Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

It's cool, guys, these companies are the wealth and job creators and governments are always ineffective anyway. There is no possible way that making sovereign governments entrusted with the protection of their people subject to profit driven fictions created to dodge individual liability could ever go wrong. I, for one, welcome our new corporate overlords.

 jmurph wrote:
It's cool, guys, these companies are the wealth and job creators and governments are always ineffective anyway. There is no possible way that making sovereign governments entrusted with the protection of their people subject to profit driven fictions created to dodge individual liability could ever go wrong. I, for one, welcome our new corporate overlords.

This is why Shadowrun/Cyber-Punk isn't fun anymore.

 Breotan wrote:

 reds8n wrote:
People here seem sensible enough but in case it comes up :

I'd not seen this. I thought the actual photo circulating showed a girl being pelted with eggs, not being beaten and bloodied.

Still, it doesn't help your cause to circulate false (and easily disprovable) pictures to support poorly researched claims.

It's just a slightly lazier version of a classic.

Read up on what went down since I voted the other day. The place was packed with Clinton voters oddly.

Lets see how the Obama/Bernie meeting goes. Otherwise it looks like a solid Trump vs Shillary dogfight. MAGA

If you're holding out on some chance that Sanders might sneak away with the nomination, yesterday's results put the kibosh on that. It's Clinton v. Trump now, for better or worse.

These results do not please me, for the first time in my life I'm going into a general election with no clear candidate to vote for, loathing both main party options to such a degree that I cannot bring myself to vote for either, even the lesser of two evils, and will be voting for a third party or write-in, if for no other reason than simple protest.

Write in Sanders hopefully?

Now it's been confirmed, it's unsettling to hear. I was hoping for Bernie to be the Democrats candidate.

Dark times ahead of us I think, even for non-Americans.

It's all fun and games until Trump drops a nuke on England because Sporty Spice made fun of his comb-over.

 Frozocrone wrote:
Write in Sanders hopefully?

Now it's been confirmed, it's unsettling to hear. I was hoping for Bernie to be the Democrats candidate.

Dark times ahead of us I think, even for non-Americans.

thatll probably be my course of action but we'll see if an amusing 3rd party candidate pops up.

What drives me bonkers is that, amongst people my age and in my social circles, I know almost nobody who voted for either presumptive nominee. One of my crazy cousins voted for Trump (after everyone else dropped out) and I know a single Hillary voter, but everyone else either didnt vote or was going to vote for Bernie. Where on earth are all these Hillary voters? The over 50's mainly I suspect. I certainly dont know anyone particularly passionate about either candidate.

Clinton cleans up with minority voters Sanders never really got it going in that department.

I imagine alot of older Democrats went for Hilary because her agenda is thought to be more realistic and achievable given Republican obstructionism, while Sanders was running on some pretty fundamental overhauls that in all reality would not be achievable unless there was a significant change in the balance of power in Congress.

That's my guess anyways, it seems to be the sentiment of alot of people I know.

 jasper76 wrote:

I imagine alot of older Democrats went for Hilary because her agenda is thought to be more realistic and achievable given Republican obstructionism, while Sanders was running on some pretty fundamental overhauls that in all reality would not be achievable unless there was a significant change in the balance of power in Congress.

Hillary is like the Honda Civic of presidential candidates: likely the most realistic option, pragmatic, has actually been in a lot of the situations that she will be in as president, will get the job done well enough, but there is just nothing fancy or flashy about her as a candidate at all.

Trump is probably a DeLorean.

I'd bump Clinton up to an Accord or Camry.

Trump is like an Orange Hum-V running donuts in a cemetary.

Sanders is an old VW van running on biodiesel?

I like it!

Oh sweet Jesus Trump is in?

 Desubot wrote:
Oh sweet Jesus Trump is in?

Yep...with some exceptions, the GOP establishment has fallen in line.

Even McCain and Rubio, who Trump degraded and humiliated, have bent the knee. It's kind of sickening to behold the lack of spine.

 jasper76 wrote:

 Desubot wrote:
Oh sweet Jesus Trump is in?

Yep...with some exceptions, the GOP establishment has fallen in line.

Even McCain and Rubio, who Trump degraded and humiliated, have bent the knee. It's kind of sickening to behold the lack of spine.

Well they are politicians

 d-usa wrote:
will get the job done well enough

This is where you lost me, I think. She is so disliked by the other side, and many on her side, that I imagine the obstructionism will be at least as bad as the lunacy Pres. Obama has had to deal with. Only four to eight more years of idiocy with either candidate.

 jasper76 wrote:


I imagine alot of older Democrats went for Hilary because her agenda is thought to be more realistic and achievable given Republican obstructionism, while Sanders was running on some pretty fundamental overhauls that in all reality would not be achievable unless there was a significant change in the balance of power in Congress.

That's my guess anyways, it seems to be the sentiment of alot of people I know.

