The PokéCommunity Forums

The PokéCommunity Forums (https://www.pokecommunity.com/index.php)
-   Deep Discussion (https://www.pokecommunity.com/forumdisplay.php?f=39)
-   -   2016 US Presidential Elections Thread [Trump Wins] (https://www.pokecommunity.com/showthread.php?t=362353)

Kanzler April 30th, 2016 1:58 PM

We'll see whether what happens in Indiana on Tuesday will affect Trump's likelihoods. And we'll see what happens if Clinton and Trump get their nominations. I don't know how effective the anti-women, racist Trump message will continue to be in the future. I think he'll be able to rebrand himself. 1) he doesn't have a political history, 2) he's good at communicating, 3) he's able to be more liberal, or at least speak more liberally than other Republican candidates. A lot of people don't take seriously that Donald Trump's a racist and see those early remarks as preaching to the choir. Once he has to appeal to all voters he'll change his tack and I think a lot of people are going to buy it.

Ivysaur May 1st, 2016 1:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Klippy (Post 9221917)
The odds of Trump not securing the delegates are extremely low given he's poised to win in basically every contest heading into the nomination. It's also unlikely the Republican Party will take it from Trump given he's only 230~ away, despite Ted Cruz believing differently. They know Trump will go third-party and will very likely take many of his 10 million voters with him - though arguably they'd be okay with that because they'd also rather have Clinton, someone they know is not going to rock the boat.

Clinton-and-Sanders is still a contest at least. And Clinton imploding/getting indicted is far more likely than Trump given (as you say yourself), he's a walking outlandish comment. But he's also anti-establishment so the fact that Republicans in positions like Mike Pence, an anti-LGBT rights supporter of Bible-thumpin' Ted, means little to someone like Trump, who claims to be looking for support from the people and not the politicians.

I'm not sure how you're seeing that he's falling at a constant pace or she's increasing though. That list is fairly consistent around 7%-12%, with a handful of outliers putting her at ~20% and him ahead by ~5% or so. That's hardly indicative of much other than it's close in polling. Factor in debates during the general, possible implosions, and a mix of other factors, and there's not really much saying this is going to be a landslide yet.

"My call" is that it's too early to predict anything in an unbelievably unpredictable cycle. I do recall you making such statements about Trump early on, so good on you. I'd never have guessed he'd have made it this far or done this well for the nomination. But I don't claim to be an expert. :) Just one vote.

Well, allow me to put it this way:

There are two main possibilities. One, as you have been suggesting, is that Trump becomes a normal candidate, the race becomes a normal presidential election, blue states vote blue, red states vote red, and swing states split up their votes. Or maybe they all vote D like in 2012, but allowing for several republican incumbent senators to stay in office anyway. Or maybe even Trump wins because stuff happens. Nothing really happens and everything will be up for grabs again in four years.

The other possibility, which makes RNC memebrs stay awake at night, is very different. Trump, who is an "outlandish comment", runs as an "outlandish comment" because that's who he is. Hispanics and minorities feel that when he's going on tirades about "illegal immigration", he's actually saying "all non-whites", reinforced by tons of clips in which he's just saying "Mexicans" and a million quotes from the campaign. Minorities (and tons of women) show up to vote against Trump, and he does lose by 7-10 points as polls suggest right now. Blue states become bluer, all swing states become Lean D and Lean R states become swing. Not only that, but a ton of "innocent" republicans -reps, senators, governors, state legislators- go out on Trump's anti-coattails because all those people showing up to vote against Trump simply go straight D when filling up their ballots. And, as a bonus, most of those people decide that a party who has allowed someone like Trump to happen is clearly not for them and are turned off from ever voting Republican for a generation, setting in stone all those gains.

A Democrat's pipe-dream? A crazy dystopia? No, California.

And that fact that it already happened is what makes it all the more terrifying for the RNC.

Kanzler May 1st, 2016 9:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ivysaur (Post 9222551)
A Democrat's pipe-dream? A crazy dystopia? No, California.

And that fact that it already happened is what makes it all the more terrifying for the RNC.

Explain? Never heard of this before.

Ivysaur May 1st, 2016 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kanzler (Post 9223009)
Explain? Never heard of this before.

California was a reliable Republican state (home of Ronald Reagan himself) until R Governor Pete Wilson ran in 1994 for reelection on Proposition 187, also known as "Save Our State" (SOS). It essentially said that millions of illegal Mexican immigrants were flooding California (sounds similar?) and proposed banning all of them from taking advantage of a single public dollar- no school, no emergency healthcare, nothing. It passed, and the courts promptly killed it off a few months later. It was all very clearly about "illegal" immigrants only, but hispanics somehow felt it was about all latinos, not just illegal Mexicans. Starting in the following election, the Democrats painted the Californian GOP as a bunch of "racist" and "Hispanic-haters"- and won every single election afterward.

Since that year, the Republican party only won one statewide election -with Arnold Schwarzenegger- and are largely irrelevant in the state, because all those latinos keep voting democratic over and over and over, 20 years down the road. They took every statewide office, supermajorities in the Legislature... virtually every position down to dog-catcher is filled by a Democrat, except in tiny pockets of Republican support. All of that because a Republican decided to run in a harsh anti-illegal-immigrants platform in the 90s that hispanics felt a direct attack to them. Can the same thing happen again, on a nationwide level? That's the fear that's making scores of Republican officials pretend Trump doesn't exist, hoping he won't stick. Because his rhetoric feels eerily similar.

Esper May 2nd, 2016 9:18 AM

I'd like to add that here in California we only elected Schwarzenegger in a recall election when far fewer people turn out, and that even though he was a Republican he was fairly good when it came to the environment. The Republicans out here are rather moderate on average compared to what you see in other parts of the country. More business Republican than religious Republican.

For something like this to happen nationally, or even in a couple of states, sounds like a dream. Call me cynical, but I don't think it's likely to happen regardless of how badly Trump or Cruz does in the election.

Ivysaur May 2nd, 2016 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Esper (Post 9224291)
I'd like to add that here in California we only elected Schwarzenegger in a recall election when far fewer people turn out, and that even though he was a Republican he was fairly good when it came to the environment. The Republicans out here are rather moderate on average compared to what you see in other parts of the country. More business Republican than religious Republican.

For something like this to happen nationally, or even in a couple of states, sounds like a dream. Call me cynical, but I don't think it's likely to happen regardless of how badly Trump or Cruz does in the election.

The thing is, the Republicans already are in a disadvantage when you look at the "solid" partisan breakdown of the country. If you get a few swing states with large minority populations -Virginia, Florida or North Carolina- to become solidly Democratic out of an anti-Trump backlash because of his racism (or what Hispanics may perceive as "racism", which is what matters here anyway), then they'll be in very serious trouble for a long time, in both the Senate and the White House. And there is always their crown jewel: Texas, with a 38% of hispanic population in 2012...

Kanzler May 2nd, 2016 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ivysaur (Post 9224533)
The thing is, the Republicans already are in a disadvantage when you look at the "solid" partisan breakdown of the country. If you get a few swing states with large minority populations -Virginia, Florida or North Carolina- to become solidly Democratic out of an anti-Trump backlash because of his racism (or what Hispanics may perceive as "racism", which is what matters here anyway), then they'll be in very serious trouble for a long time, in both the Senate and the White House. And there is always their crown jewel: Texas, with a 38% of hispanic population in 2012...

How persistent could that effect be? Once he's out of office, couldn't those states lean back to red? The Republican party might shift when it comes to immigration reform.

Ivysaur May 2nd, 2016 1:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kanzler (Post 9224545)
How persistent could that effect be? Once he's out of office, couldn't those states lean back to red? The Republican party might shift when it comes to immigration reform.

Well, in California it is still in effect 20 years later and with no signs of letting down. And considering how the Republican party went from saying "we need to pass immigration reform" in 2012 to "better not or else the Tea Party will out-primary us for RINOs" in 2014 to "Let's build a wall in the border with Mexico and make them pay for it", what we are seeing is that they are, indeed, shifting... in the completely wrong direction. And now tell me, how do you get those party members and supporters who directed that shift against the Republican leadership's best wishes, to backpedal right to the other end of the road? Because if the party leadership tells them that they need to accept immigration reform "for the good of the party"... their answer can easily be to kick those leaders out of the premises, as they have done with the ones who said the same in 2012.

Well, it's their problem, not mine. But if the Democrats manage to make all hispanics see the Republican party as "the party who killed immigration reform and then voted for Trump because they actually want to kick every one of you out of the country" (insert video of one of Trump's thugs telling US reporter Jorge Ramos "Go back to your country" here), then it can take years to clean it up. Lots of years.

Netto Azure May 2nd, 2016 4:57 PM

I also find it interesting that it took Jerry Brown and a Democratic supermajority in the legislature to balance the budget after decades of financial window-dressing and crises.

Anyway, I'm quite close to tuning out the Primaries altogether, but California being relevant for now is keeping my eyes glued to it. In the Democratic side it's just become pretty negative with Bernie being accused of egotism ala Trump (which ticks me off...this is why we should just have a nationwide primary, let everyone's vote count properly) for having the gall to stay in the race all the way to the convention.

But still the rhetoric is a replay of 2008 with the pro-Hillary PUMA's that popped up around this time in the primary though I don't remember calls for her to drop out back then at this stage...I seriously do think this is indicative of a undercurrent of ideological struggle within the party. Sanders gets accused of "not being a real Democrat" when he certainly represents a significant faction in the party.

Though the Republican intransigence really does enforce party unity once elections are over on both sides as the sorting of the parties pretty much finish.

Livewire May 2nd, 2016 8:59 PM

States like California will stay blue for the forceable future, several electoral cycles down the road because the Democratic party has a such a hold on the levels of government there, it would take a long-term serious generational shift from voters in addition to a major re-branding of the GOP there to compete. Short term, a swing to the GOP there just isn't feasible. The "swing states" with large minority populations are currently swinging left/blue in opposition to GOP immigration stances, among other things, and will probably stay that way for some time as well, barring a major policy shift for the GOP which probably won't happen for some time also, because of the Tea Party and the current status-quo within the party and among its top officials.

