TheMeanDM wrote: And threatening and over bearing when they wanted states to adopt the 55 mph speed limit.
Why exactly do we have srates rights when the government is just going to come in and make them adopt policies "or else"....
As for the 55mph speed limit. In reality it didn't actually save any lives overall. It saved lives on certain highways, but not overall. When they dropped the national highway speed limit it was during a gas crisis. Gas prices went up, and the average miles driven per person went down. Once you account for miles driven things don't look so good.
But wait, there's more. When Highways have higher speeds people tend to use them more. When speeds are lowered alternate routes look proportionately better. So, when the speed limit was lowered to 55 many people looked at maps and thought "dang, rural route XXX still has 45 MPH, and it will save me 10 miles, and also has fewer cops. I'll take that instead". So instead of highway deaths, deaths were shifted to other routes, which made the highways look better, but didn't really solve anything.
When Highways have higher speed limits traffic becomes MUCH more predictable. This means road maintenance can be focused more efficiently. This means that the roads are in better overall condition per-road-mile traveled on them. In addition law enforcement can more accurately predict traffic and catch unsafe drivers instead of patrolling all the back roads. In the event there is a crash the victims are noticed quicker and emergency crews are also quicker to respond and save more lives.
Kilkrazy wrote: The purpose of the speed limit reduction was to reduce petrol consumption, not road traffic collisions.
This is very true. However, much of the time it was paraded in front of people as a "safety measure" to make it a less bitter pill to swallow.
The speed limit of 55 was also chosen to optimize mileage on cars of that era. The average car at the time had a 3-speed transmission. 55 MPH set the speed just a few miles per hour over the speed that the third gear in most cars kicked in. This allowed the car to take advantage to the higher gear ratio while limiting air resistance.
If the speed limit were revisited today they might just make it 65 or 70.
Honestly the whole idea of gender segregation is kind of stupid. People of one sex aren't going to suddenly become monsters if exposed to members of the opposite sex, and people who are already monsters aren't going to prey on people in public areas, because frankly there are better places to do so.
Not to mention the problem of non binary sex. A small percentage are born with ambiguous genitalia. Which room are they supposed to use? What if someone has the body of a male with female genitals? How is that different compared to a female to male transgender person on hormone therapy?
My general rule of thumb is that if it discriminates against a genetically abnormal sex, it discriminates against trangendered/transexual people.
FoWPlayerDeathOfUS.TDs wrote: Honestly the whole idea of gender segregation is kind of stupid. People of one sex aren't going to suddenly become monsters if exposed to members of the opposite sex, and people who are already monsters aren't going to prey on people in public areas, because frankly there are better places to do so.
Not to mention the problem of non binary sex. A small percentage are born with ambiguous genitalia. Which room are they supposed to use? What if someone has the body of a male with female genitals? How is that different compared to a female to male transgender person on hormone therapy?
My general rule of thumb is that if it discriminates against a genetically abnormal sex, it discriminates against trangendered/transexual people.
As soon as your wife is comfortable taking a group shower with a bunch of dudes get back to me. Otherwise you kind of missed the point.
I do find it a bit odd that it is "transphobic" to want to be segregated from a trans person due to their physical characteristics, but women and men almost demand (under penalty of law) to be segregated from each other and that's totally acceptable.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: Are group showers commonly found in public lavatories in the USA?
Sometimes, yes.
As I stated earlier I'm more tolerant of trans bathroom use. But the whole trans issue is totally linked to communal showers and changing rooms. There are now laws on the book, and decrees by the Justice Department and the President that demand trans inclusion in communal shower areas in all schools. This also extends to some private businesses such as gyms.
FoWPlayerDeathOfUS.TDs wrote: Honestly the whole idea of gender segregation is kind of stupid. People of one sex aren't going to suddenly become monsters if exposed to members of the opposite sex, and people who are already monsters aren't going to prey on people in public areas, because frankly there are better places to do so.
And you polled women and girls on this issue when?
FoWPlayerDeathOfUS.TDs wrote: Honestly the whole idea of gender segregation is kind of stupid. People of one sex aren't going to suddenly become monsters if exposed to members of the opposite sex, and people who are already monsters aren't going to prey on people in public areas, because frankly there are better places to do so.
And you polled women and girls on this issue when?
Why would I need to do that? Men and women are raped at about the same rate. If I, a male, am okay with it, I fail to see how a woman wouldn't be.
I also find it disturbing on how some people are speaking for their wives/women in general. If a person who is actually female posts, that's one thing, just don't speak for them.
Also, I have spoken to many of my female friends about it, and they seem fine with it, but it wasn't a random sample so it wasn't an accurate poll. Also, I shouldn't really speak for them.
FoWPlayerDeathOfUS.TDs wrote: Honestly the whole idea of gender segregation is kind of stupid. People of one sex aren't going to suddenly become monsters if exposed to members of the opposite sex, and people who are already monsters aren't going to prey on people in public areas, because frankly there are better places to do so.
And you polled women and girls on this issue when?
Why would I need to do that? Men and women are raped at about the same rate. If I, a male, am okay with it, I fail to see how a woman wouldn't be.
1. Thats a staggeringly bs statement. You'll need about 15 studies to support that as all the ones I have seen show the rate about 10 to 1. 2. This is not about rape. You're making a statement that segregation is stupid, but you seem to ignore the majority of the world population (females) and their views on the matter. Lets be real, no one is concerned if a Male T is in the men's locker room.
This is one reason many feminists are on the other side of this issue. The patriarchy (on both sides) is almost staggering.
It really would just make a world of difference if the US overall started to dial down the Nudity=Sex thing. OR just scrap the whole idea of Male/Female bathrooms and just have one large bathroom with stalls. In the Grand Scheme of things, it really doesn't to the best of your Knowledge you could have been using the Bathroom with a Transgender Person your entire life.
Personally, I see it as a Non issue .Outside of Having Bathroom bouncers at every restroom in America, asking people to drop trou to inspect their parts, which is absolutely ridiculous, or taking a peek yourself, there is no way to determine with 100% accuracy the gender of every single person that goes into any given bathroom. Documents can, and probably will be, forged if it ever gets to the point were people have to show documentation to enter the bathroom of their Gender.
Does it mean there's a Chance some Creep might try to use it to take advantage of someone in the bathroom? There was little stopping them before from doing it if they really wanted to, and they could do it just about anywhere. Why not put more effort into punishing the perverts and rapists instead of the people trying to expel waste.
When it comes to communal changing rooms and showers.....here is where I have a problem. Unless you have had the surgery to have the genitals of your preferred gender stay the heck out.
Precisely my thought/belief.
If you have a penis...keep your penis out of the female changing/locker rooms.
If you have a vagina...keep your vagina out of the male changing/locker rooms.
What about the rights of the majority of kids (and parents) that do NOT want to be see (or even possibly exposed to) genitalia of the opposite sex?
I certainly do not want some swinging dick coming into my 12 year old daughters locker room.
We do talk about sex, we do talk about boys (which she still thinks of as yucky, lol) and right now....at her behavioral development...I certainly do not want to make her any more uncomfortable with the opposite sex than she already is.
The same can be said for her twin brother, actually. He's probably even a little more embarassed about things.
But hey....my rights and my kids' rights don't count.....because...you know....feelings.
What rights do you claim are being violated, because right now all you have said is that it makes you, and your children, uncomfortable. Meanwhile, the right to equal protection under the law would be violated by preventing transgender people from using facilities of their sex.
Both the CDC report and the Federal Department of justice's report have some errors in methodology. However, the DoJ's report does not classify female on male sexual assault, such as being forced to penetrate, as rape. Also, their report is based on reported crimes, and the incidence of men reporting being raped is ridiculously low due to societal expectations.
"No one is concerned if there is a male T in the men's locker room"
Why should anyone be concerned if there is a female T in the women's locker room? By your logic, males are more likely to rape, including other men. Doesn't the F2M T present a greater threat? Or is it just that you correlate male genitalia with threat?
I certainly do not want some swinging dick coming into my 12 year old daughters locker room.
Ah yes, this tired argument. I know when I use the bathroom, I strip fully nude at the door and helicopter my way to the urinal before using the bathroom. /sarcasm
The only time you will see another persons genitals in a bathroom is when you are looking or they just do not understand bathroom etiquette. Buuuuut, that is not going to stop you from bringing this argument up again and again and again and again and again and again and again.
I certainly do not want some swinging dick coming into my 12 year old daughters locker room.
Ah yes, this tired argument. I know when I use the bathroom, I strip fully nude at the door and helicopter my way to the urinal before using the bathroom. /sarcasm
The only time you will see another persons genitals in a bathroom is when you are looking or they just do not understand bathroom etiquette. Buuuuut, that is not going to stop you from bringing this argument up again and again and again and again and again and again and again.
I love how genitals can be seen as inherently dangerous. No one looks at a gun at a range and thinks." Wow, this person just might shoot me! They're holding a gun! I am not holding a gun, and they are! This makes me uncomfortable!"
I certainly do not want some swinging dick coming into my 12 year old daughters locker room.
Ah yes, this tired argument. I know when I use the bathroom, I strip fully nude at the door and helicopter my way to the urinal before using the bathroom. /sarcasm
The only time you will see another persons genitals in a bathroom is when you are looking or they just do not understand bathroom etiquette. Buuuuut, that is not going to stop you from bringing this argument up again and again and again and again and again and again and again.
He said Locker Room. Not Bathroom.
There is a difference, whether you want to admit it or not.
For those who din't know what that is, or who think that there is really any privacy...allow me to show you.
Locker rooms are also a part of/attached to the shower area where girls or boys will shower after athletic activity (PE, sports, etc).
Spoiler:
That's way to sterile/clean/new/fresh paint
I think it was a pretty ironic political statement, The military is traditionally conservative, and in the future, they still are, but showering together isn't seen as a big deal.
I certainly do not want some swinging dick coming into my 12 year old daughters locker room.
Ah yes, this tired argument. I know when I use the bathroom, I strip fully nude at the door and helicopter my way to the urinal before using the bathroom. /sarcasm
The only time you will see another persons genitals in a bathroom is when you are looking or they just do not understand bathroom etiquette. Buuuuut, that is not going to stop you from bringing this argument up again and again and again and again and again and again and again.
He said Locker Room. Not Bathroom.
There is a difference, whether you want to admit it or not.
Oh my apologies. Let me revise.
I know when I enter a locker room, I strip down naked and helicopter my way to the locker.
The only time you are going to see another persons genitals in the locker room is if you are looking or they just do not understand locker room etiquette.
I used locker rooms to get dressed my whole way through school. Saw 0 genitals. Maybe I am an outlier though. It might just be that I was never trying to see them though.
I certainly do not want some swinging dick coming into my 12 year old daughters locker room.
Ah yes, this tired argument. I know when I use the bathroom, I strip fully nude at the door and helicopter my way to the urinal before using the bathroom. /sarcasm
The only time you will see another persons genitals in a bathroom is when you are looking or they just do not understand bathroom etiquette. Buuuuut, that is not going to stop you from bringing this argument up again and again and again and again and again and again and again.
He said Locker Room. Not Bathroom.
There is a difference, whether you want to admit it or not.
Oh my apologies. Let me revise.
I know when I enter a locker room, I strip down naked and helicopter my way to the locker.
The only time you are going to see another persons genitals in the locker room is if you are looking or they just do not understand locker room etiquette.
I used locker rooms to get dressed my whole way through school. Saw 0 genitals. Maybe I am an outlier though. It might just be that I was never trying to see them though.
Military was an experience then after awhile you no longer care. I don't care if your male and like males. I am taking a long shower so I can feel human again (Iraq/Afghanistan) All I care....DO. YOUR. DAMN. JOB.
You have your belief amd I have mine and the two shall not meet...just the loudest voice prevailing.
So.........taking that out of the discussion......
States rights vs government influence
What we've seen in history and what we are seeing right now, is federal government using a "stick" to get states to acqueiesce their rights.
The government...entices?....states with federal funding to support/finance public programs (such as education)....almost like a drug dealer giving out free samples...and gets states hooked on the funding.
How do you propose that states take back/exercise their rights?
I find it ridiculous that the government would use such tactics to coerce other entities to fall in line with their thinking....especially when there is no legal precedent that the government has to stand on.
What we've seen in history and what we are seeing right now, is federal government using a "stick" to get states to acqueiesce their rights.
The government...entices?....states with federal funding to support/finance public programs (such as education)....almost like a drug dealer giving out free samples...and gets states hooked on the funding.
How do you propose that states take back/exercise their rights?
I find it ridiculous that the government would use such tactics to coerce other entities to fall in line with their thinking....especially when there is no legal precedent that the government has to stand on.
Nothing will stop that... short of the states invoking the Article of Convention clause to neuter the Fed's power.
When it comes to communal changing rooms and showers.....here is where I have a problem. Unless you have had the surgery to have the genitals of your preferred gender stay the heck out.
Precisely my thought/belief.
If you have a penis...keep your penis out of the female changing/locker rooms.
If you have a vagina...keep your vagina out of the male changing/locker rooms.
Here's where your silly argument falls apart. She's got a dick, and a nice one at that. Her going into the men's room is going to cause way more problems than any imaginary child rapists hanging out in these fully nude locker rooms that I seem to have never seen.
Grown men are more psychologically equipped to handle a female looking male with a penis changing in a locker near them than a school aged (even up to high school in many cases) child/adolescent is.
TheMeanDM wrote: Grown men are more psychologically equipped to handle a female looking male with a penis changing in a locker near them than a school aged (even up to high school in many cases) child/adolescent is.
So your solution is to have changing rooms and toilets segregated by age as well as gender? Because otherwise I don't really see you point. Any public restroom or changing facility where she will be in the same room as grown men will also have her in there with children and adolescents.
TheMeanDM wrote: Grown men are more psychologically equipped to handle a female looking male with a penis changing in a locker near them than a school aged (even up to high school in many cases) child/adolescent is.
So your solution is to have changing rooms and toilets segregated by age as well as gender? Because otherwise I don't really see you point. Any public restroom or changing facility where she will be in the same room as grown men will also have her in there with children and adolescents.
TheMeanDM wrote: Grown men are more psychologically equipped to handle a female looking male with a penis changing in a locker near them than a school aged (even up to high school in many cases) child/adolescent is.
So your solution is to have changing rooms and toilets segregated by age as well as gender? Because otherwise I don't really see you point. Any public restroom or changing facility where she will be in the same room as grown men will also have her in there with children and adolescents.
But, but, reasons! and I disagree. I've seen many a grown man not psychologically able to handle a chick with a penis.
This is the part that gets me though "The Post obtained the recording from a source who provided it on the condition of anonymity. Carswell (the interviewer) shared the microcassette of the call with the source shortly after the interview."
Carswell was just interviewed about it and Megyn Kelly asked her about the person she shared the cassette with: her reply? Donald Trump. In other words he himself leaked this tape to the Post about him posing as his own publicist and later when asked about it in air on NBC, completely denied being the person on the phone. What a weirdo, but man he knows how to stay in the news.
Hearing the "America First" is hitting home to many Americans with the rebuild failure of Afghanistan up to 113 Billion dollars wasted. That I AGREE with. Holy Heck. So far one thing I agree with him..............Crap...I can't use "he entertains me: reason to vote for no longer
Apparently things are getting out of control INSIDE the Democrat convention in Las Vegas. Some Bernie fans were a bit irate at having the cops called in.
Ashley Ector wrote: @rlange9 Run away and let the brown shirts handle it. This is not how American democracy works! #nvdemconvention
Naturally, right-wing media picked up on this...
‘WE NEED A MEDIC!’ Hillary, Bernie delegates clash at NV Dem convention
Supporters of Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders clashed in Las Vegas on Saturday and it got so out of hand, cops descended on the ballroom and threatened arrests.
Convention attendee and YouTube user Anie H. posted several photos of the action, as announcements were made over the loud speaker to leave the Paris Hotel or risk being arrested.
She said Las Vegas Metropolitan police entered from the back of the room and went to the front, and “they are literally going to force us to leave the room.”
As she spoke, people could be seen shouting and waving their fists and signs.
“So much for unity,” she said, as a man could be heard yelling, “Sit down!”
Meanwhile, another video showed a man lying on the floor near the front of the room.
“Stay back,” a person shouted.
“We need a medic in the front, we need a medic in the front,” a woman could be heard saying.
In another cell phone clip, Anie H. said, “They’re threatening us with arrest if we do not leave the convention site right now.”
EDIT (Breotan): FFS, people. Learn to hold your phone sideways when making video.
“Bernie or bust!” a man shouted over the loud speaker.
“Everybody please leave out of here peacefully,” another man said, “and I promise you, we will pursue any and all remedies available under the law. Please leave!”
Attendees could be seen filing out, while others milled about.
“Shame on you Nevada Republican — oops — Democratic party,” Anie H. narrated.
Ashley Ector tweeted a photo of the police lining the front of the room. She referred to them as “brown shirts.”
“I think this was of course the fault of the party,” Sanders supporter Angie Morelli tells the paper. “We would’ve been able to do more democratic things, but the way they decided to do it messed us up.”
Sanders supporters were demanding a recount and were alleging a number of their delegates were not recognized at the convention.
I for one, can't wait for the Republican convention.
Breotan wrote: Apparently things are getting out of control INSIDE the Democrat convention in Las Vegas. Some Bernie fans were a bit irate at having the cops called in
That's because they are being kept down by THE MAN, maaaaaaaann.
They'll be alright when they get home and take a hit off of the bong.
Breotan wrote: Apparently things are getting out of control INSIDE the Democrat convention in Las Vegas. Some Bernie fans were a bit irate at having the cops called in.
From what I understand, it was a close run vote, and "demands" for a recount were not met.... I'm just guessing here, but if Nevada is a "winner takes all delegates" type state, I can understand why people would be upset at the power structure acting in such a way. I won't say that they are doing it because the know Bernie would win, but it sure doesn't make things look on the up and up when you do stuff like that.
Ahtman wrote: It is almost like the popular vote and the party elite are having issues with each other and their choices.
It's almost like a minority of the popular vote is upset that the actual popular vote is going to the candidate the party elite supports.
Well some is, some isn't. If it were that simple Bernie wouldn't have won any states but he has won quite a few. I don't really have a dog in this hunt but that seems to be the problem on the Democratic side at the moment is the perception that something fishy is going on between voters and higher ups in the party.
Ahtman wrote: It is almost like the popular vote and the party elite are having issues with each other and their choices.
It's almost like a minority of the popular vote is upset that the actual popular vote is going to the candidate the party elite supports.
Well some is, some isn't. If it were that simple Bernie wouldn't have won any states but he has won quite a few. I don't really have a dog in this hunt but that seems to be the problem on the Democratic side at the moment is the perception that something fishy is going on between voters and higher ups in the party.
I do not envy Democrat voters this election cycle.
Rosebuddy wrote: In this particular case it seems to be more that they kicked out a bunch of delegates and then proclaimed the vote went to Clinton.
Yep... apparently they "investigated" and stripped credentials from some 67 delegates that were known to support Bernie. Yet zero of Clinton's known delegates were investigated, much less stripped of credentials...
Personally, I think that BOTH parties are in for a real shake up. It's quite clear that both have been "bought" by a minority of people in the US, and do not really have any kind of idea what the average person wants.
I keep wondering if Clinton wins and it does turn into a full on criminal case against her, are we going to have two years(to pick a time frame) of her doing nothing but defending herself followed by a resignation similar to Nixon with Watergate.
Lol.... since the "Trending" function of FB was a thread a while back, thought I'd share a gem that just came up on mine:
The Boston Globe is reporting that everyone's favorite orangutan has called Sen. Elizabeth Warren "Pocahontas" during an interview he was giving for NYT.
