2016 US Presidential Elections Thread [Trump Wins]

[Kanzler]

I hope we all realize though, that DWS isn't in any influential position in Clinton's campaign, anyway. Her title of "honorary" chair means precisely jack. So I think we can all take a deep breath and move on past this, because getting pitchforks over a position that doesn't really mean anything in the grand scheme of things is a big waste of time.

I figured that pretty much, but it's not about us, it's about the progressive vote. "We" as in we from Pokecommunity can move past this all we want, but it doesn't change how the progressive bloc will behave. And my impression of the progressive bloc is that they're not going to just "move on past this".

 

[0]

But it is the role of government, in a way. Are you aware of the FBI vs Apple controversy? If we have a govenrment that doesn't understand technology, what will Congress rule and decide if another controversy over encryption breaks out like that? When it comes to technology, I think it's an important part of government to at least understand it to a large degree in case they have to pass legislation on it---and it's worth taking a look at technology, especially now in this day and age as it's growing far faster than we can imagine--so having a government that's stuck in the Stone Age mindset of technology and just let bureaucrats handle everything is a bit dangerous, I feel.

So, I read through the case, and I see your point. The degrees to which the FBI tried to command Apple honestly has me baffled. For something as insignificant (in perspective) as terrorism to actually consider giving up civil liberties is very disgusting to me. Make a weak insecure product for a single phone? Wow.


I see what you mean about having these people know about technology. But the ones that really do are the
people who'd probably never consider office. And to teach these old people who have one foot in the grave how these things work is probably not feasible.


I think that, again, a governments duty is to take care of its citizens with rules and regulations that are necessary, like minimum wage and tax spending, human rights, etc. I think some issues shouldn't even concern the federal government, because most states are like little countries. Montana and Florida are not going to be nearly the same, and so certain laws should be decided by their state governments over the almighty arm of the federal government.


But, I think the government should stay out of affairs concerning technology almost altogether. To make a weak system is an overreach of power in my opinion. To try to pass laws regarding uses of technology is not really a place for the federal government to intervene, except a positive ruling on encryption that can't be taken away. As for tech businesses, the best thing they can do is give subsidies and breaks, but even then, there is not much they can do.


This will be the last I say on this, afaik, mostly because I'll be off PC for a bit. Let me know what you think.

 

[Kanzler]

What is your image of your typical "progressive" voter? Your typical Sanders supporter? I'm asking this as an honest question, because it's easy to say "oh they'll react this way or that way", but all the progressive voters cared about, from the best of my understanding, is to have DWS out of the leadership of the Democratic Party. Nowhere in any news articles that I've read gave me any impression of "DWS should never have a job again", it's the fact that, for months, Sanders/his supporters didn't wnat her in charge of Democratic leadership. Now that she's not, everyone's happy. What she does afterwards, who cares, because everyone got what they wanted.

What more do you really want to see done about her?

DWS does have a job right now - make sure Tim Canova doesn't take her spot as candidate for the Democratic Party for her Congressional seat. And if she does get re-elected, she'll definitely still have a job. And if she doesn't get re-elected, I'm sure an ex-Congresswoman is more than capable of finding distinguished appointment, so having a job isn't at stake here.

It's not really what more can be done about her, it's about what should have been done about her differently. Obviously it's already done, and obviously it would look really odd if Clinton picks her for an position just to dump her a couple of days later.

It is possible that Clinton's calculation is as follows: she wants DWS on her team because she's just really really good at getting money/running a campaign and would rather "leak" DWS's continued involvement in her campaign than have that leaked some time down the line. Clinton has to know that DWS would have a lot of eyes on her, and she could well imagine that her employment of DWS could never stay a secret for long. The whole reason that progressives hate DWS is because of her tipping the scales in favour of Clinton all being done behind the scenes, and if DWS is revealed for a second time to be aiding Clinton from the shadows that would only add insult to injury, so by unequivocally announcing DWS's continued presence she prevents the fallout that leaking DWS's continued presence would have.

Obviously, this is all predicated on the condition that DWS will stick with the campaign, so for Clinton's sake I hope DWS is worth that much more than bad optics to an already sceptical voting bloc.