Texas is interesting because it could go blue by 2028 or 2032, if the Hispanic population continues to grow there like it has been the past 15, 20 years. The border states of New Mexico, Arizona, etc., would follow suit with their burgeoning minority populations, and also swing blue, and suddenly Democrats have New York, Texas, California, Colorado, Illinois, the coasts, and possibly all the Great Lakes states accounted for before the election even begins - It would be over before it even starts, incredibly enough. And this is all because demographically speaking, America is becoming more ethnically and racially diverse, and democratic party membership is more representative of a multi-cultural, multi-ethnic America than the GOP is. It's happening right now, as we speak.

Kanzler May 2nd, 2016 9:33 PM

This is going a bit off topic (not that I mind, just acknowledging), but it would appear that a rebranding of the Republican party is just a matter of time. "Correct" social policy will evolve over time but small government will always be in fashion.

Ivysaur May 2nd, 2016 11:30 PM

A rebranding or a split, because under Nixon, the "small government" conservatives entered an alliance with the Southern segregationists. That was the "southern strategy", which was supposed to take all those states which used to vote democratic back when the Ds were the racist ones, and lock in the electoral college for a generation- which it did. The problem is, population changes are not only making the religious, nationalist, racist wing an ever-decreasing minority, they are also making it a liability for the "just business" wing of the party, which could arguably offer actual ideas to those minorities if they weren't straight-up turned off by the racists chanting "get out of my country! speak english! segregated bathrooms!" in the background. Either they ditch them, the Tea Party spuns off into a "Dixiepublican" party, or the Democrats will now be the ones with a near-lock on the White House for years to come.

You can rebrand the party all you want, but if your own members keep pushing policies against what the leadership of the party thinks are their best interests because those memebrs legitimately believe the Republicans stand for "anti-gay discrimination laws" and "build a wall with Mexico", either you kick those members out, or they'll keep passing those proposals and voting in representatives that believe in them.

Esper May 3rd, 2016 9:48 AM

I wonder what the future of the Democratic party will be. Like the Republicans they are also having a (less intense) ideological battle ala Clinton v Sanders. They don't have the same pressures of a shrinking voter bloc the GOP has, nor are they necessarily as big on ideological purity, but I wouldn't rule out a schism of sorts. In California (not to keep bringing up my state) our elections are now between the two best candidates, whether they're of the same party or not, and it looks like the senate race is going to be between two Democrats. They're almost going to be forced into having ideological differences.

Kanzler May 3rd, 2016 4:34 PM

TED CRUZ DROPS OUT OMGWTF

The Republican Party has decided to unite behind Trump after all. So much for all that contested convention talk.

Netto Azure May 3rd, 2016 5:16 PM

Well this is going to be a fun general US Presidential election campaign.

"If this election were a satirical novel I would abandon it halfway through as way too heavy-handed." - Tom Tomorrow

Also lol:
http://i.imgur.com/qdbLiDB.png

Her May 3rd, 2016 6:13 PM

Bernie won Indiana, but how much does that affect Hillary's chances of securing the nomination, if at all? It's my understanding that this win is just a morale boost for his camp and not much more, unfortunately.

Livewire May 3rd, 2016 7:00 PM

Hello President Clinton!

Kasich and Co. are still vowing to take it to the convention, so we shall see. California's primary is still looming and I'd wager he has a pretty decent shot there, so I won't rule anything out just yet. If the RNC is throwing in the towel and going with Trump gong forward, then this point in time is the proverbial edge of the abyss, the point of no return. Let's see where it leads us.

Her May 3rd, 2016 7:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Livewire (Post 9226053)
Hello President Clinton!

Kasich and Co. are still vowing to take it to the convention, so we shall see. California's primary is still looming and I'd wager he has a pretty decent shot there, so I won't rule anything out just yet. If the RNC is throwing in the towel and going with Trump gong forward, then this point in time is the proverbial edge of the abyss, the point of no return. Let's see where it leads us.

Isn't it rather futile of Kasich at this point? I suppose being the last source of opposition for opposition's sake has its merits, but I can't imagine he seriously thinks the RNC will stand by him if he has even less electability prospects than Cruz, who was the only real stone in the way of Trump's bulldozer. With Cruz officially dead in the water, surely we are just waiting for the domino effect to finish now.

Kanzler May 4th, 2016 8:23 AM

And Kasich is out, Trump is the last man standing. GG

I think Clinton will increase pressure on Sanders to drop out and unite the party in light of what's happened in the GOP.

Esper May 4th, 2016 8:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Livewire (Post 9226053)
Hello President Clinton!

I dunno, there was that poll last week that showed Trump ahead by 2 points. Probably an anomaly, but Democrats shouldn't be complacent just because Trump is all but the nominee now.

Also, technically, Clinton can't be the nominee without the super delegates. I know this sounds like Berniecrat on a sinking ship, but it's still possible that those super delegates could switch their votes for Bernie. This is assuming he does well in the remaining states, and since even Nate Silver predicted Clinton would win Indiana I think there's still space for Bernie to pull a big win in places like California.

Netto Azure May 4th, 2016 1:14 PM

Best thing Sanders can do is try to push for Warren as VP :P

Anyway Kasich just dropped out. Trump is now the presumptive nominee for the GOP. Republicans just committed seppuku I think.

Kanzler May 4th, 2016 1:39 PM

Amidst all the hubbub the continued disintegration of the American middle class goes unnoticed.

Ivysaur May 4th, 2016 1:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Esper (Post 9226760)
I dunno, there was that poll last week that showed Trump ahead by 2 points. Probably an anomaly, but Democrats shouldn't be complacent just because Trump is all but the nominee now.

If I were Trump, I'd be more concerned by the poll saying he's losing Florida by 13 points to Clinton, because the "Solid Democratic" states that have gone blue in every election since 1992 add up to 242 electoral votes. And Florida has 29. And 242 + 29 = 271. So, if Trump loses Florida, he would absolutely need to claw back some state that has been voting democratic in every election for two decades or else he's lost before starting. And that's going to be hard when the polling average puts him 7 points behind her nationally, including 7 points behind her in Arizona, of all places.

And yes, one single poll out of two dozen, especially if it's one from Rasmussen Reports, the lone pollster that predicted a Romney win in almost all swing states in 2012, isn't anything worth being considered so far. After all, if you consider that, according to 538's pollster ratings, Rasmussen has an average bias of R+2.3, actually... Clinton was still leading in that poll, by 0.3%.

Anyway, the topic shouldn't be "can Trump win?" but rather "What the hell is Trump doing as the presidential candidate of an US party?", "What is wrong with the US political system, since it's pretty clear something is pretty wrong?" and "Can the Republican Party be saved, or has the rot gone way too far and it's now just a political machine for racists, demagogues and radicals?", and finally "Should actual bona-fide conservatives -like say, Kasich- just run away and build their own party?". That is the actual topic on hand.

Because the media machine can just act like Donald J. Trump is normal, valid presidential candidate and treat this race like every previous one but this is not normal and Donald J. Trump should not be the president of anything under any circumstance- let alone the United States.

Esper May 4th, 2016 1:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flight (Post 9227032)
I highly, highly doubt it will happen. I can't imagine a case where half the superdelegates are going to switch for the side with the less popular votes. As things currently stand in California, Clinton has a pretty sizeable lead there (and in New Jersey, as well), and that really doesnt seem to have favored Bernie all that much. Unless Clinton spontaneously combusts at some point or is abducted by aliens, the superdelegates seem to be pretty firm in their position.

Also, Indiana wasn't really a huge upset. For Bernie to win California enough to impress superdelegates, there has to be a MASSIVE win. Like, I'm talking around 70-30. For Clinton to lose that badly in a state so diverse, she'd have to drop every racial slur and offensive word in the book on a speech and end it by flipping the bird, but otherwise not happening.

It especially doesn't help that some of these superdelegates are getting harassed by Bernie supporters about their positions, further solidifying them as it is. Generally speaking, most (I'd argue a good number) of superdelegates that support Clinton arent a huge fan of Bernie, so it'd take a devastation of abnormal proportions for them to change their mind.

I'll agree that Bernie has only the slimmest of slim chances, but there are plenty of officials, especially those in blue and purple states states that Bernie won, who will have to be careful because they'll be up for election this cycle or the next and this primary has been a big turn-off for a lot of people because of all the irregularities and shady stuff with voter registration and general dislike for the status quo.

Kanzler May 4th, 2016 1:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ivysaur (Post 9227049)
Anyway, the topic shouldn't be "can Trump win?" but rather "What the hell is Trump doing as the presidential candidate of an US party?", "What is wrong with the US political system, since it's pretty clear something is pretty wrong?" and "Can the Republican Party be saved, or has the rot gone way too far and it's now just a political machine for racists, demagogues and radicals?", and finally "Should actual bona-fide conservatives -like say, Kasich- just run away and build their own party?". That is the actual topic on hand.

I think that might be too much of a generalization. The Republican party is just a wealthier, whiter, party.

Ivysaur May 4th, 2016 2:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Esper (Post 9227059)
I'll agree that Bernie has only the slimmest of slim chances, but there are plenty of officials, especially those in blue and purple states states that Bernie won, who will have to be careful because they'll be up for election this cycle or the next and this primary has been a big turn-off for a lot of people because of all the irregularities and shady stuff with voter registration and general dislike for the status quo.

Superdelegates only exist to ensure the winning candidate gets enough votes to go over the top. With a purely proportional system to approportion delegates by primary results, you could end up with, say, the equivalent of Trump being permanently locked out of a majority of delegates at this point even though he has clearly won. The republicans get around this by making a "winner-takes-most" system in which the delegates are skewed in favour of whoever wins more states. The Democrats get over this by offering the great and the good from the party all over a free trip to the convention to cast the final vote.

