Georgia. Hillary is going to win South Carolina, Georgia, and Texas by double digits. She's going to win Virginia. The most recent stats out of Minnesota and Massachusetts have Hillary up, but I think Bernie will over-perform the polls in those states. But, even if he wins these states, it'll be by a slim margin and will not be enough to keep him in viable in the primaries. Either way, I said it almost two months ago,

Quote from: The Queen
If Bernie wins Iowa, New Hampshire, limits his loss in South Carolina, and does well at Super Tuesday, then he's probably going to be the democratic nominee for president. Polls are not static and they can change. However, if Hillary wins Iowa, and most states on Super Tuesday, I doubt that her win will be that different from what the scientifically conducted polls say.

Simply put, Bernie surged at the right time, but he didn't do enough to be competitive beyond Nevada, and I think the clock is about to strike midnight on his Cinderella story of a campaign.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: ironbite on February 27, 2016, 04:49:45 pm
You're adorable when you think you're right.

Ironbite-I got the feeling he'll fight all the way to the convention if need be.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: The_Queen on February 27, 2016, 04:58:17 pm
You're adorable when you think you're right.

Ironbite-I got the feeling he'll fight all the way to the convention if need be.

Oh, I didn't say he'd drop out. I don't think he will, at least for another month or two. But, simply that I believe that today marks the beginning of the end for his campaign. I think that, overall, Hillary will win big from now until June in the primaries. True, Bernie will win a handful of states, but it will  not do enough to keep him viable to win the nomination.

And hopefully Bernie does the right thing and not challenge this onto the convention, or possibly thereafter, thus ensuring a GOP win in November. Nothing shouts "I'm a liberal" like setting back liberal causes.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: dpareja on February 27, 2016, 06:16:03 pm
Considering how much more popular Sanders is than Clinton with independents, I desperately hope you're wrong, Queen.

Clinton might get more done as President, but she couldn't get anything done if she can't get elected.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: The_Queen on February 27, 2016, 06:33:03 pm
Considering how much more popular Sanders is than Clinton with independents, I desperately hope you're wrong, Queen.

Clinton might get more done as President, but she couldn't get anything done if she can't get elected.

The national electability polls have never been very reliable, especially this far out. Likewise, the fact that Sanders won a primary or two does nothing for his electability in a general election (McGovern and Goldwater both secured their party's nominations--winning the majority of their primaries in the process--only to get peckerslapped in the general).

But, I think that it doesn't bode well for Bernie's "electability" when Hillary is more popular in the swing states that will be necessary to win the general: Iowa, Nevada, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Florida. Bernie is up in Colorado, but Colorado is increasingly blue and might be a solid democratic state come November. Missouri and New Mexico, two other swing states, haven't had any polls done at this time that I am aware of.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: nickiknack on February 27, 2016, 08:06:18 pm
At this point I hope the we see a revolt within the Democratic Party. I'll be more than happy to supply the fireworks. The Democratic Party needs to taken out back and shot like rabid animal.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: The_Queen on February 27, 2016, 08:50:07 pm
At this point I hope the we see a revolt within the Democratic Party. I'll be more than happy to supply the fireworks. The Democratic Party needs to taken out back and shot like rabid animal.

I would've taken the exact same stance if Obama lost in 2008. In fact, I highly encourage everyone to leave any institution that they are a part of if that institution (1) holds democratic elections to fill positions and (2) you're person doesn't win. It's the mature thing to do. [/jest]

Jest over, Nicki, I want to ask you a hypothetical. If Bernie were to win the nomination (still a possibility), and I were to not vote because my candidate did not, would you think that I was a fucking idiot?
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: nickiknack on February 27, 2016, 09:10:06 pm
I will be voting, either Green Party, or writing in a name just for shits and giggles. The Democratic Party is not my party anymore, but you don't understand because you're nothing more than a phony (as a member of the DSA, I would like you to stop calling yourself a "socialist" because socialists don't support shitty trade deals that keep on giving power to the Corporations), who's more than happy to eat the scraps that Hillary will give you. She's proven herself to be nothing more than a lying snake. And  I know many Independents who think the same way, right and left, and they will probably stay home  election night, because they don't like no one. The Democrats sold their souls with electing Bill Clinton, and they've been going down hill ever since, the progressives have every reason to abandon the party, and tell the establishment to go fuck themselves.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: Svata on February 27, 2016, 09:49:34 pm
Other than that making it more likely whatever shitstain the GOP rolls out gets in, yeah, sure, bail. Look, I like Sanders, but I'd rather Hillary than Rubio or Cruz. Or, for fucks sake, Trump.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: dpareja on February 27, 2016, 10:01:43 pm
To Queen and nicki (and generally anybody else who strongly prefers one of Clinton or Sanders to the other): if neither candidate has, from their pledged delegates, a majority of all delegates to the national convention, what would you think if the superdelegates handed the nomination to the candidate with fewer pledged delegates?
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: nickiknack on February 27, 2016, 10:07:50 pm
Who gives a shit, the DNC will crown their Queen, and lose in the GE while people like me sit on the sidelines and say "I told you so".
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: RavynousHunter on February 27, 2016, 10:15:30 pm
Who gives a shit, the DNC will crown their Queen, and lose in the GE while people like me sit on the sidelines and say "I told you so".


Subsequently fucking the country even harder than if Hillary won.  Wow.  Nicki, I like Sanders, but fucking hell are you coming across like a petulant child.  Or a sports fan.  Seriously, if your guy doesn't make it, then at least help us get someone that will be less likely to ream us in the collective ass.  First-past-the-post systems inevitably end in a two-party split.  Not voting, or voting 3rd party, only does harm to the cause about which you claim to care.

Screw this, direct question, Nicki: would you prefer we take a tiny step forward, or a massive step back?  Because a Hillary victory would be the former, and a GOP victory would be the latter.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: The_Queen on February 27, 2016, 10:27:36 pm
I will be voting, either Green Party, or writing in a name just for shits and giggles. The Democratic Party is not my party anymore, but you don't understand because you're nothing more than a phony (as a member of the DSA, I would like you to stop calling yourself a "socialist" because socialists don't support shitty trade deals that keep on giving power to the Corporations), who's more than happy to eat the scraps that Hillary will give you. She's proven herself to be nothing more than a lying snake. And  I know many Independents who think the same way, right and left, and they will probably stay home  election night, because they don't like no one. The Democrats sold their souls with electing Bill Clinton, and they've been going down hill ever since, the progressives have every reason to abandon the party, and tell the establishment to go fuck themselves.

First off, I don't recognize the authority of your corporate entity that you can excommunicate me from my political philosophy, that shapes the identity of who I am. How did you feel when feminist icon Gloria Steinem said girls go for bernie to get laid? Or Albright saying there was a special place in hell for women who don't support Bernie? They're feminist icons in their own establishments, and they sought to distance feminism from Bernie. And now, you're doing the same to me because you recently got  a membership card in the mail from some group that you probably paid $29.95 to join.

And second, I see it as incredibly short-sighted on your part. Change isn't just made legislatively, it is made judicially. I want you to stop and reflect for a moment. The conservatives had a 5-4 majority on the Court since Reagan. Just with the most recent make-up we've had, that 5-4 majority showed up in areas such as: citizen's united, abortion, civil rights for African Americans, rights for the criminally accused, rights to contraception, article III standing liability (redefining and restricting who can sue and for what harms, often fucking over the environment), police brutality, labor unions, employee rights, discrimination by employers, and gun control. The Court has gotten it wrong on a lot of conservative issues on the 5-4 split. One of the few glowing areas has been same-sex marriage, where Kennedy splits from the conservatives.  Roberts, another recent split on Obamacare, upheld the Affordable Care Act that provided health care to 16 million people. This, to a degree, highlights the radical chance that can occur within one field where the Court is on our side. Another liberal justice will go a long way in fair pay cases (now standing before the Court), access to abortion rights (again, standing before the Court), Citizen's united, and gun control. And, at the very least, as Bush v. Gore--and 8 years of Bush--showed us, the Supreme Court can be of the greatest importance in the most unpredictable of ways.

Further, a conservative justice will all but start and incremental assault on gay rights. Already states are considering legislation pushed by anti-LGBT groups to discriminate against trans-people using bathrooms. A conservative would certainly start these minor restrictions and others (for example, novel issues to the Court: Michigan's sexual orientation-neutral sodomy law* or conversion therapy) to allow discrimination to be a state's rights issue, setting the movement, and real people's lives, back 25 or 30 years in some places.

At this point, we're not talking about Bernie vs. Hillary, we're talking Hillary vs. Trump/Cruz/Rubio. These incremental changes such as the Supreme Court will have huge effects. If the republicans delay, and the dems win, it guarantees a Justice (plus another possible three other Justices who are up in age). Hillary would certainly appoint a justice that would overturn Citizen's United, would uphold corporate liability, that would require fair pay between races and sexes, that would expand labor rights, would expand access to abortion and contraception, and minority civil rights. Even if you disagree with me on one or two or three of theses, there are so many other areas where a liberal Justice would make differences, and Hillary would appoint a liberal justice. Whichever GOP clown would not. And I don't know how you can be so short-sighted to not vote Hillary just because she isn't perfect. Yeah, she may fuck shit up in some places--as would Bernie (because they're human and a lot of pressure is on them)--but she's far better than Trump, Cruz, or Rubio.

And before you start on living in blue state New York, that is a total cop-out that avoids the substance of the issue. This whole #BernieOrBust movement going around, that you were part of before it existed as a hashtag, has got to die. Statistics today can tell with certainty whether the state I'm voting in (Ohio) is even up for grabs among any candidate. They can tell me with a fair degree of certainty who will win the elections, and if they're close enough for my vote to be statistically meaningful. Sure they have faults, but with proper skepticism, they are far more accurate than not (otherwise, Nate Silver wouldn't have a job). But to the substance, if I can say at the outset, that for the greater good of many groups, even if they're not my pet politician or group, that I will vote for the democrats to keep the GOP from fucking shit up, then why can't you?

*Lawrence v. Texas, the Supreme Court case that legalized sodomy as a matter of civil rights, had a concurrence that caused its legalization. O'Conner concurred on the grounds that it was not neutral as to partners (punishing only sodomy between same sex couples) and violated equal protection. In fact, Bowers v. Hardwick, the case allowing sodomy laws, dealt with and upheld a sexual orientation neutral sodomy ban). A conservative Court could easily make slight, but meaningful, interpretations to allow an incremental attack on gay rights in many places.

ETA: And I use the Supreme Court as an example. The president alone is responsible for appointment to executive agencies, diplomacy, executive orders, and certain appointments that handle administrations that can easily broaden or narrow enforcement and rights. Even then, the Senate is probably gonna shift back to the democrats now, so liberal appointments to important organizations (such as the National Labor Review Board) can resume. There is a lot at stake.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: nickiknack on February 27, 2016, 10:30:51 pm
I'm not voting for rotten liars who peddles trade deals, while telling unions that she opposes them at the same time (http://www.ibtimes.com/hillary-clinton-pushes-colombia-free-trade-agreement-latest-email-dump-2326068). You want to continue to support the faux liberal party of the Democrats go ahead, but I'm not, until if and when they decide to clean up their act. Enjoy your oligarchy, don't whine that you weren't warned, but decided to  go with the "so called" safe choice instead.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: lord gibbon on February 27, 2016, 10:34:19 pm
Bingo. Hillary is decent on social issues, even if she tacks to the wind more than a sailing ship, but she is simply unacceptable on economics.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: The_Queen on February 27, 2016, 10:47:40 pm
I'm not voting for rotten liars who peddles trade deals, while telling unions that she opposes them at the same time (http://www.ibtimes.com/hillary-clinton-pushes-colombia-free-trade-agreement-latest-email-dump-2326068). You want to continue to support the faux liberal party of the Democrats go ahead, but I'm not, until if and when they decide to clean up their act. Enjoy your oligarchy, don't whine that you weren't warned, but decided to  go with the "so called" safe choice instead.

At this point, you're not even trying to argue, you're just attempting to sound prophetic as wiser than thou. And this is the fundamentalist attitude that I am talking about that is particular to certain few Bernie supporters.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: nickiknack on February 27, 2016, 10:52:42 pm
I'm not the one supporting someone who has a damn Indian grave yard in their closet. I get it, you like to continue neo-liberalism just to say safe, while at this point I've had it with this shit. I'm working class, I have nothing left to lose at this point.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: lord gibbon on February 27, 2016, 10:54:59 pm
I'm with Nicki, Queen seems to have taken on a rather fundamentalist swing here.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: dpareja on February 27, 2016, 10:59:07 pm
I'm with Nicki, Queen seems to have taken on a rather fundamentalist swing here.

Really?

Queen, if Sanders wins the Democratic nomination, would you vote for him?
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: Art Vandelay on February 27, 2016, 11:01:48 pm
I'm with Nicki, Queen seems to have taken on a rather fundamentalist swing here.
I thought Queen made a really good point about the Supreme Court. Nicki, on the other hand, is the one throwing a hissy fit over the mere possibility that her Lord and Saviour may not in fact win. Not to mention, for the past several months she and a few others have constantly been claiming some sort of pro-Hillary conspiracy within the party, yet refuses to even acknowledge it when her claims are debunked or even asked for specific details.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: The_Queen on February 27, 2016, 11:07:20 pm
I'm with Nicki, Queen seems to have taken on a rather fundamentalist swing here.

Really?

Queen, if Sanders wins the Democratic nomination, would you vote for him?

I have made no qualm about doing so. The only times I've made claims to the contrary were to add emphasis to the point that I think it's short-sighted.

Also, Gibbon, with all do civility, what leads you to that conclusion?
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: Eiki-mun on February 27, 2016, 11:08:24 pm
To me, it honestly sounds like Queen's the reasonable one here. And I'm a Sanders voter, so keep that in mind.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: nickiknack on February 27, 2016, 11:14:28 pm
Bernie isn't my fucking lord and Savior, I'm just tired of what has become of the Democratic Party, and the fact that people can't seem to understand how rotten the party has become, due to them selling their souls for Wall Street cash.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: lord gibbon on February 27, 2016, 11:24:31 pm
I'm with Nicki, Queen seems to have taken on a rather fundamentalist swing here.

Really?

Queen, if Sanders wins the Democratic nomination, would you vote for him?

I have made no qualm about doing so. The only times I've made claims to the contrary were to add emphasis to the point that I think it's short-sighted.

Also, Gibbon, with all do civility, what leads you to that conclusion?
It's not fanaticism in the normal sense, certainly, but Hillary has been pushing a sort of narrative of inevitability, and that's what I'm noticing. Please note that, according to the head-to-head polls, Hillary would lose to Cruz or Rubio, whereas Bernie would beat them. Yet I'm constantly told that Hillary is "more electable". I just honestly can't see what could appeal to any liberal about Hillary that Bernie doesn't do better, exept maybe guns, and even then it's a big maybe.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: The_Queen on February 27, 2016, 11:28:32 pm
I'm with Nicki, Queen seems to have taken on a rather fundamentalist swing here.

Really?

Queen, if Sanders wins the Democratic nomination, would you vote for him?

I have made no qualm about doing so. The only times I've made claims to the contrary were to add emphasis to the point that I think it's short-sighted.

Also, Gibbon, with all do civility, what leads you to that conclusion?
It's not fanaticism in the normal sense, certainly, but Hillary has been pushing a sort of narrative of inevitability, and that's what I'm noticing. Please note that, according to the head-to-head polls, Hillary would lose to Cruz or Rubio, whereas Bernie would beat them. Yet I'm constantly told that Hillary is "more electable". I just honestly can't see what could appeal to any liberal about Hillary that Bernie doesn't do better, exept maybe guns, and even then it's a big maybe.

With all due respect I have laid out my reasoning with more detail in several threads on this sub-board over the past 6 months. As much as I hate to give answers that lack substance, they're really easy to find within this sub-board. I highly encourage you read some of them, as they would also provide more context for my shortness with Ibbles and Nicki.

ETA: as for electibility, I addressed that earlier in this thread in more detail. Long story short, these polls are not very indicative of anything as they are more attenuated to their end result. As seen from where Bernie was last May and where he is today, a lot can change in 9 months.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: Art Vandelay on February 27, 2016, 11:37:34 pm
Bernie isn't my fucking lord and Savior, I'm just tired of what has become of the Democratic Party, and the fact that people can't seem to understand how rotten the party has become, due to them selling their souls for Wall Street cash.
And you don't seem to understand how reality works. People who disagree with you exist, and have just as much say in politics as you do. If you're going to give up as soon as things don't go 100% your way, you're never going to achieve anything. Especially if you're willing to let your opponents win if it means you have to support your mere 2nd best option.

Also, your vague pro-Hillary conspiracy theories about the Dems don't exactly do you any favours in the not looking like a fundie department.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: The_Queen on February 27, 2016, 11:45:21 pm
To Queen and nicki (and generally anybody else who strongly prefers one of Clinton or Sanders to the other): if neither candidate has, from their pledged delegates, a majority of all delegates to the national convention, what would you think if the superdelegates handed the nomination to the candidate with fewer pledged delegates?

I knew I read a question that I overlooked in the haste,

No, I would not. The rules were known from the outset and it's not fair to the other to call shenanigans after the start when something doesn't go your way. Let's assume you need 2400 delegates to win and there are 4800 total, 4000 pledged, 800 superdelegates. If Hillary won with 1600 pledged and 800 superdelegates, I'd feel that Bernie got wronged. If Hillary wins with 500 superdelegates and 1900 pledged (to Bernie's 2100), I would not, because of the stance I took earlier about rules being known at the outset.

But, the superdelegate total is moot if Hillary wins the pledge delegates, as then she would logically get an equal percentage of superdelegates if it were "fair," and then she would win by virtue of having more delegates in both categories. And, as seen from today and the way that Super Tuesday is shaping up, she's gonna walk out with a lot of pledged delegates. Sandersr didn't really put together a post-Nevada campaign plan.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: nickiknack on February 28, 2016, 12:01:52 am
Did i say anything about giving up?? Nope, but the party is no longer entitled to my vote, they have to earn it, and they've done a pretty shitty job since the 1990's. It's well known that the Democratic Party has sold out the working class, and there are tons of books about it, heck Thomas Frank(of "What's A Matter With Kansas?"frame) is coming out with a new one in a couple of weeks. I refuse to vote for parties that continue to peddle neo-liberalism, because it's not in my best interest to do so.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: niam2023 on February 28, 2016, 12:37:56 am
If Hillary wins, I'll vote for Hillary.

If Bernie wins, I'll vote for Bernie.

I'll admit I don't understand the kind of "loyalty" going on here.

Queen is definitely right about the subject of writing in a vote for Green (a party that isn't in a hurry to do a lot) or a meaningless vote - you'd be far better served to at least vote for a candidate with mostly good positions while the opposition contains among other things a deranged psychopathic theocrat who thinks he's the chosen one, a businessman peddling neo-nazism and fascism, and a robot who is programmed by his donors.

This obsession with the Clinton Family's "neo-liberalism" just sounds like a weird conspiracy theory. Maybe I haven't experienced anything negative due to this perceived wrong being I am from an affluent / upper-middle class family, but it seems like nickiknack is coming undone through this.

Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: The_Queen on February 28, 2016, 12:41:23 am
If Hillary wins, I'll vote for Hillary.

If Bernie wins, I'll vote for Bernie.

I'll admit I don't understand the kind of "loyalty" going on here.

Queen is definitely right about the subject of writing in a vote for Green (a party that isn't in a hurry to do a lot) or a meaningless vote - you'd be far better served to at least vote for a candidate with mostly good positions while the opposition contains among other things a deranged psychopathic theocrat who thinks he's the chosen one, a businessman peddling neo-nazism and fascism, and a robot who is programmed by his donors.

This obsession with the Clinton Family's "neo-liberalism" just sounds like a weird conspiracy theory. Maybe I haven't experienced anything negative due to this perceived wrong being I am from an affluent / upper-middle class family, but it seems like nickiknack is coming undone through this.

Niam, I give two shits if you're on my side, we already agreed, that you can shut the blue hell up!

#SorryNotSorry
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: RavynousHunter on February 28, 2016, 01:01:11 am
Bernie isn't my fucking lord and Savior, I'm just tired of what has become of the Democratic Party, and the fact that people can't seem to understand how rotten the party has become, due to them selling their souls for Wall Street cash.

*sighs*

Here goes nothing.

Nicki, what the fuck?  Do you think we're all just oblivious dipshits wandering through life with blinders sutured on to our eyelids?  We're aware of this, or at least I am.  You want to change party politics, then vote in the frigging primary where your vote matters a hell of a lot more than in the general election.  However, failing that, the Democratic Party is still a better bet than, as Niam pointed out, the GOP frontrunners which are either a toupee that comes across eerily like a fucking neo-Nazi, a sociopath that would gladly exploit every human being alive to advance his own agenda, or a glorified megaphone.

Bullshit write-ins and third party votes are worse than worthless, they could run the risk of actively sending us back to the metaphorical (or, if we're particularly unlucky, literal) Stone Age.  You're actively taking votes from people who are, again, at least going to use lube when they screw you.  Do we need campaign finance reform?  Duh.  How about universal healthcare and post-secondary education?  Yeah, I'd love for us to not be a bunch of Bronze Age savages, either.  Now then, you can do this one of two ways:

1) Help Bernie win the primary.  Even if he only gets a little bit of things done, he's at least less dirty than most.
2) If Bernie fails, despite your help, then at least help us not get a President that would send not just this country, but the rest of the world, into yet another global economic depression and might even start World War III.

Change is not always big, Nicki, and you're going to have to get bloody used to that.  The revolution is NOT now.  We can at least get some incremental improvement on social issues and get another shot, next time, to get some improvement on economic and political issues.  Politics is a long game, and you have to be willing to be patient and, most of all, thank your lucky fucking stars that the Democratic Party even has electable candidates, this go-around.

If you try to move a mountain by shifting the whole thing at once, you'll either burn yourself out or break your back.  Go one stone at a time, though, and you might not see it moved in your lifetime, but you'll leave a smaller amount of work for the next person down the line.  And that, dear Nicki, is the bloody point.  So, are you going to help us lift some stones, or are you going to sit on the sidelines and complain that equipment we got to do it with isn't good enough?
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: Svata on February 28, 2016, 01:14:38 am
Bernie isn't my fucking lord and Savior, I'm just tired of what has become of the Democratic Party, and the fact that people can't seem to understand how rotten the party has become, due to them selling their souls for Wall Street cash.

*sighs*

Here goes nothing.

Nicki, what the fuck?  Do you think we're all just oblivious dipshits wandering through life with blinders sutured on to our eyelids?  We're aware of this, or at least I am.  You want to change party politics, then vote in the frigging primary where your vote matters a hell of a lot more than in the general election.  However, failing that, the Democratic Party is still a better bet than, as Niam pointed out, the GOP frontrunners which are either a toupee that comes across eerily like a fucking neo-Nazi, a sociopath that would gladly exploit every human being alive to advance his own agenda, or a glorified megaphone.

Bullshit write-ins and third party votes are worse than worthless, they could run the risk of actively sending us back to the metaphorical (or, if we're particularly unlucky, literal) Stone Age.  You're actively taking votes from people who are, again, at least going to use lube when they screw you.  Do we need campaign finance reform?  Duh.  How about universal healthcare and post-secondary education?  Yeah, I'd love for us to not be a bunch of Bronze Age savages, either.  Now then, you can do this one of two ways:

1) Help Bernie win the primary.  Even if he only gets a little bit of things done, he's at least less dirty than most.
2) If Bernie fails, despite your help, then at least help us not get a President that would send not just this country, but the rest of the world, into yet another global economic depression and might even start World War III.

Change is not always big, Nicki, and you're going to have to get bloody used to that.  The revolution is NOT now.  We can at least get some incremental improvement on social issues and get another shot, next time, to get some improvement on economic and political issues.  Politics is a long game, and you have to be willing to be patient and, most of all, thank your lucky fucking stars that the Democratic Party even has electable candidates, this go-around.

If you try to move a mountain by shifting the whole thing at once, you'll either burn yourself out or break your back.  Go one stone at a time, though, and you might not see it moved in your lifetime, but you'll leave a smaller amount of work for the next person down the line.  And that, dear Nicki, is the bloody point.  So, are you going to help us lift some stones, or are you going to sit on the sidelines and complain that equipment we got to do it with isn't good enough?

Pretty much this. Look, like I said, I support Sanders, but better Hillary than Hitler V 2.0.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: RavynousHunter on February 28, 2016, 01:17:09 am
Aye.  Don't get me wrong, Sanders is cool.  While I think he'd have a hard time getting laws passed due to an obstructionist Congress, he is my ideal choice.  I'm just willing to accept compromise, is all.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: lord gibbon on February 28, 2016, 01:22:02 am
Hey don't get me wrong. If Hillary is the nominee, and Colorado looks close, I'll vote for her. But it'll be with a sour taste in my mouth. I just don't trust her on the most important problem, the corporations. She's just too friendly with them.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: The_Queen on February 28, 2016, 01:28:22 am
Hey don't get me wrong. If Hillary is the nominee, and Colorado looks close, I'll vote for her. But it'll be with a sour taste in my mouth. I just don't trust her on the most important problem, the corporations. She's just too friendly with them.

And, to clarify by what I mean when I say "the cult of Bernie," it is the things that Art pointed out: vague accusations of conspiracy and aversion to answering questions on specifics. What you said here is something that I think is a very fair disagreement. I still think on important issues like Wal-Mart v. Dukes, Citizens United, and the Daimler case (restricting where you can sue a big corporation for their injury, adding potentially massive costs to litigation for injured victims of big corporations). I think SCoTUS wise she'll be unimaginably good (as would Bernie), legislatively maybe not so, but that is another area of polite disagreement that is slightly tangential to our hypothetical "Vote for the democrats in November" argument now. But, overall, this is a fair disagreement, and not indicative of the cult behavior that I sometimes accuse others of.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: lord gibbon on February 28, 2016, 01:32:19 am
Thank you. And sorry if I was a bit snappy or insulting earlier, I had a rather rough day at work.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: The_Queen on February 28, 2016, 01:36:50 am
Thank you. And sorry if I was a bit snappy or insulting earlier, I had a rather rough day at work.

Oh, that was you. Let's just pretend it was Paragon. Call it even, mate?
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: nickiknack on February 28, 2016, 01:41:50 am
And you just don't get that I can't in good conscience vote for her, given that she's a lying, Corporate Shrill.  I can no longer support the Democratic Party, I don't give a shit at this point, I have nothing left to lose. It's not compromise, when you sell yourself out short form the very beginning, that's capitulation.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: Art Vandelay on February 28, 2016, 01:47:30 am
And you just don't get that I can't in good conscience vote for her, given that she's a lying, Corporate Shrill.  I can no longer support the Democratic Party, I don't give a shit at this point, I have nothing left to lose.
You and rest of the working class have a hell of a lot left to lose. The US is still a far cry from the likes of China or India.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: RavynousHunter on February 28, 2016, 01:50:02 am
And you just don't get that I can't in good conscience vote for her, given that she's a lying, Corporate Shrill.  I can no longer support the Democratic Party, I don't give a shit at this point, I have nothing left to lose. It's not compromise, when you sell yourself out short form the very beginning, that's capitulation.

Done.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: dpareja on February 28, 2016, 01:51:47 am
And you just don't get that I can't in good conscience vote for her, given that she's a lying, Corporate Shrill.  I can no longer support the Democratic Party, I don't give a shit at this point, I have nothing left to lose. It's not compromise, when you sell yourself out short form the very beginning, that's capitulation.

So in your mind Hillary Clinton is as bad as Donald Trump, Marco Rubio, or Ted Cruz?
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: nickiknack on February 28, 2016, 01:54:36 am
No, but I'm not going to vote for her. I don't forgive Clintons for what they did to the Democratic party in the 1990s, and will never.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: ironbite on February 28, 2016, 06:03:36 am
At this point I'm willing to compromise but I'm not gonna pretend Hilary is more electable then Sanders in the GE.  I think and believe Sanders has his head on straight when it comes to almost every issue while Hilary only has me on social issues.  Economic wise Hildog is so far in Wall Street's pocket it ain't funny.  I understand Nicki's frustration with the current "left" wing party but I'm not willing to stomp my feet on this.  We have a real chance to show the establishment that progressive, liberal, socialist policies can work.  But I'm not going to accept a candidate who I'm told I have to vote for.

Ironbite- and that's how it is
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: mellenORL on February 28, 2016, 12:27:11 pm
This is why I wish Hillary would take on Sanders as a running mate. He would be the tie vote breaker in the Senate, for one. And he is already a respected Senator there, even if seen as an honorable enemy by some. Sanders as at least the VP candidate might salvage some of the Bernie supporters, the disenfranchised voters who otherwise will not vote at all out of bitterness, or vote Indy or Green, which is as harmful in close elections as voting GOP. If momentum is lost on the Dem side, not only will we lose the White House, but Congress and gubernatorial races are gonna end up just that much redder.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: RavynousHunter on February 28, 2016, 07:53:42 pm
Actually, Hillary/Bernie would probably be ideal.  Congress' big job is money, so Bernie can handle that while Hillary handles social issues.  Bernie can dick-kick the Senate and get shit done as a VP that he might not have the chance to do as President.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: Askold on February 29, 2016, 01:40:39 am
...Hillary/Sanders team would get at least as much resistance as Obama has and the congress would do everything they can to stall and filibuster. The only difference is that instead of talking about the birth certificate, Muslim roots and Obama literally being the anti-Christ they would talk about Sanders being a dirty commie and all the 500 different (mainly fake) scandals Hillary has.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: Svata on February 29, 2016, 02:32:45 am
Link (https://mobile.twitter.com/matthewturnerAU/status/704052298859749376?p=v) to an actual tweet/convo sent at me/had with me. I could care less if you know who I am, really. (Jackson is me)
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: Art Vandelay on February 29, 2016, 02:36:36 am
Link (https://mobile.twitter.com/matthewturnerAU/status/704052298859749376?p=v) to an actual tweet/convo sent at me/had with me. I could care less if you know who I am, really. (Jackson is me)
So how much could you care less?
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: Svata on February 29, 2016, 02:39:15 am
Some. But not much. The only thing I would care less about is if a GOP candidate walked up to my door and needed help with a flat tire.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: dpareja on March 01, 2016, 06:24:23 pm
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2016/images/02/29/rel4b.-.2016.general.pdf

The margin of error on this poll is +/- 3 percent.

Of the remaining Presidential candidates, only Sanders is seen favorably by a majority of those polled.

Clinton is beating Trump by 8 points, losing to Rubio by 3 and losing to Cruz by 1.

Sanders beating Trump by 12, Rubio by 8, and Cruz by 17.

Sanders has at least a 50% favorable rating among men, women, whites, non-whites, all age groups, all income levels, among those with or without a college degree, even by a third of those who lean Republican, positively among indepedents and by at least 30% of those who identify of conservatives, among every region of the country, among urbanites and suburbanites, and by 43% of rural residents.

Clinton is seen similarly favorably only among women, non-whites, Democrats, liberals, exactly 50% of independents, and by a majority of those who oppose the Tea Party.

So... Clinton is more electable, right?
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: ironbite on March 01, 2016, 06:46:50 pm
More electable then Trump that's for sure who's already probably declaring himself god emperor of Earth.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: pyro on March 01, 2016, 07:23:24 pm
More electable then Trump that's for sure who's already probably declaring himself god emperor of Earth.

And Monster energy drinks are more portable than gasoline. Doesn't mean I want one.

(No offense to Hillary; just trying to make the point that "more electable than Donald Trump" is a ridiculously low bar.)
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: The_Queen on March 01, 2016, 07:48:46 pm
Virginia and Georgia for Hillary

Vermont for Bernie.

ETA: Alabama and Tennessee for Hillary.

ETA2: Arkansas for Hillary.

ETA3: Texas for Hillary.

ETA4: Oklahoma for Bernie.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: Art Vandelay on March 01, 2016, 09:31:27 pm
Whelp, looks like Hilldog has this in the bag.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: The_Queen on March 01, 2016, 09:34:46 pm
Whelp, looks like Hilldog has this in the bag.

Looks like it, The results are still pending for Colorado and Minnesota, both of which will 50-50, if not more favorable to Bernie. But, even if they're blowouts for Bernie, Hillary won a lot, and she got the better of Super Tuesday.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: dpareja on March 01, 2016, 09:40:22 pm
Whelp, looks like Hilldog has this in the bag.

Looks like it, The results are still pending for Colorado and Minnesota, both of which will 50-50, if not more favorable to Bernie. But, even if they're blowouts for Bernie, Hillary won a lot, and she got the better of Super Tuesday.

Clinton got the better of Super Tuesday... but look at how many Southern states were on Super Tuesday. She won Super Tuesday because Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia all voted today. Massachusetts is pretty much a dead heat, Sanders destroyed her in Vermont (which is as little a surprise as her wins in the first six), Colorado and Minnesota are still to come, Oklahoma somehow went Sanders (and it was the rural areas that gave it to him), and American Samoa has 6 delegates so Clinton's win there isn't really relevant.

EDIT: And right now, Colorado and Minnesota are both leaning toward Sanders. So of the four states that were probably up for grabs (Oklahoma, Massachusetts, Colorado, Minnesota), one is almost even (Clinton is slightly up in Massachusetts) and the other three are looking to go Sanders.

Clinton won more states, yes, but Sanders looks to win more states that matter.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: lord gibbon on March 01, 2016, 10:40:04 pm
Just got back from the Caucus, and if the state follows suit, Bernie is gonna take Colorado.

Super Tuesday and the earlier states are a bit biased, I must say. they're, on average, more conservative, which skews the numbers a great deal.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: dpareja on March 01, 2016, 11:01:26 pm
Also, because of the way Democratic delegates are allocated, Clinton is ahead in the popular vote in Massachusetts, but Sanders may end up with more delegates. (Granted, if he does, it'd be by one or three delegates, but still.)

EDIT: Which means that I will laugh very hard when I see news outlets saying "Clinton won Massachusetts" if Sanders came out with more pledged delegates thanks to allocation rules. (Right now, according to The Green Papers, Clinton has about 3,000 more votes out of 950,000, but Sanders has one more pledged delegate.)

EDIT #2: To be clear, I'm looking at the table that breaks down votes and delegates by congressional district, not the table at the top with coarser results.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: lord gibbon on March 02, 2016, 01:52:26 am
Welp, Colorado and Minnesota, which I considered the two most important states tonight, went for Bernie. Now things really get exiting.

Also, if the future holds more like the caucus I attended, then Bernie could pull out even more upsets. Apparently, our district had four time the turnout of 2008.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: pyro on March 02, 2016, 04:48:31 pm
If this ends up being Sanders vs Trump (which doesn't seem implausible) it will mean the country is officially split in two. A "SOCIALIST" vs a "FASCIST."
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: The_Queen on March 02, 2016, 06:38:01 pm
Welp, Colorado and Minnesota, which I considered the two most important states tonight, went for Bernie. Now things really get exiting.

Also, if the future holds more like the caucus I attended, then Bernie could pull out even more upsets. Apparently, our district had four time the turnout of 2008.

You know, Cenk Uygur said the same thing (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur/why-bernie-sanders-won-su_b_9363416.html), but I am not convinced that it is objective observation as opposed to wishful thinking. Hillary currently leads Bernie by about 600-400 pledged delegates, and 450-20 among superdelegates. She's half way there. The slate of states in the near future isn't much more favorable to Bernie.

March 5, 109 Delegates: Louisiana, Nebraska, and Kansas (no official poll in Nebraska, Hillary up in Louisiana and Kansas. Kansas may turn due to Oklahoma)
March 6, 25 Delegates: Maine (Bernie's up)
March 8, 179 Delegates: Democrats abroad ends, Michigan, and Mississippi (Hillary is up in Both Michigan and Mississippi)
March 12, 11 Delegates: Mariana Islands
March 15, 691 Delegates: Illinois, Ohio, Florida, Missouri, and North Carolina (Hillary leads in all of these states, and they have large black populations)

After that, Alaska, Hawaii, Washington, Wisconsin, Wyoming, New York. Alaska and Washington feel the Bern, but Wisconsin will be a toss up, and Clinton will probably win New York. If these predictions hold up, then yeah those numbers alone won't give Hillary the nomination, they will put her just above 1600 delegates to Bernie's estimated 900.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: dpareja on March 03, 2016, 04:33:46 am
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikn8WAMvl_k

I know someone was asking about why caucuses were still in use. Here's video of a Colorado Democratic caucus. (Note: Republicans vote by secret ballot at their caucuses.)
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: TheContrarian on March 07, 2016, 04:13:02 pm
Which one will see the populace herded into proletarian organic farming collectives the fastest?

I'm looking forward to the spectacle of 300 million body-positive eatbeasts getting systematically starved to death by a hilarious combination of revolutionary zeal and leftist agricultural policy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism)
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: dpareja on March 07, 2016, 04:33:04 pm
Which one will see the populace herded into proletarian organic farming collectives the fastest?

Neither, because Hillary's a less-wingnut Republican and Bernie's at best a centrist.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: TheContrarian on March 07, 2016, 04:42:54 pm
Which one will see the populace herded into proletarian organic farming collectives the fastest?

Neither, because Hillary's a less-wingnut Republican and Bernie's at best a centrist.

Well that's no fun.  We need some proper collectivists and 5-year planners to really get this genocide rolling...
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: davedan on March 07, 2016, 04:50:11 pm
You'll get a chance to find out when Corbin becomes Prime Minister.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: TheContrarian on March 07, 2016, 04:55:36 pm
You'll get a chance to find out when Corbin becomes Prime Minister.

Fat chance.  He's old enough that he'll be dead while the years spent under Labour governments pre-Thatcher are still in living memory.

Old labour basically made socialism in this country an unelectable proposition, it's why New Labour had to ditch all the horrid undemocratic pandering to the unions before we would let them back in...
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: davedan on March 07, 2016, 05:08:53 pm
No all the years of Blair have eclipsed that in the minds of the public. Plus the goldfish brain of Public Opinion will only remember that Cameron fucked a pig. Corbin wins the next election.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: pyro on March 07, 2016, 07:52:13 pm
Well that's no fun.  We need some proper collectivists and 5-year planners to really get this genocide rolling...

What does it take nowadays to be dismissed as a troll...
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: SCarpelan on March 07, 2016, 11:37:25 pm
Everybody knows he's a troll. Occasionally his trolling leads to constructive debating, though, and I suspect people are relieved to have someone else to chew on after the bad aftertaste UP has left recently.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: rookie on March 08, 2016, 12:14:12 am
He's like any other yard sale. Mostly just a bunch of crap nobody wants, but there's an occasional gem in there sometimes.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: niam2023 on March 08, 2016, 12:29:57 am
Yeah, thanks for stopping by, Contrarian - after what we had to argue with recently over in Flame and Burn, you're a huge improvement.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: mellenORL on March 08, 2016, 01:06:41 am
Ah, Conty! We missed ya, fella.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: mellenORL on March 08, 2016, 05:52:07 pm
Ohio is a major state with lots of delegates. Just saw this and I am a wee bit pissed off. Voter disenfranchisement is never okay. Screwing around with the civil rights of young people is especially egregious, to me. To quote lyrics by rocker Chrissie Hynde, "Ay, oh, where did you go, Ohio?"

