Politics - USA

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Gordon Shumway**

Prestor Jon wrote:
Gordon Shumway wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:
Ensis Ferrae wrote:
jreilly89 wrote:

As a young voter (26), I have to say, they don't make it easy. I tried to vote in my Democratic Primary, and A) the only time was almost at 9 P.M. at night, which sucks because I have a 2 year old and a job at 7 A.M. and B) was almost impossible to get to.

A little more redesign on efficient/alternate voting options would go a long way to encouraging young people to vote.

But of course, "they" don't want you to vote. I've definitely seen and heard from slightly older generations a sort of fear about the younger one, no matter how unfounded or not it is. For those who lean democrat, these people who have that "fear" worry that the younger generation will take us farther left than they want, or that the younger generation will upset the status quo that keeps them rich or whatnot. I've seen rhetoric from those who lean right about their fear of how far left "today's youth" lean, even if they are talking about a Tea Party, republican voting youngster!

Of course, we've gone round and round in other threads regarding the doom and gloom view of how soft/weak/inept/pathetic, etc. today's youth are, but it's never really founded in reality.

While I don't really ascribe to any conspiracy theories, this one, of making it more difficult than necessary to vote plays right into those older adults mindset, and helps them hold onto whatever power they have/think they have.

Do people just suddenly get overcome with a sense of civic duty or soul crushing boredom when they become elderly and decide to volunteer to run polling places? Not every old person decides to volunteer and I'm assuming that some portion of the ones that choose to volunteer started doing it before they got old. It would be nice to see more people want to get involved.

I've never been to a polling location that had any volunteers staffing it that were younger than me (I'm in my mid 30s) and only rarely ever saw anyone my age. Every time I vote the place is entirely run by senior citizens. I feel like in another couple election cycles polling places are either going to be run completely by robots or be utter DMV style cluster feths.

You know new senior citizens are being made every day. I don't think we will run out soon unless we implement the Logan's Run initiative.

I think it has more to do with having available time. They don't have to go to work or school, and bingo nights are on Wednesdays, not Tuesday's. My guess is if Election Day were declared a national holiday (and really, it's stupid that it isn't-I feel more patriotic on that day than on July 4th), more young and youngish people would volunteer.

**Ensis Ferrae**

Gordon Shumway wrote:Obama just endorsed Clinton after meeting with Sanders. Oh to be a fly on the wall in that meeting. I thought he would have waited until after the DC primary. Either Sanders said he was ok with the endorsement or said something Obama didn't like.

Ya know, honestly it could have just been an informative session combined with a pep talk.... Like, Obama was giving Sanders the heads-up that he was gonna endorse Clinton... but then followed it up with a rah rah speech about how he needs, and America needs Sanders in the Senate now more than ever, and that Sanders can probably get more of his lofty ideals done, by sticking around and fighting the good fight in his various postings in the senate.

**sebster**

jmurph wrote:
And now you have!

Well that is not the outcome I expected from this thread

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Ya know, honestly it could have just been an informative session combined with a pep talk.... Like, Obama was giving Sanders the heads-up that he was gonna endorse Clinton... but then followed it up with a rah rah speech about how he needs, and America needs Sanders in the Senate now more than ever, and that Sanders can probably get more of his lofty ideals done, by sticking around and fighting the good fight in his various postings in the senate.

I think it was about Sanders sitting down with the leader of the Democratic party and negotiating what he was gonna get in order to endorse Clinton. Because Democrats want his millions of voters, and they want his register of small donators. In turn, Sanders wants more influence in the party, and to leave his mark on the 2016 party platform. There should be plenty of scope for common ground on this, because both sides want Democrats to win over Republicans, and no-one wants Trump.

But the devil is in the details. It's interesting to note that Elizabeth Warren will be endorsing Clinton today, and that leaves Sanders pretty much by himself. But it's also interesting to note that many Democrats, including Warren but also Biden and Reid, have made statements giving Sanders as much time as he needs to come in to line. They're walking very slowly on this, but whether it's for show or because there really is a tight negotiation going on I don't know.