 

[Esper]

DWS is really just a symptom though. The emails, more than anything, showed that the party always assumed Clinton would be the nominee. Like, they didn't even consider Biden. The whole nomination process was an annoyance they had to get through and not a chance for the people AND the party to find a candidate that had the best chance at winning and best represented liberal and progressive values. And that's not even getting into the whole money side of things.

And I don't see Clinton's support as sticking up for DWS, but as quid pro quo. Payment for helping deliver the nomination to her.

It is probably smart to get this out sooner rather than later, but i don't know if packing the ticket and the campaign with centrist corporatists is going to be a net gain for them in terms of votes. They might get some people on the fence, sobe disgruntled Republicans, but they're going to lose a lot of progressives and independents for it.

 

[Ivysaur]

It's like you are describing the current system as ultra conservative vs an ultra liberal governance -- that is not how two-party systems work. Moderates usually win general elections, and purple states. In the case of libertarian and socialism, all individuals and states are purple in that all individuals values negative and positive rights. The form of libertarianism you are describing is not the form that would exist in a two-party system since other competitors who are moderates would defeat either extreme socialist or libertarians. You still keep avoiding the question as to how the current two-party ideologies are not complete overhauls, but rather just spouting off nonsense about complete ideological overhauls as if you completely dismiss the median voter theorem of two party systems. Will you at least address that rather than spouting non-sense that is not informed by any political science and theory literature? You keep going into a particularistic analysis based on this assumption, but NEVER ACTUALLY ADDRESS THE ASSUMPTION. So, it's becoming a tiring discussion.

Currently, ideological platforms are unclear and thus voting habits rely upon identity politics -- not reason. Whereas, clear ideological commitments in a two party system would encourage two parties to capture the other party's votes, and provide reasons as to why it furthers a better balance between positive and negative rights. According to Duverger's law and the median voter theorem, parties tend to drift toward the center to capture more voters. However, his theory degrades in our current system as party polarization has ensued after the inclusion of women and non-whites in the political arena.

The two ideologies are not incommensurable. AS I stated twice, negative and positive rights are not necessarily in opposition, and often synergize with the other. For instance, progressive tax for a single payer system allows for cheaper healthcare costs, which in turn can facilitate greater negative rights freedoms.

The brand of libertarianism you seem to be describing is not consistent with political theory, and rather is a right-wing brand that is not consistent with furthering negative liberties. Have you read John Stuart Mill? He is a moral libertarian and a economic socialist. Those values need to be interrogated in the public eye. He would be considered a leaning Libertarian.

If you are going to continue to respond dismissively, please address this assumption of complete overhaul and AGAIN explain why the current system is superior or not to the one I propose based on political theory. Essentially, I argue that all people values positive and negative rights, and if a candidate is too extreme on either front and infringes upon one of them voters will not elect or reelect that politician. This system would keep policymakers more accountable since voters would have more choice and understand those choice rationally rather than from baseless ideological camps of neoconservatism and neopaternalist liberalism.

The brand of Libertarianism I'm describing is the Political Platform of the Libertarian Party of the United States of America. I was literally quoting chunks of its manifesto. Please do explain to me what "libertarianism" means otherwise if the Libertarian party isn't a good enough representative of the ideology for you.

I think one of the problems in our discussion is that you are talking from the perspective of a political scientist (it's hard for me to even understand some of your concepts, and I write about politics for a living) while I'm looking at the issue as an economist. Your concept of socialism and libertarianism is rooted in your understanding of postive and negative liberties, and I'd appreciate it if you please explained what socialism and libertarianism means for you from a political point of view. Because from an economic point of view -again, looking at the Libertarian party's manifesto, which explicitly talks about "a 100% free market health care system"-, a public single-payer is explicitly against everything Libertarianism is supposed to be about, as far as I'm aware. So please do explain what these ideologies mean for you, perhaps the problem is that you reject the brand of Libertarianism peddled by the Libertarian party and base your proposal on having a completely different version running in the elections.