I live in an area with a lot of older people. Most of the Democrats voted Hillary because either a) See quoted comment or b) "Socialism is always bad and just another word for communism" I always ask them to give up their Social Security and Medicaid money when they say something like that.

The Republican voters were pretty much left with either Trump, Cruz, or Kasich, and most of them hated Cruz more than Trump.

Though there's one numbskull who's all excited for Trump, sporting a "Ted Nugent for President" Bumper sticker.

 Ahtman wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
will get the job done well enough

This is where you lost me, I think. She is so disliked by the other side, and many on her side, that I imagine the obstructionism will be at least as bad as the lunacy Pres. Obama has had to deal with. Only four to eight more years of idiocy with either candidate.

Just to keep this Honda metaphor going, if her presidency is a Civic, she'd be saying, "we need to go in an change the oil" and republicans would be like, "well, we have this awesome spoiler and coffee can muffler that are being installed as part of your oil change"

She isnt disliked bad enough on her side that the super delegates and senators/reps (arent many senators/reps?) win't see her elected.

It was made mention that someone didn't know any Hillary voters? I voted for Hillary. I'm 30, registered Democrat, and had no faith in Sanders' "promises". I'm comfortable with Clinton or Trump, because a president doesn't wield unconditional power (which Bernie should have understood before making his "promises"). I'm not saying Trump or Clinton are better people; I'm saying that Bernie could only flourish in a perfect world. And I'm pretty sure we don't have that. So he'd flounder.

 jasper76 wrote:
Even McCain and Rubio, who Trump degraded and humiliated, have bent the knee. .

Some say the war will never be over while Lord Sanders and his bannermen are alive. However, the Iron Bank of Goldman has already backed Lady Clinton, and she has years worth of provisions to survive a siege.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
It was made mention that someone didn't know any Hillary voters? I voted for Hillary.

I also will vote for Hillary. I went to the caucuses for Bernie, and he was badly outnumbered, and he lost. I shrugged and moved on. I really don't like her at all, but she is substantially closer to what I'd like to see policy wise than Donald Trump, whose policies are at best unclear and often untenable.

 Ouze wrote:


I also will vote for Hillary. I went to the caucuses for Bernie, and he was badly outnumbered, and he lost. I shrugged and moved on. I really don't like her at all, but she is substantially closer to what I'd like to see policy wise than Donald Trump, whose policies are at best unclear and often untenable.

^ This is how I feel. As long as she opposes the TPP, which is just an awful piece of gak, I will be fine with most of her stuff. I expect to be let down, but I was expecting to be let down with Bernie as well.

The only downside is we have to listen to Whembly and his witch hunt for at least another 4 years. Somebody needs to take away that mans supply of torches and pitchforks.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Just to keep this Honda metaphor going, if her presidency is a Civic, she'd be saying, "we need to go in an change the oil" and republicans would be like, "well, we have this awesome spoiler and coffee can muffler that are being installed as part of your oil change"

It seems more like it would be a Civic that isn't allowed to leave the driveway because it is blocked in all the time.

 TheMeanDM wrote:
She isnt disliked bad enough on her side that the super delegates and senators/reps (arent many senators/reps?) win't see her elected.

General voters, party or otherwise, are rarely made up of the Party elite. I have no doubt that they like her in some capacity or she wouldn't be their de facto nominee, as you say. The problems she has to face aren't coming from the Superdelegates*.


*generally ex Senators, Congress members, and high office holders (President, Governor) as well as party bigwigs. I just wanted to say bigwigs, mostly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Ouze wrote:


I also will vote for Hillary. I went to the caucuses for Bernie, and he was badly outnumbered, and he lost. I shrugged and moved on. I really don't like her at all, but she is substantially closer to what I'd like to see policy wise than Donald Trump, whose policies are at best unclear and often untenable.

^ This is how I feel. As long as she opposes the TPP, which is just an awful piece of gak, I will be fine with most of her stuff.

^ And that is also how I feel.

Rosebuddy wrote:
Having the backing of the party leadership seems pretty handy for things like access to mass media and favour with superdelegates.

Except as I've already shown Clinton actually got a higher ratio of negative press than any other candidate. Turns out that having Joe Biden wandering around the back offices of CNN telling everyone how lovely Hillary Clinton is doesn't really do very much to help at all.

Like, superdelegates are capable of swaying the nomination to the person with fewer popular votes. It's what they're there for.

Except, as I've already explained about a dozen times between this thread and the last - the party falls in line with the popular vote. In 2008 everyone fussed over Clinton's lead in super-delegates and how that was unfair, but then as soon as Obama achieved a winning lead in pledged delegates the pledged delegates flipped.

To claim that the open support of the party leadership has no bearing on an inter-party election when there are mechanics in place to specifically give the party leadership influence over the outcome is silly.