**Breotan**

So, the Daily Mail has an item out this evening.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3634074/White-House-calls-FBI-probe-Clinton-s-classified-emails-criminal-investigation-glee-Republicans-day-Obama-endorses-her.html

Some of the highlights include...

Within an hour of Barack Obama's endorsement of Hillary Clinton, his spokesman acknowledged that she faces a 'criminal investigation'

and...

White House press secretary Josh Earnest insisted that the endorsement wouldn't be interpreted inside the FBI as a signal to let her off the hook

Why can insensitive remarks still destroy a candidacy when the phrase "criminal investigation" cannot? So many candidates, Democrat and Republican, have been consigned to the ash heap of history for so much less than this.

**d-usa**

Because when make an insensitive remark, you actually made an insensitive remark.

A criminal investigation is just that, an investigation to see if a criminal act occurred, which is then followed by a criminal charge if there is enough evidence to warrant it, which is then followed by a criminal conviction if the evidence holds up. An investigation by itself isn't actually proof of anything.

You question basically boils down to "why is actually doing something different than having someone look to see if you did something", which then really answers itself.

**Rainbow Dash**

Personally I think him winning will shake up the status quo there, for good or bad.
Maybe kill the SJW too, because they'll start to see that whatever they're doing on Twitter for Bernie Sanders didn't work.

**hotsauceman1**

I voted Hillary because she was the most reasonable.
Sanders had alot of plans, but not how he will get the senate to enact those plans. 7 years and we are still fighting the healthcare reform. I feel Sanders would have spent too mcu time trying to reform and not enough leading.
I kinda like trump because of his focus on america first and nation building in other places second.

**Ouze**

Rainbow Dash wrote:
Personally I think him winning will shake up the status quo there, for good or bad.
Maybe kill the SJW too, because they'll start to see that whatever they're doing on Twitter for Bernie Sanders didn't work.

Yeah, stupid SJWs! Look how hard they failed, only getting 1,828 pledged delegates for loser Sanders, instead of getting 1,542 like awesome Trump.

I mean, it's just noisy nonsense.

**d-usa**

I can't believe that 12,279,527 stupid SJW didn't make a difference. Must have been the small hands.

**sebster**

Rainbow Dash wrote:
Personally I think him winning will shake up the status quo there, for good or bad.
Maybe kill the SJW too, because they'll start to see that whatever they're doing on Twitter for Bernie Sanders didn't work.

What amazes me is there's absolutely no mention of anything a president actually does. No mention of a legislative agenda a president might pursue. No mention of any direction a president might take any government department, or how he'll direct foreign policy.

Instead its all about scoring a point against people you don't like on the internet, in this case SJWs. It reduces the presidency to a symbolic win in an internet debate.

**Dreadwinter**

Wait, I am an SJW now? Son of a %#$@&!

**Seaward**

sebster wrote:
It reduces the presidency to a symbolic win in an internet debate.

Which, hey, is still better than an activist self-admitted anti-capitalist getting the gig.

**kronk**

sebster wrote:
It reduces the presidency to a symbolic win in an internet debate.

No one actually ever wins an internet debate, despite how many examples and reasons I've shown Linsey Dawn McKenzie that she should be our live-in girlfriend...

**Easy E**

Internet debate is like self-flagellation.

We do it to prove our worthiness to the gods!

In an interview with NPR, Clinton drops hints that she and Sanders are about to come together to defeat Trump. With Warren going Clinton it is only a matter of time. Sebs has the right of it,.

**hotsauceman1**

God. Imagine a Clinton/Sanders ticket.

**Ouze**

hotsauceman1 wrote:
God. Imagine a Clinton/Sanders ticket.

That's the only place it's going to happen - in the imagination.

**kronk**

Yeah, I don't see Sanders leaving the Senate to be HRC's VP.

**Prestor Jon**

kronk wrote:
Yeah, I don't see Sanders leaving the Senate to be HRC's VP.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/06/10/cenk_uygur_shocked_by_poll_saying_80_of_his_audience_would_never_vote_for_hillary_clinton.html

Cenk Uygur, host of 'The Young Turks,' discusses the results of an unscientific (but large) poll of his audience showing that about 80% of his mostly-Sanders-supporting audience would NEVER vote for Hillary Clinton.

