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?
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
However, intelligent people can see the same issues, evidence, and inferences, and reach different conclusions. That is the human experience.
Yeah, with your hard core Hillary support and defense of neo-liberalism I don't think you can call yourself a "socialist".
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.
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.
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.
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?
Then again if the Dems keep winning the Republicans may move closer to the centre, which will push the Dems further left.
Next debate? I have the feeling the DNC is done with televised debates between Sanders and Clinton.
Next debate? I have the feeling the DNC is done with televised debates between Sanders and Clinton.
Ooooooooo-weee, Queen! I can hear nickinack revving up all the way from here!
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.
(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.
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.
We have more things to worry about than Bill Clinton’s sexual life
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.
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.
-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"
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?
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.
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 arelamesensible compared to USA.)
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.
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.
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 about better counting? Is math illegal in USA?
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?
Honestly...is there any real benefit of a caucus over a real primary?
How is this any different than breaking a tie by a coin flip?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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).
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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 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.
Scalia the douche was his name, lol
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.
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?
I think we broke his language centre, somehow.
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?
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.
No matter if you're Camp Hillary or Camp Bernie, all that matters is that Niam shuts the hell up
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.
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.
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.
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.
This nomination will be determined by whoever wins the presidency in the fall.
I think it would be crazy for Obama to appoint a republican even a moderate one.
I think it would be crazy for Obama to appoint a republican even a moderate one.
Why?
He is a moderate republican.
I think it would be crazy for Obama to appoint a republican even a moderate one.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
I think within a week, Hillary will have the nomination wrapped up.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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".
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.
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.
I'm with Nicki, Queen seems to have taken on a rather fundamentalist swing here.
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.
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?
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.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.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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
Thank you. And sorry if I was a bit snappy or insulting earlier, I had a rather rough day at work.
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.
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.
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.
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?
More electable then Trump that's for sure who's already probably declaring himself god emperor of Earth.
Whelp, looks like Hilldog has this in the bag.
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.
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.
Which one will see the populace herded into proletarian organic farming collectives the fastest?
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.
You'll get a chance to find out when Corbin becomes Prime Minister.
Well that's no fun. We need some proper collectivists and 5-year planners to really get this genocide rolling...
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.
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*
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*
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.
If you take away both Clinton's and Sander's aligned super delegates, Sanders would be about 98 delegates ahead now.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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.
Sooo....are we not feeling the Bern anymore? Is it the dawn of the pantsuit era?
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Even GOP pundits snark about Clinton's Wall Street ties.
I would just like to point out that Sanders refusing to accept donations from banks and businesses is just stupid ideological choice.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.
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.
Call it "privilege," "petulance," "ideology" whatever, but I'm quite firmly in the Bernie or Bust camp.
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.
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'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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Because, yes, I do believe we'd actually be better off with 4 years of Trump than 8 years of this shit.
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.
Quote from: DamenBecause, 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.
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.
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.
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.
Let's not make assumptions about how Trump is going to fail.
Look at the Trump and Cruz tax plans. Both are wholesale rape and pillage of the 99%.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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 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.
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.
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.)
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.
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?
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.
Queen, what's your opinion on Hillary's foreign policy?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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?
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.
Oh right. I forgot the candidates are humans with feelings too.
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.
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.
She does deserve her own show, here Eddie Eagle bit was pure fucking gold.
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.
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.
Democracy is a powerful argument.
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.
Welp Hillary took New York. Pretty much wraps it up for the Sanders campaign.
Ironbite-good game but in the end, the establishment wins.
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.
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)
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.
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 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 asavageFPTP system, here. Third party votes only take votes away from a party that's at least less likely to screw us over.
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.
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.
I plan to punish the Democrats for not electing a progressive presidential candidate by doing my part to split the vote.
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?
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.
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?
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.
How long before Bernie's campaign starts asking superdelegates to switch to him despite Hillary leading the pledged delegate count?
That's a bit embarrassing.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Has Sanders ever helped downticket Democrats?
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.
Has Sanders ever helped downticket Democrats?
Has Sanders ever helped downticket Democrats?
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
...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.
...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.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
(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.
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...”
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:QuoteUpon 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.
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.
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.
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!"
--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.)
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.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.
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.
Also point taken on Hati.
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 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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
According to BBC (I read the article!) Bernie is significantly to the left of Hillary on a number of issues, including healthcare and education.
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.
Quotethe other stuffThe 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.
I respect you deeply and think you're probably one of the smartest board members. I just think you picking Hillary is dumb.
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.
Cool story, bro.
Cool story, bro.
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.
Ok, I don't know where else to ask this, but what type of Socialist are you?
Jesus Christ, Queen, calm down. He asked a simple question, no need to bite a dude's head off.
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.
Jesus Christ, Queen, calm down. He asked a simple question, no need to bite a dude's head off.
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.
When was the last time the unsuccessful nominee was allowed to appoint members to the platform committee?
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.
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.
Does anyone really think Hillary's foreign policy is going to be drastically different from Obama's?
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.
Libya and Honduras.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.
I meant we got militarily involved in them.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.
Upon analyzing bullshit I've realized my stance on Libya was flawed, and isn't a good platform to attack Hillary on.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.
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.
Free trade is going to be far more effective in changing Cuba and Iran than sanctions were.
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.
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?"
http://tinyurl.com/prematureelection
In the realm of media malpractice:QuoteEarlier 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.
http://tinyurl.com/prematureelection
In the realm of media malpractice:QuoteEarlier 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.
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.
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.”
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.
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 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.
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.)
Hillary lists helping starve Iran and being praised by the greatest war criminal in American history as positives.
Liberals are gross.
...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.
These are Americans you're talking about. The artery-clogging ship has sailed long, long ago.
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.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'll try to link the article after work.
I mean, lots of her supporters like her (at least in part) because she's moderate.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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
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?
Glass house.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.
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.
Just watch me.
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.
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."
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."
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/clinton-email-fbi-1.3665051QuoteThe 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.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/clinton-email-fbi-1.3665051QuoteThe 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)
"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."
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."
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.
QuoteWhile 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.
QuoteWhile 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.
QuoteWhile 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.
QuoteWhile 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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.QuoteIn 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.
I suppose the best thing about the democrats is they understand it's best when the vast majority of your labour source is alive.