Quote
While Clinton hoped to effectively clinch her party’s nomination once the two states tallied Tuesday’s votes, Sanders made it clear he was not giving up without a fight. He announced shortly before 3 p.m. that his campaign is filing suit in federal court to block a move by the secretary of state in Ohio that would keep 17-year-olds from voting in the state’s primaries. Under current practice, anyone who will be 18 by the date of the general election is allowed to participate in the primaries.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/march-8-primaries-gop-in-turmoil-as-four-states-vote-today/ar-AAgwAFk?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=edgsp

Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: Damen on March 08, 2016, 06:03:26 pm
Oh. Wow.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: mellenORL on March 09, 2016, 11:05:25 am
Bernie won Michigan. Came outta left field and took it. Wow.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: TheContrarian on March 09, 2016, 01:08:47 pm
[insert joke about a great leap forward in his delegate count here]
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: Askold on March 09, 2016, 01:13:57 pm
Bernie won Michigan. Came outta left field and took it. Wow.
Oh dear. How is he going to recover from that horrible victory? You should really vote for Hillary since Bernie is simply not electable. *furiously wipes off sweat*
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: dpareja on March 09, 2016, 02:01:10 pm
Bernie won Michigan. Came outta left field and took it. Wow.
Oh dear. How is he going to recover from that horrible victory? You should really vote for Hillary since Bernie is simply not electable. *furiously wipes off sweat*

Well, in fairness, thanks to Southern states being early on the schedule, Clinton came out with 20 more pledged delegates than Sanders.

Be interesting to see how Sanders will do in a week, with Florida, Illinois, Missouri, North Carolina and Ohio up for grabs.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: Radiation on March 09, 2016, 07:18:47 pm
I honestly don't know who I will vote for in this election cycle. I voted for Bernie yesterday at my state's primaries but I seriously doubt he is going to be running. I will be surprised if he does but it seems that Hillary is taking the lead and so is Trump.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: dpareja on March 15, 2016, 10:13:35 pm
Fuck this primary schedule. Here's what they should do:

There's 56 contests for each party (plus Democrats Abroad). Take 14 consecutive weeks. Draw the 56 contests into those weeks at random, four per week. Two vote on the Saturday, two on the Sunday.

Then you won't frontload all the conservative Southern states that keep progressives from winning the nomination.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: The_Queen on March 15, 2016, 10:33:55 pm
Fuck this primary schedule. Here's what they should do:

There's 56 contests for each party (plus Democrats Abroad). Take 14 consecutive weeks. Draw the 56 contests into those weeks at random, four per week. Two vote on the Saturday, two on the Sunday.

Then you won't frontload all the conservative Southern states that keep progressives from winning the nomination.

Don't states decide when their primaries are held, subject to the very limited rule of Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and then South Carolina.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: mellenORL on March 15, 2016, 10:50:52 pm
Honestly, I wish that at least one major country would just abolish the political party system, and let candidates runs as individuals. It pisses me off, this hodge-podge crap we do in the US. For example, Florida bars non-party affiliated voters from the primaries. The majority of Americans are non-party independents, running the full range from conservative to progressive. I intensely dislike the super delegates. Professional politicians who represent the party itself, not a portion of actual voters. If you take away both Clinton's and Sander's aligned super delegates, Sanders would be about 98 delegates ahead now. If Florida, one of the Big Three as far as delegates goes, had allowed independent voters to vote in both the GOP and DNC primaries, the outcomes would be closer on both sides. Political parties are just corporate power brokerages for special interest groups and billionaires, on both sides of the aisle.  They're about as "not for profit" and "for the people" as the NFL. It's all bullshit.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: The_Queen on March 15, 2016, 11:00:35 pm
If you take away both Clinton's and Sander's aligned super delegates, Sanders would be about 98 delegates ahead now.

That is not true. If you take away the super delegates, Hillary led by 200 after Super Tuesday, 220 before today, and 343 as of right now. In fact, Clinton has led in pledged delegates since February 20th.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: dpareja on March 15, 2016, 11:06:30 pm
Fuck this primary schedule. Here's what they should do:

There's 56 contests for each party (plus Democrats Abroad). Take 14 consecutive weeks. Draw the 56 contests into those weeks at random, four per week. Two vote on the Saturday, two on the Sunday.

Then you won't frontload all the conservative Southern states that keep progressives from winning the nomination.

Don't states decide when their primaries are held, subject to the very limited rule of Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and then South Carolina.

They do. Fuck that system.

If you take away both Clinton's and Sander's aligned super delegates, Sanders would be about 98 delegates ahead now.

That is not true. If you take away the super delegates, Hillary led by 200 after Super Tuesday, 220 before today, and 343 as of right now. In fact, Clinton has led in pledged delegates since February 20th.

Yeah, Hillary's had the lead in pledged delegates since Nevada, and has since extended it thanks to all the Southern states that came early and went for her.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: Ironchew on March 15, 2016, 11:12:48 pm
Fuck this primary schedule. Here's what they should do:

There's 56 contests for each party (plus Democrats Abroad). Take 14 consecutive weeks. Draw the 56 contests into those weeks at random, four per week. Two vote on the Saturday, two on the Sunday.

Then you won't frontload all the conservative Southern states that keep progressives from winning the nomination.

Don't states decide when their primaries are held, subject to the very limited rule of Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and then South Carolina.

They do. Fuck that system.

I don't see how you think taking determination of party policy away from the states would make a political party anything but far, far more corrupt.

This is just another example of progressives being lazy as shit about pressuring their state legislatures and state parties to represent their interests.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: The_Queen on March 15, 2016, 11:15:06 pm
Fuck this primary schedule. Here's what they should do:

There's 56 contests for each party (plus Democrats Abroad). Take 14 consecutive weeks. Draw the 56 contests into those weeks at random, four per week. Two vote on the Saturday, two on the Sunday.

Then you won't frontload all the conservative Southern states that keep progressives from winning the nomination.

Don't states decide when their primaries are held, subject to the very limited rule of Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and then South Carolina.

They do. Fuck that system.

If you take away both Clinton's and Sander's aligned super delegates, Sanders would be about 98 delegates ahead now.

That is not true. If you take away the super delegates, Hillary led by 200 after Super Tuesday, 220 before today, and 343 as of right now. In fact, Clinton has led in pledged delegates since February 20th.

Yeah, Hillary's had the lead in pledged delegates since Nevada, and has since extended it thanks to all the Southern states that came early and went for her.

But, if states decide when their primaries are held, then they could move it as early as they'd like (Super Tuesday) or hold it later for personal reasons. In fact, a lot of states hold local primaries on the same day, creating differing interests that do not involve affecting national discourse.

Further, it would be hard to organize such a scheme as a party through the state Congresses since the GOP controls most, though not all, state legislatures.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: mellenORL on March 15, 2016, 11:27:11 pm
If you take away both Clinton's and Sander's aligned super delegates, Sanders would be about 98 delegates ahead now.

That is not true. If you take away the super delegates, Hillary led by 200 after Super Tuesday, 220 before today, and 343 as of right now. In fact, Clinton has led in pledged delegates since February 20th.

I am quoting data from live TV coverage, delegate count graphics broadcast tonight by CNN and CBS. Clinton has 467 Super Delegates. Sanders has 20 Super Delegates. Subtract the super delegates from both of them, and the Voter generated delegate count is very different. It's also not complete, since not all the primaries have finalized their vote counts.
Here. I saw the CBS graphic earlier tonight, before todays poll results? at: Clinton tl 1021 - 467 Supers = 554 voter generated delegates. Sanders tl 664 - 20 Supers = 644. Difference, 90*. In other words, he was in fact doing better than you thought, and anyway, my post was much more about how I hate the political party racket in general. Using the data I posted to show how including super delegates right off the bat in a primary race pisses me off.

Both parties do weird shit like this. It's a stacked deck. It's like a watching a two player golf tournament where one player starts out with a five stroke handicap, the other, nothing. May the best golfer win? How would you ever know, with the odds pre-adjusted like that? Tomorrow, when the counting is done and the various state party branches allot their delegates in their individual proportioning formula...or not, like winner-take-all GOP Lotto Jackpot Florida, and some hold back delegates as "free agents" for the nomination convention, those numbers for the DNC race will be in Clinton's favor in voter delegates, too, very most likely.

*(Pardon my "senior moment" as to the 8 point discrepancy from my earlier post - I've been watching and reading live coverage for about ten hours today, pretty burnt out.)
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: The_Queen on March 16, 2016, 06:21:14 am
If you take away both Clinton's and Sander's aligned super delegates, Sanders would be about 98 delegates ahead now.

That is not true. If you take away the super delegates, Hillary led by 200 after Super Tuesday, 220 before today, and 343 as of right now. In fact, Clinton has led in pledged delegates since February 20th.

I am quoting data from live TV coverage, delegate count graphics broadcast tonight by CNN and CBS. Clinton has 467 Super Delegates. Sanders has 20 Super Delegates. Subtract the super delegates from both of them, and the Voter generated delegate count is very different. It's also not complete, since not all the primaries have finalized their vote counts.
Here. I saw the CBS graphic earlier tonight, before todays poll results? at: Clinton tl 1021 - 467 Supers = 554 voter generated delegates. Sanders tl 664 - 20 Supers = 644. Difference, 90*. In other words, he was in fact doing better than you thought, and anyway, my post was much more about how I hate the political party racket in general. Using the data I posted to show how including super delegates right off the bat in a primary race pisses me off.

Both parties do weird shit like this. It's a stacked deck. It's like a watching a two player golf tournament where one player starts out with a five stroke handicap, the other, nothing. May the best golfer win? How would you ever know, with the odds pre-adjusted like that? Tomorrow, when the counting is done and the various state party branches allot their delegates in their individual proportioning formula...or not, like winner-take-all GOP Lotto Jackpot Florida, and some hold back delegates as "free agents" for the nomination convention, those numbers for the DNC race will be in Clinton's favor in voter delegates, too, very most likely.

*(Pardon my "senior moment" as to the 8 point discrepancy from my earlier post - I've been watching and reading live coverage for about ten hours today, pretty burnt out.)

Hillary has 1,094 pledged delegates and Bernie has 774 pledged delegates. These counts do not include super delegates. Thus, Clinton leads by 320 voter generated delegates.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: mellenORL on March 16, 2016, 11:52:29 am
I stand corrected. Put it down to mental fatigue from watching and reading TMI all day yesterday. Thank you, Queen. Appreciate the polite correction.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: pyro on March 16, 2016, 12:09:18 pm
Honestly, I wish that at least one major country would just abolish the political party system, and let candidates runs as individuals. It pisses me off, this hodge-podge crap we do in the US. For example, Florida bars non-party affiliated voters from the primaries. The majority of Americans are non-party independents, running the full range from conservative to progressive. I intensely dislike the super delegates. Professional politicians who represent the party itself, not a portion of actual voters. If you take away both Clinton's and Sander's aligned super delegates, Sanders would be about 98 delegates ahead now. If Florida, one of the Big Three as far as delegates goes, had allowed independent voters to vote in both the GOP and DNC primaries, the outcomes would be closer on both sides. Political parties are just corporate power brokerages for special interest groups and billionaires, on both sides of the aisle.  They're about as "not for profit" and "for the people" as the NFL. It's all bullshit.

We actually did try that. Unfortunately, you can't ban political parties (at the simplest levels, they're just freedom of association), and if people can form them they will. Once they exist, they'll write themselves into the laws.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: Dakota Bob on March 16, 2016, 07:04:26 pm
Sooo....are we not feeling the Bern anymore? Is it the dawn of the pantsuit era?
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: dpareja on March 16, 2016, 07:12:55 pm
Sooo....are we not feeling the Bern anymore? Is it the dawn of the pantsuit era?

Pretty much every automatically-Clinton state has come and gone. (There's still DC, but that's only 20 pledged delegates. And she's probably also advantaged in Puerto Rico, but that's still only 60 pledged delegates.) Yes, she won some major victories on Tuesday, but they weren't the sorts of crushing wins she had in the South. It's not impossible that Sanders could start winning contest after contest heading into New York, which is the second-biggest prize on the Democratic side. But he pretty much has to do that, and keep it going until early June and California.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: SCarpelan on March 16, 2016, 07:33:58 pm
But she did have those crushing wins. Sanders needs to have similar victory margins in the Northern states if he wants to catch her and his loss in Ohio doesn't bode well for this. He does have a yuge pile of cash to feed the momentum that's probably turning to his advantage but I would be surprised if that's enough - he is simply running out of time.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: The_Queen on March 16, 2016, 07:37:39 pm
Bernie won Michigan. Came outta left field and took it. Wow.
Oh dear. How is he going to recover from that horrible victory? You should really vote for Hillary since Bernie is simply not electable. *furiously wipes off sweat*

Well, in fairness, thanks to Southern states being early on the schedule, Clinton came out with 20 more pledged delegates than Sanders.

Be interesting to see how Sanders will do in a week, with Florida, Illinois, Missouri, North Carolina and Ohio up for grabs.

Fuck this primary schedule. Here's what they should do:

There's 56 contests for each party (plus Democrats Abroad). Take 14 consecutive weeks. Draw the 56 contests into those weeks at random, four per week. Two vote on the Saturday, two on the Sunday.

Then you won't frontload all the conservative Southern states that keep progressives from winning the nomination.


I just realized these two quotes were separated by but a single post XD
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: Ironchew on March 16, 2016, 07:51:18 pm
Well, see, the deep south is made of 50 states. It's hard to win in that region.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: dpareja on March 16, 2016, 08:13:43 pm
Bernie won Michigan. Came outta left field and took it. Wow.
Oh dear. How is he going to recover from that horrible victory? You should really vote for Hillary since Bernie is simply not electable. *furiously wipes off sweat*

Well, in fairness, thanks to Southern states being early on the schedule, Clinton came out with 20 more pledged delegates than Sanders.

Be interesting to see how Sanders will do in a week, with Florida, Illinois, Missouri, North Carolina and Ohio up for grabs.

Fuck this primary schedule. Here's what they should do:

There's 56 contests for each party (plus Democrats Abroad). Take 14 consecutive weeks. Draw the 56 contests into those weeks at random, four per week. Two vote on the Saturday, two on the Sunday.

Then you won't frontload all the conservative Southern states that keep progressives from winning the nomination.


I just realized these two quotes were separated by but a single post XD

And six days. I can acknowledge reality and think it's dumb.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: The_Queen on March 17, 2016, 08:57:27 am
Bernie won Michigan. Came outta left field and took it. Wow.
Oh dear. How is he going to recover from that horrible victory? You should really vote for Hillary since Bernie is simply not electable. *furiously wipes off sweat*

Well, in fairness, thanks to Southern states being early on the schedule, Clinton came out with 20 more pledged delegates than Sanders.

Be interesting to see how Sanders will do in a week, with Florida, Illinois, Missouri, North Carolina and Ohio up for grabs.

Fuck this primary schedule. Here's what they should do:

There's 56 contests for each party (plus Democrats Abroad). Take 14 consecutive weeks. Draw the 56 contests into those weeks at random, four per week. Two vote on the Saturday, two on the Sunday.

Then you won't frontload all the conservative Southern states that keep progressives from winning the nomination.


I just realized these two quotes were separated by but a single post XD

And six days. I can acknowledge reality and think it's dumb.

Fact is, you were optimistic about the schedule when you believed it favored Sanders, and now you're calling for a complete overhaul of the primary process (including that the parties dictate to the states when to hold their primaries) because your guy didn't win. It belies itself even more when one stops and recognizes that Missouri, Ohio, and Illinois aren't even Southern states, and that while Florida and North Carolina are Southern, they are not as strongly allied with the Ole Confederacy voting bloc as the other Confederate States.*

And that is ignoring a couple of key facts that weaken your argument. First off, the DNC must have a crystal ball to predict the South would've gone for Hilary. Hillary didn't win the South because she's more conservative than Bernie (although she is), she won the South because she overwhelmingly won African-Americans that make up a strong voting presence in Southern states. That's also the reason that she did well in Ohio and Illinois. And second, it would've been hard for the DNC to predict this outcome when she lost African-Americans to Obama by a margin similar to that of Bernie losing to Hillary. And, again, this ignores that states, and not the DNC or the GOP, set their primary schedules.

*Same with Virginia. Obama won Virginia and Florida in 2008 and 2012, and Obama won North Carolina in 2008.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: dpareja on March 17, 2016, 03:08:37 pm
Bernie won Michigan. Came outta left field and took it. Wow.
Oh dear. How is he going to recover from that horrible victory? You should really vote for Hillary since Bernie is simply not electable. *furiously wipes off sweat*

Well, in fairness, thanks to Southern states being early on the schedule, Clinton came out with 20 more pledged delegates than Sanders.

Be interesting to see how Sanders will do in a week, with Florida, Illinois, Missouri, North Carolina and Ohio up for grabs.

Fuck this primary schedule. Here's what they should do:

There's 56 contests for each party (plus Democrats Abroad). Take 14 consecutive weeks. Draw the 56 contests into those weeks at random, four per week. Two vote on the Saturday, two on the Sunday.

Then you won't frontload all the conservative Southern states that keep progressives from winning the nomination.


I just realized these two quotes were separated by but a single post XD

And six days. I can acknowledge reality and think it's dumb.

Fact is, you were optimistic about the schedule when you believed it favored Sanders, and now you're calling for a complete overhaul of the primary process (including that the parties dictate to the states when to hold their primaries) because your guy didn't win. It belies itself even more when one stops and recognizes that Missouri, Ohio, and Illinois aren't even Southern states, and that while Florida and North Carolina are Southern, they are not as strongly allied with the Ole Confederacy voting bloc as the other Confederate States.*

And that is ignoring a couple of key facts that weaken your argument. First off, the DNC must have a crystal ball to predict the South would've gone for Hilary. Hillary didn't win the South because she's more conservative than Bernie (although she is), she won the South because she overwhelmingly won African-Americans that make up a strong voting presence in Southern states. That's also the reason that she did well in Ohio and Illinois. And second, it would've been hard for the DNC to predict this outcome when she lost African-Americans to Obama by a margin similar to that of Bernie losing to Hillary. And, again, this ignores that states, and not the DNC or the GOP, set their primary schedules.

*Same with Virginia. Obama won Virginia and Florida in 2008 and 2012, and Obama won North Carolina in 2008.

Actually, I first had that thought (on another forum) on March 8 (in the wee hours of March 8, before Michigan voted), in the context of a discussion about whether California would be relevant this year. I admit my timing here was bad, and my post here was out of frustration for how the schedule happened to give Clinton her large lead, and you're right to call me on it.

I still think a randomized schedule for presidential primaries would be better than the current system, and I'd argue the parties can attempt to force the issue (by stripping delegates from states that don't follow their schedule).
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: Id82 on March 17, 2016, 07:31:02 pm
My concern is that there has been low voter turn out for the democratic party to vote for their next candidate. Which is probably why Bernie isn't doing that hot. This concerns me because it means there will most likely be a low voter turn out on the democratic side for the actual election. Which means President Trump.
The problem is people tend to not vote when they think things are good. The economy has recovered, things are getting better so there's less of an outcry for liberals to go and vote.
The only thing that could save democrats is that Trump is such a polarizing unpredictable figure that he might divide his party or cause some of them to not want to go out and vote when it comes to the actual election.
One issue is that the Republican race was much more heated between many candidates. Which would bring more people out to vote. Where as the Democrat race was between just two.
Another thing that could improve Democratic turn out would be who the VP is. If Clinton could pick someone like Elizabeth Warren then she could excite the base as well as the more left wing people of the party. Well see how it goes.
I am pretty terrified of a Trump presidency because he has pretty much lied about everything and is unpredictable. There is no way of telling how he would run the country, and considering how people in his own party don't even seem to like him, how are they going to work with him?
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: Skybison on March 17, 2016, 07:43:23 pm
Didn't Hillary beat Sanders in some North East states that he was supposed to win?

Look I like Bernie's platform more the Hillary's but the fact is he lost fair and square.  She got more people to come out and vote for her and I don't see any evidence that running the primaries in a different order would have changed that.  He put up a good fight and hopeful help push the Democrats further left but the majority of people in the democratic party like a Clinton Presidency better then a Sanders Presidency.  It's disappointing but we got to accept it.

And to anyone who says they won't vote for her all I have to say is:

Does a Clinton victory threaten the survival of the human race? No.

Does a Drumpf (or Republican in general) victory threaten the survival of the human race? Yes. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/29/opinion/planet-on-the-ballot.html?rref=collection%2Fcolumn%2Fpaul-krugman&action=click&contentCollection=opinion&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=5&pgtype=collection&_r=0

Lets keep our priorities in order, we can always change the world after we save it.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: Vypernight on March 18, 2016, 04:56:59 am
If Trump (or somehow someone else in the GOP) wins, I have a feeling it'll be 1930 all over again, along with WWIII.  With Clinton, I'm not sure, but I still don't trust her and her ties to Wall Street, etc.

Still hoping for a Sanders miracle though!
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: RavynousHunter on March 18, 2016, 11:55:27 am
Honestly, kinda hoping for a Clinton/Sanders bill.  As Pres, Clinton could bring forth social change more effectively and, as VP, Sanders has the tie-breaking vote in the Senate, giving him greater leverage for economic issues.  Of all possible outcomes, I think that'd be the one that's most ideal.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: mellenORL on March 18, 2016, 02:02:15 pm
Them running as a team, no matter which as v.p. or pres., would clinch the White House.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: dpareja on March 22, 2016, 04:13:25 pm
Factoid: Every country voting in the Democrats Abroad primary, excepting only the Dominican Republic (350-53), Nigeria (4-1), and Singapore (149-107), preferred Sanders to Clinton.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: Dakota Bob on March 22, 2016, 05:22:13 pm
Honestly, kinda hoping for a Clinton/Sanders bill.  As Pres, Clinton could bring forth social change more effectively and, as VP, Sanders has the tie-breaking vote in the Senate, giving him greater leverage for economic issues.  Of all possible outcomes, I think that'd be the one that's most ideal.

Oh god, if Clinton picked Sanders as her VP, I can't imagine the shitstorm, especially since I saw a poll which I need to find again showing that a not insignificant percentage of Sanders supporters would refuse to support Clinton if she was nominated.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: Wurdulac on March 23, 2016, 09:35:40 pm
Honestly, though, does it really matter which Democrat wins the Presidency, assuming either of them do?

If Sanders wins, and Republicans control even just the House (fairly likely, considering the gerrymandering), what would get done?  Maybe, if we're lucky, the basic function of government might continue uninterrupted, though given the Tea Party's hissy-fit over the debt limit, that seems unlikely.  I don't see much beyond that happening.

If Clinton wins, BENGHAZI E-MAILS BENGHAZI BENGHAZI BENGHAZI WHITEWATER BENGHAZI MONICA BENGHAZI BENGHAZI.  ...BENGHAZI.  (That's Republicans in Congress, by the way.  I was extrapolating what they would sound like in a Clinton presidency based on what they've sounded like over the last five years.)

If a Republican wins the primary, however, that's where things get interesting, in much the same way a nuclear war would be "interesting".  Not saying a Republican *would* start a nuclear war, mind you, as I don't think even Drumpf would be so insanely, stupidly short-sighted.  However, their mantra for the last thirty, forty years has been "government doesn't work" and by the gods, are they gonna prove it.  A functional government is completely anathema to their ideals.  So, yeah.  "Interesting".
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: The_Queen on March 23, 2016, 09:38:16 pm
It really does matter. If the GOP wins, Obamacare will be repealed. And, if Obamacare is repealed, real people will die as a result of it. In particular, poor and middle-class people.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: Wurdulac on March 23, 2016, 10:08:13 pm
It really does matter. If the GOP wins, Obamacare will be repealed. And, if Obamacare is repealed, real people will die as a result of it. In particular, poor and middle-class people.

Oh, I definitely agree with that; hell, I'd probably be one of the poor people who would die.  The question I was trying to ask, and not really wording well now that I think about it, was: does it matter which Democrat between Sanders and Clinton (or, really, *any* Democrat) wins the Presidency, or even the primary?

Given how conservatives (which, in the US, has mostly become synonymous with "Republicans") apparently feel about a non-dysfunctional government, what difference does it make whose name is after the word "President" so long as after their name there's a "(D)"?  (So, that would be, for example, "President Clinton (D)" and yes I'm aware that's not how it's usually displayed I'm making a point).

But, yes, the forcibly dysfunctional government of a Democratic president would be leagues better than the pitilessly functional government of a Republican president.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: The_Queen on March 25, 2016, 11:05:47 am
I saw this article today, and I completely agree. I think the whole Bernie or Bust movement is born out of a position of privilege in that its supporters can endure--if they're not outright shielded from--the reign of assholery that would be a Trump or Cruz presidency. (http://qz.com/644985/privilege-is-what-allows-sanders-supporters-to-say-theyll-never-vote-for-clinton/) A lot of policies will change for the worse with a GOP president, because they're either executive orders, executive decisions by Secretaries of various Government Departments, or because the GOP may have control of both houses of Congress.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: Askold on March 25, 2016, 11:13:37 am
I would just like to point out that Sanders refusing to accept donations from banks and businesses is just stupid ideological choice.

Taking a donation from Richie Rich does not actually mean that Bernie is forced to make laws that help Richie Rich. ...Just look at all the poor people who support and vote for Republican candidates without getting anything in return. And with that extra money he could have gotten from businesses Bernie could have had a better campaign.

I get WHY he wants to show that he isn't touching "dirty money" but it seems like either a really silly move and a dangerous sign of being too ideological and hurting yourself because of it (would you like a president who refuses to compromise even when that refusal harms the country?) OR it is an intentional flaw to gather sympathy points and explain his inevitable failure after the elections.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: The_Queen on March 25, 2016, 11:33:35 am
I think it's a matter of principle that he takes, and a respectable one at that. Nevertheless, I am reminded of the scene from Clerks II where the black, male customer said "you can't taste racism." (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWdVwt2deY4) Obama accepted corporate donations. If I ever ran for an elected position, I would take money because once it's donated, it's in my pocket to use as I will.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: mellenORL on March 25, 2016, 11:44:59 am
It's a good strategy, and has not hurt his donation totals at all. There is deep distrust and resentment across the political spectrum towards the big banks and the securities sector in general. Even GOP pundits snark about Clinton's Wall Street ties.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: The_Queen on March 25, 2016, 11:50:36 am
Even GOP pundits snark about Clinton's Wall Street ties.

Well, such would be expected from the group that spend the last 25 years demonizing Hillary for being one of the leaders of the Democratic party.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: Belloc on March 25, 2016, 11:59:21 am
Queen, a question for you: what do you see as the major weaknesses of a Clinton presidency?

I have not supported Clinton up to this point, but that non-support is poorly founded since I know little of her weaknesses in policy and potential. Her faults may not be enough to justify my non-support. They may be. I've found your opinion on Clinton useful before, so I would like to know what you see as her major downsides as a president, not a nominee.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: SCarpelan on March 25, 2016, 01:51:38 pm
I would just like to point out that Sanders refusing to accept donations from banks and businesses is just stupid ideological choice.

Taking a donation from Richie Rich does not actually mean that Bernie is forced to make laws that help Richie Rich. ...Just look at all the poor people who support and vote for Republican candidates without getting anything in return. And with that extra money he could have gotten from businesses Bernie could have had a better campaign.

I get WHY he wants to show that he isn't touching "dirty money" but it seems like either a really silly move and a dangerous sign of being too ideological and hurting yourself because of it (would you like a president who refuses to compromise even when that refusal harms the country?) OR it is an intentional flaw to gather sympathy points and explain his inevitable failure after the elections.
He is raising more money than Clinton. (http://www.vox.com/2016/3/23/11286028/sanders-fundraising-beating-clinton) If he had had more money in the beginning to advertise in the early states it would have helped. On the other hand, I'm pretty sure the reason why people are so eager to contribute now is the ideological stance.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: Damen on March 25, 2016, 01:57:37 pm
Call it "privilege," "petulance," "ideology" whatever, but I'm quite firmly in the Bernie or Bust camp.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: Ironchew on March 25, 2016, 02:52:20 pm
Call it "privilege," "petulance," "ideology" whatever, but I'm quite firmly in the Bernie or Bust camp.

If Clinton's the nominee, barring some unforeseen total about-face in her campaign that convinces me otherwise, I'll vote for Stein like I did in 2012. The perceived drawback of conservative SCOTUS appointees seems to be empty; clearly Obama is chomping at the bit to appoint another conservative and I see no reason why Clinton wouldn't do the same. I am under no illusions that a Republican presidency wouldn't be a nightmare, and also that, as shitty as it might be for me personally, there are far more vulnerable demographics who would suffer from a reign of hate. The thing is, on a worldwide scale, I think Clinton would also start more wars than she ends; at least millions of people will almost certainly be displaced, seriously injured or killed as a direct result.

Republicans repealing the ACA would lead to about 45,000 deaths for the uninsured each year; the way it was before the ACA. Democrats pretending the ACA solved healthcare and waiting far longer to transition to a single-payer system also kills the under-insured, by the way. Depending on just how long they wait to transition to Medicare-for-all, they might even indirectly kill the same number of people.

The single advantage I see in a Republican presidency is that it would unite a leftist opposition in the 2018 and 2020 elections; perhaps even enough of an opposition to elect a sea change of liberal state legislators during a census year, which determines how districts are drawn until 2031. Conversely, I don't see how a Clinton presidency would lead to anything other than disillusionment and an even worse Republican takeover in 2020.

So yeah, I'm Bernie-or-bust. Though perhaps for different reasons than Damen -- I can't tell.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: Dakota Bob on March 25, 2016, 03:06:02 pm
Well, if those percentage of people are serious about not voting for Hillary ever (which, lets face it, they're not. no matter how white they are, they're gonna feel the effects of a Trump/Cruz presidency) I wonder how Hillary is going to reach out to them in the main election, because if he doesn't win, a lot of people are going to be mega-butthurt about the fact that this was probably the closest America would ever get to electing a super-progressive like the Bernmaster and that they lost out on it.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: Damen on March 25, 2016, 03:59:05 pm
Call it "privilege," "petulance," "ideology" whatever, but I'm quite firmly in the Bernie or Bust camp.

If Clinton's the nominee, barring some unforeseen total about-face in her campaign that convinces me otherwise, I'll vote for Stein like I did in 2012. The perceived drawback of conservative SCOTUS appointees seems to be empty; clearly Obama is chomping at the bit to appoint another conservative and I see no reason why Clinton wouldn't do the same. I am under no illusions that a Republican presidency wouldn't be a nightmare, and also that, as shitty as it might be for me personally, there are far more vulnerable demographics who would suffer from a reign of hate. The thing is, on a worldwide scale, I think Clinton would also start more wars than she ends; at least millions of people will almost certainly be displaced, seriously injured or killed as a direct result.

Republicans repealing the ACA would lead to about 45,000 deaths for the uninsured each year; the way it was before the ACA. Democrats pretending the ACA solved healthcare and waiting far longer to transition to a single-payer system also kills the under-insured, by the way. Depending on just how long they wait to transition to Medicare-for-all, they might even indirectly kill the same number of people.

The single advantage I see in a Republican presidency is that it would unite a leftist opposition in the 2018 and 2020 elections; perhaps even enough of an opposition to elect a sea change of liberal state legislators during a census year, which determines how districts are drawn until 2031. Conversely, I don't see how a Clinton presidency would lead to anything other than disillusionment and an even worse Republican takeover in 2020.

So yeah, I'm Bernie-or-bust. Though perhaps for different reasons than Damen -- I can't tell.

That's a lot of it, yes, but there are also other reasons that don't have much to do with any policy.

I'm 30, come November, I'll be 31. I have voted in every presidential election since I was legally able. Always, I voted for the lesser of two evils. I got to witness people re-elect a trained chimp in a suit and a Sith Lord to the oval office. Then I voted for Obama, not exactly enthused, but I felt better about it. And then came drone warfare, broken promises and preemptive concessions when it came time to negotiate. Each time, the Republicans went further to the right and dragged Obama along with them. The lesser of two evils was slowly growing more and more evil.

And now, I see Bernie, I see his record and I see that as far back as the '60's and '70's, he was agitating for things that the rest of the country is just now catching on to. He's been principled his whole life and the votes he casts he does with the conviction of his beliefs. And those beliefs match up with a very strong liberal belief.

Another aspect to remember is that sometimes, ideology trumps (ha ha) pragmatism. An example of this is, interestingly, the Republican party. They were pretty pragmatic about getting their goals achieved for a long time and it was a slow process for them. Then came the rise of the ideology known as the Tea Party. The Tea Baggers have an unapologetic extreme conservative ideology and they want that ideology implemented rightfuckingnow. That ideology forced the Republican party hard to the right to keep from fracturing the party and as a result the whole of the right wing went from "red" to "maroon." But the Democrats, being "pragmatic" followed suit but always tried to be just a little more liberal than the Republicans to hopefully attract more conservative independents. The result we got was an overall more conservative government even as the country as a whole became more liberal. Ideology won.

Now, for the first time in fuck-me-many-years, we have an option. A truly liberal candidate and a country that is now finally liberal enough for him to be viable. Everyone else? Different shades of conservative. With anyone but Sanders, at best we'll get more of the same. And, frankly, I can't handle the status quo anymore because every year, the status quo gets more and more conservative.

On policies, the biggest reason I won't vote for her, however, is the most simple: I don't trust Clinton. I have not seen her take a stand that wouldn't change with enough money or polling opinions. People have been saying that Sanders has pulled Clinton further to the left, but I don't believe that she'll stay that way. She has given me no reason to believe that she won't snap back to the right if she gets the nomination. And her voting history very, very closely mirrors fucking Jeb Bush. While Bernie was getting arrested for civil rights (http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/02/17/video_may_show_bernie_sanders_1963_civil_rights_protest_arrest.html), Clinton was supporting a segregationist (http://www.factcheck.org/2008/03/hillary-worked-for-goldwater/). While I won't fault people for changing their minds, this does show me that Sanders has a pretty damn good moral compass.

There's also the facts that she was right on camera telling us as recently as 2013 that marriage was between one man and one woman (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jun/17/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-change-position-same-sex-marriage/). Then as soon as the polls hit 51% in favor of gay marriage, her position changed. Back in the '90's she was talking about single payer health care. Then the healthcare industry dropped $13 million (http://www.ibtimes.com/political-capital/hillary-clinton-gets-13-million-health-industry-now-says-single-payer-will-never) into her pockets and now she's saying that it'll never happen. She was for guns (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/10/4/1427635/-Hillary-Clinton-s-2008-position-on-gun-control-wasn-t-what-it-is-now), now she's against them. She supports the rights of illegal immigrants so much she voted in favor (http://nypost.com/2015/11/29/hillary-clintons-illegal-flip-flop/) of a US-Mexico border wall. She keeps talking about her "experience" with foreign policy, but it seems like that experience basically amounts to "Woohoo, bullets and bombs! (http://www.salon.com/2015/09/10/what_hillary_clinton_wants_you_to_forget_her_disastrous_record_as_a_war_hawk/)" Her love of regime change is what gave ISIS a safe haven (http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/08/politics/hillary-clinton-libya-election-2016/) in Libya while that country experiences a power vacuum. Experience doesn't equal wisdom, and she has shown me that she hasn't learned from her mistakes.

These are just some of the issues I have with her.

So, no, I won't vote for her. Ever. Call me "butthurt" if you like, but if she gets the nomination then I'll just stay at home and masturbate come election day. Because, yes, I do believe we'd actually be better off with 4 years of Trump than 8 years of this shit. 4 years of Trump would be such a fucking hell that people would be screaming for a real liberal candidate to run. 8 years of Clinton would be just tolerable enough that nothing will change, and we'll just get a more and more conservative government and a republican president in 2024.

*edit* Hehe, 1776th post.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: The_Queen on March 25, 2016, 05:14:00 pm
Queen, a question for you: what do you see as the major weaknesses of a Clinton presidency?

I have not supported Clinton up to this point, but that non-support is poorly founded since I know little of her weaknesses in policy and potential. Her faults may not be enough to justify my non-support. They may be. I've found your opinion on Clinton useful before, so I would like to know what you see as her major downsides as a president, not a nominee.

I think her biggest weaknesses are that (1) she is more conservative than Bernie and (2) the GOP smear machine has already had a 25 year head start on attacking her. While Hillary has gotten the better of several of the conservative smears, the damage is still done to her reputation. Everything from whitewatergate to Benghazi, the GOP has spent so much time, money, and energy to make her appear less trustworthy, and despite very few real scandals or actions that warrant questioning, her trustworthiness rating is low, even among democrats. While this is a reality, I do not think it's fair to hold it against her, as this simply emboldens the misogynistic GOP attacks against her and gives the GOP exactly what they want. ETA: And an interesting tidbit, while polls show Bernie is more trustworthy than Clinton (overwhelmingly so), Clinton is slightly more truthful than Bernie according to politifact (the breakdown among True, mostly true, half true, mostly false, false, pants on fire is 15-36-19-15-14-0 for Bernie, and 24-27-21-14-13-1 for Hillary).

And as for Damen, duly noted. I already thought very little of you. Now I see you're not only petty, but selfish and short sighted. It amazes me that so many of Bernie's positions are about helping people in need, and yet his followers would happily let those very people suffer, and many of those people die, because they want to make the good the enemy of the perfect.

Ironchew, Merrick Garland is an anomaly of an appointment. Obama put him up for the position as the senate is primarily Republican. It was a realization that while he can choose who gets voted on, the senate can disapprove (and the Senate is republican). It also had the dual purpose of highlighting the obstructionist GOP in an election year. His other two appointments are liberals, and the moderate Garland is better than Scalia, so his appointment would still be progress. So if you (generally) really want a liberal Supreme Court, the answer is to vote for a democratic president and democratic senators.

Finally, Dakota, this is not the last time by any stretch of the imagination that we can get a super progressive. Bernie running, and being openly socialist (well, "democratic socialist") has done a lot to dispel the stigma of being a socialist. A lot of young people are supporting him. Young people will grow older, and older people not voting for Bernie will die off. I've said this almost a half dozen times before, but I think Bernie's largest contribution to American politics is making socialism a viable political identity and party platform going forward.

I'm 30, come November, I'll be 31. I have voted in every presidential election since I was legally able. Always, I voted for the lesser of two evils. I got to witness people re-elect a trained chimp in a suit and a Sith Lord to the oval office. Then I voted for Obama, not exactly enthused, but I felt better about it. And then came drone warfare, broken promises and preemptive concessions when it came time to negotiate. Each time, the Republicans went further to the right and dragged Obama along with them. The lesser of two evils was slowly growing more and more evil.