I keep wondering if Clinton wins and it does turn into a full on criminal case against her, are we going to have two years(to pick a time frame) of her doing nothing but defending herself followed by a resignation similar to Nixon with Watergate.
That really depends on whether or not a sitting President can be indicted, which is far from a settled matter. It gets even murkier if Hillary is indicted, and then takes office...though I'm inclined to believe the process would continue with numerous House Republicans chomping at the bit to headline the impeachment motion.
Of course that raises a separate matter: can she be impeached for this? Sure, she was in office when the email thing went down, but it wasn't the office of the Presidency. Can a person be impeached for something they did in office X, while holding office Y?
dogma wrote: Of course that raises a separate matter: can she be impeached for this? Sure, she was in office when the email thing went down, but it wasn't the office of the Presidency. Can a person be impeached for something they did in office X, while holding office Y?
Hypothetically speaking, lets say she does get elected under these circumstances, couldn't Obama, on his way out the door just sign a presidential pardon and be done with it?
dogma wrote: Can a person be impeached for something they did in office X, while holding office Y?
At least in terms of the President, of course. An impeachable offense is anything that 218 congressmen can agree upon.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Hypothetically speaking, lets say she does get elected under these circumstances, couldn't Obama, on his way out the door just sign a presidential pardon and be done with it?
Technically, sure - realistically, no. Practically speaking, Hillary Clinton would be done as a candidate if indicted. It pretty much sunk Rick Perry, and that was over what was pretty overtly politically generated nonsense to people on both sides of the political divide.
If Hillary were indicted and did not drop, then you'd see record turnouts, pro-GOP and negative-Dem. I have to imagine in virtually any scenario she would quit the race though,
Rosebuddy wrote: In this particular case it seems to be more that they kicked out a bunch of delegates and then proclaimed the vote went to Clinton.
Yep... apparently they "investigated" and stripped credentials from some 67 delegates that were known to support Bernie. Yet zero of Clinton's known delegates were investigated, much less stripped of credentials...
Personally, I think that BOTH parties are in for a real shake up. It's quite clear that both have been "bought" by a minority of people in the US, and do not really have any kind of idea what the average person wants.
Edit: fixed quote blocks
My understanding is that a significant amount of Bernie delegates re-registered as Independents after the primary, and thus were not eligible to participate in the actual Democratic Party function being depicted here. Thus, they were not properly credentialed.
Additionally, a lot of the 'chaos' came about from Bernie people not understanding how to actually make motions on the floor and just getting up to say gak their people agreed with, but gak that turned out not to be actually actionable per the convention rules.
All of which is great. Some of my wife's relatives are lefties, and they're losing their minds on Facebook. I think we might be seeing the birth of the left's version of the Tea Party.
At least in terms of the President, of course. An impeachable offense is anything that 218 congressmen can agree upon.
The impeachable offense still needs to be committed in office, the question regards whether or not it needs to be the office the person presently holds.
I've been thinking some more about the Republican Primary, and exactly what went wrong. People kept talking about no-one taking on Trump, or doing it much too late. But it seems to me the real failure was that the efforts to fight Trump were just full of the same empty bluster that Trump was using. Why was there no effort to call him directly on his endless lies? At the very least, why did almost no-one call Trump on claim that he opposed Iraq? Was there some greater strategy that was mishandled, or did no-one in the GOP bother to go back and see what Trump said at the time?
Were all the parties resources dedicated towards finding out who Clinton defended when she was a lawyer 30 years ago? Honest and truly, how could Trump have claimed such an obvious lie, and then watch the party just take him at face value?
In other news, Trump the outsider who's going to flip the board and make everything different... has gone and employed Larry Kudlow and Stephen Moore. These two are the intellectual cred smeared over each Republican presidential candidate, when they announce their amazing new tax plan to cut taxes on the rich and pretend it won't reduce tax revenue.
I kind of think that maybe the two things are related. Through the various non-think tanks like Heritage, the GOP has kept a lot of fundamentally lazy, dishonest pseudo-academics in work for a long time. Has this rotted the party out from the inside? Were they so used to doing little more than trotting out half-baked nonsense, that it never even occurred to anyone to do some real work and actually see if anything Trump said lined up with the real world?
Ensis Ferrae wrote: For the TL;DR crowd: basically, Clinton has received some 20+ million bucks from "Wall Street" and has campaign promises to end such huge sums of money in political donations, but why should we believe her?
Her voting record? She voted in favour of McCain Feingold, and has never backed away from that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: If the Libertarian party gets 5% of the vote, then I believe they'd qualify for federal funding in 2020, which could be a meaningful start.
Watching the Libertarian party aim for 5% so they can get federal funding without any sense of irony at all is my absolute new favourite thing in this election.
Seaward wrote: Some of my wife's relatives are lefties, and they're losing their minds on Facebook.
I got relatives like that. Thank God FB lets me ignore/hide the stories they forward so I don't have to unfriend people I genuinely care about just because they're caught up in all this hysteria.
TheMeanDM wrote: Futile or not, it is awakening more every-day people to the rigged system of delegates and superdelegates.
Oh for feth's sake how can you still fething believe this? Clinton has more votes, and that's led to more pledged delegates. Direct proportional allocation leading to a straight forward result. Truly what an outrage.
The only one talking about using super-delegates to flip the popular vote is Sanders. And yet Sanders supporters continue to play this ridiculous game where they pretend the system is rigged against their guy because Clinton has the super-delegates... and at the same time they happily accept their trying to flip those superdelegates to support their guy and overturn their defeat in the popular vote.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
TheMeanDM wrote: So really...polls mean not very much, in my opinion.
**all poll research fiund at realclearpolitics.com
That's what lots of people say when they don't like the poll numbers. It never works out very well.
Anyhow, polls for primaries are not that reliable, the % of the population that votes on the day is much smaller than the general, and there are nowhere near as many polls as you get during the primary so the error rate can't be reduced with combined polls. So it is normal to see the result expected from polls miss the final result by 5 points or thereabouts. And it means every so often you will see a Michigan style result. But we're now at the stage where Sanders needs probably half the remaining polls to produce crazy, once in a generation Michigan type misses. There are good reasons he's shutting his campaign down.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Also, heard on radio that almost half of the Sander voters won't vote for HRC.
That's a hella swing and ought to be a concern for team Clinton...
Meh. Right now there's a lot of Sanders' supporters who are working through the stages of realising their guy has lost. They're pissed, but that's normal. But November is a long time away.
Similarly, there's a whole lot of people who are shocked and dismayed that their party has picked Trump as their nominee. NeverTrump is powerful, and even the party leadership is making lots of noise about how bad Trump is. But November is a long time away. Already Paul Ryan is going through the political theatre of pretending that Trump is being brought in to line. That'll work for some voters, and the rest will be brought in with some other piece of theater here or there.
This kind of thing happens every political season this time of year. But come November the Republicans vote Republican, and the Democrats vote Democrat.
dogma wrote: The impeachable offense still needs to be committed in office, the question regards whether or not it needs to be the office the person presently holds.
I don't think that's specified in Article 2, Section 4. I think it's left intentionally vague just for these sorts of "unknown unknowns". Does it matter, anyway - I mean, who is going to check Congress if they decided to impeach? No one has the authority to - it seems like an academic question.
Are you saying can she be retroactively impeached as Secretary of State? Since the only remedy is removal of office, and she doesn't hold that office, it doesn't seem likely to me.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: And that is the problem that we're seeing... major media outlets aren't showing the huge numbers he's drawing, and the votes he's pulling, because delegates are still going to Clinton because, as we've discussed a lot, the system is rigged.
As soon as they start assigning delegates to whoever holds the biggest rally, I'm sure you'll see people give a gak. But until that happy day, delegates are awarded based on vote totals. And the vote totals tell a simple story - Clinton 12,524,845, Sanders 9,426,517. How in the actual feth anyone can conclude a system is rigged because each candidate gets a number of deledgates in line with their share of the primary vote is completely beyond me.
Breotan wrote: I got relatives like that. Thank God FB lets me ignore/hide the stories they forward so I don't have to unfriend people I genuinely care about just because they're caught up in all this hysteria.
Yes, some of the Bernie bros have become increasingly... strident and Alex Jonesy. I'm sorry that Bernie isn't winning the nomination, but it's not because of a vast, left wing conspiracy.
sebster wrote: How in the actual feth anyone can conclude a system is rigged because each candidate gets a number of deledgates in line with their share of the primary vote is completely beyond me.
All you have to do is believe the system is rigged to give someone more delegates. I understand and agree with the overall point but I don't agree that believing a system is rigged is hard for some to believe.
kronk wrote: They don't have enough people to audit everyone that needs auditing as it is. Now they're supposed to do the whole thing?
I'd honestly like to hear how this will be conducted.
Right now the IRS collects most of the information used in tax returns, then it asks you to fill out that information again, and then it does some audits on some people to check if that info is consistent.
The idea behind Warren's reform would be that the IRS should just use the information it already has - it knows how much your employer paid you during the year. It knows how much interest revenue you earned. So it would just prefill that data and send it to you, and you would audit their work.
A similar reform has happened here in Australia. There are limits (it can't determine your deductions, or anything complex like a rental property) but its excellent for simple tax returns.
Are you saying can she be retroactively impeached as Secretary of State? Since the only remedy is removal of office, and she doesn't hold that office, it doesn't seem likely to me.
Yes, that is the question I'm asking.
Issues out of office, though not explicitly nominated by the Constitution, create lots of problems for everyone if they are subject to impeachment proceedings.
Are you saying can she be retroactively impeached as Secretary of State? Since the only remedy is removal of office, and she doesn't hold that office, it doesn't seem likely to me.
Yes, that is the question I'm asking.
Issues out of office, though not explicitly nominated by the Constitution, create lots of problems for everyone if they are subject to impeachment proceedings.
whembly wrote: I don't know if most of the Trump voters are angling for that "Eisenhower conservatism, with big government and secure employment"... Maybe we do, but I'm unconvinced at the moment...
I think it remains the best and most complete explanation. Far right economic positions (flat taxes, attacks on welfare, school vouchers etc) have never actually held much of a voter base - they appeal to a fairly closed circle closely tied to the Republican leadership, and pretty much no-one else. Republicans have sidestepped that problem for a long time by focusing on social conservative issues, generally with a healthy dose of race baiting thrown in. Sprinkled over the top was a bunch of crazy conspiracy nonsense - ACA death panels, Obama as a secret muslim kenyan, black helicopters and FEMA death camps.
It was always a pretty unstable game, but then it always had to be when you had a major party committed mostly to economic policies that the electorate didn't like. I guess it was inevitable that sooner or later someone was going to come along and go straight at the race and conspiracy stuff, while dropping the neo-liberal economic stuff as a dead weight. Whether Trump has changed the Republican platform long term remains to be seen, but right now it's hard to see how someone in the mold of the old style Republican candidate, like Romney or GW Bush, can win another primary. Time will tell.
sebster wrote: Far right economic positions (flat taxes, attacks on welfare, school vouchers etc) have never actually held much of a voter base - they appeal to a fairly closed circle closely tied to the Republican leadership, and pretty much no-one else.
I think they have more of an appeal than you might expect. The US is really big on the myth that anyone can become rich if they just work hard enough, so there seem to be a lot of republican voters who think "I'm going to be rich, and when I'm rich I don't want to pay taxes". And there are a lot of them who think "I don't need welfare, I worked hard and got where I am, so I'm not paying for you to be lazy" without being in the richest 1%. The angry and entitled (mostly white) middle class voter is an important element of the republican party.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: From what I understand, it was a close run vote, and "demands" for a recount were not met.... I'm just guessing here, but if Nevada is a "winner takes all delegates" type state
There are no winner take all states in the Democratic primaries. Each state has proportionate allocation.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ahtman wrote: Well some is, some isn't. If it were that simple Bernie wouldn't have won any states but he has won quite a few. I don't really have a dog in this hunt but that seems to be the problem on the Democratic side at the moment is the perception that something fishy is going on between voters and higher ups in the party.
Sanders winning some states doesn't mean Clinton isn't be significantly more popular. She's won bigger states, and won a few of them by pretty large margins.
The feeling of 'suspicion' is basically some people who really are letting what they really want to believe override plain reality. It's a bit like the problem the Republicans have been steadily sinking in to over the last 20 years, and now the far left of the Democrats are catching up really fast.
You say I'm wrong to believe that polling is fairly worthless and I'm just not liking the polls....
And yet you go on to say that polls for primaries are unreliable....
Sigh. I didn't say unreliable, I said not that reliable. That is - the polls are less reliable than you see in the late stages of the general election. This means you shouldn't bet your house on any individual result coming within 3 points of the polling average, but it also means you're crazy if you want to bet on someone beating their current polling numbers in every remaining state by an average of 10 points.
If you really, honestly can't see the wishful thinking that is needed to think Sanders is still in the race... just think about how this would be getting debated if Sanders was ahead 65-35 in all the remaining states. Do you think the Sanders people would be claiming that polls weren't reliable then, or do you think they'd be loving every single poll that showed he had the support to win it?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Peregrine wrote: I think they have more of an appeal than you might expect. The US is really big on the myth that anyone can become rich if they just work hard enough, so there seem to be a lot of republican voters who think "I'm going to be rich, and when I'm rich I don't want to pay taxes". And there are a lot of them who think "I don't need welfare, I worked hard and got where I am, so I'm not paying for you to be lazy" without being in the richest 1%. The angry and entitled (mostly white) middle class voter is an important element of the republican party.
Maybe. Exactly what got individuals to the ballot box has always been more theory than anything else. I agree that it's been commonly believed for a long time that people like you describe were an important part of the Republican voting base, and maybe they still are.
But this primary is incredible not just because Trump won, but second place went to Cruz, who's appeal is almost entirely among social conservatives. The moderate candidates who should appeal to the voters you describe, Bush and Rubio never built any kind of base at all. At the end Kasich was left aiming for those voters, and they just never appeared.
Maybe it's just one of those things, maybe those three guys had other problems. That isn't a bad case to make - Bush had the family connection to his disastrous brother, and his only claim to success was getting out of office just before the Florida real estate bubble popped. Rubio always seemed lightweight, and his approach to campaign with minimal ground game was radical strategy that failed big time. And Kasich was ultimately just a boring guy from Ohio who was kind of campaigning against his own record.
So maybe it was just one of those things, and in 4 years service will return as normal. Afterall they got Romney up in 2012.
sebster wrote: Sanders winning some states doesn't mean Clinton isn't be significantly more popular.
Sure, but anecdotally I still haven't met anyone that actually likes Clinton. I've met some that don't like Trump or Cruz, but that isn't the same thing. Even online it seems more like the people willing to go for her are holding their nose while doing it. It is very strange. Maybe it would be more accurate to say that Clinton supporters are generally acting more passive than Sanders supports?
WASHINGTON (AP) — The House Benghazi committee's Republican chairman is ignoring statements by his own former lawyer indicating that the U.S. military acted properly on the night of the deadly Sept. 11, 2012, attacks in Libya, the panel's Democrats said.
Reps. Elijah Cummings and Adam Smith said Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., omitted the lawyer's comments when he fired back at the Defense Department for criticizing the GOP-led investigation into the attacks that killed four Americans.
Gowdy's actions, coupled with delays that have pushed the 2-year-old inquiry into the heat of the 2016 presidential race, "have damaged the credibility of the Select Committee beyond repair," Cummings and Smith wrote Sunday in a letter to Gowdy.
The Associated Press obtained a copy of the letter.
Cummings of Maryland is the senior Democrat on the Benghazi panel; Smith, of Washington state, is the senior Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee. He also serves on the select Benghazi panel.
The criticism by the two Democrats is the latest volley in an escalating, election-year fight over the Benghazi panel's actions — or inaction. The panel, created in May 2014, has not conducted a public hearing since October when former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton testified.
Democrats call the panel a thinly veiled excuse for Republicans to criticize Clinton, the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination. Republicans say the Obama administration has dragged its feet, failing to produce needed documents or interview subjects, delaying a final report.
U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens was among those died during the twin assaults nearly four years ago. Previous investigations blamed management failures at the State Department for a lack of security at the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, an issue that has dogged Clinton and other Obama administration officials.
Cummings and Smith cite comments by retired Army Lt. Gen. Dana Chipman, who served as chief counsel for Republicans on the Benghazi panel from August 2014 until last January.
Chipman "repeatedly commended the military's actions on the night of the attacks during closed interviews with Defense Department officials," Cummings and Smith wrote.
Chipman, a former judge advocate general for the Army, attended a closed-door interview with former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta on Jan. 8.
[d-usa: he had security clearance to read emails, so he knows what he's talking about!!!]
Cummings and Smith quote Chipman as telling Panetta: "I think you ordered exactly the right forces to move out and to head toward a position where they could reinforce what was occurring in Benghazi or Tripoli or elsewhere in the region. And, sir, I don't disagree with the actions you took, the recommendations you made and the decisions you directed."
Chipman later told Panetta he was "worried" that U.S. officials were caught by surprise during the Benghazi raids, which occurred on the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. Still, Chipman told Panetta: "Nothing could have affected what occurred in Benghazi," Cummings and Smith wrote.
The letter from the Democrats comes after Gowdy sent a letter to Defense Secretary Ash Carter complaining that a top Pentagon official had intentionally mischaracterized the House inquiry.
Gowdy said comments by Stephen C. Hedger, assistant secretary of defense for legislative affairs, were "riddled with factual inaccuracies" and did "a disservice to the public" and employees at the Defense Department.
Hedger, in an April 28 letter to Gowdy, expressed frustration with the Benghazi panel, citing a "crescendo" of costly, duplicative and unnecessary requests, including a few based on claims made on Facebook or talk radio.
dogma wrote: The impeachable offense still needs to be committed in office, the question regards whether or not it needs to be the office the person presently holds.
I don't think that's specified in Article 2, Section 4. I think it's left intentionally vague just for these sorts of "unknown unknowns". Does it matter, anyway - I mean, who is going to check Congress if they decided to impeach? No one has the authority to - it seems like an academic question.
Are you saying can she be retroactively impeached as Secretary of State? Since the only remedy is removal of office, and she doesn't hold that office, it doesn't seem likely to me.
I could be wrong, but I was under the impression that once you're President, you could only be impeached/removed from office for things committed duringsaid Presidency.
In any case, ain't.going.to.happen. Democrats in the House/Senate would have to play ball in this and I seriously doubt they'll play along.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: So this has been blowing up my Twittah:
WASHINGTON (AP) — The House Benghazi committee's Republican chairman is ignoring statements by his own former lawyer indicating that the U.S. military acted properly on the night of the deadly Sept. 11, 2012, attacks in Libya, the panel's Democrats said.
Reps. Elijah Cummings and Adam Smith said Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., omitted the lawyer's comments when he fired back at the Defense Department for criticizing the GOP-led investigation into the attacks that killed four Americans.
Gowdy's actions, coupled with delays that have pushed the 2-year-old inquiry into the heat of the 2016 presidential race, "have damaged the credibility of the Select Committee beyond repair," Cummings and Smith wrote Sunday in a letter to Gowdy.
The Associated Press obtained a copy of the letter.
Cummings of Maryland is the senior Democrat on the Benghazi panel; Smith, of Washington state, is the senior Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee. He also serves on the select Benghazi panel.
The criticism by the two Democrats is the latest volley in an escalating, election-year fight over the Benghazi panel's actions — or inaction. The panel, created in May 2014, has not conducted a public hearing since October when former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton testified.
Democrats call the panel a thinly veiled excuse for Republicans to criticize Clinton, the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination. Republicans say the Obama administration has dragged its feet, failing to produce needed documents or interview subjects, delaying a final report.