"I don't want to speak for you guys," Uygur said of his audience -- the largest single online news show on YouTube -- "It was not a small amount of people voting. We put the poll up in two places on our app..."
"So we asked: Which way would you vote in the general election: For Hillary -- 694 votes. Never Hillary -- 4,414 votes. So, over 5,000 votes on our app. And it is 86-14 against [Hillary]."

"I have to be honest with you, I was borderline shocked by that result. Now, I know our viewers are big Sanders supporters, I know that you're more likely to vote in that poll if youre angry at Hillary Clinton, so of course there are many factors as to why it is not scientific, we're not pretending that it is. Even so, that was a big number."

"We also had the poll posted on YouTube... We had nearly 15,000 votes there, and let's see if the numbers are different? Vote for Hillary in the general election -- 19%. Never vote for Hillary -- 81%. Wow! We combined the two -- so nearly 20,000 votes in 24 hours. 17% overall saying they'd vote for Hillary."

"Look, I knew that significant portions of our audience was angry at Hillary Clinton and considering not voting for her, I didn't know it was this high."

"That number, I am positive it will move, but for the moment being. Where it stands --83-17 -- Stunning numbers so far, it looks like Hillary Clinton has a lot of persuading to do to win over Sanders supporters."

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/06/09/hillary_clinton_sanders_brought_passion_but_hasnt_gotten_me_to_move_on_any_policies.html

NBC's Lester Holt asks Hillary Clinton to name one policy area where she has been influenced by Bernie Sanders. She is unable to do so, but thanks Sanders for his "passion." Transcript, via NBC:

LESTER HOLT: You gave him kudos in your speech last night for igniting a part of the party, a part of the electorate out there. What ideas--can you name one idea that he's put forward that you want to embrace? That he has really changed your position on?

SEC. HILLARY CLINTON: Well, it's not that so much as the passion that he brought to the goals that--his campaign set. I share the goals. We have different approaches about how to get there, but we are going to get to universal healthcare coverage we are going to raise the national minimum wage, we are going to make college affordable and we are going to crack down on abuses in the financial markets that might harm Main Street again.

**Rainbow Dash**

sebster wrote:
Rainbow Dash wrote:
Personally I think him winning will shake up the status quo there, for good or bad.
Maybe kill the SJW too, because they'll start to see that whatever they're doing on Twitter for Bernie Sanders didn't work.

What amazes me is there's absolutely no mention of anything a president actually does. No mention of a legislative agenda a president might pursue. No mention of any direction a president might take any government department, or how he'll direct foreign policy.

Instead its all about scoring a point against people you don't like on the internet, in this case SJWs. It reduces the presidency to a symbolic win in an internet debate.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ouze wrote:
Rainbow Dash wrote:
Personally I think him winning will shake up the status quo there, for good or bad.
Maybe kill the SJW too, because they'll start to see that whatever they're doing on Twitter for Bernie Sanders didn't work.

Yeah, stupid SJWs! Look how hard they failed, only getting 1,828 pledged delegates for loser Sanders, instead of getting 1,542 like awesome Trump.

I mean, it's just noisy nonsense.

Now you get it

#wall

(I do personally wonder if the number involved in the Republican nomination is the result of that, didn't they start with like 20?)

**Easy E**

Prestor Jon wrote:
Yeah, I don't see Sanders leaving the Senate to be HRC's VP.

Stuff about Sanders supporters never voting for Hilary.

That same was said in 2008 for Obama. They came around by September.

**curran12**

Posturing and bluster in June means little come the fall, yeah.

**sebster**

kronk wrote:
No one actually ever wins an internet debate, despite how many examples and reasons I've shown Linsey Dawn McKenzie that she should be our live-in girlfriend...

I had no idea who Linsey Dawn McKenzie was so I just looked it up. I don't know if anyone ever wins in debates on the internet, but I know I just lost.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Easy E wrote:
That same was said in 2008 for Obama. They came around by September.