And yes. I know that two-party systems don't mean overhauling each other all the time. I understand that people want moderates, and fudges that some sort of satisfy both sides. Which is what the US and most political systems have right now. The problem is that -again, from the economic perspective I talk from-, socialism and libertarianism are extreme opposites, making the possibility of finding a middle ground that much harder. Also making the possibility of centrist voters to adopt either ideology much harder. Again, perhaps these ideologies mean something different from a political science point of view, please do explain.

What I did say in the previous post is that if people want moderate versions, which can draw some agreed boundaries and not overhaul the system, but rather move it leftwards or rightwards within the boundaries as voters and issues evolve, then the US already has that. Democrats are moderate, compromising, middle-ground socialists; while the Republicans are a mix between Libertarianism and Conservatism. Both offer watered-down versions of their policies that can be accepted by as many people as possible and not disenfranchise the opposite side, as they remain within the boundaries. That's why I imply that, if you don't like this system, and want what are in essence "purer" versions of the ideology displayed by the current parties, you can't expect them to go back to compromising, in essence becoming Democrats and Republicans again and changing nothing. But again, your talk of positive and negative liberties, which honestly confuses me, makes me think that you mean something different by both ideologies so please do explain.

Looking at Wikipedia, I'm seeing there are different brands of Libertarianism, including "Socialist Libertarianism", so this makes me a bit confused. Considering that socialism is a left-wing ideology -look at it in whichever way you may-, where would conservative/right-wing voters supposed to go, if the options are a socialism or a version of libertarianism that can work with socialism? I'm really confused as to what you are proposed. I implore to you, please do explain what you mean in detail.

 

[Entermaid]

What I did say in the previous post is that if people want moderate versions, which can draw some agreed boundaries and not overhaul the system, but rather move it leftwards or rightwards within the boundaries as voters and issues evolve, then the US already has that. Democrats are moderate, compromising, middle-ground socialists; while the Republicans are a mix between Libertarianism and Conservatism.

"Negative liberty is the absence of obstacles, barriers or constraints. One has negative liberty to the extent that actions are available to one in this negative sense. Positive liberty is the possibility of acting — or the fact of acting — in such a way as to take control of one's life and realize one's fundamental purposes. While negative liberty is usually attributed to individual agents, positive liberty is sometimes attributed to collectivities, or to individuals considered primarily as members of given collectivities."

We want to belong and thrive in society (socialism) but at the same time we also desire to do so on our own terms (libertarianism). These are two tensions that are not incommensurable, but in fact, are mutually-inclusive for the other to thrive.

Thus, the inconsistency. Mixing neoconservatism and libertarianism is not commensurable as we have observed with anti gay, racist, and misogynistic rhetoric and policy supported by the GOP -- antigay, racist, and misogynistic rhetoric is ANTITHETICAL to libertarianism because is tramples upon negative liberties!!! It's an intrusion upon individuals' right to pursuit their own interests and lives so long as it does not intrude upon others' right to pursuit that same thing. Do you honestly think the GOP is at all championing libertarianism? Libertarians place more, not absolute, stake in protecting negative liberties, whereas the GOP has done the exact opposite.

Conservatism and Liberalism do not provide stable and internally-consistent forms of ideology tied to positive and negative liberties. Neoconservatism is not consistent with conservatism. Conservatism is the incremental progress of new policy and incremental dismantlement of dead dogma as detailed by Edmund Burke. Neoconservatism, like neoliberal-paternalism of the Democratic party, is based on political pragmatism toward achieving interests lobbied for by those with the ability to fund one's reelection -- not based on any consistent ideologies or philosophies of liberty as both socialism and libertarianism do.

Democrats are NOT socialists, and often do the exact opposite of provided positive rights when lobbyist control the terms of providing social welfare rather than reason. If anything, neoliberal paternalism is a perverted form of socialism. Socialism is about collective of individuals coming together to realize collective action problems. Whereas, neoliberal paternalism is making choices as to how positive rights ought to be made for other people, stripping them of their own autonomy. This was crystalized in the Clinton Administration through TANF (encouraged disproportionate welfare to "whites" over "blacks"); 1994 Crime Bill (encouraged mass incarceration of black Americans); deregulation of Wall Street and repeal of Glass Steagall (disproportionately harmed black Americans during the financial crisis). When we make choices that disproportionately harm one group and give preference and positive right to another group that is NOT socialism! Read Soss', Disciplining the Poor.