U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens was among those died during the twin assaults nearly four years ago. Previous investigations blamed management failures at the State Department for a lack of security at the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, an issue that has dogged Clinton and other Obama administration officials.
Cummings and Smith cite comments by retired Army Lt. Gen. Dana Chipman, who served as chief counsel for Republicans on the Benghazi panel from August 2014 until last January.
Chipman "repeatedly commended the military's actions on the night of the attacks during closed interviews with Defense Department officials," Cummings and Smith wrote.
Chipman, a former judge advocate general for the Army, attended a closed-door interview with former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta on Jan. 8.
[d-usa: he had security clearance to read emails, so he knows what he's talking about!!!]
Cummings and Smith quote Chipman as telling Panetta: "I think you ordered exactly the right forces to move out and to head toward a position where they could reinforce what was occurring in Benghazi or Tripoli or elsewhere in the region. And, sir, I don't disagree with the actions you took, the recommendations you made and the decisions you directed."
Chipman later told Panetta he was "worried" that U.S. officials were caught by surprise during the Benghazi raids, which occurred on the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. Still, Chipman told Panetta: "Nothing could have affected what occurred in Benghazi," Cummings and Smith wrote.
The letter from the Democrats comes after Gowdy sent a letter to Defense Secretary Ash Carter complaining that a top Pentagon official had intentionally mischaracterized the House inquiry.
Gowdy said comments by Stephen C. Hedger, assistant secretary of defense for legislative affairs, were "riddled with factual inaccuracies" and did "a disservice to the public" and employees at the Defense Department.
Hedger, in an April 28 letter to Gowdy, expressed frustration with the Benghazi panel, citing a "crescendo" of costly, duplicative and unnecessary requests, including a few based on claims made on Facebook or talk radio.
That Democrat panel is desperate to close this issue down.
I mean, that Committee *still* hasn't been able to interview key witnesses:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: In other news, Trump is saying that he won't have a good relationship with British Prime Minister, David Cameron.
Now, this is not news to anybody on dakka, given what's been said about Trump in Britain,
but you would think that a man running for President would have some knowledge of the politics of the USA's closest ally.
David Cameron's party, the Conservatives, are on the verge of civil war over the EU referendum. Cameron is unlikely to last the year.
Trump should know these things...
Trump is an idiot, but this I don't see that as too much of a problem. Cameron getting kicked out is not a certainty and he is the current leader. I could say the same about anyone actually taking the idea of Trump being president from another country
When talking about another country's leadership, you always would mention the current leader regardless of whether they might (or even likely will) get voted out of office. Same as someone in another country talking about Obama even though he'll definitely be out of office in under a year.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: In other news, Trump is saying that he won't have a good relationship with British Prime Minister, David Cameron.
Now, this is not news to anybody on dakka, given what's been said about Trump in Britain,
but you would think that a man running for President would have some knowledge of the politics of the USA's closest ally.
David Cameron's party, the Conservatives, are on the verge of civil war over the EU referendum. Cameron is unlikely to last the year.
Trump should know these things...
Trump is an idiot, but this I don't see that as too much of a problem. Cameron getting kicked out is not a certainty and he is the current leader. I could say the same about anyone actually taking the idea of Trump being president from another country
When talking about another country's leadership, you always would mention the current leader regardless of whether they might (or even likely will) get voted out of office. Same as someone in another country talking about Obama even though he'll definitely be out of office in under a year.
Damn! I can't disagree with this because it's true!
On another note, when in God's name does this primary business finish? A 5 week campaign for a UK election is enough to bore me to death, but this presidential nomination has been going on since Obama started his second term!
I admire the stamina of Americans for being able to survive this.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: On another note, when in God's name does this primary business finish? A 5 week campaign for a UK election is enough to bore me to death, but this presidential nomination has been going on since Obama started his second term!
I admire the stamina of Americans for being able to survive this.
Election campaigning, much like Black Friday and Christmas, has been creeping forward for years until we're now at what feels like an endless election cycle. I think a lot of Americans have had enough of it as well, but not enough to do anything to change it.
Why on earth would we choose to put the Clinton family drama at the center of our politics again?
By Christopher Hitchens
Also in Slate, John Dickerson details the "distractions" the Clinton team is creating for itself, and Timothy Noah argues that she's not the experience candidate.
Seeing the name Hillary in a headline last week—a headline about a life that had involved real achievement—I felt a mouse stirring in the attic of my memory. Eventually, I was able to recall how the two Hillarys had once been mentionable in the same breath. On a first-lady goodwill tour of Asia in April 1995—the kind of banal trip that she now claims as part of her foreign-policy "experience"—Mrs. Clinton had been in Nepal and been briefly introduced to the late Sir Edmund Hillary, conqueror of Mount Everest. Ever ready to milk the moment, she announced that her mother had actually named her for this famous and intrepid explorer. The claim "worked" well enough to be repeated at other stops and even showed up in Bill Clinton's memoirs almost a decade later, as one more instance of the gutsy tradition that undergirds the junior senator from New York.
Sen. Clinton was born in 1947, and Sir Edmund Hillary and his partner Tenzing Norgay did not ascend Mount Everest until 1953, so the story was self-evidently untrue and eventually yielded to fact-checking. Indeed, a spokeswoman for Sen. Clinton named Jennifer Hanley phrased it like this in a statement in October 2006, conceding that the tale was untrue but nonetheless charming: "It was a sweet family story her mother shared to inspire greatness in her daughter, to great results I might add."
Perfect. It worked, in other words, having been coined long after Sir Edmund became a bankable celebrity, but now its usefulness is exhausted and its untruth can safely be blamed on Mummy. Yet isn't it all—all of it, every single episode and detail of the Clinton saga—exactly like that? And isn't some of it a little bit more serious? For Sen. Clinton, something is true if it validates the myth of her striving and her "greatness" (her overweening ambition in other words) and only ceases to be true when it no longer serves that limitless purpose. And we are all supposed to applaud the skill and the bare-faced bravado with which this is done. In the New Hampshire primary in 1992, she knowingly lied about her husband's uncontainable sex life and put him eternally in her debt. This is now thought of, and referred to in print, purely as a smart move on her part. In the Iowa caucuses of 2008, he returns the favor by telling a huge lie about his own record on the war in Iraq, falsely asserting that he was opposed to the intervention from the very start. This is thought of, and referred to in print, as purely a tactical mistake on his part: trying too hard to help the spouse. The happy couple has now united on an equally mendacious account of what they thought about Iraq and when they thought it. What would it take to break this cheap little spell and make us wake up and inquire what on earth we are doing when we make the Clinton family drama—yet again—a central part of our own politics?
What do you have to forget or overlook in order to desire that this dysfunctional clan once more occupies the White House and is again in a position to rent the Lincoln Bedroom to campaign donors and to employ the Oval Office as a massage parlor? You have to be able to forget, first, what happened to those who complained, or who told the truth, last time. It's often said, by people trying to show how grown-up and unshocked they are, that all Clinton did to get himself impeached was lie about sex. That's not really true. What he actually lied about, in the perjury that also got him disbarred, was the women. And what this involved was a steady campaign of defamation, backed up by private dicks (you should excuse the expression) and salaried government employees, against women who I believe were telling the truth. In my opinion, Gennifer Flowers was telling the truth; so was Monica Lewinsky, and so was Kathleen Willey, and so, lest we forget, was Juanita Broaddrick, the woman who says she was raped by Bill Clinton. (For the full background on this, see the chapter "Is There a Rapist in the Oval Office?" in the paperback version of my book No One Left To Lie To. This essay, I may modestly say, has never been challenged by anybody in the fabled Clinton "rapid response" team.) Yet one constantly reads that both Clintons, including the female who helped intensify the slanders against her mistreated sisters, are excellent on women's "issues."
One also hears a great deal about how this awful joint tenure of the executive mansion was a good thing in that it conferred "experience" on the despised and much-deceived wife. Well, the main "experience" involved the comprehensive fouling-up of the nation's health-care arrangements, so as to make them considerably worse than they had been before and to create an opening for the worst-of-all-worlds option of the so-called HMO, combining as it did the maximum of capitalist gouging with the maximum of socialistic bureaucracy. This abysmal outcome, forgiven for no reason that I can perceive, was the individual responsibility of the woman who now seems to think it entitles her to the presidency. But there was another "experience," this time a collaborative one, that is even more significant.
During the Senate debate on the intervention in Iraq, Sen. Clinton made considerable use of her background and "experience" to argue that, yes, Saddam Hussein was indeed a threat. She did not argue so much from the position adopted by the Bush administration as she emphasized the stand taken, by both her husband and Al Gore, when they were in office, to the effect that another and final confrontation with the Baathist regime was more or less inevitable. Now, it does not especially matter whether you agree or agreed with her about this (as I, for once, do and did). What does matter is that she has since altered her position and attempted, with her husband's help, to make people forget that she ever held it. And this, on a grave matter of national honor and security, merely to influence her short-term standing in the Iowa caucuses. Surely that on its own should be sufficient to disqualify her from consideration? Indifferent to truth, willing to use police-state tactics and vulgar libels against inconvenient witnesses, hopeless on health care, and flippant and fast and loose with national security: The case against Hillary Clinton for president is open-and-shut. Of course, against all these considerations you might prefer the newly fashionable and more media-weighty notion that if you don't show her enough appreciation, and after all she's done for us, she may cry.
Oh how people forget how uglythe 2008 primary got.
I don't remember it being quite as bad as this one has already gotten on the Dem side. There were winners and losers and the hard feelings that go with that, but I don't recall there being a whole tone of how it was rigged to pick winners and losers like this one has been spun, or actually is, depending who you're rooting for. I don't remember much of an air of illegitimacy in 2008.
Ouze wrote: I don't remember it being quite as bad as this one has already gotten on the Dem side. There were winners and losers and the hard feelings that go with that, but I don't recall there being a whole tone of how it was rigged to pick winners and losers like this one has been spun, or actually is, depending who you're rooting for. I don't remember much of an air of illegitimacy in 2008.
Also, I don't really remember anything like what the GOP has going. I don't remember Perot very well, though, I wasn't politically interested yet.
As far as primaries goes... I think you're right. That last time was probably during the late 60's and 70's.
I remember when Perot ran before Bill Clinton's 2nd term. Many believe that he's the reason why Bill was able to win handily over Bob Dole.
I wonder if this is going to be "a thing" now because of how saturated Social Media is now...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: That would be the damning case that stopped her getting the office of secretary of state, wouldn't it?
Let's hope it has a similar effect eight years later.
Kinda hard to "stop her" if Democrats controlled the White House and Senate. Besides, it was a "runner-up" prize for Clinton as she needed to build up her resume.
Kilkrazy wrote: That would be the damning case that stopped her getting the office of secretary of state, wouldn't it?
She wasn't elected Secretary of State by popular vote. She was appointed to the office by a Democrat President and confirmed by a Democrat controlled Senate.
As far as primaries goes... I think you're right. That last time was probably during the late 60's and 70's.
Yeah, I've been doing a bunch of research for a prohibition paper in one of my classes, and I'll say that the 1910s and 1920s were fething UGLY when it came to campaigning..... ESPECIALLY in regards to the one massive hot-button issue back then. Whether someone was a "dry" or a "wet" back then carried far more weight than even the term "socialist" does today.
Fast forwarding a bit, I've read a bit on the rhetoric and tone during the Kennedy run and that was also pretty ugly. Perhaps it's not so much that today's primaries are any uglier or nicer than back in the day, they could be the "same" but we're just talking differences in technology and scales of magnitude within political life itself. (as in, the coverage and "place" of politics has increased by scales of magnitude)
Belknap resigned first, and the House moved to impeach on the same day; in the same office all the time. Questions of criminal prosecution only become pertinent when he left office.
sebster wrote: Maybe it's just one of those things, maybe those three guys had other problems. That isn't a bad case to make - Bush had the family connection to his disastrous brother, and his only claim to success was getting out of office just before the Florida real estate bubble popped. Rubio always seemed lightweight, and his approach to campaign with minimal ground game was radical strategy that failed big time. And Kasich was ultimately just a boring guy from Ohio who was kind of campaigning against his own record.
I think this is the most likely explanation. Trump and Cruz were the only candidates who got anyone excited. The other candidates were either boring placeholders whose primary appeal was that they weren't Trump or Cruz, or obvious joke candidates with no hope of winning. So that's a lot of apathetic voters, with their vote split between several equally boring candidates. And I think that group of voters is where a lot of the "I don't like Trump, but at least he's not a democrat" feelings come from.
Kilkrazy wrote: That would be the damning case that stopped her getting the office of secretary of state, wouldn't it?
She wasn't elected Secretary of State by popular vote. She was appointed to the office by a Democrat President and confirmed by a Democrat controlled Senate.
Who of course don't give A FETH what the public think but to some slight degree are concerned with actual competence in the job.
Kilkrazy wrote: That would be the damning case that stopped her getting the office of secretary of state, wouldn't it?
She wasn't elected Secretary of State by popular vote. She was appointed to the office by a Democrat President and confirmed by a Democrat controlled Senate.
Who of course don't give A FETH what the public think but to some slight degree are concerned with actual competence in the job.
Partisan Politicians being... ya know... partisans. That's how HRC got her Secretary of State job... Not simply because she was qualified.
However, when given the opportunity... Hillary Clinton does do something I'd do:
Spoiler:
That is to look at Christina Aguilera's boobs at every chance!
Would *I* have made the decision to make her my Secretary of State? Hell no...
Obviously. I doubt you would nominate anyone with an iota of "liberalism" as a Cabinet member.
But that wasn't the question, was it?
Do you think, absent anything which subsequently occurred, that Hillary Clinton was qualified to be Secretary of State?
I told you what qualifications that are explicitly needed.
My desire that she'd never step foot in politics again doesn't matter. All that matters is what a) the President wanted and b) if the Senate confirms. They determines the qualification.
I told you what qualifications that are explicitly needed.
No, you didn't. You danced around the question, and are still doing so, in order to avoid answering it.
I *did* answer it... you just chose not to see it.
If I had the powah, I would've deemed her unqualified as she had no real experience in diplomacy. Secretary of State isn't an "on-the-job-training" appointment. I'd say, she should've asked for a high profile ambassadorship, then try for SoS in Obama's 2nd term.
If I had the powah, I would've deemed her unqualified as she had no real experience in diplomacy. Secretary of State isn't an "on-the-job-training" appointment. I'd say, she should've asked for a high profile ambassadorship, then try for SoS in Obama's 2nd term.
If I had the powah, I would've deemed her unqualified as she had no real experience in diplomacy. Secretary of State isn't an "on-the-job-training" appointment. I'd say, she should've asked for a high profile ambassadorship, then try for SoS in Obama's 2nd term.
Would that have changed your mind?
By "that", you mean if she had prior Ambassadorial experience?
FWIW: The GOP needs a reckoning... and I hoped it was someone like Rubio or Cruz. Trump is going to be a walking disaster...
What sort of reckoning did you envision Rubio or Cruz providing?
Do you see Trump as a disaster because of his personality or because he's more likely then either of the above to compromise his (current) stated policies?
FWIW: The GOP needs a reckoning... and I hoped it was someone like Rubio or Cruz. Trump is going to be a walking disaster...
What sort of reckoning did you envision Rubio or Cruz providing?
They're both Tea Party candidates.
Do you see Trump as a disaster because of his personality or because he's more likely then either of the above to compromise his (current) stated policies?
He doesn't know what the feth he's doing. He just wants to be loved...
Breotan wrote: So, on Ellen DeGeneres' talk show the topic of Hillary staring at Christina Aguilera's breasts came up again.
Most of the comments on youtube were about her excessive use of makeup. Christina's, not Hillary's.
I think briefly gazing at a magnificent chest and quietly thinking "nice" might be the most human thing Hillary has done so far this campaign.
That being said I wonder if it's a misleading picture - remember that one that looked like Obama was checking out that girl's ass, but when you saw the video, he wasn't? (Sarkozy, on the other hand).
FWIW: The GOP needs a reckoning... and I hoped it was someone like Rubio or Cruz. Trump is going to be a walking disaster...
What sort of reckoning did you envision Rubio or Cruz providing?
They're both Tea Party candidates.
Do you see Trump as a disaster because of his personality or because he's more likely then either of the above to compromise his (current) stated policies?
He doesn't know what the feth he's doing. He just wants to be loved...
People choosing the established party 'alternative' seems like a pretty tame reckoning.
The GOP field being obliterated by someone that doesn't know what the feth he's doing sounds like a reckoning to me.
Ahtman wrote: One doesn't become an "internet tough guy", political or otherwise, merely by disagreeing with a false statement.
Which would be a fine response, if I'd said they did.
Claims of emotional neutrality are the political equivalent of internet tough guy-ism in that they're bravado lacking in credibility. Someone so closely aligned with political ideals of the side of the aisle that might as well use, "What about empathy?!" as its rallying cry ought to know that.
Besides, if you're genuinely looking for the least emotionally-motivated political group, you're looking for libertarians.
Just for a contrast, on 9th of May our Prime Minister called for a new election. On 2nd of July we’re going to vote. So the election has started around about a year after your primaries began (when Cruz nominated), and will finish more than 4 months before you guys actually vote.
No, they’re different, and you use them at different times to mean different things. If you can’t grasp that then maybe communicating with other human beings isn’t for you, and you should try to find another way to occupy your time.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ahtman wrote: Sure, but anecdotally I still haven't met anyone that actually likes Clinton. I've met some that don't like Trump or Cruz, but that isn't the same thing. Even online it seems more like the people willing to go for her are holding their nose while doing it. It is very strange. Maybe it would be more accurate to say that Clinton supporters are generally acting more passive than Sanders supports?
I think you’re right about Clinton supporters being more passive. Part of this is probably because Clinton’s campaign is a lot more sensible than it is exciting.
“What do we want?”
“A continuation of the moderate progress achieved in the last eight years!”
“When do we want it?”
“Incrementally, as each element becomes achievable!”
Not really the kind of thing that’s going to draw a huge crowd
But at the end of the day, whatever the feeling we all get from the wide presence of Sanders supporters on-line (and even here in Australia those guys are inescapable on facebook)… we just need to look at the voting tallies. It doesn’t matter how much you talk about your guy on line, you still only get one vote. And so all those Sanders supporters translated to 9 million votes, while the much quieter Clinton voters produced 12 million votes.
Besides, if you're genuinely looking for the least emotionally-motivated political group, you're looking for libertarians.
That honestly sounded like a bunch of BS... especially as the underlying rhetoric that I've seen most often surrounding Libertarians is fear. They are afraid of federal govt, they are afraid of "losing" rights, etc. etc. Obviously, this isn't a universal truth, just the majority of what I've seen. Additionally, based on what I've seen the "rationality" pretty much ends at "If it isn't in the constitution, we shouldn't have it."
And besides, that does seem to be a self-selected survey, which those who've taken a stats class will know that those are generally among the least reliable methods of collecting data.
whembly wrote: Oh how people forget how uglythe 2008 primary got.
I certainly never forgot how deeply ridiculous Christopher Hitchens was. He had an incredible gift for making complete and utter nonsense sound so poetic.
Besides, if you're genuinely looking for the least emotionally-motivated political group, you're looking for libertarians.
That honestly sounded like a bunch of BS... especially as the underlying rhetoric that I've seen most often surrounding Libertarians is fear. They are afraid of federal govt, they are afraid of "losing" rights, etc. etc. Obviously, this isn't a universal truth, just the majority of what I've seen. Additionally, based on what I've seen the "rationality" pretty much ends at "If it isn't in the constitution, we shouldn't have it."