But if Clinton wins more delegates, more votes and more states -including the top 10 that look more like the overall electorate of the party-, then Sanders has basically 0% legitimacy to claim they should override the will of the voters and give him the nomination anyway.

Like... I donated money to Sanders. I would vote for him if I lived there. But you need to know when you have to fold, you know? I know it sucks, but... she's not winning by 0.1% or exclusively because she won a landslide in Mississippi.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kanzler (Post 9227065)
I think that might be too much of a generalization. The Republican party is just a wealthier, whiter, party.

Well, I was using the words of... Romney’s deputy campaign manager.

Quote:

“If we nominate Trump, [the party] is lost beyond this cycle. I think we lose women for a generation, in big numbers,” said Katie Packer, who served as Romney’s deputy campaign manager and now leads Our Principles super PAC, which spent $10 million in an effort to stop Trump.

“There’s a feeling among Republican women that I talk to that the people who would nominate this guy don’t have any real respect for us as women — especially professional women. They would rather see us in a “Mad Men” era, where women knew their place and catered to their husband, cooked dinner and met their sexual obligations and didn’t have any other role in society. And there are other people who are supporting him because the guy’s a blatant racist and they identify with that.

“So there’s a sense that, if this is who my party is, I don’t really identify with it anymore.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/republicans-clinton-trump-indiana-222778#ixzz47j9k2Ijh
Also, the Republican party is no longer "a whiter, richer party". It has legitimately become a radical party unwilling to compromise and whose only motto is "my way or the highway", with no desire to govern in any meaningful way, and which out-primaries any candidate trying to negotiate anything at all with the opposition. Just look at the SC blockade, or the utterly useless Congress which can't save Puerto Rico from collapse because they are too busy voting to repeal Obamacare for the 68th time. Please do read the book "It's even worse than it looks", it explains it terrifingly accurately.

Esper May 4th, 2016 2:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ivysaur (Post 9227070)
Like... I donated money to Sanders. I would vote for him if I lived there. But you need to know when you have to fold, you know? I know it sucks, but... she's not winning by 0.1% or exclusively because she won a landslide in Mississippi.

If I'm being perfectly honest, I feel like this primary has been a sham. It's no secret that the DNC has been behind Clinton from the beginning. There have been all manner of voter suppression and irregularities and most of the people in government, politics, and media that we should be able to rely on to stop it or fix it or call people out on it have been complicit or turned a blind eye. The fact that Sanders can still technically win within the rules makes me feel like his continuing is the least that can be done regardless of how small his chances are. While he does it he is a voice for a lot of people who wouldn't otherwise have their views heard and his presence is a reminder that a lot of people still support him and the views he stands for. And, practically if he drops out the media will just sweep him under the rug like they've been trying to do since the beginning.

Kanzler May 4th, 2016 3:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ivysaur (Post 9227070)
Also, the Republican party is no longer "a whiter, richer party". It has legitimately become a radical party unwilling to compromise and whose only motto is "my way or the highway", with no desire to govern in any meaningful way, and which out-primaries any candidate trying to negotiate anything at all with the opposition. Just look at the SC blockade, or the utterly useless Congress which can't save Puerto Rico from collapse because they are too busy voting to repeal Obamacare for the 68th time. Please do read the book "It's even worse than it looks", it explains it terrifingly accurately.

But enough of the population is willing to vote for them. They continue to reflect the interests of many Americans who don't agree with the ways of the Democratic party. Obstructionism isn't extremism. The SC bathroom bill isn't something that's supported by most Republicans, heck, the Republican governor came out against it. I'm not too familiar with what's going on with Puerto Rico, but its debt situation has a history which is probably more complicated than "Republicans". A lot of Americans just don't want change but want lower taxes. It looks like there's so much division, but the two main parties are a lot closer than they would be if they were in other countries.

Kanzler May 4th, 2016 9:17 PM

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/inlineimage/2016-03-28/muslims4.png

https://today.yougov.com/news/2016/03/28/divide-muslim-neighborhood-patrols/

OH MY GOD ITS HAPPENING

gimmepie May 4th, 2016 9:53 PM

That is just painful to look at, but it speaks greatly to the power of fear mongering as a political tool. I doubt that such a law would ever actually go through though since it directly violates the US constitution.

Nah May 5th, 2016 4:12 AM

yo that's kinda fucked up

Ivysaur May 5th, 2016 4:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kanzler (Post 9227117)
But enough of the population is willing to vote for them. They continue to reflect the interests of many Americans who don't agree with the ways of the Democratic party. Obstructionism isn't extremism. The SC bathroom bill isn't something that's supported by most Republicans, heck, the Republican governor came out against it. I'm not too familiar with what's going on with Puerto Rico, but its debt situation has a history which is probably more complicated than "Republicans". A lot of Americans just don't want change but want lower taxes. It looks like there's so much division, but the two main parties are a lot closer than they would be if they were in other countries.

You don't seem to understand what I'm saying. It's obstructionism if you can't pass any law unless you control the House, the Senate (with a filibuster-proof 60-seat majority) and the presidency because the Republicans will just vote no to anything endorsed by Obama, even if it's something they were for before he endorsed it, and when anybody willing to compromise with any Democrat to get anything passed it's declared a RINO and primaried out. And it's not a case of "both sides!!!1!!11!": the Republicans are now twice as right-wing as the Democrats are left wing. One of the sides is getting absurdly more radical than the other.

And you are mixing up what I said. The "bathroom ban" has actually been signed into law in North Carolina, which is unbelievable, and similar laws have easily passed through several other state legislatures- that one Governor vetoed it doesn't deny the fact that tens of R representatives and senators voted it up to his desk first.

The SC blockade doesn't mean "South Carolina" but "Supreme Court", in which the Republicans are, for the first time in history, refusing to hold a confirmation vote for a candidate they have nothing against other than "we hope to win the presidency and nominate someone who is as staunchly right-wing as Scalia". In doing so, they'll keep the SC essentially unable to function for an entire year, which sounds like your textbook definition of "reasonable government".

Finally, Puerto Rico has a long story of issues (starting with a racist SC ruling that decided that hispanics were mentally inferior to anglo-saxons and didn't deserve full constitutional protections nor statehood), but the truth is: the (half) state is about to collapse because of several legislative quirks that are banning them from being able to renegotiate their debt like any other bankrup state/city/corporation/whatever other entity not called "Puerto Rico", and instead of passing some sort of emergency stopgap measure to avoid the absolute collapse of the territory's administration (including schools, hospitals and police), they are just fighting and letting the bill draft die in some desk- and the deadline was on May 2nd. They had months to do something about it- but they were too busy not doing anything. That IS their fault.

Kanzler May 5th, 2016 8:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ivysaur (Post 9227833)
You don't seem to understand what I'm saying. It's obstructionism if you can't pass any law unless you control the House, the Senate (with a filibuster-proof 60-seat majority) and the presidency because the Republicans will just vote no to anything endorsed by Obama, even if it's something they were for before he endorsed it, and when anybody willing to compromise with any Democrat to get anything passed it's declared a RINO and primaried out. And it's not a case of "both sides!!!1!!11!": the Republicans are now twice as right-wing as the Democrats are left wing. One of the sides is getting absurdly more radical than the other.

They might be radical in procedure, but I don't think they're ideologically extreme. How else do they have majorities in Congress if they're a radical party? How can we say that 40%+ or so of American voters vote for a radical party?

My understanding of the NOMINATE statistics system that they used to construct this:

http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Multimedia/Interactives/2013/stats_images/housenew.png

focuses on the similarity or the dissimilarity of voting records. So Republicans have a high "conservative score", because they vote alike, and they vote alike more often than Democrats do in the opposite direction. But that's not to say that the right and the left in Congress are very distant ideologically from one another - all that data shows is that the two parties tend to gravitate around the poles (Republicans more so) regardless of any information about how ideologically distant the poles are.

I acknowledge that there's a high degree of polarization in Congress and the voting patterns of Republicans are responsible for that, but I hesitate to call the Republicans radical or extreme if the distance between the right pole and the left pole isn't extreme to begin with.

Netto Azure May 6th, 2016 4:42 PM

It depends, I think it is more accurate to say that Congress has become more parliamentary in that the parties whip members into party line votes. There is also the 2010 redistricting that further entrenched incumbents into districts that result in a 90%+ re-election rate. Further pressures from a more ideologically purist primary system where the electoral turnout is in the midling 20% encourages a more ideologically pure vote.

Anyway it seems an intra-party civil war has broken out again for the GOP 3 days after Trump's call for unity.

Esper May 7th, 2016 9:47 AM

So Trump says he's okay with having the US go bankrupt so that he could "get a better deal" after. Like, I dunno what to say about that. Who would ever trust the US dollar after that? Who'd do business with the US?

Netto Azure May 7th, 2016 12:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Esper (Post 9230692)
So Trump says he's okay with having the US go bankrupt so that he could "get a better deal" after. Like, I dunno what to say about that. Who would ever trust the US dollar after that? Who'd do business with the US?

Remember that Ted Cruz literally tried to do this with our federal debt. Got a credit downgrade afterwards.

Nah May 20th, 2016 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by colours (Post 9250420)
dying @ trump's speech at the NRA convention holy crap

What'd he say now? I cba to look for it I'm a lazy shit

Esper May 20th, 2016 6:02 PM

So I went to a Bernie Sanders rally on Wednesday. It was mostly the same speech he gives at each rally. I've seen a few recordings of them. But I suppose if you're not like me and don't follow that sort of thing it could be pretty new sounding. The crowd certainly was all enthused by it. The crowd was large. I don't know if how many, but it was easily 5000 from where I was standing, and might be more. Quite a diverse crowd, too. One of the candidates for California's Senate seat was there, Steve Stokes, who described himself as a Berniecrat. I do wish him well and I'll be voting for him. Even if Bernie doesn't win the nomination I can still hope that others will win seats in the House and Senate.