In the case of the healthcare law, pharmaceutical companies were entangled in the policy making process. As such, a single-payer plan with low cost public healthcare was not achieved -- rather, healthcare costs remained high and more people are enslaved into paying large corporations to make choices regarding their healthcare at these higher costs. If anything, this type of governance, neoliberal paternalism, strips us of both negative and positive liberties through elites making choices on our own behalf.

In many ways, in order for socialism to function efficiently, individuals need to have autonomy from ideological systems which control consciousness including (religion, racism, capitalism, and traditions that are sociopolitically instituted). In that way, free-thinking individuals can actually understand each other without the interference of identity politics that define how we perceive others' and our own interests -- at that point THEY ARE NOT OUR OWN INTERESTS.

Both positive and negative liberties, both libertarianism and socialism, are important for the good life. It's laughable to think our current system does ANY of that. If anything they prevent either of those two liberties.

Lastly, back to the discussion, we should not feel disempowered to vote for a third party. HRC has supported mass incarceration (of black Americans) and in return received political and financial backing for supporting privatized prisons, funding from oppressive regimes (homophobic, misogynistic, oligarchies), supported the war in Iraq, supported anti-gay legislation and rhetoric using "God" and "tradition", supported deregulation of wall street, runs a "charity" that take money from oppressive regimes and in return gives them political influence and praise. This is classic neoliberalism, etc. etc. etc. The GOP has just as bad of a record; if not worse. There is no commitment to liberty as it stands in our two-party system.

 

[Kanzler]

I think the tl;dr of what Entermaid means by a libertarian-socialist party system is one where hot button social issues, that to a great extent define American politics, are resolved in a general consensus and the main issues of the day are economic and the balance of positive vs. negative rights.

 

[CoffeeDrink]

I wouldn't vote for Hillary if I was paid. She has repeatedly backed the BLM group, a group that supports hatred and violence against police officers and whites for no other reason than a white being white and a cop being a cop. That and Hillary isn't shy about taking money from insurance and pharmaceutical companies.

 

[Entermaid]

Here is a nice analysis and critique of "Americanized" libertarianism as tyranny versus the philosophy of libertarianism advocated by Adam Smith. Thomas Jefferson and Adam Smith (Wealth of Nations) are anti-capitalists. Only under perfect equality will there be perfect liberty through markets. To do otherwise would be tyranny and thus an absense of negative liberty -- the freedom from coercion.

I love the Chompster! (Noam Chomski) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wriQGI5NGOM

Though, conservatism and progressivism have a place in this continuum, but not neoliberalism and neoconservatism. Burke advocates for incremental progress and scrutiny of "traditions" and "dogmas" in order to decode these structures and then improve them or uproot them altogether based on reason.

This is why it is difficult to speak to terminology...as Plato's parable of the ship depicts, perverted forms of democracy are like a lost ship at sea without reason and consistency but are rather pulled in many aimless directions by rhetoricians (sophists) -- or in a modern sense -- pragmatists! This is why I strongly oppose Trump and Clinton, along with American politics, since we are about "getting things done" but without consistency and reason. Neocons and neolibs disempower and tyrannize people through controlling consciousness.

Also, I apologize for the aggressive tone (Ivysaur), but at the same time, it is frustrating to be dismissed by people ALL OF THE TIME without having a clue about the history of political thought. My goal should be to communicate that history of thought and hopefully provide people with some insights.

 

[Ewery1]

I can't believe this has happened, but Wasserman Schultz was brought into the Clinton campaign as a co-chair. What the hell is Clinton thinking? Is she out of touch with reality or something? Or does she just not care at all for what the progressives in the party wants? I thought they wanted to unify the party? At the very least she could have waited until after the convention.

And Drumpf is leading in the polls.