And besides, that does seem to be a self-selected survey, which those who've taken a stats class will know that those are generally among the least reliable methods of collecting data.
Part of the problem might be that there is actually a pretty wide swath of people who could be considered Libertarians, and Libertarianism comes in a few different flavors. Left-libertarians, right-libertarians, and all the subcategories within those, and then just regular libertarians, however those are defined, since there are a lot people who overlap with the other varieties.
This is true of Republicans and Democrats as well, of course. I think it might just be due to Libertarians being less mainstream than Republicans and Democrats so that leads to them being painted with an extra broad brush (something that is also done by and to Republicans and Democrats).
Ouze wrote: I don't remember it being quite as bad as this one has already gotten on the Dem side. There were winners and losers and the hard feelings that go with that, but I don't recall there being a whole tone of how it was rigged to pick winners and losers like this one has been spun, or actually is, depending who you're rooting for. I don't remember much of an air of illegitimacy in 2008.
It was way messier that time around. Florida and Michigan put their primaries forward in violation of DNC rules, and so their delegates were banned from voting. Everyone pledged to not campaign in Florida, but Clinton did campaign in Michigan. Clinton won both states, but turn out was way down. In the end both states were given half their normal delegates, which was probably the worst of both worlds and left everyone pissed off.
There was yet more drama with the super-delegates. Early on they strongly favoured Clinton and lots of Obama supporters were pissed. But as Obama won more delegates and it became clear he was going to win overall the super-delegates flipped. This in turn pissed off Clinton supporters.
Clinton actually ended up with more votes than Obama, in part because of the Florida/Michigan weirdness, but also because Obama tended to do better in caucus states. But this also pissed off Clinton supporters, who saw it as a horrible injustice.
But in the end Clinton and Obama came to terms, Obama offered Clinton something she wanted (Sec. of State), and she publically backed him. Supporters fell in to line and Obama got great turnout in November.
This time around it’s different in two ways. There’s no actual controversies – one candidate is clearly winning because she’s got a large lead in votes, but the supporters of the trailing candidate are really angry about something… anything. It probably reflects on the greater economic angst, but also possibly reflects on Sanders own behaviour – he’s more than happy to make claims that he’s somehow been hard done by.
In the end he’ll fall in to line, probably by having his contributions written in to the DNC party platform. From there the Sanders supporter will probably mostly fall in to line. The alternative is Trump, after all.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: I remember when Perot ran before Bill Clinton's 2nd term. Many believe that he's the reason why Bill was able to win handily over Bob Dole.
I wonder if this is going to be "a thing" now because of how saturated Social Media is now...
Perot ran both times Clinton ran. He was much more relevant the first time around, where Perot won almost 20% of the vote, and that might have been what gave Clinton the win.*
In Clinton’s second term Perot only got 8%, less than the margin that Clinton beat Dole by. It almost certainly didn’t cost the Republicans that time around.
* Maybe. 20% was a lot but a huge amount, especially when you consider Clinton only beat Bush by 6%. But some analysis has shown it’s a lot less clear – much of Perot’s vote was in states that weren’t competitive, and exit polling showed that a lot of it was from Republicans giving a protest vote, who otherwise might not have voted at all.
Seaward wrote: Claims of emotional neutrality are the political equivalent of internet tough guy-ism in that they're bravado lacking in credibility.
But that claim wasn't made. This isn't an either or situation where the only options are zealot like fealty or absolute neutrality. The only "claim" was that not everyone has to have the same attitude toward politics.
Peregrine wrote: I think this is the most likely explanation. Trump and Cruz were the only candidates who got anyone excited. The other candidates were either boring placeholders whose primary appeal was that they weren't Trump or Cruz, or obvious joke candidates with no hope of winning. So that's a lot of apathetic voters, with their vote split between several equally boring candidates. And I think that group of voters is where a lot of the "I don't like Trump, but at least he's not a democrat" feelings come from.
I think that’s likely, I just don’t want to say it’s certainly, or that there’s nothing else going on. From McCain needing to pick Palin to appeal to the far right, to the rise of the Tea Party and establishment of the freedom caucus, and now Trump and Cruz as the most successful candidates… well there’s a trend forming and it’s picking up steam. Hopefully and most likely things will return to normal shortly, but I’m nowhere near certain of that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seaward wrote: Claims of emotional neutrality are the political equivalent of internet tough guy-ism in that they're bravado lacking in credibility. Someone so closely aligned with political ideals of the side of the aisle that might as well use, "What about empathy?!" as its rallying cry ought to know that.
Besides, if you're genuinely looking for the least emotionally-motivated political group, you're looking for libertarians.
So you say that claims of emotional neutrality are internet bravado, and then you claim that your own pet ideology is really the rational one. I kind of want to give you the benefit of the doubt that you were deliberately making a joke but I can’t… maybe I’m too emotionally invested.
sebster wrote: [So you say that claims of emotional neutrality are internet bravado, and then you claim that your own pet ideology is really the rational one. I kind of want to give you the benefit of the doubt that you were deliberately making a joke but I can’t… maybe I’m too emotionally invested.
In the end he’ll fall in to line, probably by having his contributions written in to the DNC party platform. From there the Sanders supporter will probably mostly fall in to line. The alternative is Trump, after all.
I think you don't really understand Sanders supporters. Expecting people who want a candidate who will actually stand for them instead of banks and corporations to display loyalty to someone who's been shouting that they will never ever get universal healthcare is foolish. Especially with the way the Democratic Party has been actively cutting off its leftist supporters to make absolutely sure that Queen Clinton gets the nomination. The DNC is so lacking in perspective that in a time when the GOP is fielding a fascist candidate they decide to court centre-right voters. The US is growing ever more desperate for any kind of left at all and the Democrats are doing everything they can to not provide it. They could field any candidate they so please in the face of Trump and they choose... a dynastic, neoliberal hawk. This tells you everything about where the party's loyalties lie.
To consider the whole election already won because you bank on voters turning out in huge numbers for a bad candidate simply to vote against the horrible other candidate is anywhere between arrogant and outright stupid.
Rosebuddy wrote: To consider the whole election already won because you bank on voters turning out in huge numbers for a bad candidate simply to vote against the horrible other candidate is anywhere between arrogant and outright stupid.
Emphasis mine - I think that's actually something that happens quite often.
Rosebuddy wrote: To consider the whole election already won because you bank on voters turning out in huge numbers for a bad candidate simply to vote against the horrible other candidate is anywhere between arrogant and outright stupid.
Emphasis mine - I think that's actually something that happens quite often.
It's why I turn out to vote as an independent. By definition, Republicans are horrible candidates, so I do what I can to keep them from getting into office
In the end he’ll fall in to line, probably by having his contributions written in to the DNC party platform. From there the Sanders supporter will probably mostly fall in to line. The alternative is Trump, after all.
I think you don't really understand Sanders supporters. Expecting people who want a candidate who will actually stand for them instead of banks and corporations to display loyalty to someone who's been shouting that they will never ever get universal healthcare is foolish. Especially with the way the Democratic Party has been actively cutting off its leftist supporters to make absolutely sure that Queen Clinton gets the nomination. The DNC is so lacking in perspective that in a time when the GOP is fielding a fascist candidate they decide to court centre-right voters. The US is growing ever more desperate for any kind of left at all and the Democrats are doing everything they can to not provide it. They could field any candidate they so please in the face of Trump and they choose... a dynastic, neoliberal hawk. This tells you everything about where the party's loyalties lie.
To consider the whole election already won because you bank on voters turning out in huge numbers for a bad candidate simply to vote against the horrible other candidate is anywhere between arrogant and outright stupid.
I always see a lot of Trump and Sanders supporters advocating for change and claiming that their candidate is different and capable of bringing the change the country needs to DC. However, when you look at the down ballot results of the primaries the same people voting for Sanders and Trump are voting for establishment candidates in Congress. Trump supporters are voting for Trump but every incumbent Congressional Republican candidate has won in the primaries too. There is no groundswell of support for any populist anti establishment candidates challenging incumbent senators and representatives in the Republican party. Likewise I don't see Sanders supporters also supporting socialist candidates challenging establishment Democrats that are just as beholden to banks and big money special interests as Hillary Clinton.
If people really want to see changes happen they have to realize that it takes a lot more than just changing out the President. If after November we had either Trump or Sanders as President but all the same members of Congress back again very little is going to change. The same career politicians will be in power and be beholden to the same special interest groups. Either there are millions of people out there that want change but are still very ignorant of how the US govt works or there are a lot of people that want a new figurehead but the same old system running behind that figurehead.
Update 8:20 p.m.: As expected, Rep. Todd Young (R-Ind.) easily won his Senate primary with Rep. Marlin Stutzman (R-Ind.) on Tuesday, with Young up 64-36 with 44 percent of precincts reporting. It's the latest evidence that Trump's effect on the GOP primary hasn't really filtered downballot this primary season, as the establishment keeps winning.
The original post follows:
Spoiler:
If things go according to plan for Republicans in Tuesday's Indiana GOP Senate primary, this could be one of the last stories you read about the race and its impact on control of the Senate in 2016.
Their preferred candidate, Rep. Todd Young, is expected to win the primary over a hard-line conservative with tea party support, Rep. Marlin Stutzman. Young, a former Marine, would then be in a good position to win the open seat being vacated by retiring Sen. Dan Coats (R) and keep the seat Republican.
That scenario seems much more likely Tuesday than it did a few months ago. Back then, we were analyzing whether GOP's preferred Senate candidates were in trouble because they were sharing the ballot with Donald Trump, who is most definitely not the GOP establishment's preferred presidential candidate.
But in the five GOP Senate primaries that have followed, we've seen basically zero evidence that Trump's victories are bad news for Republicans' top congressional primary candidates. Just because millions of voters are won over by Trump's outsider appeal doesn't mean they'll automatically vote for any candidate playing up their outsider credentials or attaching themselves to Trump.
In other words: The Trump Effect seems pretty difficult to replicate if you're not a once-in-a-lifetime, incredibly unique candidate named Donald Trump. And there haven't been outside GOP candidates this primary season who remotely resemble Trump.
Thanks in part to that, Senate Republicans are actually having a better primary year than in some recent cycles. They're 5-for-5 in contested primaries so far even though Trump has won 4 out of those 5 states, often by large margins. In 2010 and 2012, the Republican establishment lost at least four primaries each cycle.
They had prepared to do battle this year, too. In March, longtime senator Richard Shelby (Ala.) became the first congressional incumbent to test out being on a ballot with Trump.
He took nothing for granted. Shelby spent at least $5 million in his primary to avoid having a runoff with a little-known challenger. He won and, more important, avoided a runoff by taking a majority of the vote in a crowded field, even as Trump won his state by more than 20 points. It was a silver lining in what was otherwise a terrible Super Tuesday for the GOP establishment.
But at what cost did Shelby's win come, I wondered at the time. Not every Senate incumbent or establishment-preferred candidate can spend $5 million to keep from getting booted in the Year of Trump.
Turns out they haven't necessarily needed to. In Illinois, 20-year veteran Rep. John Shimkus (R) successfully faced down a tea party primary challenger who had the backing of the conservative Club for Growth. The closest the establishment has come to a scare from an outside challenger was Rep. Bill Shuster's (R-Pa.) April 26 primary, where an underfunded and little-known political novice came within a point of knocking off the powerful House transportation committee chairman. So far though, the only House incumbent to lose a primary this year has been a Democrat (and he's under indictment).
The establishment is very much expected to stay flawless Tuesday; in Indiana, the most recent Wall Street Journal/NBC News/Marist poll shows Young is ahead of Stutzman by 32 points even though Trump is expected to win the state.
There are a few reasons the Trump Effect hasn't panned out in GOP primaries. For one, the tea party and Trump aren't one and the same. The group that tends to support these outside candidates, the Club for Growth, is actively spending against Trump at the presidential level. In other words, not only aren't there a lot of candidates in the Trump mold; there isn't really an outside group geared toward promoting such candidates.
The Trump Effect (or lack therof) aside, Republicans have also gotten lucky this cycle by avoiding a ton of substantive primary challengers. The Club for Growth has only backed two challengers so far, in part because the other candidates just aren't viable, its spokesman, Doug Sachtleben, told Roll Call's Simone Pathe. Their only congressional win came in an open Ohio House seat to replace former House speaker John Boehner . Hugely symbolic, perhaps, but not much to extrapolate there about Trump's effect on down-ballot primaries — especially in a very crowded field.
skyth wrote: It's why I turn out to vote as an independent. By definition, Republicans are horrible candidates, so I do what I can to keep them from getting into office
I had been independent since I registered to vote when I turned 18, but this year I had to register so that I could participate in the caucuses, which I had never done before. Next election I'm going to flip my registration so I can go to the other party's caucus, and then I'll go back to being independent. Turns out caucasus are mostly old people, which is bad, but they're largely my neighbors, which is worse, and many of them what to engage you in idly chatter, which is like, my nightmare scenario.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Prestor Jon wrote: I always see a lot of Trump and Sanders supporters advocating for change and claiming that their candidate is different and capable of bringing the change the country needs to DC. However, when you look at the down ballot results of the primaries the same people voting for Sanders and Trump are voting for establishment candidates in Congress. Trump supporters are voting for Trump but every incumbent Congressional Republican candidate has won in the primaries too. There is no groundswell of support for any populist anti establishment candidates challenging incumbent senators and representatives in the Republican party. Likewise I don't see Sanders supporters also supporting socialist candidates challenging establishment Democrats that are just as beholden to banks and big money special interests as Hillary Clinton.
If people really want to see changes happen they have to realize that it takes a lot more than just changing out the President. If after November we had either Trump or Sanders as President but all the same members of Congress back again very little is going to change.
This is a really good point. I'm not sure I've seen a really, really significant swing in the congressional game other than the typical swing you see at post-presidential-re-election midterms.
They're both Reagan wannabes using the same tired strategy, Cruz especially. If the goal of the Tea Party is to build a time machine and take us all back to 1985, then they might be in trouble: Doc Brown is 77 and Marty McFly has Parkinson's .
I think briefly gazing at a magnificent chest and quietly thinking "nice" might be the most human thing Hillary has done so far this campaign.
I imagine she was making a mental note to put Aguilera's plastic surgeon on staff, though I suspect boobs are easier than personalities.
I must be crazy, because really, I think Mrs. Aguilera is definitely kind of "meh". If I'm going to be ogling anyone, it will be Mrs. Sofia Vergara
No one said she was the most beautiful woman ever, just that she has cleavage worth noting when standing next to her while she is in a low cut top. That is assuming the context is right.
Prestor Jon wrote: I always see a lot of Trump and Sanders supporters advocating for change and claiming that their candidate is different and capable of bringing the change the country needs to DC. However, when you look at the down ballot results of the primaries the same people voting for Sanders and Trump are voting for establishment candidates in Congress. Trump supporters are voting for Trump but every incumbent Congressional Republican candidate has won in the primaries too. There is no groundswell of support for any populist anti establishment candidates challenging incumbent senators and representatives in the Republican party. Likewise I don't see Sanders supporters also supporting socialist candidates challenging establishment Democrats that are just as beholden to banks and big money special interests as Hillary Clinton.
If people really want to see changes happen they have to realize that it takes a lot more than just changing out the President. If after November we had either Trump or Sanders as President but all the same members of Congress back again very little is going to change.
This is a really good point. I'm not sure I've seen a really, really significant swing in the congressional game other than the typical swing you see at post-presidential-re-election midterms.
Yeah, my fear about this year's election isn't that the wrong figurehead will get elected, it's what happens when millions of people who apparently think changing the figurehead makes a difference realize that it really doesn't. None of the remaining candidates, Regardless of who wins the general, Trump, Clinton none of them are going to accomplish anything groundbreaking or cause any dramatic paradigm shifts if they're stealing dealing with McConnel, Reid, Ryan, and Pelosi et al in Congress. The same entrenched establishment politicians and special interest groups will still be running the show. Unfortunately I think that will lead to either people giving up and abstaining from voting and engaging the political system which only allows the special interests to exert more control or more people will clamor for changes to the system that will make an Imperial Presidency a reality not just a lazy smear tactic for pundits or worst case people will want both. If people really want change but don't understand how to really go about enacting it then we risk people breaking the system even worse and possibly doing irreparable harm.
skyth wrote: It's why I turn out to vote as an independent. By definition, Republicans are horrible candidates, so I do what I can to keep them from getting into office
I had been independent since I registered to vote when I turned 18, but this year I had to register so that I could participate in the caucuses, which I had never done before. Next election I'm going to flip my registration so I can go to the other party's caucus, and then I'll go back to being independent. Turns out caucasus are mostly old people, which is bad, but they're largely my neighbors, which is worse, and many of them what to engage you in idly chatter, which is like, my nightmare scenario.
You can go to any caucus you want! you just don't get to vote. I own a business and went to a local caucus. I saw a lot of people I knew, but a lot of people I didn't know too. I jokingly told my wife that I better go to the other parties caucus too so everyone thinks I am 'one of them" and continues coming to my place.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Prestor Jon wrote: I always see a lot of Trump and Sanders supporters advocating for change and claiming that their candidate is different and capable of bringing the change the country needs to DC. However, when you look at the down ballot results of the primaries the same people voting for Sanders and Trump are voting for establishment candidates in Congress. Trump supporters are voting for Trump but every incumbent Congressional Republican candidate has won in the primaries too. There is no groundswell of support for any populist anti establishment candidates challenging incumbent senators and representatives in the Republican party. Likewise I don't see Sanders supporters also supporting socialist candidates challenging establishment Democrats that are just as beholden to banks and big money special interests as Hillary Clinton.
If people really want to see changes happen they have to realize that it takes a lot more than just changing out the President. If after November we had either Trump or Sanders as President but all the same members of Congress back again very little is going to change.
This is a really good point. I'm not sure I've seen a really, really significant swing in the congressional game other than the typical swing you see at post-presidential-re-election midterms.
I second this recommendation. I think it is a prime example of why mid-term turn-outs are so terrible. People forget that the President can't really do anything without congressional support and they get disillusioned or something.
To consider the whole election already won because you bank on voters turning out in huge numbers for a bad candidate simply to vote against the horrible other candidate is anywhere between arrogant and outright stupid.
Why can't it be both?
It also doesn't help when people seem to support an appalling candidate on the very things that make said candidate so terrible.
If anything a Washington Insider is more likely to be able to achieve a bit of change because they know how to work the system, while an outsider with big radical ideas is more likely to find the system closing ranks against them.
Kilkrazy wrote: If anything a Washington Insider is more likely to be able to achieve a bit of change because they know how to work the system, while an outsider with big radical ideas is more likely to find the system closing ranks against them.
Then... what about an Insider with big radical ideas??
I think one of the reasons I want Sanders to win, is because it would show the entire country that someone "that far left" can get elected, and would, I think, start the ball rolling at the lower levels of government to get candidates and congress critters who are more aligned with Sanders' ideas.
Rosebuddy wrote: I think you don't really understand Sanders supporters. Expecting people who want a candidate who will actually stand for them instead of banks and corporations to display loyalty to someone who's been shouting that they will never ever get universal healthcare is foolish.
I think one of the bigger misunderstandings out there right now is that Sanders achievement in winning 9 million votes means there is a massive left wing movement out there that will only accept far left politics, and will accept no kind of comprimise with the centre left. There are certainly some very noisy people on the internet who believe in pure politics over effective politics, but extending that to all of the people who voted for Sanders is not only completely speculative, its almost certainly nonsense.
Right now Trump and the Republican establishment are playing the political theatre needed to get them all united for the upcoming campaign, and Trump is a genuinely dangerous lunatic. The idea that Democrats will be incapable of bridging the gap between Sanders and Clinton, who believe or not has one of the most liberal voting records in the senate, is quite ridiculous.