Netto Azure May 20th, 2016 9:30 PM

I used to live right around that area too o-o

OmegaRuby and AlphaSapphire May 24th, 2016 6:01 PM

Trump's catched up to Hillary since wrapping up the nomination. I wonder if Clinton wrapping her nomination up will see her get a bounce back.
Democrats are starting to split while my party comes together around Trump.

Kanzler May 24th, 2016 6:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OmegaRuby and AlphaSapphire (Post 9256094)
Trump's catched up to Hillary since wrapping up the nomination. I wonder if Clinton wrapping her nomination up will see her get a bounce back.
Democrats are starting to split while my party comes together around Trump.

She'll definitely see a bump. There's always a section of whichever party that will rally around the flag no matter what.

Esper May 25th, 2016 9:08 PM

Possible Sanders and Trump debate for charity?

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-tells-kimmel-hed-be-willing-to-debate-sanders-for-charity/

I would watch the heck out of that. So many people have said they're so similar that I'd enjoy seeing it just to have their differences put out there for everyone to see for themselves.

Klippy May 26th, 2016 2:53 AM

It's definitely gonna happen - at least both parties have agreed. I wager Trump will get it on a major network if he wants it on a major network. Also willing to bet many people will tune in for similar reasons. But it'll probably be much friendlier than most picture. If it's a charity-goal, both candidates will probably be on best behavior (you'd think!).

But all this does is make Hillary look WEAK. She was too afraid to debate Bernie, but Bernie's not afraid to debate Trump and Trump isn't afraid to go toe-to-toe with him. This also presents a very strong message FOR each candidate's voting pool. Anti-Clinton voters will see Trump is actually an option depending on the message he presents (or less of one), while independents and otherwise can see both candidates and their views.

Bonus points that it'll be for charity. I think that will make the entire event less about knocking the other candidate out and more about policies and the issues. Trump and Sanders can certainly find common ground on some topics and the more they both bring up Hillary's absolute mess of a candidacy and her Wall Street money, the better they'll both come out. Bernie could secure states; Trump could secure the presidency.

Easily the strangest event yet in, this, the strangest election yet.

Ivysaur May 26th, 2016 6:56 AM

Honestly, I'd be pretty worried if a person can go from supporting the most left-wing candidate in the race to the most right-wing just because they think the middle ground is "too weak". Like yeah, if I can't have Sanders, I guess I'd rather have the NRA-endorsed guy with white supremacists in his delegate lists who wants to pack up the Supreme Court with hyper-conservative justices, says minimum wages are a "matter of the States" so won't do a thing about them and promises to "unsign " all of Obama's Executive Orders "within the first hour in office". Yup, that sounds like the closest thing to sanders you can find. ¿¿¿???

I hope he goes for the kill and shows Trump for the apolitical buffoon he is.

____________________________________________________

The whole Democratic race has shown a curious problem: Democrats love Clinton massively and are providing her with enough votes to lead the Democratic nomination easily. Left-leaning independents, on the other hand, would rather have the Democratic party elect Sanders, whom they love by far. If the US political system wasn't a winner-takes-all system, we'd probably have ended up with a Cruz - Trump - Clinton - Sanders matchup, each one with the support of a different group in the ideological scale. The dysfunction is starting to show pretty heavily, I believe.

Esper May 26th, 2016 8:50 AM

Clinton thinks she has it in the bag (which she probably does) so all she has to do for the next month or so is... nothing. The idea, I believe, is that if she does nothing she doesn't risk making any mistakes or getting into a spat with someone or coming out with a terrible soundbite. (Anyone remember 47%?) It's a calculated tactic, one which I don't think will go unnoticed, not the least because if she doesn't make a last minute appearance she's going to be on the receiving end of a lot of jabs from Trump, maybe some from Sanders. The only question is whether some attacks in absentia will be worse than her making some gaff in person. I don't think her making any public appearances will win her any new votes. I imagine that there aren't very many people out there who will, between now and November, decide that they actually do prefer Clinton to someone else. They might vote for her anyway, like most Sanders supporters, but not because they suddenly saw something in her that they really liked.

Esper May 27th, 2016 9:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by colours (Post 9258314)
~*~

She's between a rock and a hard place. Establishment isn't a popular thing right now, but it's the core of her support. If she wants to reach out to non-establishment she risks alienating her base of support. In another election it wouldn't have mattered so much. After all, Obama wasn't any less of an establishment candidate, just a bit younger than average. Had he not been around then and was only now showing up on the national stage I think he'd be in a similar spot to Clinton.

But you're right in that she picks her words carefully and wouldn't likely get caught in a terrible gaff, but coming off as too polished isn't going to do well with people who aren't already supporting her (her "authenticity gap"). So in that sense it makes sense not to show up for her.

£ May 27th, 2016 3:01 PM

This debate ain't happening:

"- MAY 27, 2016 -

​DONALD J. TRUMP STATEMENT ON DEBATING BERNIE SANDERS

Based on the fact that the Democratic nominating process is totally rigged and Crooked Hillary Clinton and Deborah Wasserman Schultz will not allow Bernie Sanders to win, and now that I am the presumptive Republican nominee, it seems inappropriate that I would debate the second place finisher. Likewise, the networks want to make a killing on these events and are not proving to be too generous to charitable causes, in this case, women’s health issues. Therefore, as much as I want to debate Bernie Sanders - and it would be an easy payday - I will wait to debate the first place finisher in the Democratic Party, probably Crooked Hillary Clinton, or whoever it may be."



Probably a smart move on Trump's part to not actually debate Sanders directly- if he can even get a small portion of the people that would have voted for Sanders to be president, it could be yet another small step towards the presidency we thought of as being impossible. It's still Clinton's election to lose rather than Trump's to win tho. She'll probably get away with a pretty passive approach despite Trump's jabs.

Desert Stream~ May 29th, 2016 3:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by £ (Post 9259866)
This debate ain't happening:

"- MAY 27, 2016 -

​DONALD J. TRUMP STATEMENT ON DEBATING BERNIE SANDERS

Based on the fact that the Democratic nominating process is totally rigged and Crooked Hillary Clinton and Deborah Wasserman Schultz will not allow Bernie Sanders to win, and now that I am the presumptive Republican nominee, it seems inappropriate that I would debate the second place finisher. Likewise, the networks want to make a killing on these events and are not proving to be too generous to charitable causes, in this case, women’s health issues. Therefore, as much as I want to debate Bernie Sanders - and it would be an easy payday - I will wait to debate the first place finisher in the Democratic Party, probably Crooked Hillary Clinton, or whoever it may be."



Probably a smart move on Trump's part to not actually debate Sanders directly- if he can even get a small portion of the people that would have voted for Sanders to be president, it could be yet another small step towards the presidency we thought of as being impossible. It's still Clinton's election to lose rather than Trump's to win tho. She'll probably get away with a pretty passive approach despite Trump's jabs.

I hate how he keeps calling Hillary crooked. I imagine even the republicans must be tired of that.
I could see him not debating go either way as well.

Kanzler May 29th, 2016 5:27 PM

Doesn't that make Sanders look stronger? Neither of the people still in the race want to debate him. Trump is a "pussy".

Somewhere_ May 29th, 2016 6:18 PM

Gary Johnson won the nomination for the Libertarian Party, and he polls fairly well against Trump and Clinton, so I am confident he can get 5%, especially because there may be a lot of disenfranchised voters looking for a 3rd party.

However, that fluke at the convention might cost them this.

About Sanders, I was actually pretty excited to watch that debate, and I think it would have helped Sanders.

Esper May 29th, 2016 7:57 PM

Pretty disappointed it won't be happening. I was hoping all three would somehow end up in one debate.

Quote:

Originally Posted by colours (Post 9262486)
Under normal circumstances yeah, but Sanders has already dug himself quite the hole, to be quite honest.

Really? I mean, he may have burned bridges with many in the Democratic Party, but among voters he's doing better and better. His polling is the best among any candidate. His message has always been that his getting the nomination is a long shot, but until the convention it is not settled so in order to keep the message he's got alive and not let it be swept under the rug by the media or diluted by a more centrist candidate like Clinton he's staying in the race.

Esper May 29th, 2016 8:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by colours (Post 9262655)
snip

I would respectfully disagree. Long counter argument in the spoiler, but tl;dr Sanders is probably fairly safe for any possible re-elections in his home state so he doesn't need to kowtow to the DNC and doesn't need to censor himself.

Spoiler:
His talks lately have been less about his personal chances of getting the nomination and more about how corrupt the system is, though that point has always been part of his main message. He's not wrong about the damage that money does to the political system, I believe. (Though feel free to argue otherwise.) I don't think he personally feels wronged, but some of his supporters probably do. With the shenanigans with some of the elections in places I can understand. My own voter registration was sent to me as mail-only and as NPP I'll have to go in person to vote because NPP don't automatically get a mail vote for presidential candidate (since they're party-specific). I'm happy to go in person, but it was only recently that my county officially declared that they would except exchanges at polling places - before they were saying it would be a provisional ballot (and we know those aren't worth the paper they're printed on).

The "rigged" part of the system is not specifically only the way votes and such are counted, but partially the way that the media (which I'd cynically call an unofficial branch of government) has not been at all fair to Sanders and with misleading headlines and such that affects how low-information voters vote. Every element of the various party and non-party systems in place favor whoever the establishment wants as a candidate and make it hard for an outsider to have a chance.

Sanders has been pretty respectful of Clinton. If anything his supporters would have liked to see him be more direct with her. I mean, what has he said or done lately that seems like he's taken a "**** Clinton" attitude? The thing in Nevada? Where a Clinton supporter picked up a chair and the Sanders supporters had him hug it out after? The anger? They were railroaded and not listened to which went against the rules. That aside, I'll agree that he's trying to speak a lot and get his message out, but, like, this is a democracy, and as I said earlier he's not been given fair coverage in most media.