Apparently the position that Hillary gave Debbie is purely ornamental and is essentially useless and does nothing. That definitely doesn't excuse the actions, but it makes it more understandable.

 

[Netto Azure]

Wow, seeing Obama and Clinton hug each other was powerful :o

 

[Kanzler]

I think the Tim Kaine is known as someone who's smart and competent. But I've only known about him for a week.

 

[0]

Here is a nice analysis and critique of "Americanized" libertarianism as tyranny versus the philosophy of libertarianism advocated by Adam Smith. Thomas Jefferson and Adam Smith (Wealth of Nations) are anti-capitalists. Only under perfect equality will there be perfect liberty through markets. To do otherwise would be tyranny and thus an absense of negative liberty -- the freedom from coercion.

I love the Chompster! (Noam Chomski) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wriQGI5NGOM

Though, conservatism and progressivism have a place in this continuum, but not neoliberalism and neoconservatism. Burke advocates for incremental progress and scrutiny of "traditions" and "dogmas" in order to decode these structures and then improve them or uproot them altogether based on reason.

This is why it is difficult to speak to terminology...as Plato's parable of the ship depicts, perverted forms of democracy are like a lost ship at sea without reason and consistency but are rather pulled in many aimless directions by rhetoricians (sophists) -- or in a modern sense -- pragmatists! This is why I strongly oppose Trump and Clinton, along with American politics, since we are about "getting things done" but without consistency and reason. Neocons and neolibs disempower and tyrannize people through controlling consciousness.

Also, I apologize for the aggressive tone (Ivysaur), but at the same time, it is frustrating to be dismissed by people ALL OF THE TIME without having a clue about the history of political thought. My goal should be to communicate that history of thought and hopefully provide people with some insights.

I have to say I quite like this post. Most people keep going to one side or the either, but its pretty radical to attack that system itself. What I've seen from both candidates isn't really much of a great choice at all, going past the policies that neither will enact. I think this year really hit that one home. It feels to me like this thing is a circus race, and people are just eating it up. I've seen people fight fervently for Trump and those for Clinton, but really, who are these people anyway. I dunno, I'm just feeling a lack of confidence in said system. The choice, I feel, hardly even matters at the end of the day.


Though I know you had a higher point I think.


Anyway, goodnight.


I just read Entemans posts, and I think I will distinguish my post from his. I kind of want to delete this, so if a mod thinks it doesn't contribute, go ahead and do so.


now I'm really tired, so GN

 

[Shamol]

Does anyone else think this DNC is a little too tame and happy-go-lucky for a political event? When the election is literally two months away and the opposition is Trump?

All the speakers seem to be playing defense, and that's just completely incomprehensible to me. Your opposition is Donald Trump. He's really not very difficult to attack. This man promised to kill civilians, advocated tortures even if it doesn't work, said he'd bring back the libel laws and thereby flush the first amendment down the toilet. If it were up to me, all I would do is mention these facts over and over again. In every speech of every speaker.

The DNC is countering RNC's apocalyptic fearmongering with inane positive platitudes. I don't think this has been the right strategy at all. They should've went for Trump's jugular from day one, and mention all the problems the country is facing and how we all have to work together. Other than Bernie Sanders, I don't remember anyone else doing it in that much detail.

EDIT: Right, I just went through the updates of the speeches of Day 3, and now it seems they are finally attacking Trump.

 

[CoffeeDrink]

Before you begin, your apology is at the end. It's like a slice of diabetes causing cake. While delicious, you may ask yourself if the cake was truly worth it.

People talk too much, perhaps, observe:

It's America and it's been broke for a really long fuckin time. Some rhetoric from people supporting cop killers will never get my vote. What'should worse? Bring back libel laws (in which you'll require legal counsel to pursue a suit)? Or silencing those that you don't like because a varying of opinion?

Social Justice is a poison, and that was never in my America. In my America, everyone gets a pet Bald Eagle, a $500 McDonald's gift card each month, and a shotgun of their choosing for their annual tax return, but I digress.

Don't get me wrong, everyone has their own opinion, sure. But to stand there and say that you'll help bring Social Justice? No thanks. Social Justice is no one's justice.