The only question on that front is whether Sanders will let be sensible enough to take a practical win, like getting strong influence over the party platform, or will instead choose to go out in a blaze of glory and risk November. I hold hopes that he'll return to the fold, but his idiotic nonsense in response to the events in Nevada show that he might just be stupid and vain enough to choose flaming out.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Prestor Jon wrote: Yeah, my fear about this year's election isn't that the wrong figurehead will get elected, it's what happens when millions of people who apparently think changing the figurehead makes a difference realize that it really doesn't. None of the remaining candidates, Regardless of who wins the general, Trump, Clinton none of them are going to accomplish anything groundbreaking or cause any dramatic paradigm shifts if they're stealing dealing with McConnel, Reid, Ryan, and Pelosi et al in Congress. The same entrenched establishment politicians and special interest groups will still be running the show. Unfortunately I think that will lead to either people giving up and abstaining from voting and engaging the political system which only allows the special interests to exert more control or more people will clamor for changes to the system that will make an Imperial Presidency a reality not just a lazy smear tactic for pundits or worst case people will want both. If people really want change but don't understand how to really go about enacting it then we risk people breaking the system even worse and possibly doing irreparable harm.
I read an interesting piece a while ago that talked about past periods of congressional deadlock. The conclusion they gave was that sooner or later the deadlock was broken by voters breaking heavily for one side, which would then lead to a few election cycles of dominance for that one side before you slowly see a return to something more along the lines of traditional shared power made possible with pork barrelling.
This may be the election where the deadlock breaks, one way or the other. Maybe Trump's new brand of nationalist populism will energise a right wing that had been mired in Reagan nostalgia for 20 years. Or maybe Trump's ability to win a reliable 40% of Republican primary voters will be hopelessly non-competitive in a national election. Or maybe the partisanship will mean both sides getting out to vote for their team, for the president and all down the ticket, and we'll see another 4 years of bickering.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ensis Ferrae wrote: I think one of the reasons I want Sanders to win, is because it would show the entire country that someone "that far left" can get elected, and would, I think, start the ball rolling at the lower levels of government to get candidates and congress critters who are more aligned with Sanders' ideas.
You mean like how Obama's presidency has led to so many more black representatives in government?
If the far left wants more say in politics, then like every other political faction they'll have to work for it. Organise grass roots movements, select leaders, picking winning issues and work to make sure the population believes in your position and believes that you can deliver on them, and then work to get those people out and voting on election day.
Hoping that Sanders can come along and deliver a sea change in politics in just one election is well, basically just kind of lazy.
sebster wrote: I think one of the bigger misunderstandings out there right now is that Sanders achievement in winning 9 million votes means there is a massive left wing movement out there that will only accept far left politics, and will accept no kind of comprimise with the centre left. There are certainly some very noisy people on the internet who believe in pure politics over effective politics, but extending that to all of the people who voted for Sanders is not only completely speculative, its almost certainly nonsense.
Right now Trump and the Republican establishment are playing the political theatre needed to get them all united for the upcoming campaign, and Trump is a genuinely dangerous lunatic. The idea that Democrats will be incapable of bridging the gap between Sanders and Clinton, who believe or not has one of the most liberal voting records in the senate, is quite ridiculous.
As a Sanders supporter, I actually kind of agree with you here.... Personally, what I had *hoped* would happen with the Democratic campaign, was that Sanders and his honesty would sort of "rub off" on other candidates.... I had hoped that his focusing on the "average joe" in his policies would transfer into the Clinton campaign, and that the Democrats as a whole could agree that as things stand, we cannot continue on this path.
I do constantly finding myself wondering, when looking at platform issues, what has happened to our country. I mean, if you focus on the issues, and statements, Sanders is actually less "radical" than FDR was.... I happen to agree with Jon Stewart on this point: I think that we have become so accustomed to lunacy and the insanity that our politics has become, that when someone comes along like Sanders and runs on issues and platforms, and doesn't deviate from that, it looks like radicalism.
Yeah, I know there's all those pieces of "journalism" that say that his tax plan would be insanely expensive and "never work", etc. etc. but I think everyone here would have to agree that he has stuck to issues, and he hasn't resorted to the Rubio, Cruz, etc. tactics of attacking his opponent's spouse, or some personal thing. His attacks on Clinton were, as much as I saw, based entirely on her flip flopping and changing of position.
I think the 9m sanders supporters would be willing to support a democratic nominee that doesn't have the name Clinton....they would support someone more toward the center...but not her.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: I think one of the reasons I want Sanders to win, is because it would show the entire country that someone "that far left" can get elected, and would, I think, start the ball rolling at the lower levels of government to get candidates and congress critters who are more aligned with Sanders' ideas.
You mean like how Obama's presidency has led to so many more black representatives in government?
If the far left wants more say in politics, then like every other political faction they'll have to work for it. Organise grass roots movements, select leaders, picking winning issues and work to make sure the population believes in your position and believes that you can deliver on them, and then work to get those people out and voting on election day.
Hoping that Sanders can come along and deliver a sea change in politics in just one election is well, basically just kind of lazy.
I suppose that what I mean is that, by and large we don't really see many candidates that reflect his honesty and values. I know that where I live, we still really don't have people who are "far left"... with the exception of that Seattle lady who is registered as a socialist (honestly, I have no idea if she's still in office).
I mean, yeah, you are right that it may sound kind of lazy... but I think you have hit the nail on the head.... I just don't think that there are any "leaders" that are currently in politics or running. So I guess what I'm hoping for is for some of those people who are out there to have that light bulb, epiphany moment and get out there and run..... But any more, running and winning isn't enough...
How many politicians have we seen, on both sides of the aisle promise big things, things perhaps on the level that Sanders has done, but once they get in office, it all kinda stops... and they don't really deliver. I mean, what was Rubio's big hit against him? He promised some stuff in his Congressional seat, but then is one of the least present people (Or was that Cruz I'm thinking of?) How can one deliver on campaign promises if they are essentially never in the office, ready and willing to work?
And is only leading by 0.4% with 99% reporting in.
Nah, it's just another part of this drawn out, teeth pulling exercise. It's been the same pattern throughout - Clinton surges ahead but never actually ends the race, and Sanders manages some nice symbolic wins, but never enough to actually put himself back in the race.
So he's been successful in Oregan and run it really close in Kentucky. Positive performances, but assuming he take 27/55 delegates in Kentucky, and 33/61 delegates in Oregan, what that means for the race is that before today he needed 66.2% of the remaining vote to take a majority in pledged delegates, and after today he'll need 68.5% of the remaining vote.
TheMeanDM wrote: I think the 9m sanders supporters would be willing to support a democratic nominee that doesn't have the name Clinton....they would support someone more toward the center...but not her.
They'll support Clinton, because the alternative is Trump. If you support Sanders and won't vote for Clinton then you are simply out of touch with reality. She's way closer to Sanders' positions than Trump is, and the reality of politics in the US is that voting third-party or staying home is the same as a vote for the candidate you like the least.
whembly wrote: sebster is making a ton of sense here ya'll.
Frankly, I hope both parties, seeing the horror of either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump presidency, does some serious fething re-calibration.
I absolutely, 100% cannot see the supposed horror in Clinton. Her presidency is basically just a continuation of Obama. There was no horror to be had when Bush took over from Reagan, and there was no horror when Gore looked to take over from Clinton.
People on the left might want more than an extension of Obama, and that's fine. And similarly people on the right will look for a shift back towards the right. That's also fine. But to call Clinton's presidency, or Obama before, a horror is just beyond ridiculous.
I've said it before, but it's only becoming more true - the mass exaggerations people have made about fundamentally centrist, steady hand candidates like Obama, Romney or Clinton, have produced a blindspot in which people fail to realise a genuinely dangerous idiot like Trump.
One of the MSNBC commentators just raised an interesting idea about a segment of Sanders supporters:
They want to punish the DNC and Clinton for for their obvious ties to corporate money...that their convention is sponsored by a number of big Fortune 500 companies....that they don't actually stand up to corporate inrerests like they say they do...taking Super PAC support..the super delegates.
All of these thing they are complicit in and have never *effectively* been called to the carpet on it until this year.
TheMeanDM wrote: I think the 9m sanders supporters would be willing to support a democratic nominee that doesn't have the name Clinton....they would support someone more toward the center...but not her.
They'll support Clinton, because the alternative is Trump. If you support Sanders and won't vote for Clinton then you are simply out of touch with reality. She's way closer to Sanders' positions than Trump is, and the reality of politics in the US is that voting third-party or staying home is the same as a vote for the candidate you like the least.
She changes her positions when it bests benefits her. I feel that the only reason she has co-opted some of Sanders talking points is not because she believes them, but because she needs his supporters to think she believes them and will vote for her.
She was against gay marriage before she was for it.
She was (and still does) take big $ from corporations before she was talking about taking on wall street.
She was for Keystone....
Ensis Ferrae wrote: As a Sanders supporter, I actually kind of agree with you here.... Personally, what I had *hoped* would happen with the Democratic campaign, was that Sanders and his honesty would sort of "rub off" on other candidates.... I had hoped that his focusing on the "average joe" in his policies would transfer into the Clinton campaign, and that the Democrats as a whole could agree that as things stand, we cannot continue on this path.
I think Sanders honesty is much over stated. Certainly on the issue I really value honesty - policy development - he's been as mediocre as most Republicans, and miles behind Clinton. Say what you want about Clinton's personal lies, but her policies are based in absolute intellectual honesty, there are no rosy pictures painted by overly generous assumptions.
I do constantly finding myself wondering, when looking at platform issues, what has happened to our country. I mean, if you focus on the issues, and statements, Sanders is actually less "radical" than FDR was.... I happen to agree with Jon Stewart on this point: I think that we have become so accustomed to lunacy and the insanity that our politics has become, that when someone comes along like Sanders and runs on issues and platforms, and doesn't deviate from that, it looks like radicalism.
The whole of the developed world has moved to the right. Part of this has been because the left won on so many issues - we have saftety nets paid through progressive taxation, we have much greater regulations on workplace safety, and all manner of similar things. So politics evolved to debate other things.
I think what's now changing is that we are entering a new economy where jobs and a minimal safefy net just won't cut it anymore - there won't be jobs for everyone in the new economy. Whether we adapt by reducing working hours, or introducing a living wage that still encourages work, or just letting a permanent underclass develop is the new political challenge. And I predict that answering that question will create a new kind of left wing.
Yeah, I know there's all those pieces of "journalism" that say that his tax plan would be insanely expensive and "never work", etc. etc. but I think everyone here would have to agree that he has stuck to issues, and he hasn't resorted to the Rubio, Cruz, etc. tactics of attacking his opponent's spouse, or some personal thing. His attacks on Clinton were, as much as I saw, based entirely on her flip flopping and changing of position.
For a long time I credited both Sanders and Clinton for sticking to substance based debates. But Sanders increasing tendency to make baseless complaints about unfair results, capped with his ridiculous statement in the wake of the Nevada caucus has been more than a little disappointing, and made me worry that he might actually let his ego take over and flame out, rather than actually build a genuine left wing base within the Democratic party.
Oh, and it isn't just some bits of journalism that say his tax plan won't work, his plan was a total shambles, based on ridiculous assumptions. When errors were shown that couldn't be denied, the guy who costed Sanders plan just changed some more assumptions to maintain his original claim. It was exactly the kind of gakky analysis that's led the Republican party to its current terrible policy positions, and anyone on the left who values good government should be extremely critical of anyone on the left who engages in similar nonsense.
sebster wrote: I absolutely, 100% cannot see the supposed horror in Clinton.
Well she seems like a horrible person that wants to be President not to do the job but just because she craves power like Emperor Palpatine. The problem, of course, is that she is just not as awful as the alternative. Her policies are fine, if not bland and focus grouped, it is more that she just isn't very isn't likable. Still considering Trump is the other option I imagine people will still vote for her. I absolutely, 100% cannot see why people would have trouble understanding why she isn't well liked.
How many more fething times do I have to tell you the only candidate trying to get super-delegate support in order to overturn the popular vote is Sanders. If the possibility of super-delegates flipping and over-riding the pledged delegates genuinely bothers you, then you should denounce Sanders and his plan to do just that.
And yet you just ignore that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ahtman wrote: Well she seems like a horrible person that wants to be President not to do the job but just because she craves power like Emperor Palpatine. The problem, of course, is that she is just not as awful as the alternative. Her policies are fine, if not bland and focus grouped, it is more that she just isn't very isn't likable. Still considering Trump is the other option I imagine people will still vote for her. I absolutely, 100% cannot see why people would have trouble understanding why she isn't well liked.
I absolutely agree that she isn't very likable. But I think anyone who casts their vote for President based on how much they like the candidates should be kindly asked to never, ever vote again, and possibly also to only use plastic cutlery from now on, for their own safety.
TheMeanDM wrote: She changes her positions when it bests benefits her. I feel that the only reason she has co-opted some of Sanders talking points is not because she believes them, but because she needs his supporters to think she believes them and will vote for her.
She was against gay marriage before she was for it.
She was (and still does) take big $ from corporations before she was talking about taking on wall street.
She was for Keystone....
The list goes on and on....
All of this is true, but Trump is worse. An inconsistent center-left president is better than a consistent far-right raving lunatic. If you support Sanders you settle for Clinton because the alternative is clearly worse. You don't have to be enthusiastic about it, but on election day you still check that "D" box.
That he needs the sd's to win?
--At this point, it's a snowballs chance without them.
That he has to work within the framework of the DNC rules?
--Duh. Of course he has to play by their rules...doesn't mean he can't point out just how fethed up they are and work toward pressuring for change.
That the DNC setup this system to protect party favorites?
-- (see above)
That he needs the sd's to win?
--At this point, it's a snowballs chance without them.
That he has to work within the framework of the DNC rules?
--Duh. Of course he has to play by their rules...doesn't mean he can't point out just how fethed up they are and work toward pressuring for change.
That the DNC setup this system to protect party favorites?
-- (see above)
What am I ignoring exactly?
If it were that simple Obama would have never beaten Clinton 2008.
You have complained that the super-delegates are there to overturn the popular vote. And now that your guy wants to do that you're okay with it.
That he needs the sd's to win? --At this point, it's a snowballs chance without them.
Yeah, so as long as your guy needs it to win, it's okay.
That he has to work within the framework of the DNC rules? --Duh. Of course he has to play by their rules...doesn't mean he can't point out just how fethed up they are and work toward pressuring for change.
He isn't pressuring for them to change them, he's asking them to do the one thing they shouldn't ever do.
That the DNC setup this system to protect party favorites? -- (see above)
That gets claimed a lot, but it's total garbage. The party simply isn't going to over-ride the popular delegate in order to get their preference over the line. Because they don't want to invite civil war within the party in an election year - the DNC knows it is always better that an outsider Democrat win in November than a Republican. Even in the most extreme case, Trump, the party was almost certainly not going to attempt to shut Trump out if he got close to an outright majority. Cruz and Kasich wanted that, but most unpledged delegates had signalled they were going to accept the popular vote in their own states.
No, unpledged delegates are set up to ensure that insiders continued to have power, simply for its own sake. Even if its power that they'd never use to over-ride the voting base, it is power and so they want it.
Everyone, a certain amount of heat is to be expected in a major election like President, but please don't use extreme and intemperate terms to describe the candidates.
Frankly, I hope both parties, seeing the horror of either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump presidency, does some serious fething re-calibration.
Clinton is just an uncharismatic Obama. The conservatives she horrifies would probably be horrified by any Democrat...and likely gaze fearfully at the sky.
Trump is very likely the GOP re-calibration, as he beat a guy that did everything in his power to favorably compare himself to Reagan.
dogma wrote: Clinton is just an uncharismatic Obama. The conservatives she horrifies would probably be horrified by any Democrat...and likely gaze fearfully at the sky.
Pretty much. In the senate Clinton's voting record made her more liberal than 70% of Democrats, and 85% of the senate as a whole. Obama was to the left of just 82% of congress - Clinton is more liberal by a tiny amount. There's also very little difference between Clinton and Sanders - they voted the same way 93% of the time (and part of the 7% difference was Sanders crossing the floor on gun votes).
Anyone who thinks there is some vast difference among Democrats that is going to pull the party apart has been listening too much to Sanders theatrics.
Similarly anyone who thinks Clinton is some hellish master manipulator who will doom the nation through something or other just needs to stop reading far right crazy nonsense. She's a run of the mill Democrat, slightly to the left of the party's centre. Notably more to the left than her husband, but in more or less the same area, which puts her in pretty much the same place as Obama... who you should all note is just about to finish 8 years as president without the US sinking in to the sea.
sebster wrote: I think one of the bigger misunderstandings out there right now is that Sanders achievement in winning 9 million votes means there is a massive left wing movement out there that will only accept far left politics, and will accept no kind of comprimise with the centre left. There are certainly some very noisy people on the internet who believe in pure politics over effective politics, but extending that to all of the people who voted for Sanders is not only completely speculative, its almost certainly nonsense
Sanders isn't far left, though. He's a social democrat. That's a fundamentally capitalist ideology. Clinton or the like are leftists only if you define leftism as having a (D) after your name when you show up on television. This is precisely what the Democrats have been doing and is why they've managed to gather more radical people under them but since the leadership is unwilling to do actual leftism then the actual leftists will one day give up on the party. Why be loyal to something that will never, ever do what you want? Why should I give a damn about compromising when what we're actually compromising between is the exact degree to which to cut taxes on the wealthy?
sebster wrote: The only question on that front is whether Sanders will let be sensible enough to take a practical win, like getting strong influence over the party platform, or will instead choose to go out in a blaze of glory and risk November. I hold hopes that he'll return to the fold, but his idiotic nonsense in response to the events in Nevada show that he might just be stupid and vain enough to choose flaming out.
The Democratic Party rejects Sanders. If the Democratic establishment doesn't want to give him anything, he won't have anything. That's why he keeps on instead of giving up. He has grown hugely in popularity and the Democratic leadership does not in any way want to acknowledge him. They want him to do what you want every leftist to do: submit to divine liberal inevitability and obey the Democratic Party to its gain alone.
Why the hell should one vote for the person who says they won't be good but they totally won't be as bad as the other guy, that our deportations and wars won't be as bad as his deportations and wars, honest! That is what kills democracy, not people who aren't willing to settle for a supposed lesser evil. Voting against the bigger evil didn't work on literally George W Bush and Obama won because he got people enthusiastic for him despite being in fact the second Bush. And now Clinton is running on being the second Obama. And it isn't like Bush was an enormous break from his predecessor, either. So the same policies for over two decades with no recovery from the recession, the next one showing up at any time now, increasingly precarious employment for entire generations, a growing realisation that drastic changes will have to be done to make sure that global warming is a minor disaster instead of a total one and you think that the Democrats can continue on as they always have if those darn petulant Bernie Bros would just do as they're told. We have a political environment in which a person can muscle into the presidential nomination through little more than sheer loathing and disregard for the paradigm in which a bunch of mushroom-farmed aristocrats squabble over who gets to wear the crown this time. Trump can afford an official approach to policy of Yeah, Whatever, I'll Think of Something because whenever an opponent tries to give him gak for not having a carefully balanced and reasoned bundle of paper to slam down he can simply respond with "you're a human impersonator, you eat ice-cream with a fork" and that is that. And you think that Clinton, who positions herself as the very embodiment of politics as usual, is the best shot the Democrats have against the exact reaction against that.
You know what the Sanders people could do to advance there cause? Push for an IR voting system. That'll do far more good than complaining that the other side got more votes, and letting fething Trump win. Because if you actually believe in Sanders' position, you'll suck it up, and vote for Clinton in the primary. Trump will do more damage than Clinton ever could to those ideals.