And, again, Clinton is not the nominee. She's only the likely nominee. After the convention we'll see what Sanders does, but like I said in my previous post, he wants to ensure his message gets attention and staying in the race is the best way to do that.

Esper May 29th, 2016 9:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by colours (Post 9262710)
By talking about how corrupt the system is, he's also pretty much knocking down Clinton by proxy. Clinton is seen as "the establishment", "the status quo", "the system", etc. It really doesn't help when you're continuing to assault the establishment at this point when the "establishment candidate" has already basically won, because that doesn't really help the overall message any. "Political revolution" isn't the negative vitriol that's surrounding the Sanders campaign and its supporters, "Political revolution" starts by electing the officials that you truly believe would carry on Sanders' message into seats of Congress, and keeping those people in those seats. What Sanders is doing now isn't uniting the Democratic Party, he's kind of hurting it.

What's important to note about Sanders' speeches nowadays (feel free to correct me here, I haven't had a chance to look deeply into this but from what I hear) is that he isn't saying much against Trump, it's more about antagonizing the Democratic Party when it really needs to come together. At this point where party unity is just about essential and crucial to seize the White House, a move like that is going to cause further damage.

The Sanders rally I went to was mostly about all the things that he and other progressives want, i.e., single payer healthcare, and about all the problems in the world and country, i.e., climate change and racism. Some of it was specifically targeted at Trump (though I can't remember if he specifically name checked him - it was obvious either way) and not much about Clinton specifically. His gripes at the DNC are more about how they're not doing as much as they need to. Big difference to calling out Trump's active sexism and racism and xenophobia. One of the things he said was that (paraphrasing) "real change comes from the bottom up not the top down."

And what is the overall message exactly? To me, it's fighting for the things that will be best for the people. I believe that Sanders staying in the public eye is good for that and so do a lot of people. I do not see "negative vitriol" anywhere except from Trump and Trump-like people. Pointing out major flaws of the American government and democratic system is a good thing because without doing so we aren't ever going to fix them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by colours (Post 9262710)
In what way? How would "being more direct" with Clinton help Sanders? I'm honestly curious about this.

Early on Sanders didn't want to call Clinton by name or say things like "Clinton took money from Wall Street" and whatever. He'll say things like (paraphrasing) "Will the American people trust a candidate that's taken money from Wall Street to regulate the millionaires? I don't think so." He wouldn't say "Clinton can't be trusted" or "Clinton has lied about her record" or whatever else some of us Bernie supporters would like to have said on the record.

Quote:

Originally Posted by colours (Post 9262710)
As crappy as that was, even though most people felt wronged, it shouldn't have had to happen in the first place. Now most people are afraid that what happened in Nevada is going to happen again at the convention in Philadelphia, because (with all due respect), it doesn't take an expert political reporter to see that, yes, Clinton has basically won and Sanders has lost; it's virtually impossible at this point for Sanders to convince a massive portion of superdelegates to switch sides and he wants to be told he lost at the convention officially before he really makes another move.

As for what Sanders might do next? Who knows. I'm hoping he'll actually get to work on reuniting the party against Trump, but at the way things are going, I wouldn't be surprised if he set the party on fire and walked out right after the convention, which is the worst case (and quite possible) scenario.

Of course, what Rachel Maddow says here may actually be 100% true and everyone would just riot because it lets out anger, and everyone would hug it out afterwards. But what if it doesn't? It's a very real and very frightening possibility that can make a difference between a Clinton presidency and a Trump one.

You're right. It shouldn't have happened. The people running it should have followed the rules and they didn't. So, I mean, what are people supposed to do? Let them get away with it and say nothing? This is one of the issues about how unfair "the system" is when it comes to the media. If the media were being honest and fair they wouldn't immediately demonize the voters there and would talk about how the people running railroaded the voters.

gimmepie May 29th, 2016 11:07 PM

Situations like this are exactly why the US electoral system seems really weird to an outsider like me. It essentially forces people on the same side to go to war for the Presidency. Here you vote for the party, not for the candidate and whoever is leading the party takes the spot of PM. There's been a lot of issues with our system sure, but I think a system in which Hillary or Sanders were heading a party and not fighting for themselves would have made things a lot less messy and would have made a Trump presidency extremely unlikely since few Republicans would give him control of the party.

Ivysaur May 29th, 2016 11:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gimmepie (Post 9262802)
Situations like this are exactly why the US electoral system seems really weird to an outsider like me. It essentially forces people on the same side to go to war for the Presidency. Here you vote for the party, not for the candidate and whoever is leading the party takes the spot of PM. There's been a lot of issues with our system sure, but I think a system in which Hillary or Sanders were heading a party and not fighting for themselves would have made things a lot less messy and would have made a Trump presidency extremely unlikely since few Republicans would give him control of the party.

That is a topic for another day, but essentially that's the difference between Parliamentary systems and Presidential ones. The latter are all about giving power to a certain person, not to a party, which results in a) parties being just empty shells with the tag "liberal" and "conservative" in which anything goes as long as they respect the tags, and b) "lesser of the evils" voting in November since the way seats are given makes it impossible for any other party to win anything other than at a very local level. Sanders was originally a member of the Vermont Progressive Party, but had to run as a backseat Democrat for all his career because... there are only two labels you can wear in an election, you know?

Sadly, to change anything you'd need to remake the entire US system from the ground, which requires amending the Constitution, which is just not going to happen. So yeah.

In defence of the US systam, you get stability: 4-year terms with no snap elections ever and no motions of no-confidence or strange crap. On the down side, the system is so stable you cannot change anything in bulk, you can only move a tiny step a time, and most people feel disenfranchised because there are only two options to vote for (see: Badsheep being excited because the Libertarians might even take an utterly irrelevant 5% of the vote in a good year). You prevent political upheaval.... for the better and for the worse. And the "worse" is what Sanders is intent on showing with his campaign.

Kanzler May 30th, 2016 5:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by colours (Post 9262728)
If you're fighting for whats best for the people, you wouldn't be hurting the party that's trying to strive for that same goal.

That sounds very authoritarian. I can't imagine anyone I know saying anything of that sort about the three main parties here (all of which arguably do more for the people than American parties), even the most socialist of the three. Intraparty conflict is normal. I don't get why party loyalty is so important.

Esper May 30th, 2016 7:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by colours (Post 9262728)
snip

My answers to all your questions boil down to: Clinton is not necessarily going to be good for the country. She's hawkish and we don't need more war. She's not at all progressive on social issues (barring perhaps women's rights) except after the fact. So the benefit in not falling in line is to push for a progressive agenda for the country which will not find a leader in Clinton. It's to say that while Clinton is better than Trump she's terribly flawed and does not at all represent what progressives want or what will address the underlying troubles of the country. It's basically saying that "lesser of two evils" as a mindset is damaging and dangerous to the future of our country and needs to be changed. We're demanding better than "lesser of two evils".

Esper May 30th, 2016 7:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by colours (Post 9263256)
Okay, so your solution to pushing for a progressive agenda is having a xenophobic misogynistic racist as a president instead of someone who's actually the closest thing to Sanders himself? Is that your real idea of being a progressive? I think that kind of logic is terribly flawed. If you want to push for a real progressive agenda, you'd pick the person that's closest to that agenda, not veer right of course and go way off kilter. I don't think that's how things work.

I think we've had this argument in this thread before so I won't rehash it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by colours (Post 9263256)
Yes, American politics is very much a "lesser of evils" system sometimes, and it always has been. If you wish to be one of the few, few people who vote for the Libertarian Party in a meaningless effort to make a statement, so be it, but if I was a Sanders supporter, I'd be more than happy to see Clinton in the White House than any of her GOP opponents. Say what you will about Clinton herself, but it'd be a lot easier to actually push for a progressive/more liberal agenda with someone who at least most people know as remotely liberal.

The lesser-of-two-evils system can be changed if we move to publicly funded campaigns and take dark money and super-PACs out of the process. That would make it much easier for third party, non-party, or political minorities within parties to run and be successful. I don't think a progressive agenda can really happen with the system we have now so, no, I don't agree that it would be a lot easier with Clinton over Trump. Maybe a tiny bit easier because as a Democrat she would have to pay lip service at least, but that won't really get things anywhere.

Ivysaur May 30th, 2016 8:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Esper (Post 9263296)
The lesser-of-two-evils system can be changed if we move to publicly funded campaigns and take dark money and super-PACs out of the process. That would make it much easier for third party, non-party, or political minorities within parties to run and be successful.

There is a problem, known as "first past the post", also known as "winner take all". In a system where any position is held by the candidate that obtained the most votes in a poll, while everybody else gets nothing, even if they lost by a single vote, there is no incentive or reason to have a third party. With two strong incumbents, launching a third party requires a lot of money and publicity you probably can't have without tons of money to run ads- so essentially, the only successful third-party candidates would be Trumps. And if you just set a spending limit, even coming from their own pockets, then people will continue to vote R/D everywhere because that's the way it's always been and they are the only ones on TV after all. Look at the UK, where their "third parties*" only add up to 10 seats in a 650-strong Parliament, because people just vote Conservative or Labour, despite having tight and low expense limits.

The problem is the electoral system. Unless you change it, you are going to have a two-party system eternally. Because if another conservative or left-wing party arises and becomes successful, everybody will leave the R/Ds and join them instead, because otherwise you are just splitting up the vote and handling a plurality win to "the other side". In the UK, everyone who used to vote Liberal now votes Labour, after the Liberals were overtaken by them in the 1920s. After all, it's the only way to stop a Conservative Government from happening!

*not counting the SNP, who are essentially the one-party-state owners of Scotland.