I fear what others are seemingly too blind to see. Giving people the right to burn and label those that 'offend' them is anarchy and no better than asking a fucking horse to stove your goddamn teeth in.

Hillary is dangerous, as well as the pharmaceutical companies behind her. If you really think that your insurance company cares about you, you're in for a real rough life.

I used to think I was smart and educated. Now I look at some of those same institutions and what they hold now [students] and I wonder if I was just average. Some of these people truly believe that life itself detests and regrets breathing them to life.

Social Justice... Jesus Christmas Easter Bunny. You can't go a day without someone getting in a huff. These 'SJW' thugs bitch about how bad this country is. Boy, I tell ya what... I have been to the other side where countries are dirty and grimy and horrid. Places with no running water, a shared washroom where 23 people share a 'restroom'. Places where you cringe when you see children run barefoot because monster bugs and snakes, needles, garbage and shrapnel lay. Countries that have a halo of smog choking every breath. Places where children play with toys that detonate, because they aren't toys. The poorest people I have seen, with next to nothing but the dirt under their nails, still smile. It all makes me thankful to be right here in America.

And these fuckers have the gall, the sheer audacity to say they have it bad. These 'Americans' that represent the best that we have to offer and they complain about harassment on the Internet? Offended over complements? Defend known felons and crooks just because they're black? Blockade colleges and shout death to cops?

Since I came back and really looked at this country, sometimes it makes me wonder why I came back at all. Then I remembered. It's the land itself I care for. The climate, the everyday conversation. These people are ruining my America with their censorship and hate speech. Disallowing those with any say contrary to their beliefs to speak. That isn't America. That's a hole in the ground in the middle of a country whose name no one can properly pronounce without at least four tries. It saddens me that I need to worry about what I say in 'the freest country on Earth'.

Sorry you had to slog through that.

Needless to say I don't particularly support Clinton in any case.

 

[0]

Before you begin, your apology is at the end. It's like a slice of diabetes causing cake. While delicious, you may ask yourself if the cake was truly worth it.

People talk too much, perhaps, observe:

It's America and it's been broke for a really long psyduckin time. Some rhetoric from people supporting cop killers will never get my vote. What'should worse? Bring back libel laws (in which you'll require legal counsel to pursue a suit)? Or silencing those that you don't like because a varying of opinion?

Social Justice is a poison, and that was never in my America. In my America, everyone gets a pet Bald Eagle, a $500 McDonald's gift card each month, and a shotgun of their choosing for their annual tax return, but I digress.

Don't get me wrong, everyone has their own opinion, sure. But to stand there and say that you'll help bring Social Justice? No thanks. Social Justice is no one's justice.

I fear what others are seemingly too blind to see. Giving people the right to burn and label those that 'offend' them is anarchy and no better than asking a psyducking horse to stove your goddamn teeth in.

Hillary is dangerous, as well as the pharmaceutical companies behind her. If you really think that your insurance company cares about you, you're in for a real rough life.

I used to think I was smart and educated. Now I look at some of those same institutions and what they hold now [students] and I wonder if I was just average. Some of these people truly believe that life itself detests and regrets breathing them to life.

Social Justice... Jesus Christmas Easter Bunny. You can't go a day without someone getting in a huff. These 'SJW' thugs rattata about how bad this country is. Boy, I tell ya what... I have been to the other side where countries are dirty and grimy and horrid. Places with no running water, a shared washroom where 23 people share a 'restroom'. Places where you cringe when you see children run barefoot because monster bugs and snakes, needles, garbage and shrapnel lay. Countries that have a halo of smog choking every breath. Places where children play with toys that detonate, because they aren't toys. The poorest people I have seen, with next to nothing but the dirt under their nails, still smile. It all makes me thankful to be right here in America.

And these psyduckers have the gall, the sheer audacity to say they have it bad. These 'Americans' that represent the best that we have to offer and they complain about harassment on the Internet? Offended over complements? Defend known felons and crooks just because they're black? Blockade colleges and shout death to cops?