Also, Whem' you know Clinton wouldn't be near as bad as Trump, so stop pretending. Don't vote for her, sure, but don't pretend they are the same.
Co'tor Shas wrote: You know what the Sanders people could do to advance there cause? Push for an IR voting system. That'll do far more good than complaining that the other side got more votes, and letting fething Trump win. Because if you actually believe in Sanders' position, you'll suck it up, and vote for Clinton in the primary. Trump will do more damage than Clinton ever could to those ideals.
Also, Whem' you know Clinton wouldn't be near as bad as Trump, so stop pretending. Don't vote for her, sure, but don't pretend they are the same.
Edit: I mean,general
This. I'm not the biggest fan of Hillary and I think she lies and cheats, but Trump seems like an absolute mad man.
If you don't want to vote for Clinton or Trump for president I really don't care. However, still go and vote for down ticket races. That is where the real action happens in politics.
Easy E wrote: If you don't want to vote for Clinton or Trump for president I really don't care. However, still go and vote for down ticket races. That is where the real action happens in politics.
Absolutely. I plan on voting down ticket regardless.
Co'tor Shas wrote: You know what the Sanders people could do to advance there cause? Push for an IR voting system. That'll do far more good than complaining that the other side got more votes, and letting fething Trump win. Because if you actually believe in Sanders' position, you'll suck it up, and vote for Clinton in the primary. Trump will do more damage than Clinton ever could to those ideals.
Also, Whem' you know Clinton wouldn't be near as bad as Trump, so stop pretending. Don't vote for her, sure, but don't pretend they are the same.
Edit: I mean,general
Why?
Why choose the evil you know over the evil that might be? People keep saying how bad Trump will be, but he flipflops so hard it´s impossible to actually ascertain what his platform is. He could be anything from a crypto-democrat, to standard republican or some crazy populist republican, we might never know. All those positions are bad of course, but not earth-shattering bad compared to the usual politics.
Clinton on the other hand we know is a dynastic warhawk that is in the pockets of wall street, So no, if I was an American I would go third-party if Clinton wins the nomination.
Rosebuddy wrote: Sanders isn't far left, though. He's a social democrat. That's a fundamentally capitalist ideology. Clinton or the like are leftists only if you define leftism as having a (D) after your name when you show up on television.
That's a lot of foolishness. If you take the whole of US politics, assume the center is the center, because it is, you can then take the voting records of each person elected to office and see how they compare to the center. That might mean people on the far left of US politics might be center or even center right in Swedish politics, but who gives a gak when we're talking about US politics.
This is precisely what the Democrats have been doing and is why they've managed to gather more radical people under them but since the leadership is unwilling to do actual leftism then the actual leftists will one day give up on the party.
Ah yes, the great idea that there must surely be some great untapped wealth of US voters just waiting for a true left wing to emerge. I used to kind of believe that as well, a long time ago. But the thing about politics is that power rises to where the votes are. The one absolute you can take from the failure of a group to win significant political power at any level of local, state or federal politics is that there isn't that many votes for that kind of thing.
And given that Clinton and Sanders are just now winding up an election, and Clinton has Sanders beat by 3 million votes and with that number likely to increase given the remaining states... well then we can probably conclude there's more voters who want left wing over far left. That should be obvious, except the true believes in Sanders wish it wasn't true, so they invent all kinds of silliness.
The Democratic Party rejects Sanders. If the Democratic establishment doesn't want to give him anything, he won't have anything.
You have no understanding how any of this works. How much of the power in any party is brokered. Sanders is the third most significant force in Democratic politics, behind Obama and Clinton. He holds a lot of bargaining chips, and can use those to wield significant input on the Democratic party platform.
As for the rest, well I was a student once as well, and you gave me a nice feeling of nostalgia, so I won't be mean in responding.
whembly wrote: C'mon man.... That's like choosing between Syphalis v. HIV.
Both will be bad and I refuse to play the "choose the lesser evil" game.
Again, this is end result of decades of 'errmagherd the other team's candidate is a horrible lunatic'. Both sides have played this game, everyone is to blame, but ultimately all that matters is that when a genuinely dangerous lunatic lands a nomination, around half the country can't even tell the difference between a run of the mill politician that they're conditioned to pretend to be afraid of, and an actually dangerous idiot.
Even if you don't like her policies, and for someone on the right there's plenty to not like, then PJ O'Rourke is the quote to keep in mind "She's wrong about absolutely everything, but she's wrong within normal parameters."
Why choose the evil you know over the evil that might be? People keep saying how bad Trump will be, but he flipflops so hard it´s impossible to actually ascertain what his platform is. He could be anything from a crypto-democrat, to standard republican or some crazy populist republican, we might never know. All those positions are bad of course, but not earth-shattering bad compared to the usual politics.
Because there are many things outside the normal bounds of politics that are just accepted as they are because that's how stable governments operate. Trump has jumped at a bunch of those things, and proposed genuinely dangerous, incredibly stupid proposals.
On debt, for instance, Trump seemed entirely oblivious to role of safe bonds in a functioning business environment, and seemed to think the only issue to consider was how to scam lower future payments. He treats economic management like he's running a failing Atlantic casino.
There is a very good reason The Economist, which is nowhere near a left wing publication, considers the election of Trump one of most significant risks to the world economy.
whembly wrote: C'mon man.... That's like choosing between Syphalis v. HIV.
Both will be bad and I refuse to play the "choose the lesser evil" game.
Again, this is end result of decades of 'errmagherd the other team's candidate is a horrible lunatic'. Both sides have played this game, everyone is to blame, but ultimately all that matters is that when a genuinely dangerous lunatic lands a nomination, around half the country can't even tell the difference between a run of the mill politician that they're conditioned to pretend to be afraid of, and an actually dangerous idiot.
But, there's a 3rd option.
There's a rise in folks that want to break out of the two-party, lesser-of-two-evils Presidential paradigm in which we live every four fething years.
Don't get me wrong, I'm absolutely convinced Hillary Clinton will win handily... but, it's about making a statement for the future.
I want the vote count on the Presidential tickets to go waaaaaaay down, such that, the major parties would ensure that this doesn't happen again in the future.
Even if you don't like her policies, and for someone on the right there's plenty to not like, then PJ O'Rourke is the quote to keep in mind "She's wrong about absolutely everything, but she's wrong within normal parameters."
That's a crock of gak from PJ. He's simply #NeverTrump.
That's the whole fething point of being dissenters... if you dissent, based on your principles, you're duty-bound to root yourself down and tell the others "No... you move". (yes, I've seen the new Captain America movie. )
There's a rise in folks that want to break out of the two-party, lesser-of-two-evils Presidential paradigm in which we live every four fething years.
Don't get me wrong, I'm absolutely convinced Hillary Clinton will win handily... but, it's about making a statement for the future.
I want the vote count on the Presidential tickets to go waaaaaaay down, such that, the major parties would ensure that this doesn't happen again in the future.
Than you will stand with me to support an IR voting system? It's one of the simplest solutions to the two-party system.
Why choose the evil you know over the evil that might be? People keep saying how bad Trump will be, but he flipflops so hard it´s impossible to actually ascertain what his platform is. He could be anything from a crypto-democrat, to standard republican or some crazy populist republican, we might never know. All those positions are bad of course, but not earth-shattering bad compared to the usual politics.
Clinton on the other hand we know is a dynastic warhawk that is in the pockets of wall street, So no, if I was an American I would go third-party if Clinton wins the nomination.
Because out country's political system relys on it. You want to change it? Then go out and campaign for and IR voting system. Campaign against gerrymandering. Campaign for election fiance reforming. But letting someone like Trump win, it not the way to do it. It's not about the lesser of two evils, because, you support Sanders, you have to realize that Clinton is not so different. More moderate, yes, but much of their beliefs are the same. And if you think your message has weight, than support senators and legislators who also push for these things, or even run yourself. But throwing a temper-tantrum that your candidate didn't win is not the way to solve this. Just because you vote for a candidate doesn't mean you have to agree with them completely, and it doesn't mean that you have to lose your beliefs. But letting someone like Trump, who is the the complete opposite of everything Sanders represents, win is ridiculous. There are people know who are going "Sanders didn't win, so I'm supporting Trump." I wish I was kidding. Such is the state of politics here.
There's a rise in folks that want to break out of the two-party, lesser-of-two-evils Presidential paradigm in which we live every four fething years.
Don't get me wrong, I'm absolutely convinced Hillary Clinton will win handily... but, it's about making a statement for the future.
I want the vote count on the Presidential tickets to go waaaaaaay down, such that, the major parties would ensure that this doesn't happen again in the future.
Than you will stand with me to support an IR voting system? It's one of the simplest solutions to the two-party system.
Than you will stand with me to support an IR voting system? It's one of the simplest solutions to the two-party system.
In the Primary? Sure.
Why just the primary? That will stop extremist candidates like Trump, but it will not deal with the problem the two-party system poses.
Because it'll require another US Constitutional Amendment to change how Presidents are elected. It'll be so difficult, it's almost a non-starter.
Next best thing is to change the Primary nomination process and encourage more engagement in local politics.
I'm not saying get rid of the delegate system, I'm saying have the delegates be elected by IRV. I'll have to check, but I don't think the Constitution says only FPTP is allowed.
Than you will stand with me to support an IR voting system? It's one of the simplest solutions to the two-party system.
In the Primary? Sure.
Why just the primary? That will stop extremist candidates like Trump, but it will not deal with the problem the two-party system poses.
Because it'll require another US Constitutional Amendment to change how Presidents are elected. It'll be so difficult, it's almost a non-starter.
Next best thing is to change the Primary nomination process and encourage more engagement in local politics.
I'm not saying get rid of the delegate system, I'm saying have the delegates be elected by IRV. I'll have to check, but I don't think the Constitution says only FPTP is allowed.
Changing the primaries has nothing to do with the constitution. The primaries are completely controlled by the political parties that run them. The Republican Party and Democrat Party can change the primary voting system tomorrow if they felt like it. Candidates and nominees still have meet the constitutional requirements for eligibility for the office but that's it. If you wanted to change how people are elected to Congress that would involve changing the constitution.
Than you will stand with me to support an IR voting system? It's one of the simplest solutions to the two-party system.
In the Primary? Sure.
Why just the primary? That will stop extremist candidates like Trump, but it will not deal with the problem the two-party system poses.
Because it'll require another US Constitutional Amendment to change how Presidents are elected. It'll be so difficult, it's almost a non-starter.
Next best thing is to change the Primary nomination process and encourage more engagement in local politics.
I'm not saying get rid of the delegate system, I'm saying have the delegates be elected by IRV. I'll have to check, but I don't think the Constitution says only FPTP is allowed.
Changing the primaries has nothing to do with the constitution. The primaries are completely controlled by the political parties that run them. The Republican Party and Democrat Party can change the primary voting system tomorrow if they felt like it. Candidates and nominees still have meet the constitutional requirements for eligibility for the office but that's it. If you wanted to change how people are elected to Congress that would involve changing the constitution.
Of course, but I'm talking about delegates for the electoral college.
There's a rise in folks that want to break out of the two-party, lesser-of-two-evils Presidential paradigm in which we live every four fething years.
Yes, there a lot of idiots who have become sufficiently frustrated to take to the internet. These people not only remain idiots, but get dumber as their emotions rise and the echoes start resounding. They are not interested in discussion, they are interested in yelling.
That's the whole fething point of being dissenters... if you dissent, based on your principles, you're duty-bound to root yourself down and tell the others "No... you move". (yes, I've seen the new Captain America movie. )
TheMeanDM wrote: Wasn't it Perot that got about 20% of the vote as a 3rd party back in the day?
Apparently that wasn't good enough to move the system toward a less two-party doninated system.
I don't know what it will take....
Well, moving to IRV would help. It would mean that more people could vote 3rd party without the fear of their vote not counting. Getting anti-gerrymandering laws would also help, as it would weaken the carefully constructed power hold the parties have. As would campaign finace reform, meaning that established candidates don't have such a massive advantage.
But, I think that on a personal level, there are some ideas that we each hold that we feel it is our "duty" to uphold them. I mean, if I use about as uncontroversial an idea I can think of... let's say "seatbelts save lives" ... I am not going to go around driving without using mine, and I am not going to move my vehicle (if I'm driving) if one of my passengers isn't buckled up.
As we've seen in recent months and years, some people take this to the extreme....
Money, a platform that is materially distinct from the big two, and a lot of luck.
the platform is particularly sticky, IMO, because both of the big two seem pretty adept at seeing a new thing, dividing it up politically and swallowing it whole.
But, I think that on a personal level, there are some ideas that we each hold that we feel it is our "duty" to uphold them. I mean, if I use about as uncontroversial an idea I can think of... let's say "seatbelts save lives" ... I am not going to go around driving without using mine, and I am not going to move my vehicle (if I'm driving) if one of my passengers isn't buckled up.
But that's a fairly simple idea. Political ideas are not so simple, and when they are simplified it is almost certainly a sales gimmick.
the platform is particularly sticky, IMO, because both of the big two seem pretty adept at seeing a new thing, dividing it up politically and swallowing it whole.
The big two have the money to hire competent people who then develop their platforms.
There's a rise in folks that want to break out of the two-party, lesser-of-two-evils Presidential paradigm in which we live every four fething years.
And ultimately that’s simply not a very sensible thing. Even referring to candidates as evil shows a level of hyperbole that is really stopping you from understanding the actual situation.
Here’s the thing – Clinton is a perfectly ordinary Democratic candidate. I know Republicans are just primed to hate her, because they’ve been feed almost 25 years of conspiracies and rumours, but if you look past all the gossip and silliness and just look at her voting record and policies, she’s just a left wing politician, slightly to the left of the Democratic centre.
And yes, politics will be run on a ‘lesser of two evils’ theme. This isn’t because the candidates are actually evil or awful people, but because that’s what the electorate wants... because people are fundamentally whinging turds. That won’t change.
I want the vote count on the Presidential tickets to go waaaaaaay down, such that, the major parties would ensure that this doesn't happen again in the future.
There’s no ‘this’ that’s so terrifying. One party nominated a normal candidate, the other party nominated a total lunatic. Things like this happen from time to time. The solution is to vote for the sensible person, and try and figure out if there’s anything that needs fixinig in the party that nominated the lunatic.
That's a crock of gak from PJ. He's simply #NeverTrump.
Yes, that’s the point. He’s #NeverTrump because Trump isn’t just run of the mill wrong the way that Republicans think of Democrats or Democrats think of Republicans, he’s wrong in a whole other kind of way. A way that is so wrong that The Economist actually lists the possibility of a Trump election as a major economic risk to the world.
I mean, you may believe that Clinton is a horrible liar, but with Trump we’re talking about something in a whole other ballpark.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
TheMeanDM wrote: Wasn't it Perot that got about 20% of the vote as a 3rd party back in the day?
Apparently that wasn't good enough to move the system toward a less two-party doninated system.
I don't know what it will take....
Yeah, he got 20% in 1992 and 8% in 1996. Then just wandered off in to the wasteland of history, all that effort and money spent, and all it achieved was to make him the answer in a pub quiz question.
As to what it will take to break the system... well it’d take a party with sufficiently different platform from either of the major two parties that it could win a significant portion of the vote in local and state elections. Then that platform would have to be effective and achievable at a local level so as to build greater support to become a dominant local force and competitive force in federal elections. And it’d have to be something different enough from the major parties that they couldn’t just co-opt the popular elements.
dogma wrote: The big two have the money to hire competent people who then develop their platforms.
I think it's less about money to develop platforms and more that a two-party system encourages parties that are giant blobs of vaguely-related positions. If you can think of any major issue in the US it's a safe bet that one party takes one side, and the other party takes the opposite side. You don't need lots of money to do that, you just need to be willing to say "ok, we'll add that to the platform" about everything.
There's a rise in folks that want to break out of the two-party, lesser-of-two-evils Presidential paradigm in which we live every four fething years.
And ultimately that’s simply not a very sensible thing. Even referring to candidates as evil shows a level of hyperbole that is really stopping you from understanding the actual situation.
Here’s the thing – Clinton is a perfectly ordinary Democratic candidate. I know Republicans are just primed to hate her, because they’ve been feed almost 25 years of conspiracies and rumours, but if you look past all the gossip and silliness and just look at her voting record and policies, she’s just a left wing politician, slightly to the left of the Democratic centre.
So... the sensible thing is to vote for Clinton? Sorry bro, I'm opting out of this madness.
And yes, politics will be run on a ‘lesser of two evils’ theme. This isn’t because the candidates are actually evil or awful people, but because that’s what the electorate wants... because people are fundamentally whinging turds. That won’t change.
Objection your honor! Both Hillary and Trump are 'awful people'.
I want the vote count on the Presidential tickets to go waaaaaaay down, such that, the major parties would ensure that this doesn't happen again in the future.
There’s no ‘this’ that’s so terrifying. One party nominated a normal candidate, the other party nominated a total lunatic. Things like this happen from time to time. The solution is to vote for the sensible person, and try and figure out if there’s anything that needs fixinig in the party that nominated the lunatic.
Hillary Clinton is *not* a normal candidate.
No other politician could ever survive on her type of baggages.
But my point is that the total votes for President in 2016 would be drastically lower than 2012, to drive home the point to both party leaders that they've fethed up big.
That's a crock of gak from PJ. He's simply #NeverTrump.
Yes, that’s the point. He’s #NeverTrump because Trump isn’t just run of the mill wrong the way that Republicans think of Democrats or Democrats think of Republicans, he’s wrong in a whole other kind of way. A way that is so wrong that The Economist actually lists the possibility of a Trump election as a major economic risk to the world.
Again... we're being asked if we'd prefer gonorrhea or syphilis.
For lulz:
So do Trump too... shouldn't be too hard as he changed is positions by the minute.
whembly wrote: Again... we're being asked if we'd prefer gonorrhea or syphilis.
Yeah, you keep making this comparison in some form or another. It’s a good line, but ultimately at some point you actually have to establish exactly how electing Clinton is like the nation contracting syphilis.
And not just by launching another personal attack, a claim that she lied about this thing, or by alluding to some Republican allegation of a possible scandal maybe. Talk about actual policy – the things that candidates actually do when they are in office. List some policies of Clinton that are either unpopular among the general Democratic voter base, or policies that represent some kind of genuine threat to the nation in a way that Trump’s proposed debt and trade policies do.
Because until someone, anyone anywhere really, actually manages to do that, what we actually have is a lot of people saying “we are forced to choose between a candidate with genuinely dangerous policies that border on nonsense, and a candidate with a perfectly ordinary set of policies who has some negative personality traits and I just don’t know what to do”. Which is incredible, really, it shows an almost complete lack of understanding in what is important in a president.
whembly wrote: Again... we're being asked if we'd prefer gonorrhea or syphilis.
Yeah, you keep making this comparison in some form or another. It’s a good line, but ultimately at some point you actually have to establish exactly how electing Clinton is like the nation contracting syphilis.
And not just by launching another personal attack, a claim that she lied about this thing, or by alluding to some Republican allegation of a possible scandal maybe. Talk about actual policy – the things that candidates actually do when they are in office. List some policies of Clinton that are either unpopular among the general Democratic voter base, or policies that represent some kind of genuine threat to the nation in a way that Trump’s proposed debt and trade policies do.
Because until someone, anyone anywhere really, actually manages to do that, what we actually have is a lot of people saying “we are forced to choose between a candidate with genuinely dangerous policies that border on nonsense, and a candidate with a perfectly ordinary set of policies who has some negative personality traits and I just don’t know what to do”. Which is incredible, really, it shows an almost complete lack of understanding in what is important in a president.