Obama ran as a liberal, in case you don't recall. Then, as soon as he got elected, he presided as a moderate because that was what he had to do to get shit done with an obstructionist GOP and democrats that were iffy about jumping on board with his policies. If Bernie were president, he'd have to do the same thing. And, historically, Bernie has shown that he is more likely to alienate colleagues by telling them that they're beholden to wall street than to negotiate with them (I mean, come on, this is on his wikipedia page, it's not a secret). That is a big reason why the superdelegates lined up behind Hillary. She has been a leader of the party for 25 years; Bernie isn't even a democrat. She has worked and negotiated with members of Congress to build coalitions push legislation, such as SCHIP (the largest socialist policy to become law in the last fifty years); while Bernie alienates those same members that he would need to build coalitions and push legislation.

Another aspect to remember is that sometimes, ideology trumps (ha ha) pragmatism. An example of this is, interestingly, the Republican party. They were pretty pragmatic about getting their goals achieved for a long time and it was a slow process for them. Then came the rise of the ideology known as the Tea Party. The Tea Baggers have an unapologetic extreme conservative ideology and they want that ideology implemented rightfuckingnow. That ideology forced the Republican party hard to the right to keep from fracturing the party and as a result the whole of the right wing went from "red" to "maroon." But the Democrats, being "pragmatic" followed suit but always tried to be just a little more liberal than the Republicans to hopefully attract more conservative independents. The result we got was an overall more conservative government even as the country as a whole became more liberal. Ideology won.

Somehow, the idea of being more like the republicans in terms of blindly following the party and an ideology isn't too appealing to me. Further, the GOP has been an ideological suicide pact going back to Reagan. That is when they started pushing Trickle-Down economics, and continue to do so while evidence says they're pants on head fucking wrong. Then, that same ideological purity lead them to shutting down the government under the moderate Bill Clinton. Then Bush gets elected, and Bush tax cuts, deregulation, mishandled government agencies due to cronyism. Yeah, say what you want, but Hillary would be infinitely better than the "Sith Lord and the Chimp" or the Orange Toupee.

Now, for the first time in fuck-me-many-years, we have an option. A truly liberal candidate and a country that is now finally liberal enough for him to be viable. Everyone else? Different shades of conservative. With anyone but Sanders, at best we'll get more of the same. And, frankly, I can't handle the status quo anymore because every year, the status quo gets more and more conservative.

I posted this before, but it bears repeating

The point of this being that just because she is corporate shouldn't be the sole criteria of why you should not vote for her. Obama proved to be corporate, but effective: Lily Ledbetter fair pay act, health care reform, ending the war in Iraq, Iran Nuclear Deal, repeal of DADT, allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire, the stimulus bill, reducing the deficit by over 60%, reduced unemployment from double digits to I believe 5.8% at the moment, Matthew Shepard Hate Crime Act, executive order requiring hospitals allow same-sex partners visitation rights, greatly improved our international relations, increased our utilization of renewable energy, and most importantly put Sotomayor and Kagan on the Supreme Court. If anyone believes that a republican president would have achieved half of this, then they are pants on head stupid. My only point is that, like Obama, Hillary shouldn't be written off because she is perceived as corporate, and we shouldn't vote third-party and risk giving the GOP the election because Hillary isn't "perfect." I feel like, at worst, Hillary would be another four years of Obama, and quite frankly, I would be more than happy with such a result

On policies, the biggest reason I won't vote for her, however, is the most simple: I don't trust Clinton. I have not seen her take a stand that wouldn't change with enough money or polling opinions. People have been saying that Sanders has pulled Clinton further to the left, but I don't believe that she'll stay that way. She has given me no reason to believe that she won't snap back to the right if she gets the nomination. And her voting history very, very closely mirrors fucking Jeb Bush. While Bernie was getting arrested for civil rights (http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/02/17/video_may_show_bernie_sanders_1963_civil_rights_protest_arrest.html), Clinton was supporting a segregationist (http://www.factcheck.org/2008/03/hillary-worked-for-goldwater/). While I won't fault people for changing their minds, this does show me that Sanders has a pretty damn good moral compass.

Obama accepted corporate money, and I bet you voted for him, twice. Why should that automatically disqualify Hillary, then?

Also, Bernie voted for an amendment that would prevent states from informing immigrants crossing the southern border about the minutemen that were shooting at them. Which is why he's having trouble winning over the latin vote. He also voted for the same crime bill in which Hillary said "bring them to heel." Bernie is more liberal than Hillary, but he's not perfect. And his inability to win colleagues over to his side (as right as that side may be) highlights that while he has a strong moral compass, he lacks the "presidential power to persuade," which according to the foremost presidential scholar Richard Neustadt, is the most important characteristic a president can have.

And I think a large part of my reasoning is that while I agree with Bernie more on issues, that isn't my sole criteria. We all agree with ourselves 100% of the time, yet I doubt anyone here is crass enough to think they'd be the best president possible.

Finally, Bernie and Hillary voted together 93% of the time. So if Hillary is like Jeb, then 93% of the time, so is Bernie.
There's also the facts that she was right on camera telling us as recently as 2013 that marriage was between one man and one woman (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jun/17/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-change-position-same-sex-marriage/). Then as soon as the polls hit 51% in favor of gay marriage, her position changed. Back in the '90's she was talking about single payer health care. Then the healthcare industry dropped $13 million (http://www.ibtimes.com/political-capital/hillary-clinton-gets-13-million-health-industry-now-says-single-payer-will-never) into her pockets and now she's saying that it'll never happen. She was for guns (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/10/4/1427635/-Hillary-Clinton-s-2008-position-on-gun-control-wasn-t-what-it-is-now), now she's against them. She supports the rights of illegal immigrants so much she voted in favor (http://nypost.com/2015/11/29/hillary-clintons-illegal-flip-flop/) of a US-Mexico border wall. She keeps talking about her "experience" with foreign policy, but it seems like that experience basically amounts to "Woohoo, bullets and bombs! (http://www.salon.com/2015/09/10/what_hillary_clinton_wants_you_to_forget_her_disastrous_record_as_a_war_hawk/)" Her love of regime change is what gave ISIS a safe haven (http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/08/politics/hillary-clinton-libya-election-2016/) in Libya while that country experiences a power vacuum. Experience doesn't equal wisdom, and she has shown me that she hasn't learned from her mistakes.

These are just some of the issues I have with her.

First, Bernie voted for the same regime change in Libya

Second, as Secretary of State, Hillary unilaterally pushed a change in gender marker amendments for transsexuals on passports, which caused several states to follow. A recent federal district court case found that Trans-people may have a fundamental right to change state documents now, citing in part the federal government's policy regarding gender marker amendments. A GOP presidential appointment would undue the state department's policy and go back to requiring reassignment surgery. Further, while she was on the wrong side in the past, if anyone thinks she would undo same-sex marriage, they're stupid. But a GOP president would appoint SCOTUS justices who would undo same-sex marriage. Oh, and while I'm on SCOTUS, the most realistic way to undo Citizen's united is SCOTUS. The democratic appointees all voted against Citizen's united (1 by Obama and 2 by Clinton). There is no reason whatsoever to believe a Hillary appointee would uphold this policy.

Third, I do not think it is accurate to say that her change is purely due to money. She was the first person to really push a public option for health care, which actually mirrored substantially single payer, back in the 90's. She took the arrows for that. Twenty five years later, it cost the democrats just about everything to get Obamacare. I honestly doubt we will see Single-payer in our life time (nevertheless, I'll keep voting and doing my part to see it happen). But, the real end is universal healthcare, and the different means by getting there is where the debate rests. Bernie is saying Single payer, much like Canada. Hillary is saying slowly go down the route of regulating the market and price controls (which Obamacare does) in a manner similar to Japan. Sanders is right that Single Payer is more efficient overall, but that doesn't mean that the second best option is entirely without merit.

So, no, I won't vote for her. Ever. Call me "butthurt" if you like, but if she gets the nomination then I'll just stay at home and masturbate come election day. Because, yes, I do believe we'd actually be better off with 4 years of Trump than 8 years of this shit. 4 years of Trump would be such a fucking hell that people would be screaming for a real liberal candidate to run. 8 years of Clinton would be just tolerable enough that nothing will change, and we'll just get a more and more conservative government and a republican president in 2024.

*edit* Hehe, 1776th post.


1. The highlighted portion, no comment.
2. Please don't talk about pleasing yourself. The thought of a hairy, slightly overweight person, with a tiny penis, masturbating isn't an image that I want.
3. And if you want real change, vote in 2020 for a democratic house so that we can undue the gerrymandering that occurred in 2010.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: Dakota Bob on March 25, 2016, 06:25:48 pm
Quote from: The_Queen
Finally, Dakota, this is not the last time by any stretch of the imagination that we can get a super progressive. Bernie running, and being openly socialist (well, "democratic socialist") has done a lot to dispel the stigma of being a socialist. A lot of young people are supporting him. Young people will grow older, and older people not voting for Bernie will die off. I've said this almost a half dozen times before, but I think Bernie's largest contribution to American politics is making socialism a viable political identity and party platform going forward.

Fair enough. I'm not gonna pretend I'm an expert on US politics (just an slightly amused observer) but it seems to me every Democrat candidate I've seen in all the elections I've watched always seem to keep their politics close to the center, and I can't help but wonder if any future candidate that wants to capture what Bernies got going for him would really go as far as him, because as far as american politics go Bernie is leaning so far left his left leg might as well have been blown off. Again, this is useless speculation on my part so I can feel like I'm contributing :P

Quote from: The_Queen
Please don't talk about pleasing yourself. The thought of a hairy, slightly overweight person, with a tiny penis, masturbating isn't an image that I want.

[tumblr]penis jokes re-enforce a toxic form of heteronormative patriarchy and contribute to a culture of body shaming[/tumblr]

Quote from: Damen
Because, yes, I do believe we'd actually be better off with 4 years of Trump than 8 years of this shit.

Well that's a bit extreme isn't it? I imagine after 4 years of Trump most Americans will die in the inevitable race war.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: Damen on March 25, 2016, 07:02:11 pm
And as for Damen, duly noted. I already thought very little of you. Now I see you're not only petty, but selfish and short sighted.

2. Please don't talk about pleasing yourself. The thought of a hairy, slightly overweight person, with a tiny penis, masturbating isn't an image that I want.

This is why I have zero interest in debating with, or even acknowledging, you.

Quote from: Damen
Because, yes, I do believe we'd actually be better off with 4 years of Trump than 8 years of this shit.

Well that's a bit extreme isn't it? I imagine after 4 years of Trump most Americans will die in the inevitable race war.

Extreme? Possibly. But either of those hawks in office will kill thousands with the number of the wars they will start around the globe.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: The_Queen on March 25, 2016, 07:11:38 pm
And as for Damen, duly noted. I already thought very little of you. Now I see you're not only petty, but selfish and short sighted.

2. Please don't talk about pleasing yourself. The thought of a hairy, slightly overweight person, with a tiny penis, masturbating isn't an image that I want.

This is why I have zero interest in debating with, or even acknowledging, you.

Couldn't possibly have anything to do with the rest of my post could it? You know, those parts where I detail why Hillary isn't worse than Hitler, why she would be infinitely better than the GOP, and why Bernie isn't perfect. I have invective, sure. But I also have points.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: Damen on March 25, 2016, 07:23:05 pm
Couldn't possibly have anything to do with the rest of my post could it? You know, those parts where I detail why Hillary isn't worse than Hitler, why she would be infinitely better than the GOP, and why Bernie isn't perfect.

If you want to believe that, knock yourself out.

I have invective, sure. But I also have points.

Be that as it may, I have no interest in debating with someone who "already thought very little of" me. Once upon a time I had a fairly positive opinion of you, which is why I used to be willing to debate you. But the feeling of thinking "very little of you" has since become mutual, which is why I now give you the courtesy of refraining from engaging with you.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: Dakota Bob on March 25, 2016, 08:52:04 pm
Bernie controls nature. RIP Hillarys campaign (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vh_DKh7VZek)
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: pyro on March 25, 2016, 09:59:58 pm
I'm going to vote against the GOP, and that means voting for the Dems.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: davedan on March 29, 2016, 02:13:16 am
I also think it is delusional to think that Trump will be a single term president. The fact that the most incompetent president since Taft got two terms (GWB) makes me think in all likelihood Trump would get two terms. Reagan who was also a joke got two terms. The only candidate likely to only get one term is Bernie alla Jimmy Carter (a greatly underrated President) because the ideology will crash against the rocks of a difficult house.

 
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: Vypernight on March 29, 2016, 04:40:44 am
I also think it is delusional to think that Trump will be a single term president. The fact that the most incompetent president since Taft got two terms (GWB) makes me think in all likelihood Trump would get two terms. Reagan who was also a joke got two terms. The only candidate likely to only get one term is Bernie alla Jimmy Carter (a greatly underrated President) because the ideology will crash against the rocks of a difficult house.

Obama got 2 terms despite working with a house that would've blocked Breathing if he supported it.  If Sanders accomplishes 10% of what he wants, I think he could easily get 2 terms.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: Canadian Mojo on March 29, 2016, 08:22:31 am
I also think it is delusional to think that Trump will be a single term president. The fact that the most incompetent president since Taft got two terms (GWB) makes me think in all likelihood Trump would get two terms. Reagan who was also a joke got two terms. The only candidate likely to only get one term is Bernie alla Jimmy Carter (a greatly underrated President) because the ideology will crash against the rocks of a difficult house.

If the Republicans decide to fall in line behind Trump it could be two terms. That assumes they don't end up swinging so far to the right in the process they hemorrhage the last of their moderate voters to the republican-lite party and loose that way.

If they don't fall in line Trump is isolated and under attack from all sides. To separate brand names he will first be painted as a rogue president by the republicans and then they will start their stonewall/cock block campaign. Arrogance and lack of experience will lead to him making a mistake that he can be impeached over, and if it's big enough to not look like a petty little political witch hunt, they'll go for it.

The only real problem with this scenario is that they lack a strong leader to rally around, point to, and say 'THIS is the Republican party.'
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: Skybison on March 29, 2016, 09:31:38 am
When I was a kid we were shown a documentry on the holocaust in school.  There was one survivor who remembered his mom started crying when Hitler first became chancellor of Germany.  His Dad comforted her saying "Don't worry, he won't last a week."

Let's not make assumptions about how Trump is going to fail. 
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: Canadian Mojo on March 29, 2016, 12:07:59 pm
Let's not make assumptions about how Trump is going to fail.

Fortunately, he still has to succeed first and it's quite debatable if he can pull that off.

If he can things get interesting... and not in a good way. A unified far right party is bad for obvious reasons, but a crippled right wing will lead to another extended spell of negligible progress after you've just been through eight years of it, and the US (like everyone else) has issues to deal with. It could also pull the democrats even further to the right in an attempt to use the opportunity to carve out a more 'central' position that steals a large enough block of republicans to keep them out of power permanently. That would kill left wing aspirations for a long time.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: rookie on March 29, 2016, 12:46:14 pm
I agree with all this how bad Trump would be as president. But Cruz wouldn't really be much better. His views on Women are enough to concern me. As well as immigration, faith, and a few other things.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: mellenORL on March 29, 2016, 02:53:02 pm
Look at the Trump and Cruz tax plans. Both are wholesale rape and pillage of the 99%.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: MaybeNever on March 30, 2016, 12:11:52 am
Look at the Trump and Cruz tax plans. Both are wholesale rape and pillage of the 99%.

Yeah, but at least the planet will go hurtling into the sun shortly thereafter.


Fortunately, he still has to succeed first and it's quite debatable if he can pull that off.

Agreed. While polling this early isn't exactly ironclad, virtually every match up of Clinton and Trump this year has her winning by about 10 points. Bernie does even better, winning by 15 to 25 points. And that's assuming he can win the nomination without splintering the Republican party. By contrast, Kasich polls quite well in the general, but is mathematically incapable of winning enough delegates to guarantee his nomination at this point.

Quote
If he can things get interesting... and not in a good way. A unified far right party is bad for obvious reasons, but a crippled right wing will lead to another extended spell of negligible progress after you've just been through eight years of it, and the US (like everyone else) has issues to deal with. It could also pull the democrats even further to the right in an attempt to use the opportunity to carve out a more 'central' position that steals a large enough block of republicans to keep them out of power permanently. That would kill left wing aspirations for a long time.

The Dems have historically and on most issues tacked slowly leftward, free trade being a strange exception. I don't see them making a lunge for the center except maybe on a couple of key issues. Even if some in the party wanted that, I doubt there's enough cohesion in the party to force a broad shift.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: davedan on March 30, 2016, 01:02:21 am
I also think it is delusional to think that Trump will be a single term president. The fact that the most incompetent president since Taft got two terms (GWB) makes me think in all likelihood Trump would get two terms. Reagan who was also a joke got two terms. The only candidate likely to only get one term is Bernie alla Jimmy Carter (a greatly underrated President) because the ideology will crash against the rocks of a difficult house.

Obama got 2 terms despite working with a house that would've blocked Breathing if he supported it.  If Sanders accomplishes 10% of what he wants, I think he could easily get 2 terms.

And yet Obama gets pilloried for moving to the right or being too moderate (or right wing). All the while accomplishing a healthcare reform which nearly undid Bill Clinton (who whatever you think about him was a fucking consumate politician).

If Sanders doesn't compromise he won't accomplish even 10% of what he wants and either way all his supporters will be devastated.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: Askold on March 30, 2016, 01:57:21 am
http://usuncut.com/politics/alaska-superdelegate/

TL;DR the Although Bernie "won" Alaska a super delegate from that state is going to vote for Hillary because Bernie's supporters are rude and Hillary would be a better president.

Quote
    METCALFE: I’m in the pocket of no one. I have no financial connections to Hillary Clinton or any other Democrat. I am a retired union representative. I put in my time in the trenches for 40 years, and I really object to someone like you who has probably done nothing except caucus telling me what to do. I am voting for the best interests of my country. And that would be Hillary Clinton.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: ironbite on March 30, 2016, 10:13:15 am
*facepalms*
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: mellenORL on March 30, 2016, 10:35:58 am
Kim Metcalf = name the same as Kim Davis, another self-appointed petty dictator. Metcalf, translate to "fattened calf" in Medieval English. Thusly, I'm taking out my old lady street cred license and calling her a bossy cow. She must've been a blast to deal with as a union rep all those years, too.

Further, I'd like to propose that the first name "Kim" (not the ubiquitous Korean surname) be added to that list of strangely common first names of so many white American eccentrics, malcontents, local officials, and criminals which appear in thousands of news articles over the past 4 decades: "Wayne" and "Tonya", please welcome and make plenty of room for "Kim".

Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: The_Queen on March 30, 2016, 06:20:05 pm
This is a good example of spin. Younger starts off inquiring about whether she would support Bernie after he won Alaska. She tells him, verbatim, "Sorry, but I'm supporting Hillary. I've spoken with quite a number of Bernie supports, and I find the conversation to be quite negative. I am a firm, committed supporter of Hillary Clinton. Thanks for your inquiry. I will support Sanders if he is our nominee." Nothing about this is aggressive, hostile, or belittling. Even her statement that the conversations have been negative is not surprising considering (1) the internet and (2) BernieBros.

At this point, captain internet says "Of course you are!! Well, thanks anyways. I appreciate you showing me, a young Democrat and recently graduated [sic] political science graduate, just how real democracy works." This part was notoriously absent from the main article, only available in the screenshots below. This is the kind of negative conversation that Ms. Metcalfe is talking about, and it kind of proves her point.

Now, I would like to point out to captain Political science that there is a thing called procedure. In principle, the concept of superdelegates is not inherently undemocratic any more than the idea of elected representatives. Further, it kind of make sense that party leaders should have a say in who the party puts forth (I would not be surprised to see the GOP create a superdelegate system to avoid another Trump in future). While they are 714 people within the party who have a say in the outcome of the nominee, they are neither (contrary to previous accusations) corralled to vote a certain way nor do they vote as a bloc. Since the concept of them is not inherently undemocratic, it's kind of silly for captain political science to complain when the process didn't work the way he wanted it to. Further, his argument is self defeating as Hillary leads among pledged delegates, and if every superdelegate did as he asked, Hillary would still be leading among superdelegates by virtue of her lead among pledged delegates. More so to the point, the use of superdelegates was known since at least 1984 or 1988 when they first came onto the scene. Seriously, the party has never attempted to hide its use of superdelegates. So, if the procedure is not undemocratic in principle, and if it was known in advance, then I don't see a problem. If captain political science, or anyone else, wants to change this procedure, the proper time to do it is not midway through a competition, but like Ms. Metcalfe says, to stay involved in party politics after the election.

And before someone accuses me of bias, I have felt this way since discovering the concept of superdelegates when a lot of them sided with Hillary over Obama (who I supported at the time). Instead of complaining about the procedure, I accepted it as something that Obama would have to either overcome or win over. And Obama did, not by crying establishment or conspiracy, but through rapport and popular vote. I sincerely believe that if Bernie wins a majority of pledged delegates, that the superdelegates will jump to his side. However, until Bernie wins a majority of pledged delegates, these hurt feelings from captain political science, and others, is really much ado about nothing.

Finally, I don't expect a response. The substance of every post in which I've taken the time to detail and look into things about Bernie has gone largely ignored. As such, all that is really left for me to do is to sit back and see how the future contests turn out.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: Askold on March 31, 2016, 01:15:51 am
The concept of superdelegates is silly. Actually, the concept of using delegates instead of simply counting the votes is also silly in my opinion. These are outdated methods which may have been a good idea hundred years ago but not so much today. Just like Gerrymandering and Filibusters I think the way politics in USA runs is either outdated or simply poorly designed but people refuse to change things, either because this is the way things have always been or because the current method is beneficial to them. (Gerrymandering and Filibusters in particular are a part of the de-facto two-party system and are still a thing because one is useful when your party is in power and the other is useful when your party isn't in power and the parties are more afraid of losing their chance of using them than they are of the other party using them against them.)
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: RavynousHunter on March 31, 2016, 09:53:57 am
The concept of superdelegates is silly. Actually, the concept of using delegates instead of simply counting the votes is also silly in my opinion. These are outdated methods which may have been a good idea hundred years ago but not so much today. Just like Gerrymandering and Filibusters I think the way politics in USA runs is either outdated or simply poorly designed but people refuse to change things, either because this is the way things have always been or because the current method is beneficial to them. (Gerrymandering and Filibusters in particular are a part of the de-facto two-party system and are still a thing because one is useful when your party is in power and the other is useful when your party isn't in power and the parties are more afraid of losing their chance of using them than they are of the other party using them against them.)

It isn't just that.  Actually changing things in any meaningful way would probably have to come in the form of a Constitutional amendment for it to have any lasting impact.  That is a ridiculous process that almost never succeeds on the national level.  Actually getting things done was almost intentionally made to be nigh-impossible from the very outset of the country.

If there's one thing I've learned from my politics class, its that the American system is hopelessly broken, slow, and barbaric.  Unfortunately, actually getting shit to work like the rest of the civilized world (read: well) would take several generations worth of active effort and American politics doesn't have that long an attention span because we, as a nation, seem to suffer from almost terminal ADD.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: mellenORL on March 31, 2016, 10:32:48 am
The two big political parties are privately controlled not-for-profit citizen groups, allegedly, and historically. Sorta like the NFL is a not-for-profit athletic league. Tax exempt. Like a religion. Which football is to a lot of Americans. There's so many other reasons things are fucked up over here, but these two are exemplary of the sociopolitical symptoms.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: The_Queen on March 31, 2016, 12:12:37 pm
The concept of superdelegates is silly. Actually, the concept of using delegates instead of simply counting the votes is also silly in my opinion. These are outdated methods which may have been a good idea hundred years ago but not so much today.

The idea of delegates is simply applying principles of a representative democracy (i.e. we vote for people who vote for us) to the decision of picking the president. I decided to look up Finland, and it appears to be a parliamentary republic, which uses elected officials to make decisions, and that is very similar to the process here. Even the vast majority of superdelegates are *gasp* elected officials (with the exception of 20 distinguished party leaders). Yes, less than 1/2 of one percent of the delegates are unelected; it's not a big deal. If the nomination was purely decided by superdelegates, then we would be using elected officials (which is good enough for Finland) to decide the nominee. But we don't do that. We have 4051 pledged delegates and 714 superdelegates. So, for democrats, 85% of of the delegates are chosen via direct democracy while 15% are chosen via representative democracy (and seriously, if the people of Alaska are so mad at Metcalfe, the proper thing to do is vote her out in her next primary and vote someone in who will side with the majority of Alaska in their superdelegate vote). Furthermore, the pledged delegates largely break down in accordance with the popular vote. While that is a redundancy in the system* it is neither undemocratic nor outrageous. I break this down because I think it's pretty shitty of you to talk about Americans like we're stupid or unable to count (yes, you said as much before) because we don't do democracy the way you would like us to do it.

*i.e. why find 4000 random people and make 52% of them vote a certain way just to reflect that 52% of the populate voted a certain way?

The two big political parties are privately controlled not-for-profit citizen groups, allegedly, and historically. Sorta like the NFL is a not-for-profit athletic league. Tax exempt. Like a religion. Which football is to a lot of Americans. There's so many other reasons things are fucked up over here, but these two are exemplary of the sociopolitical symptoms.

If you have such a problem with the superdelegate system, then take this advice: write a fucking letter to the DNC after the election voicing your concerns. A good argument that you could make is that superdelegates always side with with the candidate that has a majority of pledged delegates. So, their existence is superfluous while potentially giving off the appearance of impropriety to people who are blissfully unaware of the existence of superdelegates. Will it change anything? Probably not. But, it is at least doing something. Because complaining about a hypothetical situation that has literally never happened and using it to support the assertion that the democrats are like the NFL or religion--on the internet of all places--is  weak.

ETA: and for all the complaining about the procedure, I doubt I'll get a response... again. But, capt. Political Science does amaze me, because of his focus on the "political" part to the exclusion of the "science" part. While it is a soft science, the crux of the field is that certain phenomenon can be qualified and trends can be realized through examining the institution. Hence my reliance on polls thus far. As such, my favorite news site is FiveThirtyEight. Nate Silver does a very good job of removing the spin and giving you the straight facts, by focusing on things like statistics and trends and not his personal bias or wishful thinking. A lot of pro-Bernie news sources cannot say the same. But this article is particularly illuminating as it details exactly what Bernie would have to do to win a majority of pledged delegates (http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/its-really-hard-to-get-bernie-sanders-988-more-delegates/). And it is illuminating because the superdelegate count is entirely moot if Hillary wins among pledged delegates.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: mellenORL on March 31, 2016, 01:42:57 pm
The very fact that the super delegates' candidate preference is announced at any time, much less right from the beginning and constantly throughout the primary season, inculcates media bias and unduly influences voter opinion. Why? Because, "Everybody loves a winner!" and "People tend to vote for the leading candidate". Those are paraphrased quotes from media pundits across the broadcast spectrum. They are also truisms I've heard all my rather long adult life. Low information voters are an actual and big thing, and that's the point of those statements. And why I'd personally rather DNC did not have super delegates. "Oh, the Supers historically change allegiance if another candidate wins the most pledgies". Fine, except the supers' existence and stance has been influencing the outcome of primaries and caucuses in every state on the way to the convention. And, even as an outlier possibility, the supers are in no way obligated to change their stance. We are very likely going to witness a brokered GOP nomination. If the race between Clinton and Sanders continues to tighten up, it is not impossible or illegal under party rules for the supers to hand Clinton the nomination anyway. In fact, I'd even bet a dollar or two on that, just for fun.

DNC can do as they please, will do as they please, and unless some random social media storm about the system blows up into a (probably hopeless) lawsuit, it will never change any policy because some citizens complain. The same goes for the GOP. 18th century gentlemen's clubs for the power poobahs, both parties. This is one of the reasons why the majority of voters are now independents, and both parties are bleeding registered voters over the past decade.

http://www.npr.org/2016/02/28/467961962/sick-of-political-parties-unaffiliated-voters-are-changing-politics

This one is an interesting take that independents are not independent. Because the parties copy righted the candidate platforms? Regardless, GOP and DNC aren't getting donations from those voters anymore.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/01/11/independents-outnumber-democrats-and-republicans-but-theyre-not-very-independent/

Note: I'm a registered Democrat because in my huge, delegate-rich state, Florida, independent voters were barred from both the GOP and Dem primaries.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: dpareja on March 31, 2016, 02:23:04 pm
Queen, hypothetical situation:

Let's say after the DC primary, neither Clinton nor Sanders has a majority of delegates solely from pledged delegates, but Clinton has more pledged delegates than Sanders.

Let's also say that current polling trends hold steady: looking at polls from March 23 (from RealClearPolitics (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/president/)), both candidates beat Trump, Sanders beats Cruz while Clinton's matchup is inconclusive, and Clinton loses to Kasich while Sanders' matchup is inconclusive.

Let's then say that the Republican Convention nominates Cruz or Kasich.

Would you be fine with the Democratic superdelegates proceeding to nominate Sanders over Clinton in light of that polling?

To amplify the scenario, let's say Clinton actually does get a majority of all delegates from her pledged delegates, but the polling shows that she could well lose the general election to the Republican nominee, while Sanders likely wins. Do you think it would be acceptable for the delegates to change the nomination rules on the floor (say, requiring a two-thirds majority, or majorities on three consecutive ballots) in order to ensure that Clinton does not win the nomination on the first ballot and Sanders can be nominated instead?

(I'm not saying either of these is a likely scenario.)
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: rookie on March 31, 2016, 02:33:06 pm
I haven't yet seen what We the People are supposed to do about the issue of super delegates. Unless this is idle bitching, in which case never mind.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: Askold on March 31, 2016, 02:47:48 pm
Finland used to elect the president with delegates. The first round of the election was a regular election and the second round was with delegates and their votes were read at the parliament house (There is still a meme where you repeat "Kekkonen, Kekkonen, Kekkonen" over and over because that is what it sounded when the votes were read and Kekkonen kept getting re-elected again and again.) but we stopped that after 1988 and nowadays it's just regular elections.

There was also once a scandal when a delegate who was supposed to vote for one candidate chose to vote another one instead changing the outcome of the elections.

I just think that that the delegate business is outdated and more susceptible to corruption.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: RavynousHunter on March 31, 2016, 02:53:50 pm
But, Askold, if we let people actually choose who gets to be put forward for the ticket, then the peasants might actually have a say in what their government does!  Mob rule!  Anarchy!  Fornication in the streets!  BIRTH CONTROL!  The serfs must never be allowed an actual say in what goes on, that is for the landed gentry to decide.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: The_Queen on March 31, 2016, 03:08:59 pm
The very fact that the super delegates' candidate preference is announced at any time, much less right from the beginning and constantly throughout the primary season, inculcates media bias and unduly influences voter opinion. Why? Because, "Everybody loves a winner!" and "People tend to vote for the leading candidate". Those are paraphrased quotes from media pundits across the broadcast spectrum. They are also truisms I've heard all my rather long adult life. Low information voters are an actual and big thing, and that's the point of those statements. And why I'd personally rather DNC did not have super delegates. "Oh, the Supers historically change allegiance if another candidate wins the most pledgies". Fine, except the supers' existence and stance has been influencing the outcome of primaries and caucuses in every state on the way to the convention. And, even as an outlier possibility, the supers are in no way obligated to change their stance. We are very likely going to witness a brokered GOP nomination. If the race between Clinton and Sanders continues to tighten up, it is not impossible or illegal under party rules for the supers to hand Clinton the nomination anyway. In fact, I'd even bet a dollar or two on that, just for fun.

DNC can do as they please, will do as they please, and unless some random social media storm about the system blows up into a (probably hopeless) lawsuit, it will never change any policy because some citizens complain. The same goes for the GOP. 18th century gentlemen's clubs for the power poobahs, both parties. This is one of the reasons why the majority of voters are now independents, and both parties are bleeding registered voters over the past decade.

http://www.npr.org/2016/02/28/467961962/sick-of-political-parties-unaffiliated-voters-are-changing-politics

This one is an interesting take that independents are not independent. Because the parties copy righted the candidate platforms? Regardless, GOP and DNC aren't getting donations from those voters anymore.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/01/11/independents-outnumber-democrats-and-republicans-but-theyre-not-very-independent/

Note: I'm a registered Democrat because in my huge, delegate-rich state, Florida, independent voters were barred from both the GOP and Dem primaries.

I'm not really sure there are many facts here. Superdelegates may shape part of the narrative in that their alignment can create news. But, there isn't much evidence that Superdelegates shape the outcome of a primary. Indeed, the last three contested democratic primaries were 1992, 2004, and 2008. All of them had early Superdelegate breaks to one of the candidates; none of those candidates went onto being the nominee. Superdelegates in 1992 expressed doubt about Bill Clinton, and very few supported him until after he won a round of April primaries. Superdelegates in 2004 broke early for Howard Dean, and prior to his Dean Scream, he lost Iowa. In 2008, the Superdelegates initially endorsed Hillary, before switching to Obama when it became apparent that he would net a majority of the pledged delegates. You'd have to go back almost 30 years to find a possible example of what you allege.

Additionally, while not against the rules for all 714 Superdelegates to vote as a bloc and "hand Hillary the nomination," my point remains that it has never happened. More so, since they don't vote as a bloc, their power to sway an election is further compromised.

Finally, I do not think a growing number of independent affiliated voters necessarily means a view that the parties are old boys clubs. First off, while there are more independently identified voters, most still vote exclusively for their preferred party. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/01/11/independents-outnumber-democrats-and-republicans-but-theyre-not-very-independent/) Second, I won't bother to look up a poll (because how do you quantify this), but I do not think dissatisfaction with the Superdelegate process is a reason cited for being political independents.

Third, a closed primary/caucus system is again not inherently undemocratic. If you recall a few years ago, Rush Limbaugh made an "operation chaos" plan in which his listeners were urged to vote for Hillary to draw out the democratic nomination, on the belief that it would help McCain. A party wishing to prevent such sabotage is justified in excluding independents and the other party. But, states set their own primary/caucus rules. So, if you're upset with that, then the correct thing to do is write to your state DNC chair and ask to change the rules to include independents. Again, will it change anything? Probably not. But it is a little hard for me to take you seriously when you're complaining on the internet about something that has been known for over 30 years and isn't inherently undemocratic. The rules and procedure are known well in advance, and changing party affiliation is free. Also, as an aside, I am actually registered as an independent, and I did not vote for Hillary. Instead, I voted for Kasich in the Republicans. Do I support him? Fuck no. But due to proportional allocation on the democrats side, the most my vote could do is sway one delegate away from Bernie. On the GOP side, with winner-take-all, I could delay, or possibly prevent, Trump from hitting 1237 and give all 66 of Ohio's delegates to a nobody in the GOP field. For the same reason, I voted for Ron Paul in Virginia in 2012. All I am saying is cross-party sabotage voting happens, and I don't see a problem with closed primaries to protect the integrity of the election. Your concern is further mitigated by the fact that changing affiliation is free and easy, and the rules are known well in advance.

Queen, hypothetical situation:

Let's say after the DC primary, neither Clinton nor Sanders has a majority of delegates solely from pledged delegates, but Clinton has more pledged delegates than Sanders.

Let's also say that current polling trends hold steady: looking at polls from March 23 (from RealClearPolitics (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/president/)), both candidates beat Trump, Sanders beats Cruz while Clinton's matchup is inconclusive, and Clinton loses to Kasich while Sanders' matchup is inconclusive.

Let's then say that the Republican Convention nominates Cruz or Kasich.

Would you be fine with the Democratic superdelegates proceeding to nominate Sanders over Clinton in light of that polling?

To amplify the scenario, let's say Clinton actually does get a majority of all delegates from her pledged delegates, but the polling shows that she could well lose the general election to the Republican nominee, while Sanders likely wins. Do you think it would be acceptable for the delegates to change the nomination rules on the floor (say, requiring a two-thirds majority, or majorities on three consecutive ballots) in order to ensure that Clinton does not win the nomination on the first ballot and Sanders can be nominated instead?

(I'm not saying either of these is a likely scenario.)


I've already answered this question for you,

To Queen and nicki (and generally anybody else who strongly prefers one of Clinton or Sanders to the other): if neither candidate has, from their pledged delegates, a majority of all delegates to the national convention, what would you think if the superdelegates handed the nomination to the candidate with fewer pledged delegates?

I knew I read a question that I overlooked in the haste,

No, I would not. The rules were known from the outset and it's not fair to the other to call shenanigans after the start when something doesn't go your way. Let's assume you need 2400 delegates to win and there are 4800 total, 4000 pledged, 800 superdelegates. If Hillary won with 1600 pledged and 800 superdelegates, I'd feel that Bernie got wronged. If Hillary wins with 500 superdelegates and 1900 pledged (to Bernie's 2100), I would not, because of the stance I took earlier about rules being known at the outset.

But, the superdelegate total is moot if Hillary wins the pledge delegates, as then she would logically get an equal percentage of superdelegates if it were "fair," and then she would win by virtue of having more delegates in both categories. And, as seen from today and the way that Super Tuesday is shaping up, she's gonna walk out with a lot of pledged delegates. Sandersr didn't really put together a post-Nevada campaign plan.

And, I also addressed the head to head polls. They have very little predictive value (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/mar/08/bernie-s/bernie-sanders-says-he-consistently-beats-donald-t/) this far out (http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/a-year-out-ignore-general-election-polls/)

Finally, askold, that does nothing to address the substance of my post. Representative democracy is regularly used around the world, and when less than 1/6 of the delegates are chosen by that method on the democratic side, I don't see a problem. It's simply the way that we have organized the procedure fore electing a presidential nominee. Additionally, it's a slap in the face for you to act like we're stupid because we don't elect our leaders the way you do.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: dpareja on March 31, 2016, 06:51:14 pm
Queen:

Yes, sorry, I forgot about that post. My apologies for the redundancy.

You didn't answer my second question, however: what would you think if the delegates changed the nomination rules on the convention floor?
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: The_Queen on March 31, 2016, 08:05:21 pm
Queen:

Yes, sorry, I forgot about that post. My apologies for the redundancy.

You didn't answer my second question, however: what would you think if the delegates changed the nomination rules on the convention floor?

Yeah, that's a little different. But again, that is a giant what if. While it is possible, I doubt I'll ever see that within my lifetime in the democratic party. Yeah, maybe with Trump and the GOP, but that's a different can of worms entirely.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: Ultimate Paragon on April 01, 2016, 04:01:11 pm
Hilary seems like she'd be really amazingly mediocre at best. She has some decent stuff under her belt but she just seems to have way to many major missteps.

At least she isn't Hulk Hogan! *Skronk*  You may have beaten Gawker, but the Warrior will take you down!
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: The_Queen on April 02, 2016, 11:51:12 pm
Queen, what's your opinion on Hillary's foreign policy?

1. This isn't the well and I'm not here to serve as some token Hillary supporter. So, asking questions unprovoked about my views really just comes off as entitled.

2. That is an incredibly open-ended question on a broad area, ranging from trade, to intergovernmental organizations, to terrorism, to full-blown Bush level war. I'm not going to write a treatise to cover every sub-field of someone else's foreign policy.