Yeah, a few months of Trump should bring most of them on board. And I think there will probably be a decent chunk who won't, but they probably weren't part of the Democratic base in the first place - they were kids and idealists who got caught up in the Sanders story, who were never going to vote for a generic Democrat.

**jreilly89**

sebster wrote:

Easy E wrote:
That same was said in 2008 for Obama. They came around by September.

Yeah, a few months of Trump should bring most of them on board. And I think there will probably be a decent chunk who won't, but they probably weren't part of the Democratic base in the first place - they were kids and idealists who got caught up in the Sanders story, who were never going to vote for a generic Democrat.

Why is anyone who liked Sanders a kid or idealist? That's like saying all of Trump's fans are avid racists or KKK members. Sure, that's true of some of the supporters on both sides, but there are also decent people that support both candidates.

**Gordon Shumway**

jreilly89 wrote:
sebster wrote:

Easy E wrote:
That same was said in 2008 for Obama. They came around by September.

Yeah, a few months of Trump should bring most of them on board. And I think there will probably be a decent chunk who won't, but they probably weren't part of the Democratic base in the first place - they were kids and idealists who got caught up in the Sanders story, who were never going to vote for a generic Democrat.

Why is anyone who liked Sanders a kid or idealist? That's like saying all of Trump's fans are avid racists or KKK members. Sure, that's true of some of the supporters on both sides, but there are also decent people that support both candidates.

I think you are misreading the main point-most Sanders supporters don't fit that description, but those that do might not fall in line with the Democratic ticket.

**Prestor Jon**

Gordon Shumway wrote:
jreilly89 wrote:
sebster wrote:

Easy E wrote:
That same was said in 2008 for Obama. They came around by September.

Yeah, a few months of Trump should bring most of them on board. And I think there will probably be a decent chunk who won't, but they probably weren't part of the Democratic base in the first place - they were kids and idealists who got caught up in the Sanders story, who were never going to vote for a generic Democrat.

Why is anyone who liked Sanders a kid or idealist? That's like saying all of Trump's fans are avid racists or KKK members. Sure, that's true of some of the supporters on both sides, but there are also decent people that support both candidates.

I think you are misreading the main point-most Sanders supporters don't fit that description, but those that do might not fall in line with the Democratic ticket.

There seems to be a sizable portion of Sanders supporters that believe Sanders is significantly different than Clinton in terms of politics and policy. Comparing evidence like their respective voting records would lead one to believe they're actually prettysimilar. The Sanders supporters that are convinced that he's a very different kind of Democrat than Clinton is are the ones that will be difficult for Clinton to win over. Sanders supporters that see him as just a "better" Democrat than Clinton are probably going to have an easy time settling for Clinton come November.

**skyth**

And more bad news for Trump...Apparently he doesn't pay his bills...

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/deadbeat-donald-caught-refusing-pay-his-bills?cid=sm_fb_maddow

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/06/01/donald-trump-lawsuits-legal-battles/84995854/

**Gordon Shumway**

skyth wrote:
And more bad news for Trump...Apparently he doesn't pay his bills...

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/deadbeat-donald-caught-refusing-pay-his-bills?cid=sm_fb_maddow

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/06/01/donald-trump-lawsuits-legal-battles/84995854/

Wow. That's a lot of litigation. My favorite bit of trivia was this :"an earlier lawsuit against the town over an 80-foot flag pole. Trump's team argued in court that a smaller flag would understate his patriotism, but he eventually settled with town officials, agreeing among other concessions to lower the pole by 10 feet."

So Trump's patriotism is now ten feet shorter than it was.

**d-usa**

That's like stolen valor level stuff right there. Poor guy, and that after all his service and sacrifice in military school.

**kronk**

If I wasn't so drunk, I could make that into a small hands/pole joke, but I can't...

**dogma**

kronk wrote:
Yeah, I don't see Sanders leaving the Senate to be HRC's VP.

Or HRC being foolish enough to select him.

Picking Bernie would almost certainly be seen as a disingenuous act by those who Felt the Bern, and it would probably serve to galvanize Republican opposition to her election.