It's also worth pointing out that the candidate with genuinely dangerous policies which border on nonsense also has a lot of negative personality traits, which just makes the whole choice even more one-sided.
I'm only British, but to me, Clinton looks like a well-educated, experienced, successful, career administrator and politician who has collected some baggage along the way like practically any older politician does. Much of which appears to be Republican mud-slinging; so much has been thrown that some of it inevitably has stuck. She doesn't have a lot of charisma on screen, though I've read she's a lot better in person.
whembly wrote: Again... we're being asked if we'd prefer gonorrhea or syphilis.
Yeah, you keep making this comparison in some form or another. It’s a good line, but ultimately at some point you actually have to establish exactly how electing Clinton is like the nation contracting syphilis.
And not just by launching another personal attack, a claim that she lied about this thing, or by alluding to some Republican allegation of a possible scandal maybe. Talk about actual policy – the things that candidates actually do when they are in office. List some policies of Clinton that are either unpopular among the general Democratic voter base, or policies that represent some kind of genuine threat to the nation in a way that Trump’s proposed debt and trade policies do.
Because until someone, anyone anywhere really, actually manages to do that, what we actually have is a lot of people saying “we are forced to choose between a candidate with genuinely dangerous policies that border on nonsense, and a candidate with a perfectly ordinary set of policies who has some negative personality traits and I just don’t know what to do”. Which is incredible, really, it shows an almost complete lack of understanding in what is important in a president.
This is the woman that promised to invade Iran if she becomes president, thats bad enough without considering the rest of her hawkish past.
ulgurstasta wrote: This is the woman that promised to invade Iran* if she becomes president
I added an asterisk there. Are you sure you aren't omitting something from that sentence? Are you sure there weren't more words right where I put that asterisk? That's exactly what she said? She said that, without any broader context, or without being asked about a specific scenario?
I think it's less about money to develop platforms and more that a two-party system encourages parties that are giant blobs of vaguely-related positions. If you can think of any major issue in the US it's a safe bet that one party takes one side, and the other party takes the opposite side. You don't need lots of money to do that, you just need to be willing to say "ok, we'll add that to the platform" about everything.
You need money to do so in a coherent fashion, because interns and volunteers are afraid to speak up.
whembly wrote: Again... we're being asked if we'd prefer gonorrhea or syphilis.
Yeah, you keep making this comparison in some form or another. It’s a good line, but ultimately at some point you actually have to establish exactly how electing Clinton is like the nation contracting syphilis.
And not just by launching another personal attack, a claim that she lied about this thing, or by alluding to some Republican allegation of a possible scandal maybe. Talk about actual policy – the things that candidates actually do when they are in office. List some policies of Clinton that are either unpopular among the general Democratic voter base, or policies that represent some kind of genuine threat to the nation in a way that Trump’s proposed debt and trade policies do.
Because until someone, anyone anywhere really, actually manages to do that, what we actually have is a lot of people saying “we are forced to choose between a candidate with genuinely dangerous policies that border on nonsense, and a candidate with a perfectly ordinary set of policies who has some negative personality traits and I just don’t know what to do”. Which is incredible, really, it shows an almost complete lack of understanding in what is important in a president.
I ain't voting for either of them.
I realize we still have a loooooooooooongtime where I may be forced to change my mind.
And frankly, Clinton will handily win Missouri so my vote isn't worth gak. So... I'm opting out.
IMHO, Clinton will be a disaster because A) she won't be able to escape Obama's past failures as she'll own it, B) Congress will remain divided and I doubt she'll get much done. About the only 'good' thing Clinton does for team blue is that she'll be able to fill 2 maybe 3 more Supreme Court Justice, as well as the lower courts.
That may be enough for the Bernie Bros to hold their noses and pull for Clinton.
Trump would be a disaster, but in a different way. I see him very akin to Obama's thin skin... as when things don't go his way he'll act like a petulant brat. ("I won" or "my way or the highway")
The difference between Trump v. Clinton is that while Clinton may put us on a longterm disasterous path (think Libya & other ME shenanigans)... Trump would be using his authoritarian streak and abuse his powers to put out 100 small fires (hello IRS! get started on auditing 'those' people. And, hello DoJ!). He'd be too busy to create 1 big fire that'll last generational.
However... Clinton? She knows what she's doing... but, I question her rationale as she's not doing this for altruisitic reasons. It's Team Clinton first. As much as I criticize Obama... I truly believe that he has a vision for America and wants to shape the future.
Here's another comparison... do we want a "Shady As Feth Candidate"? Or, an entitled "70 year old Imbecile Fratboy"?
Bush managed to win the Presidency despite the Iraq War, GITMO, the Patriot Act, and DHS.
Iraq's favorability was split almost entirely on party lines in 2004. The Patriot Act, the majority felt that it wasn't that big of an issue at the time. Hell, his favorability admist these scandals was way beyond Clintons today. Gotta say that Clintons issues of trustworthiness do cut much more deeply then Bush's issues of his day. If the Republicans had not picked such a divisive candidate themselves, I'd have to say it would be a shoe in for the R's.
sebster wrote: If you take the whole of US politics, assume the center is the center, because it is, you can then take the voting records of each person elected to office and see how they compare to the center. That might mean people on the far left of US politics might be center or even center right in Swedish politics, but who gives a gak when we're talking about US politics.
This way of thinking about politics destroys meaning. A person who wants to break your leg isn't actually kinder than a person who wants to break both your legs. As I said, Clinton doesn't represent leftism other than if you define it as having a D after your name which, as I also already said, is what the party has been doing and is what you're doing. The way you use "center" here is nonsense because it's a relative term itself anyway. You treat it as being objectively politically neutral which is the absolute height of being blind to ideology. I use "leftism" to refer to the actual and not relative content of its policies and its way of looking at the world. I don't get bogged down in myopic false dichotomies. So when I say that Sanders is actually just a social democrat and while refreshing by the standards of a country that once purged leftists from all arenas does have his limitations I have a far clearer view of things than you do. You can talk to me about nine million "far leftists" when they arm themselves, start killing cops and CEOs and proclaim that they will gladly die to uphold Mao and Stalin. Your perspective is too narrow.
sebster wrote: As for the rest, well I was a student once as well, and you gave me a nice feeling of nostalgia, so I won't be mean in responding.
This is exactly what I'm talking about. I point out that Clinton is more of the same since Bush and earlier and that this system of thinking isn't going to be able to meet or even understand the challenges of today and the near future... and you respond with condescension.
djones520 wrote: Hell, his favorability admist these scandals was way beyond Clintons today.
This time in 2004, George W. Bush's favorability rating was 36%. Hillary Clinton's is about 40%. Her unfavorables are a bit higher, but the post 9/11 boost was most definitely off by mid 2004.
djones520 wrote: Iraq's favorability was split almost entirely on party lines in 2004.
Yes, but it was still averaging out nationally to about 50% of the population thinking it was a mistake, it actually rose to like 52% mistake, 47% right plan around June 2004. When Dogma said that was significant baggage, I think that's an accurate statement even if you parse it as being less unpopular among Republicans. They way you're parsing it only makes sense if we're arguing why W. Bush was successful in the primaries, not when discussing baggage going into a general election as we are now. Truthfully, I think the wars were nearly the only reason that George W. Bush got re-elected - Americans are historically loathe to dump a President during a war, though of course playing "what-if" is a game you can't really win or lose.
Than you will stand with me to support an IR voting system? It's one of the simplest solutions to the two-party system.
In the Primary? Sure.
Why just the primary? That will stop extremist candidates like Trump, but it will not deal with the problem the two-party system poses.
Because it'll require another US Constitutional Amendment to change how Presidents are elected. It'll be so difficult, it's almost a non-starter.
Next best thing is to change the Primary nomination process and encourage more engagement in local politics.
I'm not saying get rid of the delegate system, I'm saying have the delegates be elected by IRV. I'll have to check, but I don't think the Constitution says only FPTP is allowed.
Changing the primaries has nothing to do with the constitution. The primaries are completely controlled by the political parties that run them. The Republican Party and Democrat Party can change the primary voting system tomorrow if they felt like it. Candidates and nominees still have meet the constitutional requirements for eligibility for the office but that's it. If you wanted to change how people are elected to Congress that would involve changing the constitution.
Of course, but I'm talking about delegates for the electoral college.
Article II Section 1 of the constitution and the 12th amendment both specify FTFP voting for PotUS and VP. You can't install IRV voting or make other changes to the current electoral collage without passing another amendment.
Bush is/was much more personable than Hillary. While having some charisma doesn't make you trustworthy it makes you more likeable which in the current media driven campaigns is often conflated to be the same thing in the eyes of the public. I'm not a huge fan of Bush43 or Bill Clinton but I think it would be infinitely more pleasant to spend a few hours hanging out with either of them rather than Hillary. I can't think of a scenario in which being forced to spend hours in a room with Hillary wouldn't be painfully awkward, uncomfortable and unpleasant.
Prestor Jon wrote: I can't think of a scenario in which being forced to spend hours in a room with Hillary wouldn't be painfully awkward, uncomfortable and unpleasant.
But you aren't going to hang out with them. You're not electing a friend, you're electing a President.
I thought this was an interesting read....describes things on both sides pretty well, I think, and how distracted everybody has become (sometimes intentionally, sometimes un intentionally).
We say we hate what Democrats have done to the country, so we elect a House and Senate full of Republicans who proceed to also place THEIR heads up their collective asses as well. It seems as if both parties forgot what they were supposed to be doing and whom they are supposed to be representing.
We pick sides and parties and teams and defend them to the ends of the Earth, ignoring the facts, pointing the fingers and hoping someone else will cover the cost of our skyrocketing and borderline pointless health insurance.
We talk about the number of homeless vets who we have to feed and clothe and house when it’s convenient for us to leverage them like pawns in a game – yet tomorrow, so many will forget to feed and clothe and house them.
Bush is/was much more personable than Hillary. While having some charisma doesn't make you trustworthy it makes you more likeable which in the current media driven campaigns is often conflated to be the same thing in the eyes of the public. I'm not a huge fan of Bush43 or Bill Clinton but I think it would be infinitely more pleasant to spend a few hours hanging out with either of them rather than Hillary. I can't think of a scenario in which being forced to spend hours in a room with Hillary wouldn't be painfully awkward, uncomfortable and unpleasant.
I don't know. Do you watch House of Cards? Apparently she plays a mean game of beer pong.
Than you will stand with me to support an IR voting system? It's one of the simplest solutions to the two-party system.
In the Primary? Sure.
Why just the primary? That will stop extremist candidates like Trump, but it will not deal with the problem the two-party system poses.
Because it'll require another US Constitutional Amendment to change how Presidents are elected. It'll be so difficult, it's almost a non-starter.
Next best thing is to change the Primary nomination process and encourage more engagement in local politics.
I'm not saying get rid of the delegate system, I'm saying have the delegates be elected by IRV. I'll have to check, but I don't think the Constitution says only FPTP is allowed.
Changing the primaries has nothing to do with the constitution. The primaries are completely controlled by the political parties that run them. The Republican Party and Democrat Party can change the primary voting system tomorrow if they felt like it. Candidates and nominees still have meet the constitutional requirements for eligibility for the office but that's it. If you wanted to change how people are elected to Congress that would involve changing the constitution.
Of course, but I'm talking about delegates for the electoral college.
Article II Section 1 of the constitution and the 12th amendment both specify FTFP voting for PotUS and VP. You can't install IRV voting or make other changes to the current electoral collage without passing another amendment.
I don't think either would prohibit IRV. They dictate the process of how the electors conduct their vote, but it doesn't restrict how the electors themselves are chosen. The electoral college couldn't use an IRV, but they could be elected via IRV. At least that's how I read it.
Prestor Jon wrote: I can't think of a scenario in which being forced to spend hours in a room with Hillary wouldn't be painfully awkward, uncomfortable and unpleasant.
But you aren't going to hang out with them. You're not electing a friend, you're electing a President.
So much this. I can't stand the "I'd like to have a beer with them" test. I mean, I know it's a real thing, much like the Kardashians, and I know that it actually matters to some people, much like the Kardashians, but I hate that that's the way it is, because no one should care about having a beer with a candidate or the Kardashians.
Prestor Jon wrote: I can't think of a scenario in which being forced to spend hours in a room with Hillary wouldn't be painfully awkward, uncomfortable and unpleasant.
But you aren't going to hang out with them. You're not electing a friend, you're electing a President.
I understand that but apparently, according to media that covers and promotes these elections the degree to which I'd like to hang out with or have a beer with a candidate is a key factor in determining for whom I should cast my vote. The campaign is for the popular vote so it's just a popularity contest which makes personality important. It seems to be commonly accepted that Bill Clinton is a good politician because he's good at communicating with people and being personable. People enjoy his company so they're comfortable with him and therefore more accepting of him being in a position of authority. Being intelligent or capable or experiences or all three is nice but if people think you're a gakky person they're not going to want to put you in a position of authority and you're unlikely to win a popularity contest. Being likeable is important even if you're just putting on a facade. Hillary isn't very likeable so it's difficult for people to get past that dislike and put more value on her policy positions and voting record. Heck, Hillary and Bernie have almost identical voting records in the senate yet the way they each deal witht he public and interact with voters has a very strong impact on whether or not people want to support them.
Prestor Jon wrote: I can't think of a scenario in which being forced to spend hours in a room with Hillary wouldn't be painfully awkward, uncomfortable and unpleasant.
But you aren't going to hang out with them. You're not electing a friend, you're electing a President.
So much this. I can't stand the "I'd like to have a beer with them" test. I mean, I know it's a real thing, much like the Kardashians, and I know that it actually matters to some people, much like the Kardashians, but I hate that that's the way it is, because no one should care about having a beer with a candidate or the Kardashians.
I prefer a little personable charisma in our President. I don't like Obama as a president, but I think he's a decent person. I thought that Bush was a good person at heart. Neither Trump or Clinton are either of those. Especially given my line of work, I want to trust that the guy signing the orders sending me somewhere is caring about me when he does that. I don't get that feeling at all from these two. At all.
djones520 wrote: I prefer a little personable charisma in our President. I don't like Obama as a president, but I think he's a decent person. I thought that Bush was a good person at heart. Neither Trump or Clinton are either of those. Especially given my line of work, I want to trust that the guy signing the orders sending me somewhere is caring about me when he does that. I don't get that feeling at all from these two. At all.
She had a big enough heart to forgive Bill for Monica.
Than you will stand with me to support an IR voting system? It's one of the simplest solutions to the two-party system.
In the Primary? Sure.
Why just the primary? That will stop extremist candidates like Trump, but it will not deal with the problem the two-party system poses.
Because it'll require another US Constitutional Amendment to change how Presidents are elected. It'll be so difficult, it's almost a non-starter.
Next best thing is to change the Primary nomination process and encourage more engagement in local politics.
I'm not saying get rid of the delegate system, I'm saying have the delegates be elected by IRV. I'll have to check, but I don't think the Constitution says only FPTP is allowed.
Changing the primaries has nothing to do with the constitution. The primaries are completely controlled by the political parties that run them. The Republican Party and Democrat Party can change the primary voting system tomorrow if they felt like it. Candidates and nominees still have meet the constitutional requirements for eligibility for the office but that's it. If you wanted to change how people are elected to Congress that would involve changing the constitution.
Of course, but I'm talking about delegates for the electoral college.
Article II Section 1 of the constitution and the 12th amendment both specify FTFP voting for PotUS and VP. You can't install IRV voting or make other changes to the current electoral collage without passing another amendment.
I don't think either would prohibit IRV. They dictate the process of how the electors conduct their vote, but it doesn't restrict how the electors themselves are chosen. The electoral college couldn't use an IRV, but they could be elected via IRV. At least that's how I read it.
Article. II.
Section. 1.
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; A quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice President.
The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.
The states can use whatever process they want to select the Electors to the Electoral College but the manner is which the Electors vote is very clearly defined by Article II and the 12th amendment.
With the caveat that I have no idea what limitations are placed on selecting Electors by the state constitutions yes. I think some states would have more difficulty than others changing their current systems and there's no way to pressure states to be uniform in their selection process. In theory every state could install IRV elections, in practice :shrug:
Prestor Jon wrote: I can't think of a scenario in which being forced to spend hours in a room with Hillary wouldn't be painfully awkward, uncomfortable and unpleasant.
But you aren't going to hang out with them. You're not electing a friend, you're electing a President.
I understand that but apparently, according to media that covers and promotes these elections the degree to which I'd like to hang out with or have a beer with a candidate is a key factor in determining for whom I should cast my vote. The campaign is for the popular vote so it's just a popularity contest which makes personality important. It seems to be commonly accepted that Bill Clinton is a good politician because he's good at communicating with people and being personable. People enjoy his company so they're comfortable with him and therefore more accepting of him being in a position of authority. Being intelligent or capable or experiences or all three is nice but if people think you're a gakky person they're not going to want to put you in a position of authority and you're unlikely to win a popularity contest. Being likeable is important even if you're just putting on a facade. Hillary isn't very likeable so it's difficult for people to get past that dislike and put more value on her policy positions and voting record. Heck, Hillary and Bernie have almost identical voting records in the senate yet the way they each deal witht he public and interact with voters has a very strong impact on whether or not people want to support them.
Hillary Clinton may not be fun to hang out with, but you have to remember that the president's job is to attend boring meetings where the other people do not have much of a choice whether they want to talk with you or not. I trust Hillary Clinton to sit through a meeting with world leaders without causing too much of a fuss. Maybe she does not go out with them to grab a beer afterwards, but she gets the job done. Trump on the other hand I would not leave him in the room with any one else for fear that he would insult them and their mother. When the dust settles from World War III and the survivors are digging through the rubble of our past civilisations searching for what could have pushed us to annihilation, I do not want the answer to be "Trump got into a shouting match with Putin over the size of his hands".
TheMeanDM wrote:I thought this was an interesting read....describes things on both sides pretty well, I think, and how distracted everybody has become (sometimes intentionally, sometimes un intentionally).
We say we hate what Democrats have done to the country, so we elect a House and Senate full of Republicans who proceed to also place THEIR heads up their collective asses as well. It seems as if both parties forgot what they were supposed to be doing and whom they are supposed to be representing.
We pick sides and parties and teams and defend them to the ends of the Earth, ignoring the facts, pointing the fingers and hoping someone else will cover the cost of our skyrocketing and borderline pointless health insurance.
We talk about the number of homeless vets who we have to feed and clothe and house when it’s convenient for us to leverage them like pawns in a game – yet tomorrow, so many will forget to feed and clothe and house them.
What are you trying to show with this article? It is nothing but a long rant in a blog where someone complains about people having issues.They make bizarre claims and base most of their article off of an appeal to emotion rather than any evidence. The only thing that I can gleam from reading this is that you still need to find better sources (a blog is not a good news source),
Signless: it's not a source for anything news related...never claimed it was....so gear over to reverse and back the truck up
I find it to be an interesting commentary on what does indeed seem to be happening in the US today....everybody is so divided over everything and blaming everybody else.
So Trump released a list of jurists he'd nominate for SCOTUS:
...
The list of conservative federal and state judges includes Steven Colloton of Iowa, Allison Eid of Colorado and Raymond Gruender of Missouri.
Also on the list are: Thomas Hardiman of Pennsylvania, Raymond Kethledge of Michigan, Joan Larsen of Michigan, Thomas Lee of Utah, William Pryor of Alabama, David Stras of Minnesota, Diane Sykes of Wisconsin and Don Willett of Texas. Trump had previously named Pryor and Sykes as examples of kind of justices he would choose.
...
That's some red blood there...