3. In one sentence: she's going to mirror Obama in just about every substantive way.

I'd just as soon do away with the caucus system as is and just do a straight up primary.

Ironbite-but then again I'm an advocate for the Bern Lord Sanders so what do I know?

I doubt you'll be singing the same song in dance in a few months. The final apportionment of these delegates is very dependent on enthusiasm of supporters. Hillary won Nevada in 2008, but lost the delegate count to Obama. Ron Paul won the delegate count for both Nevada and Iowa in 2012, IIRC, while not wining the popular vote, or anything near the popular vote, in either.

But then again, you're an advocate for the Bern Lord Sanders, so what do you know?

Damn, I am good. I am very good. But all of my predictions for this election have panned out. At the Nevada delegate convention, enthusiasm prevailed: Hillary won 52.5% of the popular vote in February, but now Bernie will get a majority of the state's pledged delegates.

Come 2020, I'm betting some money on vegas for the primaries. Gonna make me some mad bank.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: dpareja on April 05, 2016, 12:36:58 am
http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/04/01/how-hillary-clinton-bought-the-loyalty-of-33-state-democratic-parties/

Welp.

Quote
In August 2015, at the Democratic Party convention in Minneapolis, 33 democratic state parties made deals with the Hillary Clinton campaign and a joint fundraising entity called The Hillary Victory Fund. The deal allowed many of her core billionaire and inner circle individual donors to run the maximum amounts of money allowed through those state parties to the Hillary Victory Fund in New York and the DNC in Washington.

The idea was to increase how much one could personally donate to Hillary by taking advantage of the Supreme Court ruling 2014, McCutcheon v FEC, that knocked down a cap on aggregate limits as to how much a donor could give to a federal campaign in a year. It thus eliminated the ceiling on amounts spent by a single donor to a presidential candidate.

So the DNC is funneling donor money through state parties into a fund known as "The Hillary Victory Fund".

Quote
The fund is administered by treasurer Elizabeth Jones, the Clinton Campaign’s chief operating officer. Ms. Jones has the exclusive right to decide when transfers of money to and from the Hillary Victory Fund would be made to the state parties.

One could reasonably infer that the tacit agreement between the signatories was that the state parties and the Hillary Clinton Campaign would act in unity and mutual support. And that the super-delegates of these various partner states would either pledge loyalty to Clinton, or, at the least, not endorse Senator Sanders. Not only did Hillary’s multi-millionaire and billionaire supporters get to bypass individual campaign donation limits to state parties by using several state parties apparatus, but the Clinton campaign got the added bonus of buying that state’s super-delegates with the promise of contributions to that Democratic organization’s re-election fund.

The state parties participating in this scheme are at the mercy of the Clinton campaign's chief operating officer as to when they get their share of the money from the deal.

Quote
From these large amounts of money being transferred from state coffers to the Hillary Victory Fund in Washington, the Clinton campaign got the first $2,700, the DNC was to get the next $33,400, and the remainder was to be split among the 33 signatory states. With this scheme, the Hillary Victory Fund raised over $26 million for the Clinton Campaign by the end of 2015.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: niam2023 on April 05, 2016, 02:11:58 am
This is functionally no different than those ratfaced Koch Brothers.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: The_Queen on April 05, 2016, 08:47:40 am
Another good example of spin. Counterpunch isn't a very reliable source to begin with, in my experience, but this is a doozy.

There are aspects of truth to this, but then those truths are used to sprinkle between falsehoods to make them appear true. Hillary, as a national figure and leader of the DNC for 25 years, has great name recognition and is one of the top fundraisers, not only for the DNC, but lower ticket races and state elections. Indeed, Hillary has made no qualms about raising money for the DNC and state races, that they may to spend to win elections for the Democrats and move our nation forward. In fact, Hillary gives a portion of what she raises for her national campaign to the DNC to achieve this end as well. She and Obama did the same in 2008 (so corrupt </jest>). I wouldn't be surprised to find out other big names, such as John Edwards in 2008, followed suit. Bernie, however, does not help raise money or funnel money to these lower ticket races.*

And that is the half truth that the article peddles: Bernie gave $0, Hillary gave XYZ dollars, so the superdelegates are bought off. The problem with this is that it is a federal crime to give a person/entity such money with the intent of influencing support or votes. Ignore that. The other problem is that it conflates fundraising and donations with outright bribes, which is not the case.

The article relies on this mis-characterization, but when it comes time to tie the truth to the falsehoods the article pushes, it does so only with this sentence "One could reasonably infer that the tacit agreement between the signatories was that the state parties and the Hillary Clinton Campaign would act in unity and mutual support." But, looking at 2008 when Hillary and Obama did the same thing; how could a state superdelegate or democratic party accept payments to support and endorse two masters? They can't. This is not money given with the intent to influence votes, but to raise money for lower level contests.

Which ties into a huge point nobody wants to talk about. When asked in debates how Bernie plans to implement his policies, his answer is that the same political revolution that will elect him will elect a like-minded congress. I remain skeptical of such wishful thinking. The Democratic revolution of 2008 was predicated not only discontentment with the GOP, but the DNC funding heavily contested elections that without Obama's and Hillary's fundraising, they might not have won. I saw a funny meme about BernieBros the other day, and it said "if you can name who you support for president, but not your local elected officials, you're not part of a revolution." For better or worse, most Americans know their president. Few know their congressperson or senators. Fewer know their state elected officials. If they don't know these people, how can they support the election of those people? They can't. And this is where big name democrats come in, to help raise money and draw crowds for these people. Hillary has that. Obama has done that. Bernie doesn't. Regardless of how you feel about these two candidates, state-elected officials matter, in particular for things like state minimum wage, access to abortion, up until recently gay marriage, and a host of other things I don't feel like recalling before having my morning tea.

Tl;Dr- The article presents fundraising as bribes to assert that local parties and superdelegates are bought off. However, that is not the case. Instead, Bernie is not following the tradition of using his (newly found) big-name status to assist local politicians in winning local seats.

*And this is one of the things I've harked on before. Hillary is a leader of the DNC who has done right by the DNC for 25 years. Bernie isn't even a democrat and does not do things like this to help win local elections. Hence why the superdelegates flock to Hillary. But, as seen in 2008, their loyalty lasts only about as long as the pledged delegate lead. Democracy is a powerful argument.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: mellenORL on April 05, 2016, 11:16:32 am
Insightful rebuttal, Queen. I do take small exception to your opinion about Counter Punch, though. It's been around a very long time, and though certainly the editors skew quite far left, I don't think they're delusional. They are less well known than Mother Jones, but more or less in the same leftist vicinity. Their interpretations are going to be different from that of other media when looking at the same data.

The founder died in 2012, but here's a bio of the current editor and co-founder, which describes a little of the history of the print 'zine and online version:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_St._Clair
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: The_Queen on April 05, 2016, 11:47:57 am
Insightful rebuttal, Queen. I do take small exception to your opinion about Counter Punch, though. It's been around a very long time, and though certainly the editors skew quite far left, I don't think they're delusional. They are less well known than Mother Jones, but more or less in the same leftist vicinity. Their interpretations are going to be different from that of other media when looking at the same data.

The founder died in 2012, but here's a bio of the current editor and co-founder, which describes a little of the history of the print 'zine and online version:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_St._Clair

Far left or far right doesn't affect my criticism of them being less than reliable. What does is that they allow their personal biases to cloud their better judgment, undermining the veracity and integrity of what they publish. They were one of the sources I alluded to when highlighting why I like 538 as a source.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: mellenORL on April 05, 2016, 12:53:19 pm
I was surprised and intrigued that Margot Kidder was writing articles for a political 'zine. She played Lois Lane in the original Superman with Christopher Reeve. Found another of her pieces for Counter Punch about the Keystone XL pipeline. Interesting read.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/10/07/how-to-grease-a-pipeline/
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: The_Queen on April 05, 2016, 05:27:20 pm
To anyone who thinks the media has seriously vetted Bernie as a candidate, think again. (http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/transcript-bernie-sanders-meets-news-editorial-board-article-1.2588306) This interview was a disaster, and if Bernie can't think of a way to answer these questions, he is fucked: Hillary is licking her lips after reading this transcript as it gives her a blueprint on the issues to press Bernie on to make him implode on national television.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: mellenORL on April 05, 2016, 06:37:53 pm
Are you familiar with Dodd-Frank? It's vast.

Here. Dig in.

http://www.sec.gov/about/laws/wallstreetreform-cpa.pdf

Or, read the Cliff Notes.

http://media.mofo.com/files/Uploads/Images/SummaryDoddFrankAct.pdf


Here's a video of Sanders being grilled by the editors of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel a few days ago. Similar questions were asked of him.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_P25iloc14o





Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: The_Queen on April 05, 2016, 08:34:19 pm
I fail to see the point of your post.

I assume from the context that you are justifying his lackluster answers to key portions of his policy platform by asking if I am familiar with those bills. I am not running for president: I am not presenting Wall Street Reform and breaking up the big banks as THE key policy position of my presidential candidacy. When he cannot answer what executive authority he would have to legislate his agenda, how he would go about implementing his agenda, when he flat out says that he hasn't looked into the potential negative consequences, let alone the legal implications, for I repeat THE key part of his platform... that's quite troubling.

When he calls these people criminals, but can't point out what laws they broke, that is also quite troubling. He is running on a platform of holding big bankers accountable, and he doesn't even know if they broke laws, which is necessary to fix the problem to make sure it doesn't happen again. If no laws are broken, then we need new laws to stop it. If laws were broken, then they need to be aggressively enforced, and knowing those laws is kind of important to aggressively enforcing them. He did a good job getting of this issue by attacking Hillary, calling her establishment,* but no specifics on these key portions of his platform.

*He says that word a lot, like about planned parenthood. I don't think that word means what he thinks it means.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: mellenORL on April 05, 2016, 09:21:03 pm
His citation that Dodd-Frank provisions enables breakup of the big banks, via Treasury Dept. and other special govt. entities, is correct, nevertheless. It was a major point of the bill. Dodd-Frank had to happen if TARP was to happen. Dodd-Frank and reinstating Glass-Steagall  help prevent another TARP. Otherwise, you betcha, we'll see another crash and a TARP within a generation or two.

Anti trust laws, which the aforementioned are similar to in their purpose, have been effectively used against big companies before, and all those companies' principals and most employee positions survived in their new subsidiary formats. The action has to be applied periodically, though. AT&T, for one historical example, managed to influence politically and monetarily and clump back together as a huge telecom company after being busted up a few decades ago. Dodd-Frank is basically a pair of pruning shears. The overgrown trees likely to crash branches down through the roof will over-grow again if we're not vigilant.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: ironbite on April 05, 2016, 10:12:06 pm
And Sanders takes Wisconsin from Hilary.

Ironbite-whoop there it is.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: The_Queen on April 05, 2016, 11:02:33 pm
His citation that Dodd-Frank provisions enables breakup of the big banks, via Treasury Dept. and other special govt. entities, is correct, nevertheless. It was a major point of the bill. Dodd-Frank had to happen if TARP was to happen. Dodd-Frank and reinstating Glass-Steagall  help prevent another TARP. Otherwise, you betcha, we'll see another crash and a TARP within a generation or two.

But the fact that he couldn't answer these questions at the heart of his candidacy is simply astounding. The fact that he has not given thought to negative consequences is no less perplexing. Finally, he flat-out said he hasn't considered the legal ramifications, which is important for legislating actual change. If Obama just passed the first health care bill that came to mind, SCoTUS would tell him to eat a dick.

And also this is one of the big reasons that I dislike Sanders. It's one thing for him to want to regulate Wall Street: I fucking agree with that. It's another thing to give simple solutions to complex problems. Fact is, the repeal of Glass-Steagall had little to do with the crash in 2008. (http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/10/14/448685233/fact-check-did-glass-steagall-cause-the-2008-financial-crisis) Turns out, allowing banks to diversify their assets between commercial and investment banking helped them weather the storm. The biggest banks, like Lehman Brothers and Bear Sterans, were exclusively investment banks. Instead, more of the blame for the crash can be given to the Commodity Futures Modernization Act. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-blumenthal/how-congress-rushed-a-bil_b_181926.html) This bill, among other Wall Street deregulations, literally blocked federal agencies from investigating credit-default swaps, which were at the heart of the financial crisis. Now, if a layperson like myself could look into the financial crisis and figure out the real reason that it occurred, it really does beg the question, "why can't Bernie do this?" In fact, as a political insider of Washington for almost 30 years, he witnessed this bill pass; I had to read about this bill almost a decade after the fact. The cynical answer as to why he doesn't cite this bill: Bernie isn't as anti-Wall Street as he likes to say he is. (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2000/roll540.xml) I've known about the bill and its effect for years, I've known for months that he voted for it, and when I said earlier that I hold back a lot of my criticisms of Bernie, I meant it. As a policy wonk, simple answers bother me, a lot.


Anti trust laws, which the aforementioned are similar to in their purpose, have been effectively used against big companies before, and all those companies' principals and most employee positions survived in their new subsidiary formats. The action has to be applied periodically, though. AT&T, for one historical example, managed to influence politically and monetarily and clump back together as a huge telecom company after being busted up a few decades ago. Dodd-Frank is basically a pair of pruning shears. The overgrown trees likely to crash branches down through the roof will over-grow again if we're not vigilant.

And now you're conflating two separate things. To my understanding, Dodd-Frank is not an anti-trust law: these banks, while huge, do not own monopolies in the traditional sense. True, a handful of banks own a lot of assets, but the other banks are still competitive in the market. This distinguishes it from a standard monopoly in that these banks are not being broken up for possessing a vast majority of the market share, but for being too profitable.* While breaking banks is something I support, doing it in a manner that survives SCOTUS scrutiny is more important. The fact that he says he hasn't even looked into the legal implications of this leaves me flabbergasted.

Further, after reading the cliffnotes of Dodd-Frank that you gave me, and cross-referencing it against the bill, I am a bit confused. From everything that I have read, Dodd-Frank does not appear to give the Secretary of Treasury the ability to bust up "too-big-to-fail" banks. Instead, my reading indicates that it gives federal agencies the ability to oversee and regulate the investment decisions of these banks. To my understanding, the crux of the bill ignores the "too-big-to" part, instead focusing on the "fail." I guess what I am trying to say is that, to my understanding, a bank could have assets of $50 Trillion (ignoring anti-trust issues) and still abide by the law in such a way that would not open itself up to any sort of adverse action from the government. So, if you would not mind pointing me to the portion of the statute that explicitly gives the Secretary of the treasury the ability to break up a bank for being "too-big-to-fail" (with nothing more) I would really appreciate it.

*I hate to phrase it this way as it sounds conservative, but that is essentially what is being argued: a bank should not be broken up for possessing too much of a market share vis-a-vis their competition, but a number of banks should be broken up for having too many assets.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: The_Queen on April 06, 2016, 10:08:26 pm
To me Clinton seems like she's had a mediocre economic record and a terrible foreighn policy record.

No, this wasn't relevant to the subject at hand.

It is, but I've given up on getting responses.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: ironbite on April 06, 2016, 10:51:02 pm
I'm under no illusions what'll happen if Hilary is the nom instead of Sanders.  I'd rather the snake I know then the tornado that is Trump.

Ironbite-snake will only bite me in the ass, the tornado will destroy everything I love.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: Skybison on April 07, 2016, 12:25:53 am
I confess I don't know much about Hillary Clinton's foreign policy, I know she was an advocate of intervention in Libya but that's about it.  What's so much worse about her then Bill or Obama?
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: dpareja on April 07, 2016, 12:40:57 am
I confess I don't know much about Hillary Clinton's foreign policy, I know she was an advocate of intervention in Libya but that's about it.  What's so much worse about her then Bill or Obama?

Not much, but there's not much better (that I can tell), either.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: Vypernight on April 07, 2016, 08:35:29 am
What I care about is, if I put my $ in a major bank, is it safe there?  I feel Sanders will do everything in his power to make is so.  Clinton, I'm not so sure.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: The_Queen on April 07, 2016, 08:41:22 am
What I care about is, if I put my $ in a major bank, is it safe there?  I feel Sanders will do everything in his power to make is so.  Clinton, I'm not so sure.

There is this thing called the FDIC, I doubt you're a millionaire or that Hillary would undo this almost hundred year old program. If you put you're money in a bank, you're safe.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: mellenORL on April 07, 2016, 03:00:09 pm
(click to show/hide)

Thank you for waiting, Queen. I was too busy preparing for and co-conducting my condo board annual member meeting yesterday. I'm Secretary, have to do a lot of the presentations and supervise the voting process. And, because the place is full of octogenarians, I had to help call and knock on doors for two hours prior to meeting time, herding cats in order to meet quorum. I was too burnt out to do more than skim threads and shit post a little after that last night.

Here is a an article link with good start on what I believe Sanders means about what breaking up the big banks under current anti-trust statutes and Dodd-Frank would entail. Quite a few methods are described, from different political viewpoints. There is some political horseshoe theory in action, here. Achieving the goal is not as difficult as one would think. Remember that many fiscal conservative GOP members, such as Mitt Romney, and quite a lot of economists and Wall Street pundits and poohbahs, including a couple of big bankers, agree that the banks being too big to fail is a Bad Thing, and are also too big and inefficient to offer their shareholders much investment return. There are so many ways to do this, and I think enough bipartisan mutual feels about it, that I'm not that surprised Sanders did not offer specifics. The article is long, and it only briefly describes all those means-by-which. Nevertheless, I'm inclined to think Sanders was having a senior moment where his energy was flagging, and he choked - plain and simple. Similarly, Hillary was clearly having a tough day already when she snapped at that Green Peace chic asking her about petrodollar donations (which I see as a DNC finance issue, not a candidate issue - ref to Counter Punch article I linked to elsewhere)

https://www.dcbar.org/bar-resources/publications/washington-lawyer/articles/february-2013-taking-the-stand.cfm


ADDENDUM - I'm gonna add links a few times today right here that I think are good resources or articles.

http://www.cftc.gov/LawRegulation/DoddFrankAct/index.htm

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/07/upshot/yes-bernie-sanders-knows-something-about-breaking-up-banks.html?_r=0

about regulatory and tax pressures encouraging SiFis and big banks to spin off subsidiaries, and the poor ROI big bank shareholders are experiencing:

http://www.ibtimes.com/big-bank-breakups-who-needs-bernie-sanders-when-youve-got-dodd-frank-2263896

a short Twitter rant from a Huff Po dude, cuz everything else above is tl;dr by nature.

https://storify.com/sebastianojones/2016-has-been-sad


Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: Eiki-mun on April 07, 2016, 03:02:52 pm
Oh right. I forgot the candidates are humans with feelings too.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: Askold on April 07, 2016, 03:08:49 pm
Oh right. I forgot the candidates are humans with feelings too.

Well all of them except [insert candidate that you hate], that one is not a human being.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: Eiki-mun on April 07, 2016, 03:10:16 pm
Oh right. I forgot the candidates are humans with feelings too.

Well all of them except [insert candidate that you hate], that one is not a human being.

I would believe that Trump is not a human being.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: mellenORL on April 07, 2016, 03:30:06 pm
If you want more info on the topic, I just posted some ADDENDUM links in my previous post. I may add more, but I will only do it in that post, cuz I hate quote pyramids lately, for some reason (UP).
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: Dakota Bob on April 07, 2016, 05:24:03 pm
How pissed do you think Hillary is right now about this? (http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/04/07/video_bill_clinton_philadelphia_black_lives_matter_protesters_gang_leaders.html)
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: ironbite on April 07, 2016, 05:27:23 pm
Oh man.  Whatever happened to Slick Willy the man who beat Bush with some very good speeches and charisma?

Ironbite-that is not something I expect from him.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: mellenORL on April 07, 2016, 08:43:34 pm
Watch the longer version on that same page with the lead up. It's not quite that bad, but yeah, in context of these being BLM protestors he was addressing, that one line of his, "getting kids all hopped up" was making me hear echoes of my long-dead Georgia born grandma drawling, "Getting the (deliberate mispronunciation of "Negroes") all riled up". His accent channeled it for me.

He also made some valid points about the timelines and the states' role in turning mass imprisonment into a national past time, but that fucking anti-crime bill? The crazy sentence guidelines under Reagan being continued? He played along with it, and he knows it. He got re-elected on that and the budget balancing feat, both of which attracted enough GOP voters to landslide him back in office.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: dpareja on April 07, 2016, 08:57:29 pm
Watch the longer version on that same page with the lead up. It's not quite that bad, but yeah, in context of these being BLM protestors he was addressing, that one line of his, "getting kids all hopped up" was making me hear echoes of my long-dead Georgia born grandma drawling, "Getting the (deliberate mispronunciation of "Negroes") all riled up". His accent channeled it for me.

He also made some valid points about the timelines and the states' role in turning mass imprisonment into a national past time, but that fucking anti-crime bill? The crazy sentence guidelines under Reagan being continued? He played along with it, and he knows it. He got re-elected on that and the budget balancing feat, both of which attracted enough GOP voters to landslide him back in office.

Was that the same bill about which Hillary Clinton said her "super-predators" line?
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: mellenORL on April 07, 2016, 10:49:43 pm
Yes. Once again, though, try to find the "long version", but yes, as FLOTUS she gave speeches for it around the country.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: mellenORL on April 08, 2016, 02:50:50 pm
(Not really a double post - over 24 hours since last one)

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-04-08/sanders-accused-of-discourtesy-in-seeking-vatican-invitation

Sanders just got invited to the Vatican for a big conference they were already holding about economic and environmental issues. Lots of other pols from all over the world will be attending.

One Vatican official is pissed off his campaign did not follow procedure and contact her about it first. Full stop. Clinton campaign takes that and runs with it on Twitter, etc. However, a more senior Vatican official clarifies that he directly initiated contact with, and invited, Sanders to attend the conference. Sigh.

Anyway, here is Sanders innocently gushing about the Vatican invitation earlier today on MSNBC's morning news show.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ECK9_Bk9IIs

EDIT - saw I pasted wrong YT link earlier.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: dpareja on April 09, 2016, 10:55:55 pm
And Sanders wins Wyoming... but doesn't gain any ground in the delegate count unless Nevada-like things happen and his delegates show up at the state convention and Clinton's don't.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: mellenORL on April 09, 2016, 11:30:52 pm
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/08/business/dealbook/ruling-behind-metlifes-too-big-to-fail-reprieve-unsealed.html?mabReward=A3&moduleDetail=recommendations-1&action=click&contentCollection=Music&region=Footer&module=WhatsNext&version=WhatsNext&contentID=WhatsNext&src=recg&pgtype=article

Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: The_Queen on April 10, 2016, 12:26:58 pm
Since you're harking on this, I'm here to burst your bubble Mellon. All you're doing is trying to interpret Bernie's disastrous interview in a light most favorable to him. Indeed, you're picking up on his "I don't know" and interpreting it not as "I don't know if the government or a federal agency has the power" as opposed to "I haven't looked into it, and I don't know." The problem is that your interpretation belies itself as Bernie is caught later in the interview saying "I haven't looked into the legal implications," which are the exact same legal implications that you are ascribing to him to save face.

Even then, after my reading of the statute (at your request I might add), I sincerely doubt the grey area that your sources are trying to interject. Yes, "trying." The first article you presented me does nothing but say that this grey area might exist. Indeed, the source contains such quotes as "I believe that new laws must be passed by Congress to carry out the goal of making banks smaller. As a practical matter, the current antitrust laws can’t be stretched to do the job. The new legislation could be simple: The scope of the antitrust laws could be expanded with relatively few added sentences." (emphasis added); "[Dodd Frank's] primary goals increasing financial stability of banks and avoiding systemic risks to the national economy. Reducing bank size or serving competition goals is simply not the main point."; "At a Columbia University Law School Symposium...[Scott Hemphill] discussed how existing antitrust laws could be used in aggressive and unconventional ways to address the 'too big to fail' issues.'" (emphasis added); In fact, "White, with the agreement of some other panelists, said that contemporary antitrust enforcement does not encompass 'too big to fail' issues, and that it should not. He noted that government antitrust enforcers long ago gave up addressing the political consequences of company enormity, focusing instead on antitrust issues of market power and consumer harm as explained in the Horizontal Merger Guidelines." (emphasis added); Further, "As pointed out by the Federal Reserve’s Tarullo, a theme of those regulatory approaches is making banks too strong to fail, whatever their size." And "In the end, the sophisticated analysis of Hemphill and Pitofsky brings us back to the point that new legislation is needed if bank size issues are to be addressed. Applying current antitrust laws is unlikely to work."

These quotes are directly the things I told you after my reading of the Dodd-Frank. You know, that 900 page bill you boasted about how huge it was. While I was reading the cliffnotes, I cross-referenced them to the statute to ensure that I didn't miss anything. It took me 90 minutes and lead to me reading a lot of the law to determine that it did not give the government this power. The experts in your link agree with me. And my reading of the metrolife case provides a similar interpretation of the law. True, maybe a liberal SCOTUS could read into the law that which is not there (think the most recent Affordable Care Challenge, but on steroids), but in my professional opinion, I am not seeing this controversial interpratation as something that I would bet money on. Further, since Bernie "hasn't looked into the legal implications," this discussion that we're having now is entirely inapposite to the main discussion of his disastrous interview.

Finally, I'm kind of done with this thread. It's one thing to have an open and honest back and forth, it's another thing to be thrown a 900 page bill, spend 90 minutes reviewing it, and find nothing there that is even relevant to the discussion. I mean, that is Paragon level tom-foolery. The other posts in this thread an others leave me in a similar situation of having to explain complex laws to simple answers that the posters want to believe for Bernie (example, Ironbite saying Bernie predicted the Panama Papers shows a profound lack of awareness for FACTA or the fact that few Americans were implicated in Panama due to FACTA; similarly, Vyper believes Hillary is going to do away with the FDIC, which is beyond ridiculous). If I am sitting here patiently doing my homework, reading through laws and the inner-workings of government, why can't anyone else? And more importantly, why should I dig up these laws, cite to them and provide how they work with other laws, and waste my time providing the long and honest answer as opposed to the simple (and incorrect) answer?

Additionally, since you mention Hillary and the Greenpeace protester, that is another can of worms. Hillary acted without tact. However, Greenpeace protester and Bernie are both wrong. Hillary has raised $333,000 (http://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/select-industries.php?ind=E01) from the oil and gas industry. Bernie, by the same token, raised about $53,000. Additionally, these numbers are aggregated from every person in the industry: so, in 2012 when I gave $200 to Barrack Obama, that $200 was added to his total of money raised from "the oil and gas industry." Even a young pump-jockey giving Bernie $27 is added to this amount. Further, since Clinton raised about $170 million in fundraising over the last year, to Sander's $150 million, the amount is only 0.15% of her total amount of funding raised (0.04% for Bernie). For Bernie to say that Clinton relies "heavily" on contributions from the oil and gas industry is a flat out lie (http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/money-big-oil-isnt-always-what-it-appears-be)* (in particular when one stops and realizes as I stated previously that Hillary raises funds for lower ticket candidates, unlike Bernie). Further, his ongoing rhetoric that Hillary is bought off by certain lobbies (with stats like this) is actively harmful to the democrats as it only emboldens the short-sighted #BernieOrBust movement.

Also, I haven't seen you respond to Glass-Stegall. Should I take that to mean that you agree with my analysis that the Commodities Future Modernization Act played a larger role in the 2008 financial meltdown?

* The link is to a Rachel Maddow Report. She does a good job of explaining the issue, and because of its convenience, I use an example or two from it.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: mellenORL on April 10, 2016, 03:57:36 pm
I find it odd you characterize my link to an article as "harking". I just found it interesting that an actual instance of Dodd-Frank being used just came up in the news, and was disappointed that it did not work out very well. As to your interpretation of what Sanders said in the Daily News interview, you are entitled to your opinion. I have been reading and viewing further analyses of his "fuck up" in media sources that actually have respected investment and financial news departments, unlike the New York Daily News, which is a tabloid.

By reading your source article on Commodities Futures Trading Act, I saw that the act was slyly altered a couple days prior to the vote, that the Act was bundled within a huge 11,000 page annual report, and that Sanders was one of quite a few who failed to note those changes that gutted the regulatory powers out of it. However, your labeling of the link characterized him to be disingenuous about his stance on regulating Wall Street. I'll concede he fucked up on that vote through negligence, not dishonesty. The rest of his voting record is consistent with his campaign message.

Glass-Steagall would have in fact helped to avoid the crash of '08. That is my opinion. It was passed in response the crash of '29, after all. It was my opinion when it was repealed that Bill Clinton was selling out. It was my opinion that he sold out again by winning over the DC apparatus to grant China "Most Favored Nation" trading status. I voted for him his first term, I abstained from voting during his second run.

Curious - did you read the linked article I posted just before this? Do you think the fact that Dodd-Frank was being used as designed to examine MetLife for possibly needing a break-up order by Treasury and the investigative board to be an outlier? I was disappointed that either Treasury failed to be thorough in making their recommendations, or that the judge failed to understand what they were doing under Dodd-Frank. I suspect she was right, and this was a stumbled attempt to utilize Dodd-Frank.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: dpareja on April 10, 2016, 08:42:56 pm
CNBC had Asher Edleman on recently. (Edleman was one of the people on whom the character of Gordon Gekko was based.) They asked him who, of all the various candidates running for president, would be best for the economy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-mw0mb-yYA

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: mellenORL on April 11, 2016, 12:20:30 am
Better video quality in this one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9xSVzdUNqo
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: Skybison on April 12, 2016, 02:17:45 am
So anyone else see that segment on Samantha Bee's show about the Sanders supporter who made a superdelegate Hit List website for tracking down and giving out Hillery supporting superdelegate's personal information?  I'm no fan of the superdelegate system but that asshole can go fuck himself with a rusty chainsaw.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: davedan on April 12, 2016, 02:25:56 am
Mellen, I love seeing the guy two to the right jump in that video.

Skybison, no do you have a link (cause I'm lazy.)
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: Skybison on April 12, 2016, 09:47:56 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtuWiHYmr4U

Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: davedan on April 12, 2016, 05:18:18 pm
She is so good. Up there with John Oliver and Stephen Colbert.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: mellenORL on April 12, 2016, 06:25:44 pm
They made a mistake not begging her to take over Daily Show when Jon Stewart left. But I think Full Frontal is better for her - it's all hers, and she fucking well deserves her own show.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: davedan on April 12, 2016, 06:41:22 pm
She does deserve her own show, here Eddie Eagle bit was pure fucking gold.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: dpareja on April 12, 2016, 06:44:57 pm
She does deserve her own show, here Eddie Eagle bit was pure fucking gold.

And then there's the web extra related to that segment.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: mellenORL on April 13, 2016, 08:46:02 pm
I swear, you'll never ever see anything this brutal or funny on LinkedIn again. Clinton also chimed in, supporting the strike, so yeah, this guy is gonna keep hearing it. Not that it'll do him any good. http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/verizon-ceo-fires-back-after-getting-berned/ar-BBrIwRp?li=BBnbfcL

Lowell responds on LinkedIn -
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/feeling-bern-reality-facts-verizon-moral-economy-lowell-mcadam

Comment section where ordinary cubicle drones on up to semi-high level suits slam the shit out of Verizon's CEO, who chose LinkedIn rather than a news outlet to spew douche water all over their nice little career networking site.

(click to show/hide)




Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: dpareja on April 14, 2016, 10:35:13 pm
Further to the video of Asher Edelman supporting Bernie Sanders, here's an article he wrote in The Guardian about it:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/apr/12/real-life-gordon-gekko-supports-bernie-sanders-wall-street-banks-regulation

Quote
Banking is the least understood, and possibly most lethal, of all the myriad issues at stake in this election. No candidate other than Bernie Sanders is capable of taking the steps necessary to protect the American people from a repeat of the recent debacle that plunged the nation into a recession from which we have not recovered.

The potential for a depression looms heavily on the horizon. As a trained economist who has spent more than 20 years on Wall Street – and one of the models for Gordon Gekko’s character – I know the financial system is in urgent need of regulation and responsibility. Yet Hillary Clinton is beholden to the banks for their largesse in funding her campaign and lining her pockets. The likelihood of any Republican candidate taking on this key issue is not even worthy of discussion.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: The_Queen on April 15, 2016, 12:59:19 pm
You're adorable when you think you're right.

Ironbite-I got the feeling he'll fight all the way to the convention if need be.

Oh, I didn't say he'd drop out. I don't think he will, at least for another month or two. But, simply that I believe that today marks the beginning of the end for his campaign. I think that, overall, Hillary will win big from now until June in the primaries. True, Bernie will win a handful of states, but it will  not do enough to keep him viable to win the nomination.

I was doing some reading at fivethirtyeight, and I didn't even realize just how close the race is to being over (thank fucking god). A comment posted out how the pledged delegate totals and current polls indicates the end is much closer than previously thought. The first four are being held within the next 11 days and consist of New York, Connecticut, Maryland, and Pennsylvania. Assuming polls hold up and there isn't a Michigan Debacle Part II, (http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-the-polls-missed-bernie-sanders-michigan-upset/) the final total pledged delegate on April 27th will be 1643 to 1347 (plus the smaller states which will go Bernie, but are excluded for reasons stated below). Then, assuming only this split come June 6th, if Bernie wins both California and New Jersey in squeakers, then that would put the delegate totals at 1940-1651 (using the win by a squeaker not as a prediction, but as a place holder for how close this process is to over). The magic number to lead among pledged delegates is 2026. So, of the 460 pledged delegates that would remain from the other, smaller contests, Bernie would have to win about 83% of them. With a few states and territories holding large minority populations (like D.C., New Mexico, and Puerto Rico) not to mention the inevitable delegates she will get from Bernie states due to proportional allocation, hitting 83% is near impossible. Additionally, Hillary tends to outperform the polls in areas with large minority populations (see the entire Confederacy): so the polls from New York, Pennsylvania, and Maryland may in fact be underestimates.

(click to show/hide)

Even then, Bernie hitting 2026 may not be enough to actually sway the superdelegates. While the democrats do allocate pledged delegates proportionately, there are some nuance in the allocation rules that may allow a candidate to get more than their pro rata share. For example, Wisconsin allocates 1 delegate to each democrat who carries a majority of votes in each of its congressional district. Bernie needed 50 delegates, and according to the rough breakdown percentage wise (56.5-43.5), he should've left Wisconsin with 49. Instead, because Clinton carried 4 of the congressional districts by narrow margins (losing the other 4 by wider margins), there was a 4-4 split (as opposed to the pro rata 5-3), leaving  Bernie with 48.

But, Wisconsin is an anomaly, and most of the allocation nuance has actually helped Bernie. Indeed, aware of this since January, Bernie's campaign made it an active strategy (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/bernie-sanders-iowa-obama-playbook-218137) to try to take advantage of caucus states (where demographics favor him on the first round of voting and later rounds of voting gives him a second or even third chance to get more delegates than his pro rata popular vote). Additionally, we all know that smaller states have more representation power than bigger states: Wyoming has about 585,000 people and 14 delegates (1 delegate per 41,650 people) while Virginia has 8.3 million people and 95 delegates (1 delegate per 87,650 people). We all know who won the biggest states like Ohio, Virginia, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and Texas in landslides and who won Wyoming, South Dakota, Idaho, Alaska, Nebraska and Vermont in landslides. Likewise, caucuses historically have lower turnout, meaning that they award their pledged delegates represent even fewer voters. What all this means is that while Sanders trails Clinton in pledged delegates 1307-1097, he trails her in total votes by about 2.5 million votes (9.4 Million to 6.9 million). These votes do not include counts from some caucuses, so we'll just cut Clinton's lead to 2 million (as caucuses historically have lower turnout, and Hillary got votes in caucuses too). If the votes broke out pro rata among the popular vote, Hillary would have roughly another 50 delegates (to Sander's exclusion). To hit home the point, Nate Silver predicted that while Bernie would need to win 57% of the pledged delegates from here on out to hit 2026, he would have to win 62% of the popular vote (with record turnouts) if he wants to have a majority of the vote--and that is in each state, and made before Wisconsin and Wyoming.

So, in conclusion, even if Bernie hits 2026, Bernie still has this huge hurdle. The superdelegates are beholden to nobody and may freely switch (a strategy that Sanders has indicated he wil pursue (http://www.businessinsider.com/momentum-is-with-us-sanders-seeks-to-sway-superdelegates-after-big-wins-on-saturday-2016-3)). But, like I said a half dozen times,

Democracy is a powerful argument.

So, if Bernie wins the pledged delegates, Clinton will probably retain her hold on the popular vote. In that instance, the superdelegates will literally pick the president. Hillary can make a solid appeal to having more votes and being more popular. Bernie will argue the pledged delegates and procedure. Both have powerful arguments for why the superdelegates should back them. In this instance, I think the superdelegates would side with Hillary, but I think overall it would be bad for the democrats come November (largely due to paranoid delusions by the BernieorBust crowd, with no similar sizable, vitriolic, or delusional movement on the part of Hillary supporters). One of the hardships of being the front-runner I guess).

Additionally, to address Mellon, there are two things. First, labeling the NY Daily "tabloid journalism" is just a sad attempt to ignore what happened. There is no spin, no uncited sources, no reporting really: all the link is was a transcript of the interview and an audio recording... Hardly the kind of primary (as opposed to secondary sourced) news that can be dismissed. Second, after wasting more of my time reading the Metlife case, I am now convinced that you don't know what you're talking about. Maybe a small graph can help

Not the law:
Fall under Dodd Frank --> Department of Treasury can break up the bank/financial institution

The law
1. Does the financial institution fall under the definition necessary to subject it to Dodd-Frank regulation? If so, go to 2: otherwise go to 4 (this was the step that Met-life argued vehemently, as it could not pass 2. Since it could not pass 2, it's primary argument was that it was not subject to the law, and therefore could willy-nilly ignore Dodd-Frank). Likewise the two criteria of “systemically important” and “material financial distress” goes to this prong for definitions that subject an institution to Dodd-Frank
2. Did the financial institution violate the investment, capital reserve, and financing regulations set forth by Dodd Frank? If yes, go to 3: otherwise go to 4.
3. Now the Department of Treasury can subject the institution to punishment, including being broken up.
4. The Department of Treasury has no power to punish, let alone break-up, the financial institution.

Now, I am really done with this. You have presented me a statute and some cliffnotes, which I read for you. You then present a law review panel summary (simply a few opinions of experts that are non-binding on any court) that supports what I'm telling you. Now, you present cases that I again read for you. I've wasted a lot of time trying to explain that the law doesn't work as you claim, that it gives the Department of Treasury only the authority to break up the banks or financial institutions for violating Dodd-Frank. And please remember before you post that this is what we're debating, as Bernie said in the interview

Quote
Sanders: Well, you do have authority under the Dodd-Frank legislation to do that, make that determination.
Daily News: You do, just by Federal Reserve fiat, you do?
Sanders: Yeah. Well, I believe you do.

* * *

Daily News: Okay. You saw, I guess, what happened with Metropolitan Life. There was an attempt to bring them under the financial regulatory scheme, and the court said no. And what does that presage for your program?
Sanders: It's something I have not studied, honestly, the legal implications of that.