Quote:

I don't think a progressive agenda can really happen with the system we have now so, no, I don't agree that it would be a lot easier with Clinton over Trump. Maybe a tiny bit easier because as a Democrat she would have to pay lip service at least, but that won't really get things anywhere.
I don't think you are looking at this the right way. Having Clinton will probably mean a couple of steps ahead and, at absolu-horri-catastrophically worst, a "lip service" standstill. Having Trump will probably mean two steps back before even starting, and at worst, infinite steps back. Imagine: President Trump nominates a 40-year-old Scalia to replace Scalia, as the republicans want. Then, say, Justice Ginsburg dies and he nominates another 40-year-old Scalia. And a heavy right-leaning SC decides to destroy unions (it's one of the pending cases on their desk), decide that people not elligible to vote don't count when approportioning representatives (favouring older and whiter states and taking a lot of EVs away from places with migrants like California or Florida; it's another case on their desk) or take on Roe vs Wade because hell why not, let us leave the matter to the states. All of that while wasting billions of money on the wall, starting political wars with all of their allies and reinvigorising the extreme nativist fringe. Suddenly, a progressive agenda is not just as hard to achieve as before, but actually much harder, because you first have to undo all the damage he's going to make.

Esper May 30th, 2016 9:46 AM

Look, I'm going to vote for whoever ends up against Trump, but I'm not going to be silent about how I feel and overlook the problems. If Clinton is so weak that a few harsh words from Sanders and his supporters is enough to make her lose an election then she probably wouldn't have won in the first place had Sanders never entered the race. All she has to do is adopt a few progressive stances, admit that she isn't perfect and that *gasp* she has been mistaken in the past and gotten better and that would greatly close up the sincerity gap and endear her to a lot of Bernie supporters and clench the election for her.

ShinyUmbreon189 May 30th, 2016 3:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by colours (Post 9263256)
Okay, so your solution to pushing for a progressive agenda is having a xenophobic misogynistic racist as a president instead of someone who's actually the closest thing to Sanders himself?

Okay, first off I'm just going to say a few things and that's it. I am not defending Trump at all as I hate the man but I'm also not voting for anyone else, the election is a circus, so I'm not voting period. But, the crap you hear about Trump is mostly false. When Trump does a rally the media only shows specific clips of his announcements to bash him rather than giving his whole speech to the audience. What they show you is what they expect you to perceive Trump as, it's a tactic to control the masses opinions. The man DOES NOT come off as racist, Muslim isn't a race it's a religion, they are actually "Arabs" and when he speaks of the Muslim people he's talking about the extremists or "ISIS", not the whole Muslim religion or Arabic people. When he speaks of Mexicans, he's talking about "illegal immigration" and keeping them out. People need to really start doing their research rather than getting all their information through the media or from a friend.

Somewhere_ May 30th, 2016 5:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Esper (Post 9263441)
Look, I'm going to vote for whoever ends up against Trump, but I'm not going to be silent about how I feel and overlook the problems. If Clinton is so weak that a few harsh words from Sanders and his supporters is enough to make her lose an election then she probably wouldn't have won in the first place had Sanders never entered the race. All she has to do is adopt a few progressive stances, admit that she isn't perfect and that *gasp* she has been mistaken in the past and gotten better and that would greatly close up the sincerity gap and endear her to a lot of Bernie supporters and clench the election for her.

I just found a poll that but Gary Johnson at 18% against Clinton and Trump (Weld is VP). Im not left-wing, but Clinton seems watered down to me... at least Bernie has principles. You probably know the Sanders community better than me, but I see a lot of Bernie or Bust stuff. Do you think they will prefer Jill Stein over Clinton? Im predicting the Green Party to get a larger percent of the vote this election than any other previous election.

As much as I dislike Trump, I dont think he is racist. I have to agree with @ShinyUmbreon here.

Esper May 31st, 2016 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShinyUmbreon189 (Post 9263802)
The man DOES NOT come off as racist, Muslim isn't a race it's a religion, they are actually "Arabs" and when he speaks of the Muslim people he's talking about the extremists or "ISIS", not the whole Muslim religion or Arabic people. When he speaks of Mexicans, he's talking about "illegal immigration" and keeping them out. People need to really start doing their research rather than getting all their information through the media or from a friend.

But that's, like, exactly how racism works. You don't specify, you lump in all of one group of people. Same with islamophobia and similar things. I mean, when you say "Muslims" and not "ISIS" or "ISIL" or "Al Qaeda" then you're saying not just "ISIS" or "ISIL" or "Al Qaeda" but all Muslims. That's just, like, how language works. And that's the intention, to get people stoked up by playing on their phobias and prejudices. So, like, it doesn't matter that Trump or others say "oh, when I said that I meant something else" because he keeps doing it. Plus, like, you can't say something and then after the fact claim it means something else.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BadSheep (Post 9263959)
I just found a poll that but Gary Johnson at 18% against Clinton and Trump (Weld is VP). Im not left-wing, but Clinton seems watered down to me... at least Bernie has principles. You probably know the Sanders community better than me, but I see a lot of Bernie or Bust stuff. Do you think they will prefer Jill Stein over Clinton? Im predicting the Green Party to get a larger percent of the vote this election than any other previous election.

I think if they know about Stein lots would prefer her, but that most will not vote for a third party, but then I don't know a lot of people.

Somewhere_ May 31st, 2016 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Esper (Post 9265095)
But that's, like, exactly how racism works. You don't specify, you lump in all of one group of people. Same with islamophobia and similar things. I mean, when you say "Muslims" and not "ISIS" or "ISIL" or "Al Qaeda" then you're saying not just "ISIS" or "ISIL" or "Al Qaeda" but all Muslims. That's just, like, how language works. And that's the intention, to get people stoked up by playing on their phobias and prejudices. So, like, it doesn't matter that Trump or others say "oh, when I said that I meant something else" because he keeps doing it. Plus, like, you can't say something and then after the fact claim it means something else.



I think if they know about Stein lots would prefer her, but that most will not vote for a third party, but then I don't know a lot of people.

I think the LP can get 15%- a recent poll shows Gary Johnson at 18%, and thats all they need to end the two party system. I am a Libertarian, but I dont mind the pseudo-libertarian Gary Johnson and William Weld combo because they can end the two party system, which I believe to be destructive.

I think you might be right though- a lot of people may vote Clinton simply to vote out Trump and a lot of people may vote Trump to vote out Hillary.

Racism: "the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races." While Trump is anti-immigration, this does not make him racist. He does not claim that whites are superior to other races- that is unscientific and philosophically inconsistent. There are many other reasons he wants closed borders (I'm not agreeing with him): less money distributed to the immigrants in subsidies and helping prevent terrorism (the merits of this I am skeptical of). But a lot of people within the Alt-Right movement also suggest that this is a matter of keeping the Western values and culture that have been fought and built up over centuries, and the idea is to retain these values because the other cultures either lack them or contradict them (basically borders acting as cultural barriers). Again, not agreeing, but the reasons are not out of racism (although Im sure there are some like that, but not Trump), but for practical purposes.

ShinyUmbreon189 May 31st, 2016 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by colours (Post 9263812)
shinyumbreon189 you say he isnt racist but like...the majority of hispanics disagree with you on that.

That's because they think he's taking about all hispanics when he's not. He's only talking about the illegal immigrants, and even then he's just saying he wants them out and to stop them from immigrating. How is that racist? It's not like he said he wants to return every hispanic back to Mexico, just the illegal ones. If that's racist then this country is at the point of no return screwed and might as well go back to the old days of grouping races and not allowing them to interact with eachother. This shits getting ridiculous. America back to their old games again, history always repeats itself.

Esper May 31st, 2016 8:36 PM

Trump has not claimed to be a racist, no. But if we define racists based on self-identification there wouldn't be very many racists. We know there are a lot more. A lot of it is thinly-veiled suggestions and insinuations such as when a judge, Gonzalo Curiel, ordered recently to have some documents unsealed (related to the Trump University controversy) and Trump has to mention at a rally that the judge is "Mexican" - the judge was born in Indiana, not Mexico - because he's, what, being thorough? He's trying to associate being Mexican with being something bad. That's racist.

pastelspectre June 2nd, 2016 1:37 PM

I will contribute hello. I do not like Trump. He is racist, sexist and overall a bad choice for a president. I prefer Bernie. He will do better, I believe. That is all. I shall say nothing more.

Kanzler June 2nd, 2016 8:13 PM

Quote:

@DavidShuster

Citing email investigations + comparative polls v Trump, several @HillaryClinton superdels suggest they'll switch if @BernieSanders wins CA
https://twitter.com/DavidShuster/status/738412975111974912

what does anybody know this guy can bernie sanders please win california jeez this race gets better and better

Ivysaur June 3rd, 2016 12:06 AM

News alert: if every superdelegate voted for the candidate winning in their state (acting like winner-takes-all delegates or something), Clinton would still win because she has won more states. And, as Nate Silver said, if the big plan is getting superdelegates to support Sanders despite Clinton winning the primary, well, I'm sure the people who voted for Clinton (who are the majority) will take it nicely, won't they?

I mean. Whoever wins will be a mess. But only one of the two can claim she's won the primary. Much as I would like Sanders to be the candidate, this is pretty much the same as if the Republicans had maneuvered to get Cruz in the convention.

Two interesting articles: Sanders isn't doing well with "true" independents (he's just sweeping every democratic voter who calls herself an independent) and The system isn't rigged against Sanders - he's just getting fewer votes than Clinton

Esper June 3rd, 2016 1:40 PM

Clinton may have more votes, but lots of people aren't going to forget how she got those votes with the help of the mainstream media who have been far and away Clinton supporters (if they're not Republicans) and hardly ever gave Sanders a fair shot. I mean, after every debate they said "Clinton won" regardless of how the debate went. If you just read the headlines you'd think Sanders was an escapee from a mental institution or a bomb throwing communist. And plenty of people do only read the headlines, if that. The media completely failed in their duty as an institution of democracy, that is, informing the voting public.

Esper June 6th, 2016 7:24 PM

Feels like they were trying to color the vote tomorrow to stave off a bad show in California. People, for some reason, often like to vote for whoever is "winning" and Clinton certainly wants to have the title going into the vote tomorrow. I think it's a mistake. This is going to create a lot of "Bernie or Bust" people.