You're trying to argue that because there is a mechanism that can be used to favour the insider, then the insider must be advantaged. That's pretty loose logic at the best of times, and it gets really stupid when you look at the actual history of the super-delegates. You have to go back to 1972 to find an instance of the highest vote winner missing out on the Democratic nomination, and that wasn't because super-delegates gave it to McGovern, but because a crowded field gives out strange results, and McGovern played the new format primary system smarter than his opponents (the establishment's preferred candidate was Muskie, and he finished miles back).

Your argument basically amounts 'here's a thing that has never done anything, and didn't do anything this time either, but because it exists it is unfair that the candidate that won more popular support is the candidate'.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ahtman wrote:
TL;DR: It won't matter much the general but it matters at this point when parties are deciding on a party candidate.

I read your whole post but the argument still makes no sense. Clinton won more pledged delegates, through the simple process of more people turning up and voting for her. Super-delegates are irrelevant to that reality.

The only way 'party support' can matter is if someone can make a case that party support somehow got more people voting for Clinton over Sanders. Influence on the media doesn't work, because Clinton got more negative coverage than any other candidate. "Party influence" only matters if people can somehow make a case that having the support of Biden or Reid or someone else somehow got people to swing towards Clinton, and I just cannot see how that mental process might happen.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:
What drives me bonkers is that, amongst people my age and in my social circles, I know almost nobody who voted for either presumptive nominee. One of my crazy cousins voted for Trump (after everyone else dropped out) and I know a single Hillary voter, but everyone else either didnt vote or was going to vote for Bernie. Where on earth are all these Hillary voters? The over 50's mainly I suspect. I certainly dont know anyone particularly passionate about either candidate.

I have never in my life met a Nickelback supporter, any yet...

Seriously, stuff like this just shows how narrow our our circle of friends and family can be, that's all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ahtman wrote:
This is where you lost me, I think. She is so disliked by the other side, and many on her side, that I imagine the obstructionism will be at least as bad as the lunacy Pres. Obama has had to deal with. Only four to eight more years of idiocy with either candidate.

Any Democratic president will be hated, obstructed and attacked in any way Republicans can think of. Sanders would be no different. The only reason Republicans hate Clinton more than other Democrats is because they've been expecting her to be President for about a decade now (she was the favourite for 2008 since about 2006, and has spent all of the Obama administration as the nominee in waiting).

What Clinton has going for her is that she's been up against Republicans since 1992. She knows the game and she knows how to play it as best you can. Obama took a while to get anything done, in large part because he wandered in thinking that by being a nice guy he could make bi-partisanship happen. Clinton knows that isn't how it works anymore.

 sebster wrote:
I read your whole post but the argument still makes no sense.

That is ok as I have done the same and feel similarly about your posts on the subject, but I think we are talking past each other to be honest.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sebster wrote:
Sanders would be no different.

And I didn't say otherwise so I'm not sure why you would make that argument. If any candidate is going to be ineffectual it would be nice to at least like the candidate. As it is I have to choose one I neither like nor believe will get anything done. I don't mean "like" as in I would have a beer with her, but in being ok with voting for them.

 sebster wrote:
What Clinton has going for her is that she's been up against Republicans since 1992.

Having a long history of being hated doesn't make one good, it just makes them hated for a long time. In the end it is a terrible choice of candidates on both sides. Her being the Democratic nominee doesn't make her suddenly a good person or a good person for the job, just the one up for it. I will choose her over Trump but that really isn't saying much; sure she is a better choice than Trump, but that isn't a high bar to leap.

It doesn't really matter much overall as I am not electing a friend but man is she a dull choice and I'm sad to have it be another Clinton. I want to say we can do better than that but we also have Trump as a nominee so apparently we can't.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Where on earth are all these Hillary voters? The over 50's mainly I suspect. I certainly dont know anyone particularly passionate about either candidate.

Probably, from what I have seen in the statistics, the biggest divide in demographics between Bernie and Hillary is in age. Bernie has mostly people under 30 and Hillary has people over 40.

 Dreadwinter wrote:


This is how I feel. As long as she opposes the TPP,

I wouldn´t get your hopes up

Obama also is more popular with younger voters.

This is why if Obama and Sanders can rally the youth vote to Clinton, and Trump can deliver the minority and womens' votes, she could end up with broad-based support.

 sebster wrote:

Except, as I've already explained about a dozen times between this thread and the last - the party falls in line with the popular vote. In 2008 everyone fussed over Clinton's lead in super-delegates and how that was unfair, but then as soon as Obama achieved a winning lead in pledged delegates the pledged delegates flipped.

Sanders isn't Obama, tho. Obama was vastly more palatable to the Democratic leadership so it wasn't much trouble to back him over Clinton. It was just a matter of considering which of them was more popular, not which of them best represented the leadership's wishes. Using the superdelegates to sway the nomination wasn't necessary.

If superdelegates weren't meant to potentially counteract a candidate that the party leadership didn't like there wouldn't be a point to them. Why have a system that just gives the winner even more support?