Finally, to answer your questions: (1) of course I read it, it was a complete waste of my time, (2) the primary dispute in Met-Life was prong #1, and the question about Met-life in the interview was related to Bernie's belief that he could break-up the banks by fiat (which the government attempted to do to in the Metlife case, since Uncle Same didn't do its homework to prove the institution fell under Dodd-Frank). I have seen nothing indicating that the commander-in-chief could break up the banks by fiat.

Now, this reminds me of some of our earlier 14th Amendment debates: Me saying that the 14th Amendment does not apply to private institutions or citizens and you saying that I was wrong without a clue of what you talked about. Quite frankly, I've wasted about 3 hours of my life reading these various links, and all of them keep reaffirming what I am telling you, that a bank could be worth $50 Trillion (ignoring anti-trust issues) and not be subject to break-up under Dodd-Frank due to compliance with the law. Honestly, it's not only insulting, but really fucking arrogant of you to waste my time in this manner when you don't even have the most basic understanding of the core issues.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: mellenORL on April 15, 2016, 07:16:18 pm
You're entitled to your opinions and interpretations. I most certainly did not make you waste your time. You are free to read resource links and articles, or not, and decide for yourself whether you can or will glean any knowledge or insight from them.

Glass-Steagall forced banks, effectually acting as a dam wall, to separate the high pressure, high risk/high return investment activities - business venture start up and expansion loans, derivatives trading, such as credit default swaps, international currency exchange trades, stocks and commodity futures trading, etc. - from their low pressure, low risk/lower profit commercial activity - fee and interest earnings from savings, CDs/money market accounts, checking, credit cards, business and private lending. Investment banks venture the bank corporation's own money and that of their customers, who are fully cognizant, intentional venture capitalists. Commercial banks are essentially retail service providers for businesses' and consumers' deposits. The severe ripple effect of the '08 SiFi's suddenly finding themselves in default when the non-transparent (actual versus stated risk), or fraudulent nature, of their stated valuations versus their actual, insanely leveraged, humongous debt exposure on derivatives became clear, the bust that followed metastasized throughout the entire financial sector - because that financial sector had become an amorphous, overly interdependent blob. Transparency - truthfully stating values and associated risks - is the keystone of legal and worthy investment vehicles. Selling velvet sacks of jumping beans as if they are diamonds, billions of times week, is not.

Under Glass-Steagall, investment banks could no longer do commercial banking, commercial banks did not do investment banking, insurance companies did not do investment banking, or offer their insureds market portfolio services, and they underwrote their in house claims and investment risk exposures through buying re-insurance, government bonds, treasury notes and blue chip stocks - and they ate losses from market dives and big disaster claims mostly on their own dime by raising premiums. Assets and risk activities were separated into spinoff companies or the respective divisions within a SiFi were sold outright. After the repeal of Glass-Steigall, SiFi's re-gathered and departmentalized into all aspects of banking, venture capitalization, life and other insurance and annuities, currency and day trading, credit default swaps, commodity futures trading, etc. etc. - high and low risk all held within house. That exposed their commercial banking depositors' to vastly higher risk than they signed on for. And then the government covered a lot of that defaulted debt through co-absorbing it directly, for an interest payment and levy of eventual fines, within the funds of TARP and other bail out legislation.

You can try and wave off the absence Glass-Steagall as meaningless in face of the crash of '08, but I personally lost about 35,000 dollars out of my retirement investments, a 401K index fund, and a Roth IRA mutual fund, because of it. My mom lost $165,000, all of it from broad market deflation in the hundreds of blue chip companies in her IRA mutual fund. Because the crazy high real estate market spawned the sub-prime mortgage boom, and it all ballooned out of control, with mortgage and equity REIT's became a big thing, and the absolutely massive CDS market bubble escalated with all of it, Banks played a game of pass the hot potato in literally trillions of electronic transactions, floating debt risk on and off their books for micro transaction profits every hour of the day. And once the speculative bubble on all of this interconnected debt derivation burst, that rippled through and broke the world economy...because there wasn't any dam wall between investment banking and commercial banking any more! They gambled on lying about the face value of very badly mixed debt bundles - A level swaps had F and D level risky subprime mortgages mixed in - and swapped them as if they were high value derivatives, by using their famous reputations, cheekily bragging about all the money they made on it, and leveraging it all on paper by citing their commercial depositors' money as if it was their own.

I have been observing how public policy and legislation and campaign finance have played in Wall Street activity for decades, because I've had actual skin in the game since 1990. I still have a slowly but steadily recovering account with RBC Wealth Management. And I have never stopped worrying about it. Because most all of the same players are still in the poker game that folded in '08, only now they're much bigger, and they are hiding more aces up their sleeves.

As to the New York Daily News interviewers, they actually conflated Treasury with the Fed. That's pants-on-head retarded. And the retarded questions confused Sanders, because he thought they just changed the subject of the question at hand in the next sentence. In fact, their questioning showed it was they who were confused, or they even intentionally meant it to trip up Sanders and thereby sway clueless readers. After all, the NYDN is owned by a staunch supporter of Clinton. They are a tabloid, a screaming headline scandal sheet, not a paper of record. They do not have a good financial section, it's a business news section with fluff you would find anywhere on Yahoo or MSN. The New York Times is a paper of record, and it has a superb financial news department, regarded by many as the best in the world. I do in fact give NYT's take on the interview over NYDN's any day.

Dodd-Frank is in fact a main apparatus one uses to break up the big banks. Banks and other SiFi's must be at least big enough (50BN in assets) to come under it's jurisdiction. There is not a stated asset limit, because the determination of high risk is up to the Treasury and the inquiry boards to decide, based on market and economic conditions at the time of assessment. Treasury decided to take MetLife to task, using Dodd-Frank. A judge stopped them for want of more detail in their findings. The case is ongoing. How was that a waste of your time to read about? Is it because you earlier claimed neither I nor the NYT's editorial response nor Sanders himself know what we're talking about by citing Dodd-Frank, Treasury and investigative board inquiries under various laws, as ways to break up big banks and SiFi's? Did the judge tell Treasury to quit using Dodd-Frank against MetLife, and start over? No. She did not. Is she missing your point, too?
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: Ironchew on April 15, 2016, 08:57:17 pm
Where did nickiknack head off to? I thought she'd be revved up about Bernie because her state is about to have presidential primaries.

Then again, maybe she's out there doing visible activism and doesn't have time for FQA at the moment.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: mellenORL on April 16, 2016, 11:13:36 am
That's probably the case. She did state she was an active local level campaign volunteer.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: ironbite on April 16, 2016, 11:33:28 am
She's taking a break actually.

Ironbite-think she lurks but that's about it.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: The_Queen on April 19, 2016, 06:58:09 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnIrEOvWRyQ

Cenk asks a question, and doesn't even get near answering it. Man, I used to like this guy, but he's had one hell of a fall from grace. I mean, a few years ago he was picking on a 13 year old kid for being a wannabe Rush Limbaugh (not cool, children off limits), and now he's gone full Glenn Beck. He's ranting incoherently, and tangentially to his own topic I should add. He's one of the people pushing and organizing Democracy Springs (think back to Glenn Beck and the 9/12 thing. Reporters should REPORT not MAKE news). Worst of all, he's gone full conspiracy theory with Bernie: not just in this video but several others.

And, while I mention conspiracies, they really need to stop. It's been going on for almost a year, and the most recent one is that the times New Yorkers can vote has been changed so as to confuse and disenfranchise rural, white New Yorkers who would vote Bernie. Problem: the times have been consistent for years: over 100 to be exact. At this point, if a conspiracy did come to surface, then I wouldn't care. Because people have cried shit-wolf one too many times.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: ironbite on April 19, 2016, 10:15:18 pm
Welp Hillary took New York.  Pretty much wraps it up for the Sanders campaign.

Ironbite-good game but in the end, the establishment wins.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: dpareja on April 19, 2016, 10:34:19 pm
Welp Hillary took New York.  Pretty much wraps it up for the Sanders campaign.

Ironbite-good game but in the end, the establishment wins.

Not necessarily. Connecticut, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Indiana, Kentucky, Oregon, Puerto Rico, California, and New Jersey are all still to come, and they all have at least fifty pledged delegates each. I agree it's unlikely, but Sanders can still win. If nothing else, he can probably keep Clinton from getting a majority solely from pledged delegates and make his case on the convention floor. He's got a big enough war chest to keep fighting, and they can't reasonably threaten his Senate seat, so there's not much they can do to make him drop out.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: The_Queen on April 19, 2016, 11:15:56 pm
Welp Hillary took New York.  Pretty much wraps it up for the Sanders campaign.

Ironbite-good game but in the end, the establishment wins.

Not necessarily. Connecticut, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Indiana, Kentucky, Oregon, Puerto Rico, California, and New Jersey are all still to come, and they all have at least fifty pledged delegates each. I agree it's unlikely, but Sanders can still win. If nothing else, he can probably keep Clinton from getting a majority solely from pledged delegates and make his case on the convention floor. He's got a big enough war chest to keep fighting, and they can't reasonably threaten his Senate seat, so there's not much they can do to make him drop out.

According to 538, if Sanders wants to win, these are the numbers he'd have to win by from here on out (spoilered for those who don't give a fuck)

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: dpareja on April 19, 2016, 11:43:08 pm
Welp Hillary took New York.  Pretty much wraps it up for the Sanders campaign.

Ironbite-good game but in the end, the establishment wins.

Not necessarily. Connecticut, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Indiana, Kentucky, Oregon, Puerto Rico, California, and New Jersey are all still to come, and they all have at least fifty pledged delegates each. I agree it's unlikely, but Sanders can still win. If nothing else, he can probably keep Clinton from getting a majority solely from pledged delegates and make his case on the convention floor. He's got a big enough war chest to keep fighting, and they can't reasonably threaten his Senate seat, so there's not much they can do to make him drop out.

According to 538, if Sanders wants to win, these are the numbers he'd have to win by from here on out (spoilered for those who don't give a fuck)

I agree; it's very unlikely that Sanders will win. I just don't see him dropping out at this point.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: The_Queen on April 19, 2016, 11:56:45 pm
Welp Hillary took New York.  Pretty much wraps it up for the Sanders campaign.

Ironbite-good game but in the end, the establishment wins.

Not necessarily. Connecticut, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Indiana, Kentucky, Oregon, Puerto Rico, California, and New Jersey are all still to come, and they all have at least fifty pledged delegates each. I agree it's unlikely, but Sanders can still win. If nothing else, he can probably keep Clinton from getting a majority solely from pledged delegates and make his case on the convention floor. He's got a big enough war chest to keep fighting, and they can't reasonably threaten his Senate seat, so there's not much they can do to make him drop out.

According to 538, if Sanders wants to win, these are the numbers he'd have to win by from here on out (spoilered for those who don't give a fuck)

I agree; it's very unlikely that Sanders will win. I just don't see him dropping out at this point.

Well, lucky for you, Jeff Weaver recently stated (in a 6 minute segment filled with statistical and factual inaccuracies) that Bernie would stay in until the convention. What is more, even if he loses the popular vote and the pledged delegates, he will make a play on swaying superdelegates to hit 2383...
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: davedan on April 20, 2016, 12:13:15 am
I want to see that just so that I can watch Bernie supporters rationalise the intervention of the superdelegates that they have pilloried as undemocratic. Honestly though I would like to see Hillary offer Sanders to run as VP or a cabinet position.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: RavynousHunter on April 20, 2016, 12:19:27 am
Honestly, I think Sanders would do best as a VP.  Congress (esp. the Senate) is the main money-making machine of the government, and being VP means he's the tie-breaker vote for the Senate.  That'd put him in a very useful position to make important calls on some, if not necessarily all, of his economic issues that are more clearly and evenly divided.  As a President, he'd have an uphill battle for one, being Jewish, and two, being an unrepentant socialist.  It wouldn't be the dream-come-true that a lot of folks feel it'd be; one has to remember that Congress has checks against the Executive just as the Executive has checks on them, and look how they've (ab)used that to try their damndest to make Obama look like some ineffectual, henpecked loser.  As VP, he'd actually get the chance to tell the Senate to go fuck themselves and resolve tie votes as he pleases, which would likely get a lot more done than 8 more years of stonewalling.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: The_Queen on April 20, 2016, 12:22:40 am
I think that giving Sanders the VP is the inevitable decision. Too many people buy into the Bernie or Bust movement, and giving him the VEEP would be a way to neutralize that group while possibly improving youth turnout (which skews left, but often no-shows).
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: RavynousHunter on April 20, 2016, 12:24:36 am
Aye, its a rather good compromise, all things considered.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: Ironchew on April 20, 2016, 12:25:07 am
Honestly, I think Sanders would do best as a VP.  Congress (esp. the Senate) is the main money-making machine of the government, and being VP means he's the tie-breaker vote for the Senate.  That'd put him in a very useful position to make important calls on some, if not necessarily all, of his economic issues that are more clearly and evenly divided.  As a President, he'd have an uphill battle for one, being Jewish, and two, being an unrepentant socialist.  It wouldn't be the dream-come-true that a lot of folks feel it'd be; one has to remember that Congress has checks against the Executive just as the Executive has checks on them, and look how they've (ab)used that to try their damndest to make Obama look like some ineffectual, henpecked loser.  As VP, he'd actually get the chance to tell the Senate to go fuck themselves and resolve tie votes as he pleases, which would likely get a lot more done than 8 more years of stonewalling.

You're gonna make me go full Bernie fanboy mode here, aren't you? Well, more a fan of his campaign, and not necessarily the person heading it up.

I like the ideas he's fighting for, and if he decides to turn into a Clinton administration drone I'll have to abandon him and look for someone else who will fight for them instead. Thankfully there are third-party candidates out there I can vote for; perhaps Jill Stein.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: RavynousHunter on April 20, 2016, 12:28:12 am
You're assuming he'd be cowed by Clinton into voting as she wants, economically.  I honestly don't see Sanders as doing that.  His track record more than speaks for his bullheaded stubbornness, something that is quite good when it comes to getting shit done, politically.

Also, please, don't waste your vote.  We're dealing with a savage FPTP system, here.  Third party votes only take votes away from a party that's at least less likely to screw us over. 
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: Ironchew on April 20, 2016, 12:30:28 am
You're assuming he'd be cowed by Clinton into voting as she wants, economically.  I honestly don't see Sanders as doing that.  His track record more than speaks for his bullheaded stubbornness, something that is quite good when it comes to getting shit done, politically.

Also, please, don't waste your vote.  We're dealing with a savage FPTP system, here.  Third party votes only take votes away from a party that's at least less likely to screw us over. 

Ties in the Senate don't happen that often.

I'm not wasting my vote. I plan to punish the Democrats for not electing a progressive presidential candidate by doing my part to split the vote.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: The_Queen on April 20, 2016, 12:49:54 am
You're assuming he'd be cowed by Clinton into voting as she wants, economically.  I honestly don't see Sanders as doing that.  His track record more than speaks for his bullheaded stubbornness, something that is quite good when it comes to getting shit done, politically.

Also, not much cowing would be needed: the two vote together 93% of the time (and the most of their vote disagreements were on, of all things, motions to end debate on the senate floor).

Additionally, Hillary is far to the left of the way she's characterized. (http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/hillary-clinton-was-liberal-hillary-clinton-is-liberal/) Her Senate record is to the left of Obama. She ranks in the top third of democrats with her voting records. The two biggest issues that people hark on are her vote in Iraq (admitted it was a mistake) and gay marriage (which the nation as a whole, including Bernie Sanders,* has evolved on)

*Bernie is on the record in 2006 during his first Senate campaign as saying that he supports civil unions over same-sex marriage. Since he attended a trans protest march in the 70's, and since Hillary was the first First Lady to attend a gay pride parade (yet supported Doma), I really see both of these positions as a compromises that they made to achieve some tangible benefit for same-sex couples (Sanders wanted rights for same-sex couples and Hillary supported DOMA to undermine the GOP's attempt at seeking a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage). Because 10-15 years ago, nobody would believe that same-sex marriage would ultimately be the law of the land (and up until 2003, states could make same-sex intimacy illegal).
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: Ironchew on April 20, 2016, 01:04:07 am
I will agree that Clinton may be to the left of Obama, only to the degree that they're virtually indistinguishable from each other. That's what I thought in 2008 -- granted, that was back when I assumed they were both far more left-wing than they revealed themselves to be. I'm not thrilled with the prospect of Clinton essentially being Obama's third term. I think the Democrats would be in far better shape in 2020 after four years of Trump or Cruz, honestly; they'd likely be united behind a progressive candidate for once.

Of course, I would much rather that progressive candidate be Sanders this year, but the chances of that are getting slim.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: Skybison on April 20, 2016, 01:30:07 am
It's been said here before, but I don't understand why people assume that a Trump presidency would make the democrats/americans unite behind a progressive candidate.  I could just as easily see it going the other way, with a disastrous Trump or Cruz term reinforcing the establishment in both parties, who could point to their incompetence and say "see this is why you need us to pick insiders for you."  Plus economic downturns and wars and other such disasters generally make voters more conservative rather then more liberal.  And eight years of Obama did the opposite of uniting the republicans, so why would Trump or Cruz unite democrats?  And then there's the question of it it really would be only four years, Silvio Berlusconi got elected three times for example.  Or the long term dangers of having a presidential campaign based on nothing but open bigotry and threats of violence succeed, which would likely get other politicians to copy it.

Everything about punishing the democrats for picking Hillery over Bernie just screams "Bad Idea" too me.  The risks are huge and the benifits way to uncertain.

@Lizard

The Honduras link doesn't work.

Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: RavynousHunter on April 20, 2016, 06:49:00 am
I think the Democrats would be in far better shape in 2020 after four years of Trump or Cruz, honestly; they'd likely be united behind a progressive candidate for once.

Oh sure, they would.  The rest of us would be fucked, though, because Cruz would probably start the Third World War and Trump would drive our economy so far into the ground, we'd be closer to post-WWI Germany than is comfortable.  I'm not sure about you, but I'm not fond of economic ruin.  You saw how bad shit got under Bush, and he was just a fucking idiot, someone as actively malevolent as Trump or Cruz would probably kill what little recovery we've fucking gotten and, I'm sorry, but I'm really super uncomfortable with the idea of sacrificing all the social and economic progress we have made on a tantrum the slim chance that such a state wouldn't drag the Democratic Party even further to the right, which is a distinct possibility.

But, go ahead, flip that coin.  I'll do whatever I can to keep your childish ass from opening Pandora's Box and killing us all.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: mellenORL on April 20, 2016, 08:38:27 am
Sanders needs to continue on to the convention to keep his numbers respectable, and yes, as a VP on the ticket, a lot of the progressive groundswell momentum that would salvage would also change the face of Congress during the general election - lots of seats are up for grabs in both houses. Congress is by far the greatest threat, since it is the main reservoir of money influence infection and hideously bad legislation. Also, the SCOTUS appointment is pivotal, and simply must not be allowed to fall into GOP hands.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: pyro on April 20, 2016, 02:43:03 pm
I plan to punish the Democrats for not electing a progressive presidential candidate by doing my part to split the vote.

That'll hurt you more than it hurts them. You know that, right?
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: Skybison on April 20, 2016, 02:56:28 pm
Also who are the democrats you want to punish exactly?  Do you mean Women and Black people?  Because the reason Hillary is probably getting picked over Bernie is because she's winning the majority of the vote, mostly due to female and non-white voters liking her more the Sanders.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: Askold on April 20, 2016, 03:01:36 pm
I think the Democrats would be in far better shape in 2020 after four years of Trump or Cruz, honestly; they'd likely be united behind a progressive candidate for once.
You mean like how the GOP is in a much better state and united behind a single candidate after eight years of Obama?

After four or eight years of Trump and/or Cruz the Democrats would either be seen as "the party of NO" who have tried to fight back everything that the democratically elected president tried to do, which in turn would have made them go far more extreme than they normally are. A group much like the Tea party, growing out of fear and hatred against the POTUS, would have risen and taken much of the voterbase for themselves from the Democrats causing a strife within the party (most likely candidates would be the Occupy movement or the progressives who are now forming behind Sanders.) The only reason why the voters would not be disappointed at 4-8 years of the Democrats fighting against the government trying to do ANYTHING is if the Democrat voters are no smarter than the Republican voters are.

Or the other option is that the Democrats would swallow their pride and work with Trump/Cruz and give in to the GOP ideas in the hopes of being able to pass at least a few of their own suggestions as well. Which would probably be the better option for the country but it would completely drive away the progressives who would see this as betrayal (despite raging against the GOP who have been mainly fighting against Obama all these years) and thus divide the party in two.


But that's just my take on the situation and how it looks like from the outside.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: The_Queen on April 20, 2016, 03:30:14 pm
Also who are the democrats you want to punish exactly?  Do you mean Women and Black people?  Because the reason Hillary is probably getting picked over Bernie is because she's winning the majority of the vote, mostly due to female and non-white voters liking her more the Sanders.

A good point. To build off of it, Clinton won women in all but three states (one of them, Wisconsin, split 50-50). She won the black vote by margins of about 85-15% (and, one of the big reasons Michigan came out of left field was that polls indicated African Americans would split 80-20 for Hillary, but Hillary could only grab a paltry 72% of the black vote).

I mentioned this in another thread, but FQA is pretty much Sanders' back yard: white, socially liberal/progressive, secular, INTERNET, and mostly male. I mentioned that it is important to remember that the general population is more diverse than our little section of the internet, and that other populations might not break for Sanders the way that FQA, as a group, did.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: Skybison on April 21, 2016, 01:23:34 am
I agree Queen.

I like Bernie Sanders.  I like most of his policies.  Combine him with a senate/house that will work with him and I think he'd be a better president then Clinton.

But a lot of Sanders supports really seem to be having difficulty accepting that he is losing fair and square.  More democrats voted for Hillary then have for him, and she always led him in the polls.  Democrat voters picked Her over him, not some evil conspiracy of superdelegates. 

No offense, but the minority of Berniebros who say they want Trump elected to punish the democrats are selfish short sighted morons.  Heck I'll chalk it up to everyone's favorite phrase: White Male Privilege.  Would you seriously be saying "I hope for a disaster because then my candidate might have a better shot next time" if you were the one who might be banned from the country over your skin colour/religion or arrested for having an abortion?
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: The_Queen on April 21, 2016, 01:31:16 am
Or arrested for going pee while trans...
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: davedan on April 21, 2016, 01:51:16 am
Look as an Australian I won't be directly effected but I remember the effect that the Bush presidency had on the rest of the world. And I am scared of Trump and Cruz.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: Svata on April 21, 2016, 01:56:14 am
I agree Queen.

I like Bernie Sanders.  I like most of his policies.  Combine him with a senate/house that will work with him and I think he'd be a better president then Clinton.

But a lot of Sanders supports really seem to be having difficulty accepting that he is losing fair and square.  More democrats voted for Hillary then have for him, and she always led him in the polls.  Democrat voters picked Her over him, not some evil conspiracy of superdelegates. 

No offense, but the minority of Berniebros who say they want Trump elected to punish the democrats are selfish short sighted morons.  Heck I'll chalk it up to everyone's favorite phrase: White Male Privilege.  Would you seriously be saying "I hope for a disaster because then my candidate might have a better shot next time" if you were the one who might be banned from the country over your skin colour/religion or arrested for having an abortion?

Pretty much all of this.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: Vypernight on April 21, 2016, 04:49:30 am
I think it's more along the lines of people feeling that if Sanders doesn't win, we're screwed no matter who wins so let's not even bother with the lube.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: Canadian Mojo on April 21, 2016, 09:25:11 am
I think it's more along the lines of people feeling that if Sanders doesn't win, we're screwed no matter who wins so let's not even bother with the lube.
I imagine that the reasons vary. Some are sheltered narcissists, some are ready to say fuck it, and some people are just desperate enough to risk everything and play the gambit.

From a Canadian perspective, the original Clinton years were pretty good for us. Another round of them would probably be similar. Would I like to see you swing harder left with your social policies? Hell yes, I think it would help your economy which helps us, but honestly, you're not ready for that. As a nation you're too divided right now.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: davedan on April 27, 2016, 12:09:12 am
How long before Bernie's campaign starts asking superdelegates to switch to him despite Hillary leading the pledged delegate count?

Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: dpareja on April 27, 2016, 12:19:18 am
How long before Bernie's campaign starts asking superdelegates to switch to him despite Hillary leading the pledged delegate count?

They already are.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: davedan on April 27, 2016, 12:20:04 am
That's a bit embarrassing.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: dpareja on April 27, 2016, 12:22:13 am
That's a bit embarrassing.

They're trying to make the case for superdelegate votes on the grounds that the polling regularly indicates that Sanders does better against all three Republicans still in the race than Clinton does.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: The_Queen on April 27, 2016, 12:44:10 am
That's a bit embarrassing.

They're trying to make the case for superdelegate votes on the grounds that the polling regularly indicates that Sanders does better against all three Republicans still in the race than Clinton does.

Which is quite misleading as those polls have little predictive value. Even more so when you consider the GOP has been doing their damnedest these last 25 years to fabricate any scandal to use against Hillary (even openly stating that Benghazi was a success because it hurt her poll numbers), while Bernie hasn't been on the receiving end of any negative attention.

And speaking of Super Delegates: if you include them, then Clinton is only 242 away from the nomination (including the delegates that have been announced today). Most of the upcoming states will probably skew Sanders, but not enough to give him the election. Kentucky and Indiana will probably go Bernie in squeakers, as they mirror Missouri demographically. Additionally, there are the Dakotas, Oregon, and Montana which would vote for Bernie if the election were between him and blowjobs, and they were giving out free samples. However, all 6 of these states combine for 258 of the remaining 1016 delegates. Nevertheless, that is roughly the size of New York.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: davedan on April 27, 2016, 01:10:23 am
That's a bit embarrassing.

They're trying to make the case for superdelegate votes on the grounds that the polling regularly indicates that Sanders does better against all three Republicans still in the race than Clinton does.

Apart from the fact that at the beginning of the primaries they were dead against them for being undemocratic and subverting the will of the people.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: The_Queen on April 27, 2016, 08:22:49 am
That's a bit embarrassing.

They're trying to make the case for superdelegate votes on the grounds that the polling regularly indicates that Sanders does better against all three Republicans still in the race than Clinton does.

Apart from the fact that at the beginning of the primaries they were dead against them for being undemocratic and subverting the will of the people.

Come on, you know the number one rule of politics is that it's always different when your guy does it. I mean, back then it was undemocratic for Hillary to be endorsed by all those superdelegates. Now, it's just the rules of the game that were set at the outside.

Jeeze, get with it old man.  :P
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: dpareja on May 01, 2016, 01:11:29 am
http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/IA-D#0430

Looks like support for Sanders is slipping: of the district convention delegates elected from the Iowa caucuses, four of Clinton's didn't show up at the district conventions... but twelve of Sanders' didn't show.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: Skybison on May 01, 2016, 11:03:01 pm
I love ya Bernie but at this point it's time to throw in the towel.  You're not going to get the superdelegates on your side, just pack it in.  Stay in the race though, but do it to keep Hillary from drifting right.

Anyway this was a really interesting article on Hillary and Bernie
http://www.vox.com/2016/5/1/11549570/obama-correspondents-dinner-joke
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: Ironchew on May 02, 2016, 12:08:22 am
I love ya Bernie but at this point it's time to throw in the towel.  You're not going to get the superdelegates on your side, just pack it in.  Stay in the race though, but do it to keep Hillary from drifting right.

Hillary has no incentive to drift to the left if it's a near-certainty she'll win the nomination. She has nothing to lose by pissing off a segment of the Democratic voter base who won't vote for her based on her past record anyway. Now, drifting to the right? There are a lot of disillusioned wealthy donors out there who know the Republican candidates are a joke.

Clinton will likely be the next president, and let's not kid ourselves; Clinton will likely accept more bribes from Wall Street and the international arms trade which will help shape her administration's policies.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: rookie on May 02, 2016, 12:48:38 am
And as shitty as it is, it's so better than Trump or Cruz.

ETA: I think.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: The_Queen on May 02, 2016, 08:22:24 pm
I love ya Bernie but at this point it's time to throw in the towel.  You're not going to get the superdelegates on your side, just pack it in.  Stay in the race though, but do it to keep Hillary from drifting right.

Anyway this was a really interesting article on Hillary and Bernie
http://www.vox.com/2016/5/1/11549570/obama-correspondents-dinner-joke

Thank you so much for posting this, because it pretty much sums up how I've felt about this election since July. In 2008, I voted for hope and change, and Obama quickly abandoned those ideals in favor of compromise and watered down solutions. The legislation he pushed and passed wasn't revolution nor was it sexy--but it helped people. Obamacare gave 16 million people health insurance who otherwise wouldn't have it. The Lily Ledbetter fair pay act allowed women an opportunity to sue for pay discrimination that we couldn't sue for previously. His SCoTUS appointments are pretty much the ONLY reason that same-sex marriage is now legal in this country, and a GOP candidate would just as easily undo that. Believe me, I want nothing more than to see America get its head out of its ass and implement the real change that a certain Senator from Vermont espouses. But, until he can show me that he can implement such change, I'm going to vote for the more pragmatic politician, if only because that vote will help people now. In essence, I'm more than content to put my ideals on the backburner if doing so would help those most in need.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: davedan on May 02, 2016, 11:36:21 pm
The really big test for Bernie's supporters is whether they can stay active and make some inroads in the congressional elections in 2 years time.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: Art Vandelay on May 02, 2016, 11:38:21 pm
The really big test for Bernie's supporters is whether they can stay active and make some inroads in the congressional elections in 2 years time.
Ha. Good joke.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: davedan on May 02, 2016, 11:41:15 pm
It's the only way to ensure they are not simply a flash in the pan. Although I agree with your pessimism that this is anything more than a fad.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: The_Queen on May 03, 2016, 01:01:52 am
It's the only way to ensure they are not simply a flash in the pan. Although I agree with your pessimism that this is anything more than a fad.

I'd agree with both of you. And, I do not say this sarcastically, but the only way to ensure that Bernie actually implements a "political revolution" is to see that more liberal and progressive politicians get elected in 2016, 2018, and 2020. Otherwise, Bernie's "political revolution" simply boils down to a cult of personality--thereby defeating his overall message.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: dpareja on May 03, 2016, 02:39:20 am
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/clinton-fundraising-leaves-little-for-state-parties-222670

Remember the Hillary Victory Fund?

Quote
In the days before Hillary Clinton launched an unprecedented big-money fundraising vehicle with state parties last summer, she vowed “to rebuild our party from the ground up,” proclaiming “when our state parties are strong, we win. That’s what will happen."

But less than 1 percent of the $61 million raised by that effort has stayed in the state parties’ coffers, according to a POLITICO analysis of the latest Federal Election Commission filings.

The venture, the Hillary Victory Fund, is a so-called joint fundraising committee comprised of Clinton’s presidential campaign, the Democratic National Committee and 32 state party committees. The setup allows Clinton to solicit checks of $350,000 or more from her super-rich supporters at extravagant fundraisers including a dinner at George Clooney’s house and a concert at Radio City Music Hall featuring Katy Perry and Elton John.

The victory fund has transferred $3.8 million to the state parties, but almost all of that cash ($3.3 million, or 88 percent) was quickly transferred to the DNC, usually within a day or two, by the Clinton staffer who controls the committee, POLITICO’s analysis of the FEC records found.

By contrast, the victory fund has transferred $15.4 million to Clinton’s campaign and $5.7 million to the DNC, which will work closely with Clinton’s campaign if and when she becomes the party’s nominee. And most of the $23.3 million spent directly by the victory fund has gone toward expenses that appear to have directly benefited Clinton’s campaign, including $2.8 million for “salary and overhead” and $8.6 million for web advertising that mostly looks indistinguishable from Clinton campaign ads and that has helped Clinton build a network of small donors who will be critical in a general election expected to cost each side well in excess of $1 billion.

So actually, this fund isn't doing a great deal to help down-ticket Democratic candidates.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: davedan on May 03, 2016, 02:50:58 am
Has Sanders ever helped downticket Democrats?
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: dpareja on May 03, 2016, 03:14:27 am
Has Sanders ever helped downticket Democrats?

Later in the article:

Quote
Sanders' campaign late last year signed a joint fundraising agreement with the DNC, but the committee has been largely inactive. Instead, after Sanders was chided by Clinton allies for not helping down-ballot Democrats, he sent out appeals to his vaunted email list that helped raise hundreds of thousands of dollars for a trio of progressive House candidates, who got to keep all the cash.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: The_Queen on May 03, 2016, 03:17:33 am
Has Sanders ever helped downticket Democrats?


He's supported only three--who happened to endorse him. Which, contrary to the article cited by Dpareja, actually is unprecedented. Never has a politician run supporting--only--those lower tickets that endorsed him (him because ever president ever was male).

But going to dpareja, nobody for a minute ever denied that the bulk of the cash for the HVF goes to Hillary... with second dibs on the remaining money going to the DNC* and third dibs to state parties. In fact, snopes reported as much--it's how the donations are set up and operated. But, "less than 1%" of "61 million" still comes out to $610,000 for the down ticket ballots (give or take), which is more than would otherwise be raised.

*Most of this money to the DNC would then be redistributed to the most competitive state competitions. But just ignore that fact because it's inconvenient.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: rookie on May 03, 2016, 11:35:39 am
Has Sanders ever helped downticket Democrats?

Why would he? Before 2015 he was never a Democrat. I remember seeing him on CSPAN and in parentheses was always Bernie Sanders (I-VT).
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: The_Queen on May 03, 2016, 11:50:11 am
Has Sanders ever helped downticket Democrats?

Why would he? Before 2015 he was never a Democrat. I remember seeing him on CSPAN and in parentheses was always Bernie Sanders (I-VT).

Also, before 2015, he had very little national name recognition. He was very popular in Vermont, but Vermont only has 1 representative and 2 senators (of which he was one or the other for that last 30 years), and most of the time, those seats were filled by large incumbents. So, not only couldn't he have helped lower-ticket democrats, but there wasn't a need for those tickets that he could influence.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: ironbite on May 03, 2016, 08:44:51 pm
I'll admit that Hillary might be a bad choice for President but I'll be damned if Trump gets the White House.

Ironbite-I'm all for Sanders but there's a point where you have to just hold your nose.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: dpareja on May 03, 2016, 08:59:08 pm
I'll admit that Hillary might be a bad choice for President but I'll be damned if Trump gets the White House.

Ironbite-I'm all for Sanders but there's a point where you have to just hold your nose.

What will be really interesting will be to see if a progressive manages to marshal the movement Sanders did this year and successfully knock out Clinton in the Democratic primaries in 2020. That wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing; it could get those progressives out to the polls in the general, flip state legislatures and redraw electoral maps to favor the Democratic Party.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: Eiki-mun on May 03, 2016, 10:51:57 pm
I'll admit that Hillary might be a bad choice for President but I'll be damned if Trump gets the White House.

Ironbite-I'm all for Sanders but there's a point where you have to just hold your nose.

What will be really interesting will be to see if a progressive manages to marshal the movement Sanders did this year and successfully knock out Clinton in the Democratic primaries in 2020. That wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing; it could get those progressives out to the polls in the general, flip state legislatures and redraw electoral maps to favor the Democratic Party.

Unfortunately, a Democratic resurgence in the House in 2020 is more likely if TRUMP wins than if Hillary does.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: dpareja on May 03, 2016, 10:57:48 pm
I'll admit that Hillary might be a bad choice for President but I'll be damned if Trump gets the White House.

Ironbite-I'm all for Sanders but there's a point where you have to just hold your nose.

What will be really interesting will be to see if a progressive manages to marshal the movement Sanders did this year and successfully knock out Clinton in the Democratic primaries in 2020. That wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing; it could get those progressives out to the polls in the general, flip state legislatures and redraw electoral maps to favor the Democratic Party.

Unfortunately, a Democratic resurgence in the House in 2020 is more likely if TRUMP wins than if Hillary does.

The House isn't quite so important in 2020 (or, it's still important, but not as important in comparison). State legislatures are the key that year, since it's a census year and the legislatures elected in that year will decide the electoral maps for both state legislatures and the House of Representatives for the next decade. A surging progressive movement, strong enough to knock off Clinton in the Democratic primaries and carry that through into a huge Democratic turnout in the general, could break the assumptions of the 2010 gerrymanders and allow electoral maps to be redrawn to favor the Democratic Party. The real trick would be to keep it going until 2022, which would be the first election with the new maps.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: rookie on May 03, 2016, 11:43:26 pm
I admire your optimism, guys. I do. I wish I could believe the progressive momentum would carry over into state legislature to fix what was done in 2010.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: Askold on May 03, 2016, 11:59:31 pm
I'll admit that Hillary might be a bad choice for President but I'll be damned if Trump gets the White House.

Ironbite-I'm all for Sanders but there's a point where you have to just hold your nose.

What will be really interesting will be to see if a progressive manages to marshal the movement Sanders did this year and successfully knock out Clinton in the Democratic primaries in 2020. That wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing; it could get those progressives out to the polls in the general, flip state legislatures and redraw electoral maps to favor the Democratic Party.

Unfortunately, a Democratic resurgence in the House in 2020 is more likely if TRUMP wins than if Hillary does.

Everyone in the USA doing a Mad Max LARP is more likely in 2020 if Trump has won than if Hillary does. Besides, isn't it possible that Hillary and the other Dems do so good job that people join the Democrats when they see how well things work when they are in charge?
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: Eiki-mun on May 04, 2016, 02:23:37 am
I'll admit that Hillary might be a bad choice for President but I'll be damned if Trump gets the White House.

Ironbite-I'm all for Sanders but there's a point where you have to just hold your nose.

What will be really interesting will be to see if a progressive manages to marshal the movement Sanders did this year and successfully knock out Clinton in the Democratic primaries in 2020. That wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing; it could get those progressives out to the polls in the general, flip state legislatures and redraw electoral maps to favor the Democratic Party.

Unfortunately, a Democratic resurgence in the House in 2020 is more likely if TRUMP wins than if Hillary does.

Everyone in the USA doing a Mad Max LARP is more likely in 2020 if Trump has won than if Hillary does. Besides, isn't it possible that Hillary and the other Dems do so good job that people join the Democrats when they see how well things work when they are in charge?

Not really. Historically speaking, the party in power in the Oval Office loses out in the states and legislative branch, the large majority of the time.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: Askold on May 04, 2016, 02:40:54 am
...Well that's yet more evidence that the system doesn't work if people are almost always disappointed in the party in power.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: SCarpelan on May 04, 2016, 10:23:23 am
...Well that's yet more evidence that the system doesn't work if people are almost always disappointed in the party in power.
Except it happens in pretty much every representative democracy unless there is a crisis that unites people - even in that case the ruling parties need to take care of it in a way that makes them seem competent. Governing requires making compromises and you are in the mercy of the global circumstances. It's easy for the opposition parties to gain popularity by criticizing the real and perceived mistakes you will inevitably make.