Desert Stream~ June 6th, 2016 7:27 PM

So I'm assuming 2 people can't win the nomination? That's too bad... Although I would be happy with Hilary as well.

Ivysaur June 6th, 2016 11:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Esper (Post 9275105)
Feels like they were trying to color the vote tomorrow to stave off a bad show in California. People, for some reason, often like to vote for whoever is "winning" and Clinton certainly wants to have the title going into the vote tomorrow. I think it's a mistake. This is going to create a lot of "Bernie or Bust" people.

Well, actually 2.8 million votes have already been cast in California (Clinton is leading 56-44, by roughly 216,000 votes), where early voting is massive. That's over half the total votes recorded in the 2008 primary, and considering turnout has been dropping this year compared to last time, I don't think this call will affect the result that badly. Either there is a massive flood of millions of "Bernie or bust" voters created overnight or he's just going to win/lose by slightly more/less than otherwise (say, 100k votes one way or another).

It is going to affect the narrative though, because now any victory of hers (538 give her a 80+% chance of winning and the early vote results support that) will be dismissed as a result of the early call distorting the vote. She's going to win, but I'm pretty sure this primary is not what she had wanted in the slightest. Now her future rests on the way she'll accomodate the Bernie voters.

Nah June 7th, 2016 6:11 AM

woo can finally fucking vote in the primaries

Besides New Jersey and California, what other states are voting today?

Esper June 7th, 2016 8:16 AM

I went and voted as soon as the polls opened at 7 AM today because I had to turn in my NPP (no party preference) mail vote (because it didn't include a presidental candidate option) and I was worried they might not have enough if I waited until later. The little old ladies running the thing were a little confused at first, but at least it got sorted out and I didn't end up with a provisional ballot, which I was worried might happen.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ivysaur (Post 9275356)
Well, actually 2.8 million votes have already been cast in California (Clinton is leading 56-44, by roughly 216,000 votes), where early voting is massive. That's over half the total votes recorded in the 2008 primary, and considering turnout has been dropping this year compared to last time, I don't think this call will affect the result that badly. Either there is a massive flood of millions of "Bernie or bust" voters created overnight or he's just going to win/lose by slightly more/less than otherwise (say, 100k votes one way or another).

It is going to affect the narrative though, because now any victory of hers (538 give her a 80+% chance of winning and the early vote results support that) will be dismissed as a result of the early call distorting the vote. She's going to win, but I'm pretty sure this primary is not what she had wanted in the slightest. Now her future rests on the way she'll accomodate the Bernie voters.

Maybe, but I'm seeing more Hillary bumper stickers and signs today than I've ever seen so I'm just going to have to wait and see how things turn out. There are a lot of vote by mail people here, yes, but there has also been a surge of voter registration so how it goes could be pretty lopsided depending.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nah (Post 9275687)
woo can finally ****ing vote in the primaries

Besides New Jersey and California, what other states are voting today?

Today it's California, New Jersey, Montana, New Mexico, South Dakota, and North Dakota (which is a caucus).

illumine June 7th, 2016 6:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Esper (Post 9265688)
A lot of it is thinly-veiled suggestions and insinuations such as when a judge, Gonzalo Curiel, ordered recently to have some documents unsealed (related to the Trump University controversy) and Trump has to mention at a rally that the judge is "Mexican" - the judge was born in Indiana, not Mexico - because he's, what, being thorough?

In general, other than their not doing much to discourage such things, their platform is generally speaking less about overall political ideas - the actual conservatives in the Party were generally left on the margins - than specific groups of people, so in general xenophobia there need not be a surprise. In any case, other than that they don't always necessarily dissociate ISIS from other 'Islamics,' they generally speaking can't usually refer merely to Muslims meaning ISIS members, as people known to be ISIS members are in any case something that the US had a problem with.

Quote:

Clinton may have more votes, but lots of people aren't going to forget how she got those votes with the help of the mainstream media who have been far and away Clinton supporters (if they're not Republicans) and hardly ever gave Sanders a fair shot. I mean, after every debate they said "Clinton won" regardless of how the debate went.
In general, that's quite a lot to advocate for a person voting on the apparently future President of the country. To actually get Sanders supporters somehow enthusiastic about such a campaign will probably turn into an even longer campaign of attacking Sanders supporters and Sanders by Clinton's in the hope that they will heel. By this amount of time trying to campaign against Sanders, and a no-holds barred approach to getting them away from the nomination, Clinton's campaign has likely ended up so conservative they might as well join whatever remains of the AFP.

Kanzler June 7th, 2016 7:52 PM

That's mainly due to the results from early voting, which generally skew towards Clinton as they have been for pretty much the entire primaries. My body is ready for a Clinton nomination, but I hope that Bernie Sanders will continue to fight as hard as he can for a more progressive agenda.

Hikamaru June 7th, 2016 9:04 PM

Looks like it'll be Trump vs. Clinton for this race for President. If it appears to be the case, I'll definitely be Team Clinton because I heard Trump getting elected would see the arrival of bad things to come, in fact even my home country of Australia (who coincidentally are having an election early next month) are worried about Trump.

Desert Stream~ June 7th, 2016 9:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hikamaru (Post 9276625)
Looks like it'll be Trump vs. Clinton for this race for President. If it appears to be the case, I'll definitely be Team Clinton because I heard Trump getting elected would see the arrival of bad things to come, in fact even my home country of Australia (who coincidentally are having an election early next month) are worried about Trump.

I've heard lot's of countries are, and I'm not suprised. I can't believe the citizens of America could let this happen :p

Esper June 8th, 2016 9:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by colours (Post 9276906)
It seems that today, it's painfully obvious that, from the impression that I've gotten from Sanders' speech, he'd rather see the world burn than to work with any sort of deal with Clinton. His tone has gotten increasingly hostile, as he continued on and on to attack the democratic establishment, and to an extent, Clinton. In his speech tonight (unless I've missed it), he didn't even bother attacking Trump. All he did was recycle the same "take the power away from the billionaire class, breaking big banks" etc etc.

So wanting to take away the power of the super rich and powerful means he wants to see the world burn? I don't get the logic of that. I'm still not seeing how he is being hostile. He's never been hostile. Fired up, yes, but never hostile. He opposes systems that are unfair, but can one honestly call that hostile when he's merely responding to a kind of hostility that has always been opposed to changing for the better?

Quote:

Originally Posted by colours (Post 9276906)
Bernie needs to realize something: in order to accomplish that, we need to actually work together. And I think that kind of thing went way over his head. Strong-arming the Democratic Party is not the right way to go about with things...there's a process to everything. I will give Bernie a lot of credit for his movement and inspiring millions of young voters (many for the first time) to come out to the polls to vote for him. What I am not proud of, however, is that these days, I feel that he is doing nothing but satiating his own ego.

Bernie is going through with the process which says that the nominee is chosen at the convention, not before. He is following the rules and he can stay in the race all he wants. There is no ego in this. It's about being the voice for all the people within the Democratic party who believe in the same things he does, as well as all the people who have come out to vote and participate in our democracy for the first time because they finally felt like there was someone who represented them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by colours (Post 9276906)
If Sanders was merely a candidate that was spreading a significant message and was moreso focused on calling attention to a particular cause, this action can be forgiven. After all, to call as much attention on your movement as possible, for the positive, seems like a good thing.

Well, then we can agree because Sanders is a candidate who has a cause and is sending a message: political revolution. Change how we do democracy in this country to make it fairer and more inclusive.

Quote:

Originally Posted by colours (Post 9276906)
However, he's not. He legitimately thinks he can win. He legitimately thinks he can flip over hundreds of superdelegates, somehow convince them to turn their backs on the millions of people who have voted more for Clinton than Sanders, all for the sake of "well I do better in general election polls than Clinton does vs Trump". Keep in mind that's his only argument. That's it. He cannot come up with any good reason why he cannot connect with Hispanic voters, he cannot come up with any good reason why he cannot connect with minority voters, or African-Americans, or people in his own age bracket. He cannot come up with any good reason why he's losing in the popular vote. His only reason for pleading with the superdelegates--a group in which he's been slamming on--is merely because of arbitrary polling.

Sanders himself won't say so because he's too polite, but one reason he's losing votes is because of election fraud. That aside, the mainstream media has been influencing people to vote for Clinton over him since the beginning. Both very undemocratic things.

Quote:

Originally Posted by colours (Post 9276906)
Meanwhile, while I watch Clinton's speech, I actually see someone that wants to work to fix the nation, to continue Obama's legacy, but at the same time, start her own legacy. She extends a hand over to Sanders and his supporters, she wants to focus on the general election and to call attention on how unqualified Trump is to be president. Her speech feels a lot more personal, a lot more human than Sanders, and a lot more people can relate with it. I truly think Clinton has finally found her narrative within the voters, and it's appealing to their emotions. Sure, Clinton won't rile up people and drive them nuts like Sanders did with his supporters and Obama before him, but Clinton has a different approach. Her approach is in sentimentalism, to establish feelings of sadness and happiness, and to inspire hope in her voters. To get them to look at reality for what it is, and what they can really achieve, and whats at stake, and to stress that out.

What I'm getting here is that Clinton threw a bunch of pasta at the wall and finally found what sticks. I don't see her as being more personal or human than even Trump. Sanders is real. He's not changed his tune over the years and pretended he's always been what he is. That more people don't see that's what Clinton is doing is a shame, but people will be people. Sanders is, I think, a better person to continue in Obama's footsteps because he wouldn't be content to follow them, but to step ahead of them and do more. Single payer healthcare instead of the imperfect Obamacare. That kind of thing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by colours (Post 9276906)
The point of Clinton's speech is that we can all work together to build a better nation. It'll take a lot of work, to the point where even a Clinton presidency won't be enough, but it'll at the very least be a step forward. Sanders, however, gives off the message that he wants to upend everything and start all over. Is that really the direction that we want to go into? I'm really not sure, at least not compared to continuing things the way they are and possibly improving upon it.