Since I came back and really looked at this country, sometimes it makes me wonder why I came back at all. Then I remembered. It's the land itself I care for. The climate, the everyday conversation. These people are ruining my America with their censorship and hate speech. Disallowing those with any say contrary to their beliefs to speak. That isn't America. That's a hole in the ground in the middle of a country whose name no one can properly pronounce without at least four tries. It saddens me that I need to worry about what I say in 'the freest country on Earth'.

Sorry you had to slog through that.

Needless to say I don't particularly support Clinton in any case.

That's a pretty deep point, and it's something that really astounds me about this country. People do get in a huff over the littlest things, and don't even take the time to reflect on what kind of foundation we live in.

Spoiler:

"The poorest people I have seen, with next to nothing but the dirt under their nails, still smile."

That was the line that really stuck out to me. It seems to me that this country suffers from a deep mental sickness, while the countries you have been to have nothing and they still smile. It kind of reminds me of "making a man" with a mandatory draft. I've heard accounts of people who worked in the military for only a few years coming out of it a better man. I'm curious as to the same thing with SJWs. Perhaps there should be a mandatory send off to a country for a couple of years where they can experience horrors they never would have thought possible and their petty little complainants about how terrible they had it would be put into perspective.

In short, the majority of people vote for Trump because he is an idiot, and the majority of people vote for Clinton because she's not Trump! What a state for a country to be in! I do notice that this thread is a decent political conversation, with people for arguments for both sides, but I'm just calling out what I think the masses of people are doing, and it frankly scares and appalls me.

I think, again, both candidates are pretty terrible choices who I don't think are fit to lead a country, but I have no solution to the problem, so I digress.

 

[Nah]

oh yeah just saying, this budding discussion about sjw could be (and likely would be better as) it's own thread so...

 

[Biogoji]

You need to check your privilege saying this should be in it's own thread has just triggered me, i'm going to report you to the internet police.

In all seriousness i'm really unsure on what will happen, Berine most likely would have beaten trump but well you know we can't have nice things and the DNC have to screw Berine over so we can get hillary as a candidate. I think she and trump will be 50/50 for the most part and then as for who will actually win i'm quite unsure but i think trump may the edge but the same can be said for hillary.

 

[Shamol]

No? This is a political climate where people literally think Hillary Clinton is as bad as Donald ****ing Trump. This a political climate whereas, prior to the DNC, most Americans were nervous, had anxieties, were frustrated, pissed, etc. If the DNC were to play offensive from the get-go, it would've played right into Trump's hands because he could've just been like "LOOK AT HE EVIL DNC, I TOLD YOU GUYS THEY AND THE MEDIA ARE CONSPIRING AGAINST ME". That and well, the DLC isnt exactly in the best of terms with the more progressive voters for obvious reasons, so you want to play it safe when you can.

I was with your diagnosis right until the last sentence or so. How exactly would extolling the virtues of Hillary as a candidate be "playing it safe" in regards to the progressives? Or are you saying the progressive wing has already been locked down in their decision, and so the safe bet would be to pander to the rest of the constituency and the so-called centrist independents?

I disagree completely on the point on Trump. If I understand your argument correctly, you seem to be saying that criticisms make Trump thrive. There's a kernel of truth to that. Throughout the campaign, has Trump called conspiracy and bias on many people criticizing him? Yes. But that's only because for the most part, media coverage of Trump have been awful. Most popular criticisms of him have been of the "PC outrage" variety- especially calling him out for his choice of words and mannerisms. Have we seen an equivalent outrage from the media about his promise of killing civilians? Nowhere close. Trump is able to take advantage of criticisms against him because the criticisms, for the most part, are ineffective.

Let's stop and think about this for a minute. The person with a palpable opportunity to become the leader of the free world (57% chance, if you believe the latest Nate Silver coverage- but that may be skewed by the post-RNC bump) has clearly and explicitly and unambiguously denounced the Geneva convention and called for the killing of civilians. How on earth is this person still doing well? Unless you want to believe half of the US voter population are evil, the only solid explanation is there hasn't been effective criticism of his policies at all. There hasn't been sufficient calling out of his terrorist tendencies, his ignorance, and his buffoonery. We saw Cruz and Rubio make something of an effort, but they stopped doing whatever they were doing the moment their donors told them to (I'm guessing but that's what probably happened). And in that debate (the topic was healthcare), we saw Trump being reduced to the ignoramus that he is. The fact that we haven't seen this more frequently goes to show the phenomenon of Trump hasn't been adequately exposed in all its horridness.