(From a local perspective, that's why I wanted the Finns party in the government already after their first big election victory - it was obvious that their supporters would be disillusioned.)
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: The_Queen on May 04, 2016, 12:50:11 pm
...Well that's yet more evidence that the system doesn't work if people are almost always disappointed in the party in power.
Except it happens in pretty much every representative democracy unless there is a crisis that unites people - even in that case the ruling parties need to take care of it in a way that makes them seem competent. Governing requires making compromises and you are in the mercy of the global circumstances. It's easy for the opposition parties to gain popularity by criticizing the real and perceived mistakes you will inevitably make.

(From a local perspective, that's why I wanted the Finns party in the government already after their first big election victory - it was obvious that their supporters would be disillusioned.)

Yeah, people are less likely to vote if they perceive things as going well. And, people are more likely to see things as going well if their party is in power (and as a corollary, people are more likely to see things as broken if their party isn't in power). This just shows up more in the two party system, because it is a two party system (i.e. about 50% of the population will feel content and be less likely to vote, and the other 50% will feel things are broken and vote more often).
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: The_Queen on May 05, 2016, 10:39:16 am
And with the primaries in the books, most people can begin to look forward to the general election, but not Bernie or Bust. Even after Bernie made the "damn emails" comment that many of them believed won the first debate, a number of Bernie or Busters still believe she did something wrong (such as Damen on this board), or that she SHOULD be indicted to give Bernie the nomination (read the comments on any article dealing with Hillary), or that it is such a big threat that the DNC should prepare for it (but the part about Bernie isn't explicitly stated, even though that is the intent, from idiots like Cenk Uygar).

But, while reading through a legal blog or two on current issues, I stumbled upon one dealing with Hillary's email server and why the whole thing is a fabricated scandal to tarnish Hillary (http://prospect.org/article/why-hillary-wont-be-indicted-and-shouldnt-be-objective-legal-analysis). Not that the GOP would ever do such a thing (Benghazi). But it's well written, explains the issue and relevant interpretations of the law, the writer is a distinguished Professor at Michigan (of national security law and sociology) and has a nice reputation in his field. It's a good read for anyone wanting to understand how little water this scandal carries.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: Ironchew on May 05, 2016, 01:42:57 pm
And with the primaries in the books, most people can begin to look forward to the general election, but not Bernie or Bust. Even after Bernie made the "damn emails" comment that many of them believed won the first debate, a number of Bernie or Busters still believe she did something wrong (such as Damen on this board), or that she SHOULD be indicted to give Bernie the nomination (read the comments on any article dealing with Hillary), or that it is such a big threat that the DNC should prepare for it (but the part about Bernie isn't explicitly stated, even though that is the intent, from idiots like Cenk Uygar).

But, while reading through a legal blog or two on current issues, I stumbled upon one dealing with Hillary's email server and why the whole thing is a fabricated scandal to tarnish Hillary (http://prospect.org/article/why-hillary-wont-be-indicted-and-shouldnt-be-objective-legal-analysis). Not that the GOP would ever do such a thing (Benghazi). But it's well written, explains the issue and relevant interpretations of the law, the writer is a distinguished Professor at Michigan (of national security law and sociology) and has a nice reputation in his field. It's a good read for anyone wanting to understand how little water this scandal carries.

I was always of the opinion that the e-mails controversy was a flimsy Benghazi-esque scandal. I'm not voting for Clinton for different reasons (first and foremost I'm anti-war and she most decidedly isn't), and if she's the Democratic nominee, as she likely will be, I'll vote 3rd party for an anti-war candidate.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: The_Queen on May 05, 2016, 01:46:45 pm
And with the primaries in the books, most people can begin to look forward to the general election, but not Bernie or Bust. Even after Bernie made the "damn emails" comment that many of them believed won the first debate, a number of Bernie or Busters still believe she did something wrong (such as Damen on this board), or that she SHOULD be indicted to give Bernie the nomination (read the comments on any article dealing with Hillary), or that it is such a big threat that the DNC should prepare for it (but the part about Bernie isn't explicitly stated, even though that is the intent, from idiots like Cenk Uygar).

But, while reading through a legal blog or two on current issues, I stumbled upon one dealing with Hillary's email server and why the whole thing is a fabricated scandal to tarnish Hillary (http://prospect.org/article/why-hillary-wont-be-indicted-and-shouldnt-be-objective-legal-analysis). Not that the GOP would ever do such a thing (Benghazi). But it's well written, explains the issue and relevant interpretations of the law, the writer is a distinguished Professor at Michigan (of national security law and sociology) and has a nice reputation in his field. It's a good read for anyone wanting to understand how little water this scandal carries.

I was always of the opinion that the e-mails controversy was a flimsy Benghazi-esque scandal. I'm not voting for Clinton for different reasons (first and foremost I'm anti-war and she most decidedly isn't), and if she's the Democratic nominee, as she likely will be, I'll vote 3rd party for an anti-war candidate.

Well, don't vote Jill Stein, because she's an anti-GMO idiot. IDK why people think that she's somehow intelligent or reasonable. Maybe it's cause she has a PhD, though Ben Carson's also a doctor and nobody thinks he's sharper than your average pillow.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: Ironchew on May 05, 2016, 01:52:55 pm
A president with a bit of anti-GMO nonsense (and who will unsuccessfully wrestle with Congress about it if at all) is, in my opinion, less damaging than our miliitary excursions abroad.

But I'm not voting 3rd party necessarily because I think I'm voting for a winner. I'm doing it because I vote for the best candidate presented to me, and with Sanders likely out, the two major parties will present deeply disappointing candidates this year.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: The_Queen on May 05, 2016, 01:57:33 pm
A president with a bit of anti-GMO nonsense (and who will unsuccessfully wrestle with Congress about it if at all) is, in my opinion, less damaging than our miliitary excursions abroad.

But I'm not voting 3rd party necessarily because I think I'm voting for a winner. I'm doing it because I vote for the best candidate presented to me, and with Sanders likely out, the two major parties will present deeply disappointing candidates this year.

My point is more that it emboldens pseudo-scientific dribble, and we've seen enough damage from that during the Bush era. Disregarding the harms, there is little difference between the anti-GMO groups and the anti-vaxxers, as both rely substantially on big-money and fear tactics to push their agenda. The only real difference with the harms: the harms of anti-GMO bullshit is primarily to overseas farmers who won't be able to sell their crops and feed their families, while the harm of anti-vaxxers is in our own backyard.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: dpareja on May 05, 2016, 02:12:26 pm
One interesting side effect of this election will be that there will likely be a higher than usual percentage of voters supporting--or at least taking a long, hard look at--candidates like Jill Stein or Gary Johnson on account of finding both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump unpalatable. Not enough to win any electoral votes for the third-party candidates, but possibly enough to put a big scare into the major parties.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: pyro on May 06, 2016, 02:23:53 am
The reason we have a two-party system is that that's the only stable result of our de jour first party the post system. The two major parties have nothing to fear.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: dpareja on May 06, 2016, 03:52:38 am
The reason we have a two-party system is that that's the only stable result of our de jour first party the post system. The two major parties have nothing to fear.

And yet Canada and the UK both manage to have three nationally competitive parties despite using the same awful electoral system.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: The_Queen on May 06, 2016, 10:20:30 am
The reason we have a two-party system is that that's the only stable result of our de jour first party the post system. The two major parties have nothing to fear.

And yet Canada and the UK both manage to have three nationally competitive parties despite using the same awful electoral system.

1. Arguing exceptions does not defeat the fact that it is the general rule (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger's_law)
2. Both nations you provided actually undermine your point, as the 3rd parties get more percentage votes than representatives, on average.
3. Both of those nations are parliament systems in which they elect their Prime Ministers not nationally, but legislatively. This matters because of what I said in the GOP going forward thread--3rd parties might be viable regionally, but they simply cannot be on a national scale. The Duverger's law accounts for this, theorizing that in federalist systems like ours, where our high office is nationally elected, the parties have to merge on a national scale to keep competitive for the presidency.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: The_Queen on May 06, 2016, 02:39:30 pm
(click to show/hide)

(click to show/hide)

Dpareja, I was on another board when I realized that somebody there did what you did here, and it made me realize that you did it. I am kind of confused as to how you can justify being upset in both of these posts. It's contradictory to get upset at Hillary when you believe she's buying superdelegates, but then to get upset again when she isn't giving enough money to superdelegates. I guess what I am trying to say is I'm a bit cynical, and I think that you just want to be mad at Clinton while supporting anything that would help Sanders win (another good example is the March 15th primaries and your response). So I ask, what is the proper balance that Clinton should take in terms of raising money for lower ticket races? 

It is one thing to oppose a candidate, but another thing entirely to oppose anything that candidate does.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: dpareja on May 06, 2016, 04:15:42 pm
The reason we have a two-party system is that that's the only stable result of our de jour first party the post system. The two major parties have nothing to fear.

And yet Canada and the UK both manage to have three nationally competitive parties despite using the same awful electoral system.

1. Arguing exceptions does not defeat the fact that it is the general rule (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger's_law)
2. Both nations you provided actually undermine your point, as the 3rd parties get more percentage votes than representatives, on average.
3. Both of those nations are parliament systems in which they elect their Prime Ministers not nationally, but legislatively. This matters because of what I said in the GOP going forward thread--3rd parties might be viable regionally, but they simply cannot be on a national scale. The Duverger's law accounts for this, theorizing that in federalist systems like ours, where our high office is nationally elected, the parties have to merge on a national scale to keep competitive for the presidency.

I am well aware of Duverger's Law; I've cited it many times here. And it's true that the New Democrats and Liberal Democrats tend to receive a higher share of votes than seats, while the Bloc Quebecois and Scottish National Party are the reverse, being regional parties.

But those hypothetical third parties would not necessarily have to compete for the Presidency; that same Presidential-Congressional system* the US has would allow them to wield influence if they only managed to elect members of Congress, and likely more than they would in a parliamentary system when another party holds a majority in the legislature.

(click to show/hide)

(click to show/hide)

Dpareja, I was on another board when I realized that somebody there did what you did here, and it made me realize that you did it. I am kind of confused as to how you can justify being upset in both of these posts. It's contradictory to get upset at Hillary when you believe she's buying superdelegates, but then to get upset again when she isn't giving enough money to superdelegates. I guess what I am trying to say is I'm a bit cynical, and I think that you just want to be mad at Clinton while supporting anything that would help Sanders win (another good example is the March 15th primaries and your response). So I ask, what is the proper balance that Clinton should take in terms of raising money for lower ticket races? 

It is one thing to oppose a candidate, but another thing entirely to oppose anything that candidate does.

It's not Clinton that I'm mad at there per se; it's the system that effectively allows donors to evade contribution limits to her (or anyone's) campaign by funneling money through state parties. She just happens to be taking advantage of it.**

As for the March 15th primaries, as I said then, I first had that thought (and posted it on another forum) at least a week prior, and I should not have posted it here when I did.

*I use this term rather than "federalist" because countries like Canada and Germany are federal, but use a parliamentary system. Even the UK is quasi-federal these days.

**As you noted, much of the money staying with the DNC will go back to the state parties. But what's happening is this: a donor can give, in one year, $2,700 directly to a campaign, and another $30,000+ (I can't recall the precise figure) to a state party. Under the scheme set up with the Victory Fund, since about 25% of the money thus raised is apparently going to Clinton's campaign, that means that donor has effectively given at least $10,000 to Clinton's campaign, almost four times what said donor is supposed to be able to give. The underlying issue is how contribution limits are thus being evaded.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: Skybison on May 06, 2016, 09:32:01 pm
Unpopular Opinion:  I don't think Hillary Clinton's foreign policy is really that bad.

Is she overly hawkish?  Probably.  But I think I am Lizard, Damen, etc are blowing it out of proportion.  She's not going to cause any disaster comparable to George W or Lyndon Johnson's.  And I think the anti-hillary crowd are oversimplyfing complicated situation like Libya to give her more blame then she deserves.  She's just going to be another four to eight years of Obama, not a dangerous warmonger.

EDIT: Before he dropped out Kasich released an ad warning of the terrible evils that would be unleashed when Trump's nomination gave Hillary the white house:

Quote
Upon defeating Donald Trump in the largest landslide since Reagan in 1984, President Hillary Clinton is preparing to name her newest Supreme Court justice, Elizabeth Warren. (House) Speaker Nancy Pelosi is planning new tax hikes, hoping that Senate President Chuck Schumer and his new Democratic majority can swiftly get it to the President’s desk for her signature.”

“New executive orders restricting the Second Amendment are being drafted while increased federal spending on Obamacare is readied. Meanwhile, our allies across the world are swiftly losing faith in America’s role as a global leader, empowering our enemies and leaving America in a more dangerous position. But we have hope it can be different...”

Justice Elizabeth Warren sounds great, I hope Hillary gets to do all of these things.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: lord gibbon on May 06, 2016, 09:46:04 pm
Frankly, it's not her foreign policy that worries me, it's her economic policy.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: Skybison on May 06, 2016, 09:52:09 pm
Yeah I do have more agreement with the anti-hillary parts of the internet on economics.  The US needs some big changes to fix the problems that caused the great recession and Hillary seems very unlikely to do them.  But Foreign policy I really don't think she's as bad as people say she is.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: dpareja on May 06, 2016, 10:10:01 pm
EDIT: Before he dropped out Kasich released an ad warning of the terrible evils that would be unleashed when Trump's nomination gave Hillary the white house:

Quote
Upon defeating Donald Trump in the largest landslide since Reagan in 1984, President Hillary Clinton is preparing to name her newest Supreme Court justice, Elizabeth Warren. (House) Speaker Nancy Pelosi is planning new tax hikes, hoping that Senate President Chuck Schumer and his new Democratic majority can swiftly get it to the President’s desk for her signature.”

“New executive orders restricting the Second Amendment are being drafted while increased federal spending on Obamacare is readied. Meanwhile, our allies across the world are swiftly losing faith in America’s role as a global leader, empowering our enemies and leaving America in a more dangerous position. But we have hope it can be different...”

Justice Elizabeth Warren sounds great, I hope Hillary gets to do all of these things.

Link to ad: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=395aeuCSu2k
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: Skybison on May 06, 2016, 11:09:05 pm
Okay I'll go threw the rest of these links in a bit, but the first link you provided is a perfect example of what I'm talking about:

Quote
So it's true that the State Department (then led by Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State) strongly opposed a minimum wage increase in Haiti in 2009. However, the State Department's efforts did not occur in a political or economic vacuum, and Clinton wasn't the sole architect of efforts to quash a minimum wage hike (as the meme suggests).  It was a concerted effort on the part of Haitian elites, factory owners, free trade proponents, U.S. politicians, economists, and American companies that kept the minimum wage so low, and to lay the blame squarely at the feet of any sitting Secretary of State would be an incomplete assessment, and thus inaccurate.

I'm not claiming that Hillary Clinton hasn't done bad things.  I'm not denying there are some major criticisms that can be leveled at her.  I'm arguing that Bernie Bro types are taking legitimate issues with her and greatly exaggerating them and oversimplifying situations to blame them on her personally.  Exactly like your snopes link says.

Edit: Your third link agrees

Quote
the cables do not contain conclusive evidence that the State Department actively pressured Haiti to block the increase nor do they prove that Clinton personally played a role.

Links 4 and 5:

Okay I agree that the US government is far too willing to look the other way over Israel's human rights abuses.  But none of that is anything especially bad about Hillary, merely that she is a typical democrat. 
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: Skybison on May 07, 2016, 12:42:53 am
Nah, it's alright.  But remember dude Don't Go Full Paragon.  Just posting a bunch of links isn't the same thing as an argument, and make sure you read them first too make sure they actually make you're point.  Because I'm half way through your list and 5/8 of your links don't support their being anything worse then normal about her foreign policy.  For the Haiti thing two out of three said she was being disproportionately blamed and the other didn't mention her.  Yes it's possible she was involved but that's not the same thing as evidence.  It's possible that you are the Boston Strangler after all.

The Honduras stuff was more substantive, although I know little about the matter, but just listing "here's a bunch of bad stuff she did" doesn't prove she's terrible overall.  I could easily provide links about FDR's Japanese interment or the failures of some of his New Deal policies, but that would not prove he was a terrible president.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: Askold on May 07, 2016, 01:03:46 am
Some places like Imgur are crawling with political spammers. I don't know how popular Hillary Clinton is but she certainly has the most haters.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: Askold on May 08, 2016, 05:45:42 am
(http://66.media.tumblr.com/701696e1c13985edcced6827aa37808c/tumblr_o6tp213iHv1qz9bu3o1_1280.png)

Interesting if true. And how did Bush win Dukakis if he was that much more popular? The usual election shenanigans or were people just voting for their party regardless of who the candidate was?
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: mellenORL on May 08, 2016, 08:38:43 am
I voted for Dukakis. He's a good pol. Former CIA Director George H.W. Bush was Reagan's VP, Reagan had 8 years to mesmerize the American collective psyche to a net result of popular, regardless that he was an extremely evil, treasonous fuck (Iran Contra scandal). Keep in mind that Dukakis had been Governor of Massachusetts - traditionally regarded the most liberal state....and that too many Americans then and now are shallow, naïve and prejudiced over all.

(http://i.imgur.com/SRvj9Wx.jpg)

Majority of Americans were thinking (and saying out loud) - "Dukakis? No way! Too liberal. Too Greek. Too short. Georgie has experience! Georgie looks Presidential! Georgie learned everything on Grandpa Reagan's knee! We love Grandpa!"
 
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: Dr. Weird on May 08, 2016, 03:14:06 pm
Interesting if true. And how did Bush win Dukakis if he was that much more popular? The usual election shenanigans or were people just voting for their party regardless of who the candidate was?

I voted for Dukakis. He's a good pol. Former CIA Director George H.W. Bush was Reagan's VP, Reagan had 8 years to mesmerize the American collective psyche to a net result of popular, regardless that he was an extremely evil, treasonous fuck (Iran Contra scandal). Keep in mind that Dukakis had been Governor of Massachusetts - traditionally regarded the most liberal state....and that too many Americans then and now are shallow, naïve and prejudiced over all.

Majority of Americans were thinking (and saying out loud) - "Dukakis? No way! Too liberal. Too Greek. Too short. Georgie has experience! Georgie looks Presidential! Georgie learned everything on Grandpa Reagan's knee! We love Grandpa!"
 

I was still too young to vote in 1988, but it was the first Presidential election I really followed.  To expand a little on what mellenORL said (which is correct):

--Dukakis had a couple of major gaffes that reinforced the whole "too liberal" thing.  A terrible debate performance where he was asked a disgusting question about his wife being murdered, which he tried to answer instead of telling the moderator to fuck off, which made him look cold and inhuman.  There was also the photo op with him in a tank, that looked almost as ridiculous as Duhbya playing fighter pilot.

--Karl Rove's spiritual predecessor Lee Atwater created a vile, race-baiting attack ad associating Dukakis with Willie Horton, a black (like I said, race-baiting) murderer who killed again after being let out on parole.  So basically "Dukakis would let all the scary black killers out of prison to murder you and probably rape your white daughters." (Basically, change 'black" to "Mexican" and it's a lot like what Drumpf sounds like now.)

Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: Ultimate Paragon on May 08, 2016, 07:00:31 pm
--Karl Rove's spiritual predecessor Lee Atwater created a vile, race-baiting attack ad associating Dukakis with Willie Horton, a black (like I said, race-baiting) murderer who killed again after being let out on parole.  So basically "Dukakis would let all the scary black killers out of prison to murder you and probably rape your white daughters." (Basically, change 'black" to "Mexican" and it's a lot like what Drumpf sounds like now.)

While there was probably some race-baiting involved (Southern strategy, after all), the main reason is that Horton was an embarrassment to Dukakis, who vetoed a bill that would've prohibited first-degree murderers like Horton from participating in the furlough program.  But even with that context, it was still a nasty act of shameless demagoguery.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: dpareja on May 08, 2016, 11:18:02 pm
In the realm of things not particularly relevant: Clinton has extended her lead on Sanders by 1 delegate by winning four delegates to his three in the Guam caucus.

Also in the realm of things not particularly relevant: Sanders may meanwhile have gained a delegate on Clinton from the Maine state convention. The caucuses had him estimated to take 16 to Clinton's 9, but the convention looks to award him 17 to her 8.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: The_Queen on May 09, 2016, 11:56:04 am
Nah, it's alright.  But remember dude Don't Go Full Paragon.  Just posting a bunch of links isn't the same thing as an argument, and make sure you read them first too make sure they actually make you're point.  Because I'm half way through your list and 5/8 of your links don't support their being anything worse then normal about her foreign policy.  For the Haiti thing two out of three said she was being disproportionately blamed and the other didn't mention her.  Yes it's possible she was involved but that's not the same thing as evidence.  It's possible that you are the Boston Strangler after all.

The Honduras stuff was more substantive, although I know little about the matter, but just listing "here's a bunch of bad stuff she did" doesn't prove she's terrible overall.  I could easily provide links about FDR's Japanese interment or the failures of some of his New Deal policies, but that would not prove he was a terrible president.
I wasn't trying to prove she was bad, just that her foreign policy is. I'm not totally sure how I could show she's not a good canidate, I'm pretty sure the burden of proof would be on her supporters.

Also point taken on Hati.

Issues of good or bad candidates is a matter of opinion. As such, there is no burden of proof since it is purely subjective.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: dpareja on May 10, 2016, 11:29:10 pm
West Virginia: Sanders wins, but it's still looking to be too little, too late.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: I am lizard on May 20, 2016, 09:29:22 pm
I don't understand the argument that Hillary will compromise better. Republicans hate her so much for the Benghazi I think she could make a bill adding Ronald Reagan to mt. Rushmore and they'd be against it.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: dpareja on May 20, 2016, 10:37:26 pm
I don't understand the argument that Hillary will compromise better. Republicans hate her so much for the Benghazi I think she could make a bill adding Ronald Reagan to mt. Rushmore and they'd be against it.

Yeah, but on occasion she'll propose things they like. Sanders wouldn't.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: Ironchew on May 20, 2016, 10:48:54 pm
I don't understand the argument that Hillary will compromise better. Republicans hate her so much for the Benghazi I think she could make a bill adding Ronald Reagan to mt. Rushmore and they'd be against it.

Yeah, but on occasion she'll propose things they like. Sanders wouldn't.

If you want a president the Republicans like, then it's more straightforward to elect a Republican.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: The_Queen on May 20, 2016, 11:49:25 pm
I don't understand the argument that Hillary will compromise better. Republicans hate her so much for the Benghazi I think she could make a bill adding Ronald Reagan to mt. Rushmore and they'd be against it.

Yeah, but on occasion she'll propose things they like. Sanders wouldn't.

No, the word is compromise. You know, working across the aisle. Barney Frank has been a staunch critic of Sanders for 25 years, and Barney's criticisms highlight this intransigence.

Quote from: Barney Frank
I think Bernie Sanders tends to have the approach, "Don’t be pragmatic, state your ideals, state what you think is the right policy, and be very wary of compromise and of accepting less than you want."

and

Quote from: Barney Frank
Bernie alienates his natural allies....His holier-than-thou attitude—saying in a very loud voice he is smarter than everyone else and purer than everyone else—really undercuts his effectiveness.

It also doesn't help Bernie that he alienates his colleagues in Congress (both chambers, mind you). Going to youtube will show you a great number of c-span videos where Bernie disses the very people he has to work with. Even in the third or fourth debate, Bernie said "it is no secret that the establishment is lining up to support Hillary Clinton" in reference to superdelegates. I mean, how do you think those superdelegates felt? Sure, some may have supported her due to a belief of inevitability, but many certainly supported her because they felt she was a better candidate for the position, and then to be denigrated on national television as some sort of conspiracy against him while being called "establishment." All of this is a long-winded way of saying that Bernie has even more of an uphill climb than Hillary, because he's alienated the very people necessary to legislate his policy proposals.

Also, I have no idea why people continue to call Hillary a republican, because if she is a republican, then so is Bernie: They've voted together 93% of the time, with most of their disagreements being non-substantive issues (when to end a debate). A review of her voting record shows she's a "hardcore liberal" to the left of most of her senate colleagues—including Obama. True, Bill Clinton presided as a moderate, but if feminism means anything, then it must mean that it is unfair to define Hillary's position by her husband's.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: Skybison on May 21, 2016, 01:43:56 am
I don't understand the argument that Hillary will compromise better. Republicans hate her so much for the Benghazi I think she could make a bill adding Ronald Reagan to mt. Rushmore and they'd be against it.

I think the issue is seeing Bernie as someone who talks big but doesn't have any real workable plan.  To quote Paul Krugman:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/08/opinion/sanders-over-the-edge.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=1

Quote
Let me illustrate the point about issues by talking about bank reform.

The easy slogan here is “Break up the big banks.” It’s obvious why this slogan is appealing from a political point of view: Wall Street supplies an excellent cast of villains. But were big banks really at the heart of the financial crisis, and would breaking them up protect us from future crises?

Many analysts concluded years ago that the answers to both questions were no. Predatory lending was largely carried out by smaller, non-Wall Street institutions like Countrywide Financial; the crisis itself was centered not on big banks but on “shadow banks” like Lehman Brothers that weren’t necessarily that big. And the financial reform that President Obama signed in 2010 made a real effort to address these problems. It could and should be made stronger, but pounding the table about big banks misses the point.

I admit I don't know much about economics, but seeing someone like Krugman say Sander's politics are just empty populism that won't really help makes me a lot more ambivalent about supporting him.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: The_Queen on May 21, 2016, 02:16:21 am
The point of that was to rile up voters. I don't think any delegate will care about Bernie saying rude things to them more than congress cares whenever a canidate insults them.

You just ignored my answer to your question (both compromise and 25 years of alienation) to focus on one lone example from a recent debate. Further, you pull a Paragon and say "I don't think" without providing any substantive basis for your position. Further, doing it to "rile up the voters" is not a good excuse, because it's a public denigration of the primary's procedure and questions the integrity of the superdelegates themselves.

According to BBC (I read the article!) Bernie is significantly to the left of Hillary on a number of issues, including healthcare and education.

I actually got it from 538, and I have never seen this BBC article (that you read!). Fivethirtyeight (http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/hillary-clinton-was-liberal-hillary-clinton-is-liberal/), citing ontheissues.org, wrote that "Clinton rates as a 'hard core liberal.'" Elaborating, fivethirtyeight wrote, "[Hillary] is as liberal as Elizabeth Warren and barely more moderate than Bernie Sanders."

Taking a peak at the charts that ontheissues put together, Hillary is more morderate than Bernie. The chart is slightly modified from the Nolan grid, but it is 100,0 (socially and economically liberal, respectively), 0,100 (socially and economically conservative), 100, 100 (libertarian), and 0,0 populist. Bernie is 100, 10, and Hillary is 80, 10. While a difference of 20 is noteworthy, it is also a bit misleading. The issue is not the difference between Bernie and Hillary, but where Hillary sits on the spectrum, and in that sense, she is clearly far to left. Focusing only on the liberal part (ignoring centrist part, and making anything 50+,50- in the liberal section, for simplicity), she's in the farthest 8% of the liberal spectrum. By difference, Bernie is in the farthest 2%. Yeah, she's more moderate than him, but not by much in the grand scheme of things. She remains a hardcore liberal.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: The_Queen on May 22, 2016, 01:38:09 am
Okay, first off I don't see how a single person not liking him counts as proof he can't work with anyone ever. For all I know he could be an outlier.

Secondly, you used anecdotal evidence to support your case that ranting about the establishment alienates delegates, but criticize me for making a case via anecdotal evidence. Pretty sure the Burden of proof is on you case.

I used that as the most recent example, from one of the most long-standing critics of Sanders. I pointed to several other examples over the months of Bernie alienating his colleagues. I most recently suggested looking up (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vabeos-F8Kk) old C-span videos (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Ae2fGQKgzw). More examples exist in written medium. Less than two years ago, Bernie stated, "the Democratic Party does not represent, and has not for many years, the interests of my constituency, which is primarily working families, middle-class people and low-income people." To Playboy, Bernie once stated "what the Democratic campaign program is about is: We’re pretty bad, but they’re worse, vote for us. That’s true: We’re pretty bad, but the Republicans are worse, and that’s the reason you should vote for Democrats." In a recent television ad Bernie stated (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/apr/20/bernie-s/bernie-sanders-ad-ignores-fact-members-congress-ca/) (and was rated as mostly false) "Wall Street banks shower Washington politicians with campaign contributions and speaking fees. And what do they get for it? A rigged economy, tax breaks and bailouts, all held in place by a corrupt campaign finance system. And while Washington politicians are paid over $200,000 an hour for speeches, they oppose raising the living wage to $15 an hour. $200,000 an hour for them, but not even 15 bucks an hour for all Americans." Yeah, giving 20 million people healthcare, giving 4.2 million people a meaningful pay raise, and letting the Bush tax-cuts expire for all but the bottom 98% are really great examples of not caring about working families, middle-class people and low-income people. I'm not saying that the democrats are perfect, but making the good the enemy of the perfect only ensures that we wind up with nothing.

More so, even wikipedia says of Sanders, "During his first year in the House, Sanders often alienated allies and colleagues with his criticism of both political parties as working primarily on behalf of the wealthy." Representative Joe Moakley said of Bernie, "He screams and hollers, but he's all alone." Bill Richardson, who worked alongside Bernie in the House before becoming Governor of New Mexico, described Bernie as "a homeless waif" (referencing that nobody wants to work with him). It's no secret that Sanders has a quarter-century record of alienating off his colleagues. And in the alternative, let's assume that Bernie is right about his colleagues being beholden to Wall Street, fact remains that denigrating the institution of Congress and your colleagues is not a good way to get people on your side. And even if one does believe that congresspeople are beholden to big money, it is foolish to believe that the representatives (small "r") never do anything good for the middle and working class as there are countless examples to the contrary.

Quote
the other stuff
The difrence between getting your college tuition payed for and 5-10 years of college debt is rather substantial. What I'm saying is that small difrences aren't.

Politifact reported that Bernie's policy proposals to pay for free college is "mostly false." (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/apr/04/bernie-s/bernie-sanders-says-wall-street-tax-would-pay-his-/) This does not even include unintended consequences of free college, such as increased students and increased need for professors and university buildings (which would raise the cost of paying for college, while the amount Bernie plans to allocate is based on today's figures). More fundamentally, it relies on an assumption that states would even go along with it (footing 1/3 of the bill), when the medicaid expansion in Obamacare provides strong evidence that such a thing would not happen across the nation (ergo, leaving some cost to the student to pay over 5-10 years). None of this should be seen as an attack on Bernie as much as a skepticism that he can fulfill his promises. In sum, I think that when looking at what Bernie can realistically accomplish alongside what Hillary could, the differences are pretty minor. Additionally, one thing I have noticed is that Hillary's policy proposals tend to utilize instances in which she could improve things by executive powers and presidential fiat (example, student loan rates), which do not need Congressional approval. That is the kind of policy wonk that I think would be best suited to the presidency, because, and I belabor the point after almost 9 months, I believe that she can get more things done that will help people in need.

Additionally, all this argument is is a focus on a specific portion of the record to highlight a difference as opposed to examining their aggregated records, which tells a more complete story. It's intellectually dishonest to focus solely on the part of their records that is most beneficial to yourself while ignoring the rest. It is spurious research done for the purpose of supporting the position you want (as opposed to finding the fact). Finally, fact is, Hillary and Bernie are incredibly similar politically (and I concede, Bernie is slightly to the left of Hillary), and it is a misrepresentation--if not a full-blown lie--to treat an exception to such a fact as the norm.

I respect you deeply and think you're probably one of the smartest board members. I just think you picking Hillary is dumb.

Cool story, bro.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: The_Queen on May 23, 2016, 09:13:16 am
You know what? It just occurred this argument is pointless as neither of us will back down from out position, and will just result in us becoming more bitter and (at least for me) stressed.

Unlike skyfire, I don't quote myself. But I will quote this girl, and she's a playa too.

Cool story, bro.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: Askold on May 23, 2016, 09:50:00 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_S2G8jhhUHg

...USA, you guys are weird.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: I am lizard on May 24, 2016, 12:16:55 am
I'll respond for you.

Cool story, bro.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: Skybison on May 24, 2016, 11:25:46 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrGlaUo4JEE
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: davedan on May 24, 2016, 06:59:21 pm
You know the more I watch of Samantha Bee, the more I think she has truly taken over John Stewart's mantle from the daily show, more than John Oliver, Stephen Colbert or Trevor Noah.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: The_Queen on May 24, 2016, 07:35:22 pm
You know the more I watch of Samantha Bee, the more I think she has truly taken over John Stewart's mantle from the daily show, more than John Oliver, Stephen Colbert or Trevor Noah.

Same. I was just saying the other day that I enjoy Noah, I like Wilmer and Oliver, and I love Colbert, but Bee takes the cake. She has the in-depth reporting on issues that is only matched by Oliver, a finely tuned bullshit detector that exceeds the rest by miles, and the ability to land a punchline from out of no where. When this first season is up, she should get a nice payday. Hopefully TBS extends the show to a weekly 1 hour,or a daily 30 minute series. Either way, her show is amazing.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: The_Queen on May 24, 2016, 08:25:40 pm
Ok, I don't know where else to ask this, but what type of Socialist are you?

I don't know where else to say this: fuck off. I tried to change the subject by going along with Davedan on Bee. Nevertheless, that isn't good enough. In the past, you've passive aggressively taken jabs at me over socialism, and now you pretend all of that didn't happen, expecting me to explain myself as though I have a modicum of respect for you. I don't owe you a damn thing, let alone an explanation about my personal views. Seriously kid, who do you think you are?
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: davedan on May 24, 2016, 08:35:51 pm
Well he claims to be a lizard. But honestly I'd like to know what sort of lizard he is. I suspect he's big noting himself and he's really a guppy.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: RavynousHunter on May 24, 2016, 08:36:01 pm
Jesus Christ, Queen, calm down.  He asked a simple question, no need to bite a dude's head off.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: dpareja on May 24, 2016, 09:02:59 pm
Jesus Christ, Queen, calm down.  He asked a simple question, no need to bite a dude's head off.

Considering the number of times people here (including myself) have basically said that you can't be a socialist and support Clinton, I'm not at all surprised she'd be frustrated (to say the very least) by anything even seeming to insinuate that.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: RavynousHunter on May 24, 2016, 09:15:04 pm
Jesus Christ, Queen, calm down.  He asked a simple question, no need to bite a dude's head off.

Considering the number of times people here (including myself) have basically said that you can't be a socialist and support Clinton, I'm not at all surprised she'd be frustrated (to say the very least) by anything even seeming to insinuate that.


I suppose.  The rage train's starting to wear, is all.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: The_Queen on May 24, 2016, 09:23:35 pm
Jesus Christ, Queen, calm down.  He asked a simple question, no need to bite a dude's head off.

I'm not angry, Lizard's just being a disrespectful little shit. He wants to be passive aggressive towards me, he wants to challenge me on my views, he wants to go full Paragon in this thread, he wants to call me dumb for having a simple disagreement on politicians of all god-damned things, and then he acts as though I owe him some sort of explanation on my views when I've already explained them. Again, I'm not angry: I simply want to know where he gets off being such a pretentious and entitled ass towards me.

ETA:

Jesus Christ, Queen, calm down.  He asked a simple question, no need to bite a dude's head off.

Considering the number of times people here (including myself) have basically said that you can't be a socialist and support Clinton, I'm not at all surprised she'd be frustrated (to say the very least) by anything even seeming to insinuate that.


A large part of it is this, and a smaller part of it is that I'm not about to play this game where I have to justify myself or my views to someone on the internet, let alone someone who has been acting the way Lizard has been acting of late. I have nothing to prove to him, and it's disrespectful for him to act as though I'm some sort of oddity (ErMerGerd, der Herllery Serperter on the internert) who owes him some sort of explanation for my views.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: davedan on May 24, 2016, 09:31:19 pm
Also Lizard's conversational skills are to put it euphemistically fucked. Half the time he doesn't fucking make sense. Then he goes back and edits or deletes what he's said so your post ends up looking like  a cock in a nunnery. It's justified by some heavy breathing teenage angst that is frankly fucking annoying.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: dpareja on May 24, 2016, 09:33:47 pm
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/sanders-clinton-democratic-platform-1.3597020

Basically, the 15-member committee that sets the Democratic Party platform will have six Clinton appointees, five Sanders appointees, and four Wasserman Schultz appointees. (By the rules of the Democratic Party, the chair of the DNC, Wasserman Schultz, can nominate all fifteen.)

Now I'm waiting to see which media outlets spin this as "Sanders gets some say in Democratic platform," which spin it as "Democratic platform to be written by socialist," and which spin it as "Clinton and Wasserman Schultz get to ignore Sanders in writing Democratic platform."
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: davedan on May 24, 2016, 09:42:20 pm
When was the last time the unsuccessful nominee was allowed to appoint members to the platform committee?
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: The_Queen on May 24, 2016, 10:26:02 pm
When was the last time the unsuccessful nominee was allowed to appoint members to the platform committee?

I'm not looking it up, but I would be seriously surprised if Hillary didn't get a few members in her 2008 bid. These inner workings of politics rarely get media attention, because they're dry and boring. I couldn't find anything definitive, but this article (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/17/prominent-clinton-backer-and-dnc-member-to-endorse-mccain-2/comment-page-30/) says a Clinton supporter and member of the Platform committee endorsed McCain in 2008.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: davedan on May 25, 2016, 12:01:02 am
OK so it isn't something outrageously different to what they've done before. On the otherhand what's with the Democrats and throwing the toys out of the pram? The Republicans won't, just watch after all the handwringing they are all going to line up behind the Oompa loompah with the overactive pituitary.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: Askold on May 25, 2016, 02:08:56 am
Wow, you folks are getting a bit hostile over these elections. And it's not like anyone here supports Trump or any really offensive agendas.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: Dakota Bob on May 25, 2016, 04:59:45 am
OK so it isn't something outrageously different to what they've done before. On the otherhand what's with the Democrats and throwing the toys out of the pram? The Republicans won't, just watch after all the handwringing they are all going to line up behind the Oompa loompah with the overactive pituitary.

Didn't most of them already do that? It's not like Trump would be the weirdest candidate they've supported.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: Dakota Bob on May 26, 2016, 05:57:15 am
Aw shit this could be fun (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/trump-sanders-kimmel-debate-223594)
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: Damen on May 28, 2016, 01:29:02 am
Yeah, Trump changed his mind and backed out. Sanders, for all intents and purposes, called him a pussy. (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/donald-trump-backs-debate-bernie-sanders/story?id=39439007)
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: Askold on May 28, 2016, 01:41:45 am
...Aww.

That would have been a win-win situation for everyone. Both the Sanders and Trump fans would have claimed that their dude won and Clinton could have claimed moral victory by claiming that Sanders lost the debate while talking about him or that Trump made a fool of himself because he went to a debate with someone who won't even be the Democrat nominee.