Too bad we can't hold him to this list. (I don't believe any of these would be nominated by Trump)
Prestor Jon wrote: Heck, Hillary and Bernie have almost identical voting records in the senate yet the way they each deal witht he public and interact with voters has a very strong impact on whether or not people want to support them.
Which is still the "Hang out!" meme. Probability dictates that you won't hang out with them.
TheMeanDM wrote: Signless: it's not a source for anything news related...never claimed it was....so gear over to reverse and back the truck up
I find it to be an interesting commentary on what does indeed seem to be happening in the US today....everybody is so divided over everything and blaming everybody else.
Being divided over everything describes a great deal of the United States' history, for example segregation, the war in Vietnam, unions, slavery, and whether to split from the British and form an independent country to name but a few. Trying to claim that the modern era is special is just wrong.
Honestly, you're going to go there? Ok, guess I can be done talking with you now.
You went there first, and you're running from the questions.
I'm interested how it's going to play out when HRC sits down with countries that still have 'women are property' as the cultural norm.
If Hillary was President, I hope you as a US citizen would have the integrity to demand your elected representative as Head of State got properly respected by the Saudis or whoever.
Unless, that is, you don't think women should be in positions of power.
If only there were similar circumstances we could look at to see what might happen if a woman of power visits these countries, and how they acted towards her. Maybe someone in a position of being in power and representing our country, maybe seeing what happened when a woman visited as Secretary of State, maybe a woman visiting as the same woman that will be visiting...
d-usa wrote: If only there were similar circumstances we could look at to see what might happen if a woman of power visits these countries, and how they acted towards her. Maybe someone in a position of being in power and representing our country, maybe seeing what happened when a woman visited as Secretary of State, maybe a woman visiting as the same woman that will be visiting...
d-usa wrote: If only there were similar circumstances we could look at to see what might happen if a woman of power visits these countries, and how they acted towards her. Maybe someone in a position of being in power and representing our country, maybe seeing what happened when a woman visited as Secretary of State, maybe a woman visiting as the same woman that will be visiting...
Hmm. Good point.
A relatively neutral look at her tenure as SECSTATE.
d-usa wrote: If only there were similar circumstances we could look at to see what might happen if a woman of power visits these countries, and how they acted towards her. Maybe someone in a position of being in power and representing our country, maybe seeing what happened when a woman visited as Secretary of State, maybe a woman visiting as the same woman that will be visiting...
Hmm. Good point.
A relatively neutral look at her tenure as SECSTATE.
d-usa wrote: If only there were similar circumstances we could look at to see what might happen if a woman of power visits these countries, and how they acted towards her. Maybe someone in a position of being in power and representing our country, maybe seeing what happened when a woman visited as Secretary of State, maybe a woman visiting as the same woman that will be visiting...
Or just look up how other countries (who have or had a female head of state) interact with these countries that don't like women being in a position of power. It could be that simple. :/
Mike Webb is a right wing candidate for the United States Congress (VA-8). According to his campaign announcement, he is seeking to start a conservative revolution with a hands-on approach and bring “responsiveness and accountability” to Virginia’s Eighth District via an unlikely victory. He said in a press release:
“If we succeed in winning this race as a conservative Republican in the most liberal district in the nation and the most Democratic in the South, that will be a real revolution that will have national implications.”
Webb has set out to prove his hands-on method by personally taking control of his social media accounts in order to “engage in dialogue” with voters and offer a personal touch. Unfortunately for Webb, he may have gotten too personal. While attempting to prove a point about trying to find jobs, which involved him posting a screenshot of a Yahoo! search to look up a conspiracy theory on Facebook, he forgot to close a few tabs.
ulgurstasta wrote: This is the woman that promised to invade Iran if she becomes president, thats bad enough without considering the rest of her hawkish past.
Nope, you're completely wrong. She said she would be willing to destroy Tehran if they launched nuclear weapons at Israel. Talking about a nuclear deterrent to protect allies from nuclear strikes is about as far from a contraversial position in US politics as you're ever going to get.
But of course, this is Clinton we're talking about - making gak up about her policy positions is just par for the course, isn't it?
I realize we still have a loooooooooooongtime where I may be forced to change my mind.
And frankly, Clinton will handily win Missouri so my vote isn't worth gak. So... I'm opting out.
Yeah, I’m not trying to get you or anyone else to vote one way or another. Frankly that’s none of my business. I’m just trying to bring as much information and reason to the conversation as possible. That’s pretty much how I think things work best – people can decide whatever they want, but they should do it from as informed a position as possible.
In 2004, those really didn't manifest as "baggage" to the scale of Clinton's.
You seem to have walked yourself in to a position where you’re trying to argue that Benghazi should sink a politician, but Iraq shouldn’t.
It starts to be clear that the issue with Clinton is something of a ‘quantity of mud’ issue. It doesn’t matter if the attacks have any real substance to them, or even if they’re true. What matters is that things like Benghazi have been kept in the media for a long time – they take on the appearance of being very important and very harmful to Clinton just because they’ve been talked about a lot.
djones520 wrote: Iraq's favorability was split almost entirely on party lines in 2004. The Patriot Act, the majority felt that it wasn't that big of an issue at the time. Hell, his favorability admist these scandals was way beyond Clintons today. Gotta say that Clintons issues of trustworthiness do cut much more deeply then Bush's issues of his day.
But that’s the point – the claim was that no-one else could survive Clinton’s baggage. But Bush had actual policy baggage and wasn’t as affected. So clearly it is capable for politicians to survive much worse than Clinton has.
If the Republicans had not picked such a divisive candidate themselves, I'd have to say it would be a shoe in for the R's.
The other thing you have to remember is Clinton’s favourability is dragged down an almost 100% unfavourability score among Republicans. They were never voting Clinton anyway. Her numbers among Democrats are fine, and will improve strongly if Clinton and Sanders handle the end stages of the primary sensibly.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rosebuddy wrote: This way of thinking about politics destroys meaning.
No, in fact it is the only way to understand any country’s politics. The alternative, that you’ve fallen for, is to sit there dumbfounded that the US population isn’t picking a president that you and lots of other Swedes would like. Well it’s because they’re a different country, with different beliefs, so they pick different politicians.
[quote As I said, Clinton doesn't represent leftism other than if you define it as having a D after your name which
No, it represents being left of the American political centre.
as I also already said, is what the party has been doing and is what you're doing. The way you use "center" here is nonsense because it's a relative term itself anyway.
I treat it as relative to the population in question. And in that sense we can get a fairly objective standard, you just line people up from most left to most right, and the guy in the middle is the political centre. And then you can figure out how left or right wing different people are by how far they are from that political centre.
I use "leftism" to refer to the actual and not relative content of its policies and its way of looking at the world.
And that approach will leave you with a very crappy understanding of the political realities of different countries around the world.
You can talk to me about nine million "far leftists" when they arm themselves, start killing cops and CEOs and proclaim that they will gladly die to uphold Mao and Stalin. Your perspective is too narrow.
Uh huh, my perspective is too narrow. But you’re the one who wants to talk about politics in a stable democracy through the lens of violent uprising.
This is exactly what I'm talking about. I point out that Clinton is more of the same since Bush and earlier and that this system of thinking isn't going to be able to meet or even understand the challenges of today and the near future... and you respond with condescension.
Condescension was kinder and honestly less of time waste than going through all that nonsense.
So back in February Sanders thought he was going to win a majority of pledged delegates, and so the super-delegates were a roadblock to him winning the nomination. So Sanders and his supporters worked to have the superdelegates automatically support the candidate with the most pledged delegates. They organised pledges and everything. The request in one of the petitions read "announce that in the event of a close race, you’ll align yourself with regular voters - not party elites."
Now its May and Sanders has no realistic chance of winning a majority of pledged delegates. So now his campaign has changed its tune completely. Per his campaign manager Jeff Weaver; “"Now we can argue about the merits of having superdelegates, but we do have them. And if their role is just to rubber-stamp the pledged-delegate count then they really aren't needed. They're supposed to exercise independent judgment about who they think can lead the party forward to victory."
So when Sanders backed himself to win the pledged delegate count, super-delegates should just be a rubber stamp. But once Sanders realised that he can’t win the super-delegates, then they shouldn’t just be a rubber stamp, but instead should base their vote on Sander’s new criteria.
Similarly, back in August last year Trump was entering the primary with a strategy about dominating news coverage, and didn’t worry too much about buying news time. It was a low cost strategy so Trump didn’t need much in donation, and so he said this about this about large backers; "These are highly sophisticated killers, and when they give $5 million, or $2 million or $1 million to Jeb, they have him just like a puppet."
But now Trump is heading in to a national campaign where dominating news coverage alone won’t cut it, so he needs money. And so he’s worked with the RNC to set up big donor superPACs, which can take single donations as much as $449k. Trump is courting Sheldon Adelson, the billionaire casino owner and long time backer of the GOP, for a donation that could exceed $100 million. Suddenly these guys aren’t killers, or Trump just doesn’t care if they are.
The point, basically, is that these guys will change their views as the circumstances around them change. This isn’t just because they’re politicians, it’s because they’re people. Look at the supporters for any candidate, they’ll change tune as quickly as the politician does.
But people still like these guys because they say it like it is, that they’re not like other politicians. The issue isn’t just that they’re politicians, they’re also people. Don’t just think it’s Clinton, Trump, or Sanders who tell this kind of bs – look at their supporters – they lap it up. Bullshitting is a human condition, and if you try and pick a politician who is honest, then it’s you who is bullshitting yourself.
feeder wrote: I'm interested how it's going to play out when HRC sits down with countries that still have 'women are property' as the cultural norm.
The same way it played out when Indira Ghandi, Margaret Thatcher, Benazir Bhutto or Angela Merkel managed it. Power speaks, and cultural standards get put aside as long as that person is in power.
Hell, Pakistan and Bangladesh have large populations, possibly majorities, that don't like women going outside of the house without a male escort. But they both elected female prime ministers.
Calling out a fellow native speaker is not pedantry when the concern is not minor.
Please read what I've link'ed in the previous post.
I still have no idea what you meant.
She's lauding the idea that Jefferson "worked with" Hamilton... in criticism of modern politics.
I bet she (or whomever posted it) doesn't know the history of how Hamilton died (Jefferson's VP shot him in a duel) and how much Jefferson hated Hamilton.
EDIT: the original tweet was about Obama commencement speech at Rutgers... that was the wrong tweet I was referring to. Here's what I should've posted previously:
Hillary Clinton ✔ @HillaryClinton America has always been about working together to get things done. pic.twitter.com/hO6931hVwb
My apologies for the confusions...
That's what I get for having a million chrome tabs open at once.
Yeah, they hated each other, but the statement isn't incorrect. They did work together. They both served in Washington's cabinet, Hamilton even endorsed Jefferson in an election (against Adams, was it?). Neither of them aired or attacked each other's personal lives (Jefferson and his affairs with a slave and Hamilton's extra marital affairs) and kept their disagreements to policy by and large.
Ornstein called Trump as a serious contender way before just about anyone else, back in 2015. He managed this because he'd been watching the Republican Party from the inside for a long time, and had a lot of insight in to what the party had become.
Norm Ornstein is a centrist, but has been working with the Republican Party since the early 1970s, and currently works for the conservative American Enterprise Institute. Point is - this is not a left wing hatchet job.
Anyhow, here's a some choice quotes on how a ludicrous idiot became a presidential nominee in one of the two major parties of the US;
"But if you forced me to pick one factor explaining what's happened, I would say this is a self-inflicted wound by Republican leaders. Over many years, they've adopted strategies that have trivialized and delegitimized government. They were willing to play to a nativist element. And they tried to use, instead of stand up to, the apocalyptic visions and extremism of some cable television, talk radio, and other media outlets on the right."
"As a brand new member of the House, (Newt Gingrich) had a full-blown theory of how Republicans could break out of their seemingly permanent minority, and build a majority. And over the next 16 years, he put that plan into action. He delegitimized the Congress and the Democratic leadership, convincing people that they were arrogant and corrupt and that the process was so bad that anything would be better than this. He tribalized the political process. He went out and recruited the candidates, and gave them the language to use about how disgusting and despicable and horrible and immoral and unpatriotic the Democrats were. That swept in the Republican majority in 1994. The problem is that all the people he recruited to come in really believed that gak."
"I think when Republicans had their stunning victory in 2010, Cantor et al thought they could now co-opt these people. Instead, they were co-opted themselves."
"Cantor, McConnell, and others went out and really tried to fan the flames of Tea Party and populist anger, working it to their advantage in midterm contests. But what ended up happening was that they undermined their own authority."
"When you basically move dramatically away from what we call the regular order, when you almost debase your own institutions — you’re gonna find an opening for somebody who’s never been a part of it and who can offer you very, very simplistic answers."
"Another element of this that Trump also recognized is that Republican voters are an older, white crowd. And so their desire to blow up government doesn't extend to Medicare and Social Security."
"But I think there are several strains that run through the Republican Party and its base now. First, there's an anti-establishment, anti-leadership populist base that is driven by identity politics and culture and a visceral reaction against leaders of all sorts. That's best represented by Trump. Then, there's a more radical conservative ideology that has been a dominant force out there in Washington and in a lot of states. That’s the Freedom Caucus and Cruz, and that's what we wrote about in the book. This is a radical set of beliefs. They want to blow up all of government, and are willing to use more radical tactics. They don’t much care about shutting down the government or breaching the debt ceiling, or any of those things. Finally, there's an establishment leadership. That's not a moderate leadership — it would be a big mistake to call Paul Ryan a moderate. Or to call Mitch McConnell a moderate. By any historic standards or reasonable standards, they are very conservative. But they’re pragmatic in some ways, even ruthlessly pragmatic."
Read the article, it really does says just about everything that needs to be said about what's happened to the Republican party, and how they accidentally just handed the most important appointment in the party to a guy with a guy who is probably best described as an angry narcissist with almost no interest in the practical realities of running the country.
He gives Trump about a 20% chance of winning the general, for what it's worth.
I treat it as relative to the population in question. And in that sense we can get a fairly objective standard, you just line people up from most left to most right, and the guy in the middle is the political centre. And then you can figure out how left or right wing different people are by how far they are from that political centre.
This is navel-gazing. The actual ideologies that people adhere to is far more important for whether one should support them than how they stand in relation to each other. The conservative may be more left-wing than the nazi but that doesn't mean leftists could support the conservative, now does it? The socialist may be more right-wing than the communist but why would someone who wants conservative ideology to rule accept a choice between only those two?
Your understanding of what political ideologies mean is the product of decades being spent on constructing a false dichotomy between The Republican and The Democrat to distract you from the fact that their actual policies are different in degree rather than character.
Uh huh, my perspective is too narrow. But you’re the one who wants to talk about politics in a stable democracy through the lens of violent uprising.
I am telling you that actual leftist extremists would not care about voting for a social democrat and would in fact reject voting wholesale, kill the ruling class and institute the dictatorship of the proletariat. This statement has nothing to do with whether it is right or wrong to do so, it is simply what has historically happened. There isn't any of this going on in the US so we can safely conclude that the US doesn't have much in the way of far leftists and that characterising someone who won't vote for Clinton as extreme is a limited way of understanding things.
People seeing the Democratic Party as more leftist than the GOP rather than seeing it for its own actual ideology has been carefully cultivated by the Democratic Party to soak up votes but constantly positioning yourself only in relation to the other party is intellectually bankrupt, which is revealed now that the Republicans have had one of the clowniest nomination processes ever and the Democrats are free to field someone who truly believes in something. Instead they do the only thing they're capable of; they field a technocratic triangulation fanatic Whose Time Has Come because the policies she stand for are already in effect so people should be used to her being president already.
I treat it as relative to the population in question. And in that sense we can get a fairly objective standard, you just line people up from most left to most right, and the guy in the middle is the political centre. And then you can figure out how left or right wing different people are by how far they are from that political centre.
This is navel-gazing. The actual ideologies that people adhere to is far more important for whether one should support them than how they stand in relation to each other. The conservative may be more left-wing than the nazi but that doesn't mean leftists could support the conservative, now does it? The socialist may be more right-wing than the communist but why would someone who wants conservative ideology to rule accept a choice between only those two?
Your understanding of what political ideologies mean is the product of decades being spent on constructing a false dichotomy between The Republican and The Democrat to distract you from the fact that their actual policies are different in degree rather than character.
Most of the countries left to right ideologies fall between these two dividing lines. While there are more extreme views on both sides, most people recognise that the way to change the system is through gradual shifts in power through a democratic process. First you elect some democrats/republicans and push the country left/rightwards, then some socialists/libertarians who push it further left/right, then after decades of hard work and campaigning you can elect the left/right wing dream team. These things take time and effort and hoping that by electing someone that is a little further left will suddenly result in a socialist paradise is just plain wrong.
Uh huh, my perspective is too narrow. But you’re the one who wants to talk about politics in a stable democracy through the lens of violent uprising.
I am telling you that actual leftist extremists would not care about voting for a social democrat and would in fact reject voting wholesale, kill the ruling class and institute the dictatorship of the proletariat. This statement has nothing to do with whether it is right or wrong to do so, it is simply what has historically happened. There isn't any of this going on in the US so we can safely conclude that the US doesn't have much in the way of far leftists and that characterising someone who won't vote for Clinton as extreme is a limited way of understanding things.
Yeah. . . no. The socialist revolution happened in other places and it didn'tgowell. I think the people of the United States would rather there be a peaceful democratic transition than the Glorious Revolution.
Rosebuddy wrote: People seeing the Democratic Party as more leftist than the GOP rather than seeing it for its own actual ideology has been carefully cultivated by the Democratic Party to soak up votes but constantly positioning yourself only in relation to the other party is intellectually bankrupt, which is revealed now that the Republicans have had one of the clowniest nomination processes ever and the Democrats are free to field someone who truly believes in something. Instead they do the only thing they're capable of; they field a technocratic triangulation fanatic Whose Time Has Come because the policies she stand for are already in effect so people should be used to her being president already
Hillary is further left than the current Republicans. Under her direction, there will be gradual changes as budget and public opinion allows for them, resulting in a shift further leftwards in general politics. Policy changes do not need to be abrupt or Earth shattering.
She's lauding the idea that Jefferson "worked with" Hamilton... in criticism of modern politics.
I bet she (or whomever posted it) doesn't know the history of how Hamilton died (Jefferson's VP shot him in a duel) and how much Jefferson hated Hamilton.
Jefferson did work with Hamilton, in spite of a deep-seated rivalry. And I'm fairly certain any person involved with politics knows about the Burr/Hamilton duel, a duel which ended Hamilton's life and Burr's political career.
Jefferson dropped Burr from his ticket before the duel, by the way.
I am telling you that actual leftist extremists would not care about voting for a social democrat and would in fact reject voting wholesale, kill the ruling class and institute the dictatorship of the proletariat. This statement has nothing to do with whether it is right or wrong to do so, it is simply what has historically happened.
When has any revolution installed a dictatorship of the proletariat?
People seeing the Democratic Party as more leftist than the GOP rather than seeing it for its own actual ideology has been carefully cultivated by the Democratic Party to soak up votes but constantly positioning yourself only in relation to the other party is intellectually bankrupt, which is revealed now that the Republicans have had one of the clowniest nomination processes ever and the Democrats are free to field someone who truly believes in something. Instead they do the only thing they're capable of; they field a technocratic triangulation fanatic Whose Time Has Come because the policies she stand for are already in effect so people should be used to her being president already.
No, I'm pretty sure that if I were to use the phrase "true belief" it would be quickly followed by the phrase "intellectually bankrupt". Believing in things makes you dumb, because you get emotionally attached to them.
and I disagree. I've seen many a grown man not psychologically able to handle a chick with a penis.
(I don't believe any of these would be nominated by Trump)