So again, I disagree that Trump would sap up and thrive on whatever criticism thrown his way. He has been able to do that because of the weak and ineffectual nature of the criticism. In the face of good, effective criticism that addresses his policies, Trump can only get away with so much.

With all due respect, were you even paying attention? From day one it has always been about drawing contrasts between Clinton and Trump. Did you somehow forget that Johnson and Stein are in this race? Because they exist, too. The general point of the DNC is that, unlike the RNC, where the general theme is "anti-Hillary" (and therefore not actually that productive), the DNC is actually giving a laundry list of reasons to vote FOR Hillary. It's targeting disgruntled voters who think they're both the same and therefore going to vote third party. That's the whole point of this!

Oh don't get me wrong here, I do see what their strategy is, and I do think they are doing exactly what they planned. And in the sense of "everything is going according to design", the DNC indeed has delivered. But my point was- that design is stupid. If the DNC's plan was to woo disgruntled voters by extolling the virtues of Hillary, I think that ship has sailed. It's well nigh impossible at this point to convince them that Hillary would be the progressive candidate bringing their deliverance. Leave aside the Iraq war, the bankruptcy bill, supporting exclusively traditional marriage until 2012, money in politics and so forth, Hillary and her campaign have progressively (no pun intended) alienated the Bernie voters. In response to a question by Maddow in the MSNBC town hall, she virtually said that she owes nothing to the progressive wing of her party. All of this progressive voter alienation culminated in her VP pick and vindicating DWS right after this horrendous email leak. She may continue to make friends in the establishment by these stunts, sure, but they won't sell well with the progressive base. I fail to see how extolling Hillary's virtues- and that too mostly be vague platitudes- would win over disgruntled voters, or be the 'safe bet'. Many progressives (delegates and general constituency) would be hard-pressed to look past her past and present record.

As the progressive democratic base sees it, the greatest argument that can be made for Hillary in this convention would be how evil and how much of an absolute buffoon Trump is. People should vote democrat not because Hillary is running, but because Trump is running on the opposing side. In a perfect world where traditional political and rhetorical conventions don't exist, the convention in its entirety should have run on the "lesser evil" argument. That's the single strongest argument in their arsenal. But in the real world where that's not fashionable, and some appeals must be made to how supposedly amazing the democratic candidate is, both arguments should be made with at least equal force.

I think a good representation of this was Joe Biden's speech on day 3. I would've liked him to press further on some of the points, but overall this was a respectable presentation for voting democrat this year. I wanted more speeches like this from day one is what I'm saying.

They've been going at Trump's throat since day one anyway, or did you somehow miss that?

I'm a little confused as to the exact point you're making. Reading the beginning of your post, you seemed to say that there hasn't been enough anti-Trump arguments, and that's a good thing. But now you seem to be saying there has in fact been enough coverage of that sort. I'll try to interpret this charitably and assume you meant that there has been some attacks against Trump, but they didn't completely overwhelm the DNC's theme, and that's a good thing. If this is what you were saying, refer to my earlier points in this post about these points not having been pushed hard enough. Both positive and negative democratic apologetics needed to be put forward with at least equal force. But what we saw in the first two days is Trump's positions being brought up more tangentially, in the scaffold of other arguments, unlike day 3 where their approach seemed more nuanced and effective.

 

[Kung Fu Ferret]

I wouldn't vote for either remaining candidate even if there was a gun pointed at me. They're both just...... Awful!

Jill Stein gets my vote then, since Bernie lost to that wretched Hillary.

And Trump needs to keep his mouth shut UNLESS he never says anything bigoted EVER AGAIN!

I guess I'm moving to Cuba then, since I'm a communist.