Now Trump might suffer from this being used against him in the latter way and the rest of us missed a funny debate.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: Ironchew on May 31, 2016, 12:20:54 am
Hillary presidency predictions:

"Guantanamo bay" renamed "Harriet Tubman bay"

Police will be required to shoot black people in a gender neutral way.

More female drone pilots.

From now on feminine hygiene products will be exempt from trade embargoes.

When granting pardons to war criminals she will be sure to make a statement about the importance of equal pay.



Eight years from now I'll call you on those failed predictions. Clinton's neocon foreign policy will cause enough suffering without you getting all hyperbolic about it.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: davedan on May 31, 2016, 12:53:42 am
Does anyone really think Hillary's foreign policy is going to be drastically different from Obama's? Hardly capable of dropping more bombs on Syria and I can't imagine the US has the stomach for any more ground troops overseas?
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: Ironchew on May 31, 2016, 01:10:40 am
Does anyone really think Hillary's foreign policy is going to be drastically different from Obama's?

Not much different. That's why I didn't vote for Obama in 2012.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: Skybison on May 31, 2016, 01:12:16 am
^^I don't.  There are some serious criticisms to level at her but the Berniebro types are really hyperbolic about it.

Also Hillary Clinton isn't a Neoconservative.

Neocon, like fascist or socialist, is one of those terms that gets thrown around meaning "anything I dislike" but it has a specific meaning that only applies to a small number of people.  Liberal Interventionists like Hillary are quite different.

A Neoconservative is someone who walks into a bar, sees a scary looking guy and immediately attacks him and starts beating the shit out of him because he might start a fight.

A Liberal Interventionist walks into a bar, sees two other people fighting and tries to grab the brawlers and pull them apart.

One is trying to stop a fight, the other is out to start one.

Now that doesn't mean liberal interventionism is a good idea in all circumstances, lots of times it will only make the situation worse.  But there are also situations where liberal interventionists have helped to stop wars and minimized the death toll overall (The balkans in the late 90s, Tony Blair in Sierra Leone in 2000) so I'm not against it in principle.

Here's a blog post that puts it better then I'd be able too

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2016/03/02/libya-and-rwanda/
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: davedan on May 31, 2016, 01:14:07 am
Does anyone really think Hillary's foreign policy is going to be drastically different from Obama's?

Not much different. That's why I didn't vote for Obama in 2012.

Well I don't see how it's causing this much hand wringing because even with that neither Obama nor Clinton will be as bellicose as the Republicans nor will they be actively looking for wars for profit like their predecessor.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: I am lizard on May 31, 2016, 02:13:09 am
Does anyone really think Hillary's foreign policy is going to be drastically different from Obama's?

Not much different. That's why I didn't vote for Obama in 2012.

Well I don't see how it's causing this much hand wringing because even with that neither Obama nor Clinton will be as bellicose as the Republicans nor will they be actively looking for wars for profit like their predecessor.
Libya and Honduras.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: Skybison on May 31, 2016, 02:52:53 am
^Neither of which were started by Obama and Hillary, not were profits their motive.

There's plenty to criticize about the handling of those situations, but if they had stayed out of it bad shit would have happened anyway.

Libya was already in the middle of a civil war and it was Britain and France that started western intervention, not the US.  And I don't see what profits the US stood to gain from the situation.  Honduras I don't know as much about but it appears to have been a local power struggle that spiraled out of control.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: dpareja on May 31, 2016, 04:38:56 am
Here's a question: with Republicans potentially splitting between pro-Trump and anti-Trump camps, and Democrats potentially splitting between pro-Clinton and anti-Clinton camps, does this election mark the beginning of the end for the sixth party system (or fifth if you think that one still continues)? And if it does, given the pressure toward a two-party system imposed by Duverger's Law and the first-past-the-post electoral system, what will the new coalitions look like when the dust settles?
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: mellenORL on May 31, 2016, 01:23:11 pm
Has she re-thought the idea of imposing a no fly zone in Syria? I hope so. That would give cheeky ship and plane buzzing Russia a great opportunity to start potentially serious shit with the anti-ISIS coalition and directly with the U.S. over there.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: The_Queen on May 31, 2016, 04:42:23 pm
Libya and Honduras.
^Neither of which were started by Obama and Hillary, not were profits their motive.

There's plenty to criticize about the handling of those situations, but if they had stayed out of it bad shit would have happened anyway.

Libya was already in the middle of a civil war and it was Britain and France that started western intervention, not the US.  And I don't see what profits the US stood to gain from the situation.  Honduras I don't know as much about but it appears to have been a local power struggle that spiraled out of control.
I meant we got militarily involved in them.

Lizard, I'm really confused as to what you think we should've done regarding Libya and Honduras. Instead of having a coherent foreign policy, you simply appear to be taking a contrarian stance of opposition to anything Hillary. She says "A" you say "B," she say "B" you counter with "A." I say this because you criticize our involvement in Libya (a NATO led intervention supported by Clinton, Trump, and Bernie), but then bring up Honduras to criticize Clinton, a country in which the State department did nothing to stop a military coup and was too quick to recognize the new regime, casting the country into a military dictatorship complete with government assassinations. In essence, there was no military intervention in Honduras, which is thing you suggest we should've done regarding Libya. And yet, somehow, Clinton is still at fault. That is, unless we're talking about different situations regarding Honduras.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: davedan on May 31, 2016, 11:19:23 pm
Does anyone really think Hillary's foreign policy is going to be drastically different from Obama's?

Not much different. That's why I didn't vote for Obama in 2012.

Well I don't see how it's causing this much hand wringing because even with that neither Obama nor Clinton will be as bellicose as the Republicans nor will they be actively looking for wars for profit like their predecessor.
Upon analyzing bullshit I've realized my stance on Libya was flawed, and isn't a good platform to attack Hillary on.

A better example would be her position on Iran. She's stated she would use "Massive retaliation" if Iran were to attack Israel. Just saying something like that is pretty fucked up. Places like Iran or Pakistan will immediantly use that kind of sound bites to stir up fear, and considering what we've done to them  recently I wouldn't blame them.

As for an actual policy, that just 11 kinds of disturbing. Is she saying any attack on Israel would prompt massive retaliation? So if Iran kills one person we kill 50 times that? Your first reaction to an attack on Israel should be trying to negotiate with them or finding out the reasons for the attack. Use military force to prevent attacks not get revenge for them! And before you say "well America needs to respond to our enemies or risk appearing weak!" allow me to point out she wasn't provinging war a an option, she was saying she would go to war over an attack.

In addition to that she was involved in creating the 1929 sanctions (as well as a few more in congress). While the bills contained lots of restrictions on nuclear material and such (which is fine) they also contained sanctions on Irans economy, something which no doubt caused countless suffering to Iranian citizens.

You don't like Hillary, I get it. I also get that you aren't quite well informed enough or sufficiently articulate to properly express why you don't like Hillary.

That's fine I don't really give a toss. But please tell me how you think her Foreign Policy will be vastly different from the policy of the last 8 years?

One of the things that has surprised me recently is how little credit Obama has gotten for quietly making significant changes in the face of the shrill opposition of the Republican party. He reaches a treaty with Iran which will delay their having Nuclear Weapons. At the same time it lifts sanctions that have been in place since the 70s. He's reached out to Cuba. Free trade is going to be far more effective in changing Cuba and Iran than sanctions were. He did all this over the GOP suggesting that he was selling out the US. Yet for those who should be supporting him it isn't enough. And it's not as if the US isn't used to being at war anyway. How many years of the 20th century were there that the US was not at war at anyway.

Quite frankly US foreign relations are more complicated than 'looking into bullshit'. The US will always be criticised for either being too isolationist or too interventionist. There are things that Obama has done which I disagree with but they aren't really new things. Drone Strikes for instance are a problem but no more of a problem than extra-judicial killing of non-combatants outside of warzones by helicopter. The yanks blowing up people they don't like with missiles is not new. Drones just mean that there is less risk to the Americans performing the killings. Maybe that has made them more triggerhappy than they were previously. I don't know. But what I do know is that while Obama has not been perfect (he never did close Guantanamo bay) he has been a vast improvement on the years 2000-2008. This is bearing in mind that Jimmy Carter was probably your last peaceable president.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: rookie on May 31, 2016, 11:26:59 pm
No probably about it. Since Carter, we've had Reagan (hawk), Bush (Reagan 1.5), Clinton (who had no compunction about bombing Iraq), Bush (that chicken hawk from the old Looney Tunes cartoons), and Obama (who I'll credit for being the first to understand the modern battlefield).
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: davedan on May 31, 2016, 11:30:05 pm
And it's not like Carter's predecessors were known for their restraint in getting into armed conflicts. Obama apparently greatly admired Lincoln and to an extent modeled himself on Lincoln. You have to remember Lincoln went to war to hold together the union. Now personally I think there is no doubt Lincoln was on the right side of history but he didn't have to go to war.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: davedan on May 31, 2016, 11:57:49 pm
That's extremely British of you.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: The_Queen on June 01, 2016, 12:11:41 am
Free trade is going to be far more effective in changing Cuba and Iran than sanctions were.

This is quite true. There is proof that free trade makes nations less likely to go to war. First, protectionist policies, tariffs, dumping, and the like can create retaliatory protectionist policies by other nations. Nation A then retaliates trade wise with Nation B, who then retaliates back, diplomacy and negotiation break down and cooler heads may not prevail. Indeed, World War One, and many other wars that preceded it, could be traced back to hostility that arose from tariffs and other trade barriers.

Second, free trade creates an intermingling of economies and a (to quote Keohane and Nye) "complex interdependence." To illustrate this, pretend that nation A relies on nation B for its cars, on nation C for its computers, one nation D for its steel, and on nation E for its wheat (and nations B,C,D, and E on one another for various goods). As a result, Nation A is not likely to bomb the shit out of any of these states as it will then have to spend more money to buy the goods/resources from another country, or settle for a lower quality good/resources. Not to mention the fact that if, say, country E got the shit bombed out of it, then it won't produce wheat. Thus, the price of wheat will go up on the international market, exacerbating negative effect to Country A (it has to buy from a more expensive nation and with decreased supply and similar demand, the price will naturally skyrocket). The end result is that it's a form of mutually assured destruction (or mutually assured inconvenience) for Nation A to bomb the shit out of one of these Nations since Nation A and its citizens will then lose access to the cheaper and higher-quality goods/resources that nation produced.

Quite frankly US foreign relations are more complicated than 'looking into bullshit'. The US will always be criticised for either being too isolationist or too interventionist.

This is also an astute observation. America is the single superpower militaristically in the world and the most powerful economy in the world. As such, when shit goes down in a random country, there are often cries among that country and the international community for us to step in and do something (either through money or through military). The Honduran situation that I brought up is a good example: America did its best to sit its happy ass out of it, and one person in Honduras literally and specifically called out Hillary for not stepping into protect the democratically elected government (before the new military-government assassinated her). On some level, I think humans have a moral obligation to step up and prevent genocide--especially after what we witnessed during the genocide-happy 20th century. But that doesn't mean we should get involved in every conflict, nor does that justify any action we take, nor does it give us a pass to Bush style nation building. International policies are a complex situation and easy, correct answers are very hard to come by.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: Dakota Bob on June 01, 2016, 02:51:05 am
Trump goes ballistic on judge related to the Trump University case (http://uk.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-judge-idUKKCN0YK0PA)

Hillary's email shenigans continue (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/may/31/hillary-clinton/fact-checking-hillary-clintons-claim-her-email-pra/) | Also turns out she is "uncomfortable using a PC" (http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/05/clintons-e-mail-scandal-another-case-of-the-entitled-executive-syndrome/)

Fuck this election is gonna be amazing, the 2012 American election cycle was so fucking boring. I imagine on Election Night I'll be too busy furiously masturbating myself to actually stay up and wait for the results to come in.

Also, your goof of the day:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knBNX_evIOo
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: dpareja on June 05, 2016, 06:35:23 pm
http://tinyurl.com/prematureelection

In the realm of media malpractice:

Quote
Earlier this week on MSNBC, host Chris Matthews, speaking to Jeff Weaver, campaign manager for Bernie Sanders, said and did something absolutely despicable. He knew it was problematic when he said it. He told us as much when he prefaced his comments with these words, "This is what I call trouble...I'm about to start here."

When a grown man tells you he is about to start trouble, believe him.

What followed, if Matthews is to be taken at his word, is clear evidence that television networks are colluding together to call the primary for Hillary Clinton before she reaches the delegates needed to claim victory. By doing so, they will absolutely suppress the vote in the final states that will be cast ballots in the Democratic primary. Even by mentioning it now, that the networks have already set the date and time they are calling the race for Hillary, what Matthews has done runs the very real risk of suppressing voter turnout. It's disgusting.

Matthews, having already made it clear that he was about to wade into dangerous territory with his comments, said “I’m told by the experts on numbers around here at NBC and elsewhere that come June 7, the day of the California primary, which your candidate, I totally understand wants to get to, and maybe has a chance of knocking off Hillary at that event, a big last hoorah, that at 8 o'clock that night, Eastern time, the networks will be prepared, including this one, to announce that Hillary Clinton has now gotten over the top, that she will have won the nomination in numbers, it's done. What will that do to voter turnout if that's 5 o'clock Pacific time, with three more hours to vote in California?"

How do they get to those numbers? By counting the votes from superdelegates who have said they'll support Clinton.

This isn't a knock on Clinton or her campaign; they have nothing to do with when the media decides to declare her the presumptive nominee. But this is media malpractice, because, since the superdelegates haven't voted, and won't until the convention, she will almost certainly not have the delegate votes necessary to become the nominee until then.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: The_Queen on June 05, 2016, 07:20:59 pm
http://tinyurl.com/prematureelection

In the realm of media malpractice:

Quote
Earlier this week on MSNBC, host Chris Matthews, speaking to Jeff Weaver, campaign manager for Bernie Sanders, said and did something absolutely despicable. He knew it was problematic when he said it. He told us as much when he prefaced his comments with these words, "This is what I call trouble...I'm about to start here."

When a grown man tells you he is about to start trouble, believe him.

What followed, if Matthews is to be taken at his word, is clear evidence that television networks are colluding together to call the primary for Hillary Clinton before she reaches the delegates needed to claim victory. By doing so, they will absolutely suppress the vote in the final states that will be cast ballots in the Democratic primary. Even by mentioning it now, that the networks have already set the date and time they are calling the race for Hillary, what Matthews has done runs the very real risk of suppressing voter turnout. It's disgusting.

Matthews, having already made it clear that he was about to wade into dangerous territory with his comments, said “I’m told by the experts on numbers around here at NBC and elsewhere that come June 7, the day of the California primary, which your candidate, I totally understand wants to get to, and maybe has a chance of knocking off Hillary at that event, a big last hoorah, that at 8 o'clock that night, Eastern time, the networks will be prepared, including this one, to announce that Hillary Clinton has now gotten over the top, that she will have won the nomination in numbers, it's done. What will that do to voter turnout if that's 5 o'clock Pacific time, with three more hours to vote in California?"

How do they get to those numbers? By counting the votes from superdelegates who have said they'll support Clinton.

This isn't a knock on Clinton or her campaign; they have nothing to do with when the media decides to declare her the presumptive nominee. But this is media malpractice, because, since the superdelegates haven't voted, and won't until the convention, she will almost certainly not have the delegate votes necessary to become the nominee until then.

Media malpractice? That is a tort I haven't heard of. I would love to see a lawyer argue this in court.

Jokes aside, the media included superdelegates to declare Obama the presumptive nominee in 2008 well before the Democratic National Convention (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/04/us/politics/04elect.html). In fact, it has always been the norm for the media and the DNC to declare a candidate the presumptive nominee once they hit the magic number of pledged and super delegates. (http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/5/29/1532358/-What-Does-It-Mean-to-Clinch-the-Nomination-When-Superdelegates-Are-Involved) While it is true the Supers haven't "voted," to the that end neither have the pledged delegates. Thus, by this logic, Sanders and Clinton are tied at 0-0 in delegates (though, Clinton still leads by about 3 million popular votes). Similarly, it would mean we couldn't declare the winner in the general election until December after the electoral college meets and formally votes. It's really a form of willful blindness, and that is why the media ignores this point. If this is the way things have always been done, and indeed it is necessary to do it this way to know the winner so the party can plan for the nominee and the convention, then it is just sour grapes to complain about it because Bernie didn't win.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: ironbite on June 05, 2016, 07:35:04 pm
My biggest complaint about the Supers is I just wished they had waited till now to declare Clinton the heir apparent to Obama.  That's all.

Ironbite-cause when you do it right at the get go, people get pissed.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: dpareja on June 05, 2016, 07:45:16 pm
http://tinyurl.com/prematureelection

In the realm of media malpractice:

Quote
Earlier this week on MSNBC, host Chris Matthews, speaking to Jeff Weaver, campaign manager for Bernie Sanders, said and did something absolutely despicable. He knew it was problematic when he said it. He told us as much when he prefaced his comments with these words, "This is what I call trouble...I'm about to start here."

When a grown man tells you he is about to start trouble, believe him.

What followed, if Matthews is to be taken at his word, is clear evidence that television networks are colluding together to call the primary for Hillary Clinton before she reaches the delegates needed to claim victory. By doing so, they will absolutely suppress the vote in the final states that will be cast ballots in the Democratic primary. Even by mentioning it now, that the networks have already set the date and time they are calling the race for Hillary, what Matthews has done runs the very real risk of suppressing voter turnout. It's disgusting.

Matthews, having already made it clear that he was about to wade into dangerous territory with his comments, said “I’m told by the experts on numbers around here at NBC and elsewhere that come June 7, the day of the California primary, which your candidate, I totally understand wants to get to, and maybe has a chance of knocking off Hillary at that event, a big last hoorah, that at 8 o'clock that night, Eastern time, the networks will be prepared, including this one, to announce that Hillary Clinton has now gotten over the top, that she will have won the nomination in numbers, it's done. What will that do to voter turnout if that's 5 o'clock Pacific time, with three more hours to vote in California?"

How do they get to those numbers? By counting the votes from superdelegates who have said they'll support Clinton.

This isn't a knock on Clinton or her campaign; they have nothing to do with when the media decides to declare her the presumptive nominee. But this is media malpractice, because, since the superdelegates haven't voted, and won't until the convention, she will almost certainly not have the delegate votes necessary to become the nominee until then.

Media malpractice? That is a tort I haven't heard of. I would love to see a lawyer argue this in court.

Jokes aside, the media included superdelegates to declare Obama the presumptive nominee in 2008 well before the Democratic National Convention (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/04/us/politics/04elect.html). In fact, it has always been the norm for the media and the DNC to declare a candidate the presumptive nominee once they hit the magic number of pledged and super delegates. (http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/5/29/1532358/-What-Does-It-Mean-to-Clinch-the-Nomination-When-Superdelegates-Are-Involved) While it is true the Supers haven't "voted," to the that end neither have the pledged delegates. Thus, by this logic, Sanders and Clinton are tied at 0-0 in delegates (though, Clinton still leads by about 3 million popular votes). Similarly, it would mean we couldn't declare the winner in the general election until December after the electoral college meets and formally votes. It's really a form of willful blindness, and that is why the media ignores this point. If this is the way things have always been done, and indeed it is necessary to do it this way to know the winner so the party can plan for the nominee and the convention, then it is just sour grapes to complain about it because Bernie didn't win.

There's a difference between these, though: when the media declared Obama the winner in 2008, every state and territory had held its initial contest, and for those states where delegates aren't allocated (partly or entirely) until state conventions, only Washington (at which 27 of its 78 were allocated) and Texas (at which 67 of its 193 were allocated) had not held their state conventions. (It's true that the gap between Obama and Clinton in pledged delegates was less than 94 at that point, but the estimates on delegate allocations from those conventions were reasonably solid.) If the media declared Clinton the presumptive nominee after the California polls closed, that would be one thing (unless Sanders pulls off the biggest upset in American political history and draws within 20 pledged delegates of Clinton, thus bringing DC into play--I'm not going to pretend that the June 18 conventions will shift anything). It's declaring her the winner after New Jersey and before California polls have closed that's the problem.

As for "the pledged delegates haven't voted either," that's true. But their loyalties are far surer than the superdelegates' loyalties.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: The_Queen on June 06, 2016, 11:48:01 am
But now there are a few things going on. First, your characterization of 2008 misrepresents what happened. In 2008, Obama secured a lead among the pledged delegates with a few contests to go (maybe like 5). The media readily reported this. However, he needed to reach a majority of all delegates. Hillary still had supers endorsing her, and several supers had sat it out. As such, Obama had yet to reach the magic numbers until those late contests. The media still included the superdelegate total, even though, as you said, their ultimate decision is less certain.* The fact is, the media reported the story as soon as it broke--as it is doing now--even though Hillary could try to persuade the supers to endorse her, because she was polling better for the general than Obama. Fact is, once Obama crossed the line with a coalition that consisted of Pledged and Supers, the media reported on it (as it always did), because it's the truth and it's kind of a big story. I'll concede I can see the argument for waiting until after California. However, to call it malpractice because the will media report the truth at a time inconvenient to your candidate, or to imply the media is in some kind of collusion for Clinton, just feeds into the paranoid delusions of some Bernie supporters.

What is more, the article you presented is rife with half-truths and falsehoods. The reason I presented the history of superdelegates and calling the contest was because that was the lie necessary for your article to reach it's (il)logical conclusion. Indeed, the only way it could be premature is if they're calling the contest for someone who hasn't quite won. The article can't argue the pledged delegates, because the people (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgGnVd9vaKk) voted for Clinton. So it has to rely on mischaractizing the media as having some insidious scheme for reporting the supers early. The article writes,

Quote
What they mean, though, is that they are going to count the superdelegates in her vote total — which is ridiculous in every possible way. The superdelegates do not actually vote until the Democratic National Convention, which begins on July 25.

And this is part of a trope that Bernie, his campaign, and his most fervent supporters who cry foul at their shadows perpetuates. But fact is, this is never the way anyone operated. The DNC never operated this way because it always worked with the presumptive nominee (who was presumptive with pledged and supers) to plan for the convention. The media has always included supers as well. The argument is essentially calling for special treatment of Bernie, and then feigning outrage and crying conspiracy when Bernie doesn't get that special treatment.  Further, Bernie even arguing this contradicts his earlier positions on supers should vote with their district or not at all, and appears to be another link in the chain of Sanders arguing that Supers should do whatever benefits him in the moment. (http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/robert-schlesinger/articles/2016-04-20/bernie-sanders-path-to-the-democratic-nomination-literally-makes-no-sense)

The article states a few more falsehoods to fan the flames. First, it argues that supers supported her before a vote was cast and that is evidence that they don't care about the will of the people. But Obama called from 2008 and, according to Maury, they are NOT telling the truth. Further, they claim that all of this is evidence that the system is rigged against Bernie, but fivethirtyeight (http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-system-isnt-rigged-against-sanders/?ex_cid=538fb) reports that is a lie. The article is not written to be objective, it is written to skew a narrative in favor of Bernie.

*The pledged delegates interpret the DNC rules and what it means to be "binding." So, they aren't a sure thing either, until they actually vote.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: dpareja on June 06, 2016, 01:22:21 pm
It's the truth that Clinton will have crossed the line, but it is not the truth to say (to quote Chris Matthews), "[i]t's done," because to say that assumes that all the superdelegates will continue to vote as they've said they will, but, to cite 2008, they switch if the pledged delegate totals switch, and Clinton cannot have earned a majority of pledged delegates (looking at The Green Papers, even if she won every pledged delegate from New Jersey--126 in all--she'd still be 89 pledged delegates short of a majority among them) until after Montana closes, and even that assumes there's enough known about North Dakota's caucus to call that state. (South Dakota closes entirely at 6 PM PDT, for another 20; North Dakota has a caucus at 6 PM PDT, which could give another 18; Montana closes at 7 PM PDT, with 21 at stake; New Mexico closes at 6 PM PDT, with 34 at stake.) She'll have crossed the line as things stand, but it won't be "done."

As for Sanders' position on superdelegates, I agree that his changing tune is ridiculous and puts a crack in his image as a candidate who holds consistent views, and those of his supporters who ignore this and follow his piping on the matter are being equally ridiculous.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: The_Queen on June 06, 2016, 09:04:05 pm
According to the associated press, Hillary Rodham Clinton has secured enough supers to hit the magic number of 2383 delegates (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/06/06/hillary-clinton-democratic-nomination/85485764/) and is the current presumptive nominee for the democratic party.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: dpareja on June 07, 2016, 02:24:09 am
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2016/06/06/3784948/puerto-rico-primary-chaos/

Oh look who's salty about Puerto Rico.

(click to show/hide)

Quote
Some Democratic voters in Puerto Rico waited two to three hours in the tropical sun to cast a ballot on Sunday, causing many who couldn’t wait to give up and leave without voting.

Hillary Clinton won a decisive victory that her opponent Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) is not contesting. But the Sanders campaign and Puerto Rico’s local Democratic Party are trading accusations about who is responsible for the decision to slash the number of polling places on the island by more than two thirds — from more than 1,500 to fewer than 430 — just weeks before the election.

When local reporters challenged Puerto Rico’s Democratic Party president Roberto Prats, he shrugged it off as a sign of a healthy democracy.

“If the problem is that many people are participating, that’s a good problem to have,” he told the newspaper El Nuevo Dia. “The important thing is that the voters had the opportunity to exercise their right to vote.”
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: ironbite on June 07, 2016, 03:47:19 pm
At this point I ain't even mad.  I just wish other people wouldn't be so fucking salty and self-destructive about shit.

Ironbite-yes Sanders had the deck stacked against him from the get go but there's a point you just need to bow out gracefully.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: The_Queen on June 08, 2016, 01:58:03 am
This week in a shit-leopard can't change its spots,* is Bernie Sanders. Ever since December I've mentioned that Bernie has a long history of pissing off and alienating his colleagues (mentions which were dismissed by several posters here), and as his campaign lost any chance of hitting 2026 pledged, or 2383 delegates, politico (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/bernie-sanders-campaign-last-days-224041http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/bernie-sanders-campaign-last-days-224041) broke a story about the final days of Bernie's campaign. Noticeably, several of the recent gaffs and vitriol coming from Sanders' campaign did not come from his surrogates or advisers, but Bernie himself made the calls. The article reports that Bernie decided to give short shrift to the violence in Nevada to lambaste what he felt was a rigged Nevada caucus. While his top aides advised him to unequivocally condemn the violence in Nevada because it was only two delegates and not worth the trouble, Bernie shot them down.

Additionally, several in the media noted a harsher tone from the campaign just before New York (calling her unqualified, being flippant to her during the debate, having a surrogate call her a "corporate whore" and Rosario Dawson use Monica Lewinsky as a political football to imply Hillary is a bully). Advisers and campaign staff felt this was not a good way to win over voters in New York, but their concerns were dismissed by Bernie. Instead, Bernie felt that he was going soft on Hillary by not attacking Bill's infidelity and her emails. The article also notes that while Bernie said publicly, "nobody cares about your damn emails," he secretly held out hope for an indictment against her.

The article also notes an exchange between Reid and Sanders in which Reid tries to get hold of Sanders' donor lists to help out lower ticket democrats. Specifically, Bernie's list of donors could be a huge asset to democrats in certain areas, especially more progressive politicians that his supporters would naturally support. Nevertheless, Sanders blew off Reid's attempt to reach out to him, leaving his campaign advisers Weaver to take the flak.

Quote
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid’s call was part advice, part asking a favor, urging Sanders to use his now massive email list to help Democratic Senate candidates. Russ Feingold in Wisconsin was the most obvious prospect, and Reid wanted to make introductions to Iowa’s Patty Judge and North Carolina’s Deborah Ross—to help Democrats win the majority, but also to give Sanders allies in making himself the leader of the Senate progressives come next year.

Reid, according to people familiar with the conversation, ended the discussion thinking Sanders was on board. He backed Feingold. But that’s the last anyone heard.

Word got back to Reid’s team that Weaver had nixed the idea, ruling out backing anyone who hadn’t endorsed Sanders. Weaver says it’s because the Senate hopefuls had to get in line for Sanders’ support behind top backers like Gabbard and Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.)—though neither has a competitive race this year.

Sanders never followed up himself.

Going full circle, Sanders also had very harsh words for progressives who didn't jump on board, calling them "cynical, power-chasing chickens." Most notably among these chickens is Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio, who Bernie is so mad at for supporting Clinton, that Bernie would nix any chance of Brown serving as Clinton's veep, even though he balances the ticket well and comes from a swing-state. Similarly, it was Sanders himself that made the decision to excoriate Wasserman-Schultz, not because of any perceived bias treatment, but because she dare criticize him on television. Bernie himself chose the scorched earth campaign against Hillary and the DNC, even though several in his campaign (although not Bernie himself) knew for weeks if not months that Sanders could not hit 2026 pledged delegates.

*the shit-leopard is not a knock on Bernie, but a reference to the Netflix show Trailerpark boys. I occasionally drop Lahey's "shit-talk," done by putting the word "shit" in front of certain words. A recent example would be "never cry shit-wolf."
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: dpareja on June 08, 2016, 06:36:03 am
And now Sanders is continuing to fight, vowing to go all the way to the convention.

Okay, I like Sanders. I like him a hell of a lot more than Clinton. Move them up here, and Sanders would probably fit nicely in the NDP (which I generally support, at least federally), while Clinton would largely be a Conservative. (Granted one with liberal positions on many social issues--though she'd get crucified for mentioning her views on the death penalty--but still in the Conservative Party, and not someone for whom I'd ever vote.) But it really is time for him to cease actively campaigning for the nomination.

Clinton will have a) a majority of pledged delegates and b) not enough pledged delegates to win the nomination solely on that basis. (By my count, she'll have a little over 2,200.)  In the highly unlikely event that something turns the superdelegates off Clinton, if he's been quiet vis-à-vis her, and especially if he's instead attacking, say, Trump, then he may well have gotten some good will over the next two months that he can use at the convention to convince the delegates to elect him as the nominee. If he's continuing to rail against Clinton and pushing the superdelegates to vote for him when she's got the lead in pledged delegates, then in that event they'll eschew him and choose someone else entirely. So the one way, he retains his minute hope of being the nominee; the other way, he's screwed whatever happens, and has burned his bridges.

Of course, what he may choose to do is wait until June 18 to concede (his speech after the June 7 contests being a face-saving measure), and take a swipe at Clinton by pointing out that relative to the dates of the primaries, he's conceding to her exactly when she conceded to Obama--four days after the last primary.

I like Sanders, but he's just shooting himself in the foot staying in the race at this point. As things stand, he has no chance; if something drastic happens, he can come back, but he won't be successful if he sticks around.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: ironbite on June 08, 2016, 03:32:45 pm
Hate to tell you this Queen but you didn't get what you said rejected because we were all on the Bern train.  You got rejected because of how you delivered your message.

Ironbite-cause even though I'm throwing in the towel I am gonna say that's harsh.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: The_Queen on June 08, 2016, 11:15:06 pm
Hate to tell you this Queen but you didn't get what you said rejected because we were all on the Bern train.  You got rejected because of how you delivered your message.

Ironbite-cause even though I'm throwing in the towel I am gonna say that's harsh.

I waited from September until January before really digging into you and Nicki (that was when I first said outright that you were acting like you were in a cult). Before then, I tried politely to point you toward problems with your views (for example, the scientifically conducted polls that showed 62% of Americans felt Hillary won the first debate or statements that Bernie alienated his Super delegate colleagues). In response, you ignored that, dropped pipe-bombs, disregard facts, and go on vague conspiracy theories about the democrats, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, the media, the pollsters, Hillary, and the pundits all screwing Sanders without expounding upon those vague accusations when asked simple follow-up questions. In fact, other than bizarre insinuations, those theories lacked basic evidence. And the sad thing is, I'm sure there are theories of yours and Nicki's that I forgot.

The_Queen- Cool story bro, but I'm not about to let that piece of revisionist history fly.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: Askold on June 09, 2016, 01:21:57 am
I kinda get why Sanders is trying to fight to the bitter end. He's got nothing to lose. Clinton was offered a position in Obama's government and she knew that she could run again after Obama had served his terms. Sanders has burnt too many bridges AND his campaigning has been so focused on all or nothing that even settling for "second place" as the vice-president might been seen as betraying his principles.

Kinda sad but at this point the best he can do is inspire younger folks to follow his example.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: dpareja on June 09, 2016, 02:43:00 am
I kinda get why Sanders is trying to fight to the bitter end. He's got nothing to lose. Clinton was offered a position in Obama's government and she knew that she could run again after Obama had served his terms. Sanders has burnt too many bridges AND his campaigning has been so focused on all or nothing that even settling for "second place" as the vice-president might been seen as betraying his principles.

Kinda sad but at this point the best he can do is inspire younger folks to follow his example.

It's not entirely true that he's got nothing to lose. His choice to keep running against Clinton after he's already lost could well cost him committee positions and, if the Democrats take back the Senate this year, chairmanships. If he chooses to run again in 2018, he's said he'll run as a Democrat, rather than an independent, but I imagine he'll face a primary fight (and, honestly, if he loses, I wouldn't be too surprised to see him run as an independent anyway).
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: Askold on June 09, 2016, 03:13:32 am
Running against an incumbent president has never been easy. Much less after Trump has made America great again (Or if Clinton won then making her own party vote against a different candidate will also be a struggle based on what I've read about elections in USA.)
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: dpareja on June 09, 2016, 03:38:54 am
Running against an incumbent president has never been easy. Much less after Trump has made America great again (Or if Clinton won then making her own party vote against a different candidate will also be a struggle based on what I've read about elections in USA.)

I wasn't referring to another possible Presidential run for him, and I don't think he will run in 2020 (never mind 2024). I was referring to his prospects in 2018, when his Senate seat comes up for re-election.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: Dakota Bob on June 10, 2016, 08:41:04 am
(http://i.imgur.com/hnyhCar.png)

Could Hillary be America's first shitposting president?
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: I am lizard on June 10, 2016, 02:17:51 pm
Hello fellow kids!
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: Dakota Bob on June 11, 2016, 05:10:17 am
Hillary lists helping starve Iran and being praised by the greatest war criminal in American history as positives.

Liberals are gross.

Yeah that Kissinger comment was a bit mortifying but do you have a source for that thing about Iran?
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: davedan on June 11, 2016, 07:36:56 pm
This Post is going to be in two parts Part 1:

This came up in my facebook feed. From a friend who noted the similarities between how Hillary Clinton is being attacked and the attacks which hounded our first female Prime Minister, Julia Gillard. I think the parallels are quite surprising. Although Gillard hadn't done nearly as much as Hillary by the time she became PM. Gillard is currently lambasted as one of the worst PMs ever. I have to say I think that's complete bullshit.

Anyway here's the facebook article which suggests much of the hatred for Hillary is misogyny (Spoilered and split in two because huge) :

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: davedan on June 11, 2016, 07:37:33 pm
Part 2 of the Quote:

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: The_Queen on June 11, 2016, 08:10:33 pm
Beautiful posts davedan.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: Eiki-mun on June 11, 2016, 08:48:35 pm
Massive, though. I had to read all that in four sittings.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: davedan on June 11, 2016, 08:50:46 pm
Yeah I didn't even know we had a character limit on posts until I tried to post it in one go.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: Canadian Mojo on June 12, 2016, 07:34:14 am
Quote
...she received over $275,000 each in three speeches she gave to The Vancouver Board of Trade, the Board of Trade of Metropolitan Montreal, and Canada 2020. So apparently Canadians also “own” her. And I don’t know what those nefarious Canadians are up to, but it probably has something to do with goddamn poutine. Which would really piss me off except I just remembered that I kind of like poutine so never mind.

Dammit, he's on to us.

It doesn't matter, we'll still clog your arteries with poutine so fast you will be begging her adopt universal health care before her first term is up.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: Art Vandelay on June 12, 2016, 07:47:42 am
These are Americans you're talking about. The artery-clogging ship has sailed long, long ago.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: Canadian Mojo on June 12, 2016, 09:52:09 am
These are Americans you're talking about. The artery-clogging ship has sailed long, long ago.

True.

That's the beauty of the plan. It's the crack cocaine of artery cloggers and it's just enough to be the straw that finally breaks the camel's back.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: pyro on June 12, 2016, 12:57:22 pm
I don't see what's so unusual about the right calling her a dirty communist and the left calling her a centrist. That's exactly what happened to Barack Obama...
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: I am lizard on June 15, 2016, 07:24:45 pm
Because she sucks.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: Skybison on June 17, 2016, 03:09:46 am
I don't see what's so bad about Davedan's post.  I think it made quite a few good points.

Sorry dude but when first make a thing about how she blocked Haiti's minimum wage increase and link to articles you hadn't read claiming she wasn't responsible for it.  Then go on about Libya only to eventually admit you were wrong, and the second you do you launch into how she's bad because of Iran. 

I'm not even that big of a Hillary supporter.  There are some big criticisms that can be leveled at her.  But when you do all that you start looking like the guy on the right:

(https://wowgawd.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/the_scientific_method_vs_the_creationist_method-scaled500.gif)

Not that disliking Hillary is comparable to creationism.  But yeah you seem to be starting from a conclusion, grab anything resembling a fact that can prop it up, and if they turn out to be wrong instead of reexamining the conclusion you hunt for new facts to prop it up with.

And I'm sorry but "liberals are gross" is hypocritical from a guy who's position on genocide denial is "Meh nobody's perfect."
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: Askold on June 17, 2016, 03:32:16 am
Did you know that some Republicans are now supporting Clinton rather than Trump? And not just the average voters, some Republican politicians also prefer her rather than Trump or Sanders.

I'll try to link the article after work.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: lord gibbon on June 17, 2016, 03:37:12 am
Frankly, that makes me uncomfortable. The modern Republican party is utterly vile. The idea that a democratic candidate could get support from anyone to the right of Eisenhower is worrying.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: Askold on June 17, 2016, 03:48:32 am
Would you prefer that they all support Trump?
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: lord gibbon on June 17, 2016, 03:57:00 am
As long as it's just conservatives, sure. It would help invalidate their political movement.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: The_Queen on June 17, 2016, 05:49:57 pm
Did you know that some Republicans are now supporting Clinton rather than Trump? And not just the average voters, some Republican politicians also prefer her rather than Trump or Sanders.

I'll try to link the article after work.
makes sense, Clinton talks a lot about she'll be big into doing things to appeal to Conservatives, and make as many concessions as she can as to avoid threatening conservatives.

I mean, lots of her supporters like her (at least in part) because she's moderate.

1. Republicans that endorse her are not doing so because they think she's their BFF. They're supporting her because they find the idea of a liberal democrat to be less repugnant than whatever the fuck Trump is.

2. Lizard, you're 2/10 on the troll meter. Go back to troll school. Or at least back a few pages where I posted this (http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/hillary-clinton-was-liberal-hillary-clinton-is-liberal/). Turns out, she's a hardcore liberal. Seriously, if people just did basic research, they would find out that there isn't any evidence in her voting record of being in the pocket of the big banks, and if people just looked at politifact, they'd find out she's fundamentally honest. I'm not saying she's perfect, but the most common criticisms of her have little to no basis in reality.

3. I'm gonna stay on Lizard. You've admitted to being wrong about Clinton so many times before that I'm not going to rehash. Actually, yes I will. First it was about Haiti, then you posted contradictory things about Honduras* and Libya, then you say we "shouldn't have gotten involved in the first place" only to flip-flop when you found out Sanders supported intervention in Libya. Now, I'm not going to sit here and say Clinton is perfect; she isn't. She, like Sanders and EVERY other politician, has made mistakes, but the fact that you spout a reason to dislike her, find out it is wrong, and then come back with a new (and equally incorrect) reason to dislike her, really does give off the appearance that your opposition is not due to coherent reasoning, but something else.

*showing you had a fundamental misunderstanding about the Honduran coup, since you thought we shouldn't have gotten involved in the first place, which is the precise reason that Clinton was criticized.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: ironbite on June 17, 2016, 06:05:11 pm
Oh come on Queen.  You know Clinton is a hardcore politician who'll do anything to get ahead.  Yeah her voting record might show her to be a liberal agitator but she still voted for the Iraq war.

Ironbite-that's a huge hit to her being a liberal.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: The_Queen on June 17, 2016, 07:20:12 pm
Oh come on Queen.  You know Clinton is a hardcore politician who'll do anything to get ahead.  Yeah her voting record might show her to be a liberal agitator but she still voted for the Iraq war.

Ironbite-that's a huge hit to her being a liberal.

Yeah, cause that is how a "record" works: we look at the worst event in isolation and go from there. By that logic, Bernie isn't a Wall Street crony because he voted for the largest wall street deregulation bill in American history.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: dpareja on June 17, 2016, 07:35:22 pm
Whatever arguments are made for or against Clinton, for or against Trump, or for or against any third-party candidate, I predict that this election will set the record for most noses held (at least mentally) while voting.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: Ultimate Paragon on June 17, 2016, 07:45:33 pm
Whatever arguments are made for or against Clinton, for or against Trump, or for or against any third-party candidate, I predict that this election will set the record for most noses held (at least mentally) while voting.

Do you think this will shake up the two-party system?
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: RavynousHunter on June 17, 2016, 07:47:56 pm
No.  First past the post ensures a two-party system.  The parties themselves (esp. the Republicans) might see a significant schism, but the number of parties will not change in any effective or meaningful way.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: dpareja on June 17, 2016, 07:52:48 pm
No.  First past the post ensures a two-party system.  The parties themselves (esp. the Republicans) might see a significant schism, but the number of parties will not change in any effective or meaningful way.

Yeah, this might presage a realignment of the coalitions, but introducing a true multi-party system requires significant electoral reform.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: pyro on June 18, 2016, 12:31:34 am
Frankly, that makes me uncomfortable. The modern Republican party is utterly vile. The idea that a democratic candidate could get support from anyone to the right of Eisenhower is worrying.

Yeah! Same reason I oppose animal rights, considering how utterly vile the Nazi party was.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: Askold on June 18, 2016, 01:53:41 am
http://www.rawstory.com/2016/06/the-gops-top-national-security-icon-just-announced-hes-backing-clinton-over-trump/
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: The_Queen on June 18, 2016, 07:16:14 pm
No, originally you said Honduras alongside Libya and saying "we shouldn't have gotten involved in the first place." 

But, even then, your Honduras argument about aid is a half truth. It was not giving aid, but continuing aid that should have been ceased after the coup. And this criticism doesn't mesh with your criticism of Hillary for Iran's sanction, as ceasing aid to Honduras would disproportionately affect the people who are already under a military dictatorship. Your argument seems to be a damned if you do, damned if you don't, so long as your name is Hillary: that is the only consistent part of your position.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: Lt. Fred on June 19, 2016, 01:47:55 am
Whatever arguments are made for or against Clinton, for or against Trump, or for or against any third-party candidate, I predict that this election will set the record for most noses held (at least mentally) while voting.

Do you think this will shake up the two-party system?

Hopefully the Republican party will burn.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: Dakota Bob on June 21, 2016, 05:22:50 am
Wall Street is getting a bit snippy about the prospect of a Warren VP pick (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/elizabeth-warren-wall-street-vice-president-224489)

Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: Askold on June 24, 2016, 08:21:47 am
Awww...

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-36622383?ocid=socialflow_facebook&ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=bbcnews&ns_source=facebook

I guess that's it then. Making sure that Trump won't win is more important to Sanders than fighting to the bitter end. The article does note that he didn't say that he's ending his campaign but unless he was misquoted why the hell would he say that he is going to vote for his rival if he himself is still running against her?
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: The_Queen on June 24, 2016, 09:05:19 am
Awww...

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-36622383?ocid=socialflow_facebook&ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=bbcnews&ns_source=facebook

I guess that's it then. Making sure that Trump won't win is more important to Sanders than fighting to the bitter end. The article does note that he didn't say that he's ending his campaign but unless he was misquoted why the hell would he say that he is going to vote for his rival if he himself is still running against her?

At this point, I really think he's just continuing his campaign to separate his supporters from their $27.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: Dakota Bob on June 24, 2016, 09:36:53 am
Awww...

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-36622383?ocid=socialflow_facebook&ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=bbcnews&ns_source=facebook

I guess that's it then. Making sure that Trump won't win is more important to Sanders than fighting to the bitter end. The article does note that he didn't say that he's ending his campaign but unless he was misquoted why the hell would he say that he is going to vote for his rival if he himself is still running against her?

At this point, I really think he's just continuing his campaign to separate his supporters from their $27.

And do what with it? buy gluten free muffins?  ;D
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: The_Queen on June 24, 2016, 09:45:58 am
Awww...

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-36622383?ocid=socialflow_facebook&ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=bbcnews&ns_source=facebook

I guess that's it then. Making sure that Trump won't win is more important to Sanders than fighting to the bitter end. The article does note that he didn't say that he's ending his campaign but unless he was misquoted why the hell would he say that he is going to vote for his rival if he himself is still running against her?

At this point, I really think he's just continuing his campaign to separate his supporters from their $27.

And do what with it? buy gluten free muffins?  ;D

Probably give himself a nice payday. There's also the possibility that he could funnel it to lower ticket races, but seeing as how (1) he didn't do this during the primaries and (2) the only lower ticket races he's supported are those candidates that have endorsed him, I doubt it.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: Sigmaleph on June 24, 2016, 02:47:39 pm
Awww...

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-36622383?ocid=socialflow_facebook&ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=bbcnews&ns_source=facebook

I guess that's it then. Making sure that Trump won't win is more important to Sanders than fighting to the bitter end. The article does note that he didn't say that he's ending his campaign but unless he was misquoted why the hell would he say that he is going to vote for his rival if he himself is still running against her?

Presumably he means he will vote for her if she is the Democratic nominee.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: dpareja on June 24, 2016, 04:35:20 pm
I think Sanders isn't going to outright endorse Clinton (at least not for a while) because there wouldn't be much point to it.

He's already alienated a lot of his Senate colleagues by continuing to campaign against her once it became unlikely in the extreme that he would win (certainly after Pennsylvania). Endorsing her now probably wouldn't do much to repair those relationships, plus they'll all still know he's pissed at them for endorsing Clinton en masse early (or, in some cases, keeping mum).

It wouldn't do all that much to win his voters over to her (especially not the Bernie-or-bust types), and he knows it. He said as much in a town hall: his voters won't vote for her just because he tells them to; they'll vote for her or not based on the policies they think she'll pursue in office. Mind you, I'd be shocked if he endorsed anyone else (and he won't run on the Green ticket however many overtures Stein makes in his direction, and I think she's said outright that she'd step aside for him), and the vast majority of his voters are going to vote for Clinton anyway, but the ones who are really leery of Clinton won't vote for her just because he endorses her, and would look at other options. They may end up voting for Clinton anyway, if for no other reason than that whatever her real or perceived faults, she's not a racist, sexist, fascist, incompetent, unqualified monster, but it won't be automatic, and they'll probably be holding their noses as they cast their votes.

Also, I don't think he'll explicitly attack Clinton over the next month, because now that the contests are over, he doesn't even have the "I want to get as many delegates as I can" excuse. What he is likely to do is continue to speak to his supporters (he's still drawing big crowds) and espouse his policies, probably combined with attacks on Trump. There will be an implicit threat in this, though: don't shift away from these policies or you'll lose even more of my supporters.

If he does attack anyone but Trump or other Republicans, it'd be the Democratic Party as a whole, for doing things like taking money from corporations and (as he would see and put it) ignoring the issues that matter to poor people and young people. He may also continue to push for reform of the party's Presidential nomination contests, arguing for such things as eliminating superdelegates (or at least making them obliged to vote in proportion to their state's at-large vote), ensuring that states have sufficient polling places, and moving to open (or maybe semi-open) contests. (I'd be impressed if he made the case for largely eliminating caucuses--I say largely because there's no way Iowa would switch to a primary--considering how well he tended to do in them, but he might make it on the basis that caucuses depress voter turnout.)

As for giving money to or raising money for down-ticket candidates, I can understand why he didn't, and why he's also refusing to release his donor list to the Democratic Party--it goes back to what I noted above about his being pissed off at them for so heavily endorsing Clinton. But he also knows that there are lots of Democrats who don't agree with many of his policies, and when it comes to getting his policies through, he has about as much use for them as he does for Republicans. (I recall someone noting that back when the Clintons were trying to get health care reform through Congress, they weren't dealing just with Republican opposition, but also with the likes of Richard Shelby in their own party.) Sanders isn't going to be inclined to galvanize support for people who he thinks won't support him, and for the time being he's drawn a hard line on that.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: I am lizard on June 24, 2016, 05:08:11 pm
Awww...

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-36622383?ocid=socialflow_facebook&ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=bbcnews&ns_source=facebook

I guess that's it then. Making sure that Trump won't win is more important to Sanders than fighting to the bitter end. The article does note that he didn't say that he's ending his campaign but unless he was misquoted why the hell would he say that he is going to vote for his rival if he himself is still running against her?

At this point, I really think he's just continuing his campaign to separate his supporters from their $27.

And do what with it? buy gluten free muffins?  ;D

Probably give himself a nice payday. There's also the possibility that he could funnel it to lower ticket races, but seeing as how (1) he didn't do this during the primaries and (2) the only lower ticket races he's supported are those candidates that have endorsed him, I doubt it.
Glass house.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: Dakota Bob on June 24, 2016, 06:23:29 pm
I'd probably buy a glass house with that money, too :P
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: Dakota Bob on June 24, 2016, 07:31:07 pm
Just watch me.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: Dakota Bob on June 25, 2016, 01:31:27 pm
Clinton Delegates Vote Against Clinton Stance on Trade (https://berniesanders.com/press-release/clinton-delegates-vote-clinton-stands-trade/)

Quote
Sanders said it was “inexplicable” why Clinton allies on the panel at a meeting in St. Louis, Missouri, voted down proposals on trade that both Sanders and Clinton embraced as candidates. “It is hard for me to understand why Secretary Clinton’s delegates won’t stand behind Secretary Clinton’s positions in the party’s platform,” Sanders said.

TOP KEK
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: rookie on June 25, 2016, 09:20:01 pm
Just watch me.

Ha ha! I get it.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: dpareja on June 30, 2016, 06:44:48 pm
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/285269-exclusive-pro-hillary-group-takes-200k-in-banned-donations

A super-PAC backing Clinton took $200,000 in contributions from a federal contractor.

Quote
A super-PAC backing Hillary Clinton has accepted $200,000 in donations from a company holding multiple contracts with the federal government — despite a ban on such contributions.

According to a review of contributions by The Hill, Boston-based Suffolk Construction made two contributions of $100,000 to Priorities USA, which is backing the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee.

At the time it made the contributions, Suffolk held multiple contracts worth $976,560 with the Department of Defense for maintenance and construction projects at a Naval base in Newport, R.I., and the U.S. Military Academy in West Point, N.Y., according to the government website USASpending.gov.

...

Priorities USA stipulates on its website that donors can’t be federal contractors. Yet a spokesman for the super-PAC declined to comment in response to a question about whether the donations from Suffolk would be returned.

...

In addition to the donations to Priorities USA, The Hill found 14 federal contractors that had contributed a total of $173,250 to Right to Rise. Two had also given to Conservative Solutions PAC, a group that supported Sen. Marco Rubio’s (R-Fla.) bid for president.

One contractor, a Florida utility named Gulf Power Co., gave $44,000 to Right to Rise in March 2015. At the time, the company held more than $1 million in contracts with the Department of Defense.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: Askold on July 02, 2016, 01:06:06 am
Does this mean that Clinton is disqualified and Sanders gets the nomination? Or is there some minor punishment for violating the rules? Or is this yet another case of "technically against the rules/laws but there is no punishment and therefore it is ok."
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: dpareja on July 02, 2016, 01:16:27 am
Does this mean that Clinton is disqualified and Sanders gets the nomination? Or is there some minor punishment for violating the rules? Or is this yet another case of "technically against the rules/laws but there is no punishment and therefore it is ok."

It's a SuperPAC supporting her, not her campaign, so if there's to be any punishment, it would be of the PAC in question. But even then there's not likely to be any, since the FEC board is composed of three Democratic appointees and three Republican appointees, and hence would almost certainly deadlock over a case like this.

And if somehow Clinton were disqualified (at this point), Sanders wouldn't necessarily get the nomination. Clinton's pledged delegates would be free to back whomever they wished, and they could decide to back, say, Biden. It could well rupture the Democratic Party for good, but they could do it.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: The_Queen on July 02, 2016, 11:33:42 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rwfM5LGMmxg

Today, I learned that Hillary is a leprechaun. These people truly are bonkers.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: ironbite on July 02, 2016, 03:20:43 pm
Does this mean that Clinton is disqualified and Sanders gets the nomination? Or is there some minor punishment for violating the rules? Or is this yet another case of "technically against the rules/laws but there is no punishment and therefore it is ok."

Uh no.  This is called politics as usual.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: dpareja on July 02, 2016, 03:29:32 pm
Does this mean that Clinton is disqualified and Sanders gets the nomination? Or is there some minor punishment for violating the rules? Or is this yet another case of "technically against the rules/laws but there is no punishment and therefore it is ok."

Uh no.  This is called politics as usual.

Which is why the US isn't actually a democracy any more, in the sense that public opinion and legislative outcomes are uncorrelated.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: The_Queen on July 02, 2016, 04:13:49 pm
Does this mean that Clinton is disqualified and Sanders gets the nomination? Or is there some minor punishment for violating the rules? Or is this yet another case of "technically against the rules/laws but there is no punishment and therefore it is ok."

Uh no.  This is called politics as usual.

Does this mean that Clinton is disqualified and Sanders gets the nomination? Or is there some minor punishment for violating the rules? Or is this yet another case of "technically against the rules/laws but there is no punishment and therefore it is ok."

Uh no.  This is called politics as usual.

Which is why the US isn't actually a democracy any more, in the sense that public opinion and legislative outcomes are uncorrelated.


I think this quote says it best

Quote
One thing I’ve learned at The Upshot in the last year: People, from the right and the left, believe in conspiracies more than I would have thought. And elections bring out the worst of it.

The political scientists Joseph Uscinski and Joseph Parent have written that “near equal numbers of Republicans and Democrats (between 40 percent and 50 percent)” are predisposed to believe in the possibility of voter fraud if their preferred presidential candidate does not win.

Source (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/30/upshot/if-donald-trump-lost-would-he-concede.html)
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: dpareja on July 02, 2016, 04:36:06 pm
I'm not sure precisely who you were directing that at, Queen, but I was referring to this study:

http://journals.cambridge.org/download.php?file=%2FPPS%2FPPS12_03%2FS1537592714001595a.pdf&code=ad98a6ff44904fbd5367dab8427fc72d

http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: The_Queen on July 02, 2016, 04:54:34 pm
I'm not sure precisely who you were directing that at, Queen, but I was referring to this study:

http://journals.cambridge.org/download.php?file=%2FPPS%2FPPS12_03%2FS1537592714001595a.pdf&code=ad98a6ff44904fbd5367dab8427fc72d

http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746

Oh, I was definitely including you. Just because we have an electorate that predominately votes for their "team" instead of their interests doesn't make us any less a democracy. Maybe it makes a few of us dull-witted, but that is hardly exclusive to America, as seen with Brexit. Unfortunately, these people vote and that is one of the downsides of democracy. Sure, 90% of people support background checks for gerns. A similar number of people will support the individual portions of Obamacare, while only about 45% will support Obamacare itself (there must be something about that name). But these people don't vote for these issues in primaries to see the result that they desire, as generally it's the most liberal or conservative people who vote in primaries. As such, political purity to a party line trumps things like actual issues that people care about and that have a broad national consensus. Nevertheless, what can you do. The problem is essentially that the electorate is not educated enough on American politics nor patient enough to study politicians before voting and effectuate change, they just throw their hands in the air and say "Not a democracy, system's rigged" because that's easier than basic research.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: dpareja on July 02, 2016, 05:14:57 pm
I'm not sure precisely who you were directing that at, Queen, but I was referring to this study:

http://journals.cambridge.org/download.php?file=%2FPPS%2FPPS12_03%2FS1537592714001595a.pdf&code=ad98a6ff44904fbd5367dab8427fc72d

http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746

Oh, I was definitely including you. Just because we have an electorate that predominately votes for their "team" instead of their interests doesn't make us any less a democracy. Maybe it makes a few of us dull-witted, but that is hardly exclusive to America, as seen with Brexit. Unfortunately, these people vote and that is one of the downsides of democracy. Sure, 90% of people support background checks for gerns. A similar number of people will support the individual portions of Obamacare, while only about 45% will support Obamacare itself (there must be something about that name). But these people don't vote for these issues in primaries to see the result that they desire, as generally it's the most liberal or conservative people who vote in primaries. As such, political purity to a party line trumps things like actual issues that people care about and that have a broad national consensus. Nevertheless, what can you do. The problem is essentially that the electorate is not educated enough on American politics nor patient enough to study politicians before voting and effectuate change, they just throw their hands in the air and say "Not a democracy, system's rigged" because that's easier than basic research.

Okay, let's take the background check issue.

According to this poll: http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_National_121715.pdf, 79% of Republican primary voters support background checks, yet somehow this gets nowhere in Congress.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: The_Queen on July 02, 2016, 05:45:12 pm
I'm not sure precisely who you were directing that at, Queen, but I was referring to this study:

http://journals.cambridge.org/download.php?file=%2FPPS%2FPPS12_03%2FS1537592714001595a.pdf&code=ad98a6ff44904fbd5367dab8427fc72d

http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746

Oh, I was definitely including you. Just because we have an electorate that predominately votes for their "team" instead of their interests doesn't make us any less a democracy. Maybe it makes a few of us dull-witted, but that is hardly exclusive to America, as seen with Brexit. Unfortunately, these people vote and that is one of the downsides of democracy. Sure, 90% of people support background checks for gerns. A similar number of people will support the individual portions of Obamacare, while only about 45% will support Obamacare itself (there must be something about that name). But these people don't vote for these issues in primaries to see the result that they desire, as generally it's the most liberal or conservative people who vote in primaries. As such, political purity to a party line trumps things like actual issues that people care about and that have a broad national consensus. Nevertheless, what can you do. The problem is essentially that the electorate is not educated enough on American politics nor patient enough to study politicians before voting and effectuate change, they just throw their hands in the air and say "Not a democracy, system's rigged" because that's easier than basic research.

Okay, let's take the background check issue.

According to this poll: http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_National_121715.pdf, 79% of Republican primary voters support background checks, yet somehow this gets nowhere in Congress.

Because they don't vote for people who will actually support it, they vote for the most conservative or well known of the lot. So nothing gets done. The disconnect isn't with law makers and "big money," the disconnect is with people not voting for politicians that will support the issue that people want. To make it simple, 45 Senators blocked the background check proposal in Congress in 2013. The list of them is beneath the spoiler

(click to show/hide)

Of those 45, 13 were up for re-election in 2014. Two of them, both democrats, won their primary only to lose to the Republican in the general election (not surprising, they won the seats in 2008, a good year, and represented red states Alaska and Arkansas). Two of them, both republicans, decided to retire. Of the remaining 9 republicans... ALL 9 of them were re-elected, through both the primary and general elections. Clearly, that 79 percent of republican primary voters that care about background checks didn't care that much to vote for a republican that would support background checks.

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: dpareja on July 02, 2016, 06:00:14 pm
Or, they did do the research, and found that neither the incumbent nor any challenger supported background checks (or said they did, but further research revealed that they were taking money from the gun lobby anyway). And meanwhile, nobody else ran because of how damned expensive it is to run for office, especially against an incumbent.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: SCarpelan on July 02, 2016, 06:10:19 pm
Poll: "Here is an example of a sensible gun control legislation. Do you support/like it?"

A random republican: "Yes."

A republican politician X supports a similar legislation.

NRA: "POLITICIAN X IS AN UNAMERICAN RINO WHO WILL TAKE AWAY YOUR GUNS AND MAKE YOU LIVE IN HOBBIT HOMES!!!!!"
(+ loads of money to spread the message)

The same random republican: "Shit, I'd better vote against him!"
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: The_Queen on July 02, 2016, 06:22:16 pm
Or, they did do the research, and found that neither the incumbent nor any challenger supported background checks (or said they did, but further research revealed that they were taking money from the gun lobby anyway). And meanwhile, nobody else ran because of how damned expensive it is to run for office, especially against an incumbent.

Rank speculation. But, I'll concede that due to costs, many of them may not have had primary opponents (doesn't defeat the notion of someone else running, or voting for a moderate democrat like Joe Manchin, which builds on my "vote for your team bit"), but nevertheless let's look at the seat left open by Saxby Chambliss in Georga:

Purdue won despite being openly against background checks (https://perduesenate.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/nra.pdf)
Paul Broun also openly opposed background checks (http://flagpole.com/news/in-the-loop/paul-broun-wants-to-let-just-anybody-buy-a-gun)
Art Gardner, relative nobody, couldn't find anything on him
Phil Gingrey favors stricter background (http://boldprogressives.org/2013/01/right-wing-congressman-phil-gingrey-seems-to-endorse-tougher-gun-regulation/) checks (http://thedailybeast.thisisyourreponguns.com/#Pane=overview&Chamber=House&Party=R&Sex=M&State=GA&Vote=yes)

Not even looking at the rest: clearly these 79% of voters didn't care that much.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: RavynousHunter on July 03, 2016, 08:21:32 pm
Dude, a Mtn. Dew and Doritos Super PAC?  I'd actually like to see that, especially the Doritos part.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: dpareja on July 05, 2016, 06:02:24 pm
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/clinton-email-fbi-1.3665051

Quote
The FBI will not recommend criminal charges in its investigation into Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server while she was secretary of state, the bureau's director says.

James Comey made the announcement Tuesday, three days after FBI agents interviewed Clinton — now the presumptive Democratic nominee in the race for the White House — in the final step of its investigation.

"We cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges," Comey said at a news conference in Washington after describing the "painstaking" investigation.

"Our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case."

But Comey also said Clinton and her colleagues at the Department of State had been "extremely careless" with classified material — noting that 110 emails, in 52 different email chains, contained classified information when Clinton sent them. Eight of those chains contained top secret information, he said.

"None of these emails should have been on any kind of unclassified system," he said.

So, Queen was right, there's no indictment... but the Republicans are going to savage her over that "extremely careless" bit.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: ironbite on July 05, 2016, 06:19:38 pm
And the Dems are gonna savage Trump over EVERYTHING THAT'S EVER COME OUT OF HIS FUCKING MOUTH!

Ironbite-this really is a non-issue.  Just like every other scandal they've tried.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: niam2023 on July 05, 2016, 07:33:05 pm
Trump: You were careless careless careless...

Hillary: Should I start with the Neo-Nazi image of me with a Star of David? Or perhaps the My New Order on your bookshelf? And that's just if I want to talk about your Fascism, Mr. Trump. There's also how often your positions change, and your pandering to people who think we ought to go back in time to 1950 at the latest.

Trump: HILLARY IS BEING MEAN / UNFAIR TO MEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: Dakota Bob on July 05, 2016, 08:00:14 pm
Quote
Comey also said it's possible that "hostile actors" might have hacked into Clinton's servers, and that the former secretary of state checked, sent and received work-related messages from her personal email while in foreign countries.

Quote
But Comey also said Clinton and her colleagues at the Department of State had been "extremely careless" with classified material — noting that 110 emails, in 52 different email chains, contained classified information when Clinton sent them. Eight of those chains contained top secret information, he said.

2016 Indecision: Extremely Careless Lady Vs. Orange Racist
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: The_Queen on July 05, 2016, 09:37:55 pm
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/clinton-email-fbi-1.3665051

Quote
The FBI will not recommend criminal charges in its investigation into Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server while she was secretary of state, the bureau's director says.

James Comey made the announcement Tuesday, three days after FBI agents interviewed Clinton — now the presumptive Democratic nominee in the race for the White House — in the final step of its investigation.

"We cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges," Comey said at a news conference in Washington after describing the "painstaking" investigation.

"Our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case."

But Comey also said Clinton and her colleagues at the Department of State had been "extremely careless" with classified material — noting that 110 emails, in 52 different email chains, contained classified information when Clinton sent them. Eight of those chains contained top secret information, he said.

"None of these emails should have been on any kind of unclassified system," he said.

So, Queen was right, there's no indictment... but the Republicans are going to savage her over that "extremely careless" bit.

If I see further than others, it's because I stand on the shoulders of giants (http://fqa.digibase.ca/index.php?topic=7076.msg296556#msg296556)
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: dpareja on July 05, 2016, 10:26:19 pm
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/clinton-email-fbi-1.3665051

Quote
The FBI will not recommend criminal charges in its investigation into Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server while she was secretary of state, the bureau's director says.

James Comey made the announcement Tuesday, three days after FBI agents interviewed Clinton — now the presumptive Democratic nominee in the race for the White House — in the final step of its investigation.

"We cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges," Comey said at a news conference in Washington after describing the "painstaking" investigation.

"Our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case."

But Comey also said Clinton and her colleagues at the Department of State had been "extremely careless" with classified material — noting that 110 emails, in 52 different email chains, contained classified information when Clinton sent them. Eight of those chains contained top secret information, he said.

"None of these emails should have been on any kind of unclassified system," he said.

So, Queen was right, there's no indictment... but the Republicans are going to savage her over that "extremely careless" bit.

If I see further than others, it's because I stand on the shoulders of giants (http://fqa.digibase.ca/index.php?topic=7076.msg296556#msg296556)

Meanwhile, let the attacks commence!

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/hillary-clinton-fbi-email-republicans-careless-rigged-1.3666213

Quote
"This is a clear indictment," says Republican analyst Paris Dennard, a former White House consultant for president George W. Bush. "It's a clear indictment of her judgment, which is what she's running on."

Presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump issued statements following the decision, asking, "What is Hillary Clinton hiding?" He also questioned the timing of the FBI press conference.

"It was no accident that charges were not recommended against Hillary the exact same day as President Obama campaigns with her for the first time," Trump's statement says.

He also cast suspicion on Bill Clinton's meeting on the tarmac with Attorney General Loretta Lynch, five days before she was to be interviewed by investigators.

To Dennard, the FBI's decision to not recommend criminal charges against Clinton advances a popular theory among conservatives — that "the system is rigged."

"There's a veiled, dark cloud of suspicion about her government, and the American people think this is unfair, that the rules just don't apply," he says.

...

"Will Hillary Clinton have the same reckless judgment when it comes to nuclear codes?" Dennard says. "This reinforces the theme that she cannot be trusted. This was not some slap on the wrist. This was some serious language."

Also, Paul Ryan put out a statement on Comey's recommendation:

http://www.speaker.gov/press-release/statement-fbis-recommendation-not-prosecute-secretary-clinton

Basically, it says that he thinks the FBI's decision is stupid and Clinton should be indicted.

(Sigma/mods: Can I reproduce the full text of Ryan's statement here?)
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: pyro on July 06, 2016, 12:01:52 am
Frankly, I really wish there was a viable Republican candidate, instead of Mr. Muslim Registry (https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Donald+Trump+Muslim+Registry&t=ffab&ia=web). It might be interesting to have a nuanced political discussion over the first election I'm going to participate in, rather than the tired "even if Hillary Clinton is as big a crook as you paint her, would you rather status quo dirty politics or the Hitler wannabe. At least The Man is an evolved parasite that will keep its host alive."
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: dpareja on July 06, 2016, 12:26:12 am
Frankly, I really wish there was a viable Republican candidate, instead of Mr. Muslim Registry (https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Donald+Trump+Muslim+Registry&t=ffab&ia=web). It might be interesting to have a nuanced political discussion over the first election I'm going to participate in, rather than the tired "even if Hillary Clinton is as big a crook as you paint her, would you rather status quo dirty politics or the Hitler wannabe. At least The Man is an evolved parasite that will keep its host alive."

If Gov. Johnson and Dr. Stein could get into the main debates, then the three adults could (hopefully) have an intelligent, reasoned discussion of the issues while the overgrown orange crybaby whines in the corner.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: Dakota Bob on July 07, 2016, 07:24:33 pm
awww shit (http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-36742095?ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=bbc_breaking&ns_source=twitter&ns_linkname=news_central)

IT'S
STILL
HAPPENING
maybe?
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: SCarpelan on July 07, 2016, 10:13:52 pm
Quote
While the most serious consequence - loss of security clearance - seems impossible (bordering on absurd) to enforce on Mrs Clinton were she to be elected president, it could prevent her from placing any affected staff into high levels of her administration.

So, the worst case consequence of the investigation is that she won't be able to hire the same people who she had as her staff earlier since they would lose their security clearance.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: dpareja on July 07, 2016, 11:11:15 pm
Quote
While the most serious consequence - loss of security clearance - seems impossible (bordering on absurd) to enforce on Mrs Clinton were she to be elected president, it could prevent her from placing any affected staff into high levels of her administration.

So, the worst case consequence of the investigation is that she won't be able to hire the same people who she had as her staff earlier since they would lose their security clearance.

It would most likely never hold up in court, but one could argue that if Sec. Clinton were barred from obtaining the necessary security clearance, she would be unable to discharge the powers and duties of her office and the Vice President would then become Acting President per the Twenty-Fifth Amendment, possibly to become President should Clinton resign due to her continued inability to be President.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: The_Queen on July 07, 2016, 11:25:04 pm
Quote
While the most serious consequence - loss of security clearance - seems impossible (bordering on absurd) to enforce on Mrs Clinton were she to be elected president, it could prevent her from placing any affected staff into high levels of her administration.

So, the worst case consequence of the investigation is that she won't be able to hire the same people who she had as her staff earlier since they would lose their security clearance.

I read this (http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/286803-senate-bill-would-revoke-clintons-security-clearances) earlier today, and I think it is what you're referencing. But, without looking into the specifics, I would be surprised if this was not an unconstitutional bill of attainder that the Republicans are proposing.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: SCarpelan on July 08, 2016, 06:35:26 am
The quote was from the article behind Dakota's link above my post. That's why I didn't bother sourcing it. Since it mentioned only DOS and not the Senate bill I assumed the meaning was that while DOS can investigate the issue the worst punishment they can give is revoking the security clearances. Since Hillary will probably be the next POTUS they won't do it to her but might do it to her close staff.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: dpareja on July 08, 2016, 01:18:40 pm
Quote
While the most serious consequence - loss of security clearance - seems impossible (bordering on absurd) to enforce on Mrs Clinton were she to be elected president, it could prevent her from placing any affected staff into high levels of her administration.

So, the worst case consequence of the investigation is that she won't be able to hire the same people who she had as her staff earlier since they would lose their security clearance.

I read this (http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/286803-senate-bill-would-revoke-clintons-security-clearances) earlier today, and I think it is what you're referencing. But, without looking into the specifics, I would be surprised if this was not an unconstitutional bill of attainder that the Republicans are proposing.

Yes, but who cares about such trifling matters as constitutional provisions when you have a vendetta to pursue?
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: The_Queen on July 08, 2016, 07:28:29 pm
Quote
While the most serious consequence - loss of security clearance - seems impossible (bordering on absurd) to enforce on Mrs Clinton were she to be elected president, it could prevent her from placing any affected staff into high levels of her administration.

So, the worst case consequence of the investigation is that she won't be able to hire the same people who she had as her staff earlier since they would lose their security clearance.

I read this (http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/286803-senate-bill-would-revoke-clintons-security-clearances) earlier today, and I think it is what you're referencing. But, without looking into the specifics, I would be surprised if this was not an unconstitutional bill of attainder that the Republicans are proposing.

Yes, but who cares about such trifling matters as constitutional provisions when you have a vendetta to pursue?

Sadly. Though, the same can be said about certain people in the Cult of Bernsonality. I mean, they blow the email scandal out of proportion on a hope that it results in a criminal conviction, showing a profound lack of understanding legal concepts of mens rea and culpable mental states. Similarly, the recent class action against Debbie Wasserman Schultz and the DNC in Florida shows a profound lack of understanding for civil procedure: I'd be surprised to see the class action survive beyond the 12(b)(6) stage, and slightly less surprised if the attorney in the case avoids getting hit with rule 11 sanctions.

I said it in another thread, but liberals and conservatives seem to be pretty ignorant about the law. The latter more so than the former, but not really by much. Both groups of people seem to believe that the law should operate as necessary to bring about the wishes that they desire, and sometimes laws don't really do that very well.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: RavynousHunter on July 08, 2016, 11:31:00 pm
When we daemonize an entire profession for the unscrupulous nature of a few of its members, are you really surprised the common man knows next to nothing about it?  Even basic intellectual pursuits like mathematics are utterly hated and despised despite being the foundation of literally all of the modern world.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: Art Vandelay on July 09, 2016, 12:37:55 am
That and when something requires a post-grad education just to understand it, then it follows that all those conservative and liberals who don't have law degrees aren't going understand it all too well.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: The_Queen on July 09, 2016, 01:04:03 am
That and when something requires a post-grad education just to understand it, then it follows that all those conservative and liberals who don't have law degrees aren't going understand it all too well.

Oh, no, it's not so much that as it is the belief by a lot of people that they somehow know these intricate doctrines, combined with a blind certainty that they do, in fact, know those intricate doctrines. It would be like me saying that I know how to secure celebrity phones to prevent nude leaks and getting the concepts of smart-phone security fundamentally wrong while a person with actual programming experience, like Ravy or Sleepy, watch. It's less the specialized knowledge aspect, and more the sheer arrogance that someone could opine on something with complete disregard for the facts, let alone that experts say otherwise. It's the notion that "my fee-fees" are as important as the experts that you cite to. And the internet isn't helping in this regard because it creates a platform for news sites that feed into the views that people want to believe. But, nevertheless, researching some basic concepts beyond what you want to hear would go a long way into understanding them, and there is a certain pragmatism in deferring to those who know more.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: RavynousHunter on July 09, 2016, 01:09:38 am
Exactly, its why I preface anything not in my field of expertise with some kind of "I'm not an expert, licensed or otherwise" disclaimer.  I am, at best, an educated layman in subjects not pertaining to computer science.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: SCarpelan on July 11, 2016, 01:55:13 pm
Bernie or Bust -movement doesn't seem to have much influence on voters' planned behavior. According to Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/06/26/donald-trumps-bad-month-just-got-worse-because-bernie-backers-just-rallied-to-clinton/?tid=a_inl) Bernie supporters are rallying behind Hillary faster than Hillary supporters rallied behind Obama.

Quote
In June 2008, 20 percent of Clinton backers said they'd go for John McCain. In July, it was 22 percent, then 18 percent in August and 19 percent in September. It finally dropped to 14 percent in October.

Well, it's June 2016, and that same figure this time is down to 8 percent already. What's more, the 81 percent of Sanders backers who are now behind Clinton is a higher number than in any poll of 2008 Clinton backers who rallied to Obama. The high that year was 74 percent, in October.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: ironbite on July 11, 2016, 04:35:39 pm
That's because most sane people are realizing what a garbage fire the GOP is becoming.  It has to do with what platform planks are being considered and the Dems just announced some doozies.  And then the GOP went and revealed their planks and it's....well.  Imagine the dumpster fire that is the GOP right now.  Now add gas to it.  A lot of gas.  The amount of gas one could get from a tanker truck.  That's how much gas was just added to this fire.  And there's a convoy of them headed to the fire in order to add more gas to the fire.  That's how bad the GOP platform is.

Ironbite-and the convoy reaches to the horizon.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: dpareja on July 11, 2016, 07:24:57 pm
I noted this previously, but those numbers are shifting not because Sanders supporters who were previously disinclined to support Clinton now suddenly do support Clinton, but because they're seeing more and more just how much of a monster Trump is.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: The_Queen on July 11, 2016, 09:16:15 pm
I noted this previously, but those numbers are shifting not because Sanders supporters who were previously disinclined to support Clinton now suddenly do support Clinton, but because they're seeing more and more just how much of a monster Trump is.

Citation?
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: dpareja on July 11, 2016, 09:59:46 pm
I noted this previously, but those numbers are shifting not because Sanders supporters who were previously disinclined to support Clinton now suddenly do support Clinton, but because they're seeing more and more just how much of a monster Trump is.

Citation?

I should have been clearer. That's my speculation based on interviews I've seen.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: pyro on July 11, 2016, 10:01:29 pm
Bernie or Bust -movement doesn't seem to have much influence on voters' planned behavior. According to Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/06/26/donald-trumps-bad-month-just-got-worse-because-bernie-backers-just-rallied-to-clinton/?tid=a_inl) Bernie supporters are rallying behind Hillary faster than Hillary supporters rallied behind Obama.

Quote
In June 2008, 20 percent of Clinton backers said they'd go for John McCain. In July, it was 22 percent, then 18 percent in August and 19 percent in September. It finally dropped to 14 percent in October.

Well, it's June 2016, and that same figure this time is down to 8 percent already. What's more, the 81 percent of Sanders backers who are now behind Clinton is a higher number than in any poll of 2008 Clinton backers who rallied to Obama. The high that year was 74 percent, in October.

If they're anything like me, they're going to vote against the candidate who wants to run the country like that casino he bankrupted.
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: dpareja on July 11, 2016, 11:09:58 pm
I suppose the best thing about the democrats is they understand it's best when the vast majority of your labour source is alive.

Okay, let's throw them all in prison so we can pay them pennies on the dollar!
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: Dakota Bob on July 12, 2016, 01:50:44 pm
it's (https://medium.com/@BernieSanders/forever-forward-ee015b23547a#.m277iikqn) habbening (https://berniesanders.com/prepared-remarks-bernie-clinton/) !!!
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: Askold on July 12, 2016, 02:15:53 pm
No...

Ron Paul presidency never had a chance.

(http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/458/375/101.png)
Title: Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
Post by: Dakota Bob on July 12, 2016, 03:12:32 pm
Fuck, that picture breaks my heart every time. Would never fuckin' vote for the guy, but I'd sure give him a hug.