Why would you think Sanders wants to upend everything? What does he want to upend?

Quote:

Originally Posted by colours (Post 9276906)
What we need to keep in mind is that, if you really want to change the Democratic Party, you'll do so by electing the proper officials that closely aligns with the direction you want the party to go in. That's how the process works, and that's how the process has always worked.

You change the Democratic Party (or any party) by making it easier for anyone to run for any office. You make it easier for people to vote. Right now the game is stacked against outsiders. That's how the process works, but it's not fair and it's not democratic. It has to be changed.

Kanzler June 8th, 2016 12:52 PM

ITT: not acknowledging someone's victory and not stopping a crowd from booing = having a hostile tone

So much shade on Sanders. It all boils down to perception and you can't really convince someone who's already convinced to take a different perception, but what I can say is that phrases like "abysmal", "senile and desparate" and "a shell of his former self" present the least charitable picture possible. Not objective or balanced in the least, but I'm not saying that you're claiming to be. ("Senile" seriously?)

Bernie Sanders should absolutely continue to take the fight to the convention and past the convention. Regardless of what happens, the progressive agenda for more democracy, income equality, and equal rights should continue to be fought for. Party unity in this country is a two-way street. This isn't some kind of democratic centralism that when the top makes a decision, everybody else follows lock-step. The DNC is in six weeks, and the election is in five months so can we please chill about party unity for the next six weeks (if even)?

Quote:

"I think that's his call. It's clear we know who the nominee is going to be. I think we should be a little graceful and give him the opportunity to decide on his own."
Thank you Joe Biden.

Esper June 8th, 2016 1:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by colours (Post 9277524)
Yes, the nominee is chosen at the convention, but be honest: is there any practical reason why Sanders would stay in the race at his point?

We all know the likelihood of Sanders getting the nomination, but just because it's almost impossible doesn't mean that there aren't still benefits to him staying it. By still being in the race he gets attention. I wish it was better attention and focused more on his proposals and positions, but it's better than nothing. If Sanders were to drop out then there would be no voice in the media advocating for all the things that Sanders advocates for and Clinton doesn't. The media would reduce it down to Clinton being the standard bearer of the left/liberal/progressive/Democrat side of the country. She's not. She has a lot of supporters, but she doesn't speak for everyone.

Quote:

Originally Posted by colours (Post 9277524)
This is an interesting point. Interesting because a lot of those who support Sanders claim election fraud when Clinton wins a state in either an open or closed primary, but when Sanders wins in caucus states (where there's lower turnout, contrary to what Sanders keeps saying about him winning when there's higher turnout), it's a fair-and-square beat down? Please don't use this excuse; it's already been debunked that the system is not "rigged" against Sanders, he lost fair and square.

A system that makes it harder to vote when it could make it easier to vote is rigged by my definition. Sketchy digital voting machines whose accuracy we can't check are another. The media bias is yet another. People's party registration being mysteriously changed is one more. I could go on. All this together has rigged the primary. That doesn't mean everyone was colluding, that Clinton was masterminding anything, but she's the beneficiary and Sanders (and anyone like him who might have wanted to run but couldn't) are the victims. I'm with you on the caucuses - I don't think they're fair or democratic. It should be a straight up vote like on the real election day. And it should be open to anyone. That way it can be fair. If Clinton had won under these kinds of conditions I'd have no gripes about it. That's not what I see happening this time so I'm griping. And the thing Sanders and his surrogates are doing now, talking about the superdelegates? Not something I'd like to see ideally. Superdelegates shouldn't be deciding things. But it's the excuse for him to stay in the race so I don't mind. It's not going to happen unless Clinton dies or gets arrested or something highly improbable like that. But on the slimmest chance it does happen then it will be important that Sanders stayed in the race until the end.

Ivysaur June 8th, 2016 2:36 PM

I want to clarify one point: in the Nevada fiasco, he was denied 56 state delegates (out of a total of 3,300 meeting), which arguably cost him between one and two delegates to the national convention, meaning he ended up with only 43% of the total delegates in a state where he obtained 47% of the vote. Raucus and disruptive it was, you can hardly say it was meaningful in any way when it comes to his total numbers. And that was the only recorded case of him losing any delegates along the way. And Nevada's caucuses are legendarily disastrous- his supporters were originally planning to take advantage of some obscure rules to do a similar thing to Clinton in return. Whatever the case, you can hardly say that is a proof of widespread corruption.

And yes, the registration issues are matters of the states (my best friend couldn't vote because Texas mandates voters to be registrated at least with a month in advance), and either the rules have been there for years (so you could have prepared with months to go) or are matters of the actual State Government, not of the Democratic party in particular.

RegalSin June 8th, 2016 5:01 PM

Hillary is a supremacist and it has been confirmed. The primaries does not judge who will be elected. The only choice is Bernie Sanders in all of this. He is neither racist, supremacist, feminist, warmonger, or have already made fatal decisions. For the love of god....Rodham ( Hillary ) supported both Iraq and Afghanistan.

To vote for her is like voting for crap.

Trump on purposely is trying to make you forget what the words " I want my nation/county back" or " Make America Great again". That means to end the war, get rid of anti-privacy ( net neutrality ), remove visas, and close Cuba bay. Bush II signed away our rights with the patriot act ( unless your too stupid to understand that ).

The world is basically a morphed version of the book/movie "1984". It is that terrible.

Only reason I do not like Obama is for the HRA/Obamacare and the fact he took away usage of financial aide. HRA fined me twice for no insurance and keeps getting bigger. My cousin got his financial aide taken away because he messed up in classes that are no longer covered. Obama wants people to get medicaid/foodstamps/public assistance/welfare and anything else. Not just non-Europeans but all Americans as well. Why? To control people more easy when they sign that dotted line.

Obama also help screwed up laws with privacy. While Bush II signed the primary act what continued after that is more bs. President Obama ( while not so bad ) is more of a Manchurian candidate then Bush. While Bush is more stupid in his actions with Iraq and Afganistan Hillary is the devil.

Hillary is a devil puppet and to choose her over Sanders is just plain stupid.

Murmansk June 8th, 2016 5:40 PM

I for one find my interest more in line with Trump so I'll be voting for him, which isn't usually my cup of tea but it's the best shot at having the dire straits the US is in stabilize.

Entermaid June 8th, 2016 10:20 PM

A few thoughts and frustrations with the Democratic Primary:

1. Being descriptively "female" and progressing gender representation are different.

Clinton supported defining marriage as an important institution between "one man and one woman" since the 1990's. Though this is apparently homophobic, this enduring stance and advocacy demonstrates her lack of understanding with regard to the social construction of the gender and sex binary. Those who are not "biologically male" or "biologically female" as defined by genitals are somehow not deserving of rights, let alone any recognition.

Also, during the Clinton Administration, Hillary supported most healthcare coverage, with the exception of transgender healthcare services. In 2001 (during an HRC published interview) Clinton had this to say on this topic, "I have not been told that transgender issue is a concern by my gay and lesbian friends."

In response HRC responded in 2008:

Quote:
"How would that statement have been taken if she said “I’m unaware of African American issues as no one from the Anti-Defamation League has approached me on this”? Or “I don’t know Latino issues as no one from the NAACP were concerned about it”? I’d venture it would cause a stir. Why would it never occur to the Senator to go to the community directly on what our issues were, or the difficulties on housing, employment, health care, etc?"

"Later Clinton was posed a question from New York trans activist Melissa Sklarz on transgender inclusion in ENDA (Employment Non Discrimination Act). Sen. Clinton replied by saying that she supported gender identity inclusion in principle, but that she misgivings about supporting a bill that would place transitioned transgenders in “positions of responsibility”. Improvement? Sure. But is she a solid supporter of transgender employment? No."

Not to mention, please do not straightsplain to me how Clinton was championing LGBT rights by blocking a constitutional amendment as Clinton has done during this campaign; why then was it necessary to invoke homophobic (including gay women) and transphobic speech throughout her decades in the political arena? Clinton supported monotheistic, homophobic, polyphobic, and tranphobic policy which had real policy and public attitudinal impacts that have negatively impacted me and millions of others. If Clinton has made strides toward progress (most of which are recent and moderate) do not IGNORE who these actions impacted and continuing impact the other.

For more on religious zealousness, aside from anti-LGTBQ stances, checkout Clinton's complete disregard to the establishment clause when expressing her "offense" to an appellate court decision. The court claimed that the Pledge of Allegiance cannot include "under God" since it violates the Establishment Clause. In response, Clinton made a value-loaded polemic against secularism which infringes upon freedom FROM monotheistic religion which undergirds numerous policies (many of which suppress women and LGBTQ people.) Defending Christian hegemony is not defending women's rights nor religious freedom.

Let's also not forget that despite advocating for closing the gender pay gap, the Clinton Foundation has underpaid female employees over 30% less than their male counterparts (which is worse than the national average). Let's not also forget how gendered institutions, including the white-male-dominated institution Wall Street, financed the Clinton campaign, and thus provide an indication as why Clinton is beholden to white-male hegemony -- which is antithetical to both gender and racial equity. [85%+ of Wall Street Execs including Goldman Sachs are "white" and more than 75% are "male".] To those who blindly defend capitalism and corporate lobbying and campaign finance as expressions of democracy, let this number sink in: .8% of the Fortune 500 CEO's are black men, 5% are women, .0% are black women -- how representative those campaign commitments must be.

Not to mention the inconsistencies with Clinton stance on destigmatizing rape and sexual assault in her experience as a defense attorney 1975 and in defending Bill Clinton and silencing/stigmatizing rather than standing with his rape victims. Of course, one may interject that these rape claims are false. Then again, an estimated 5% (2%-8%) of rape allegations are false according to the FBI. Odds are, of the several alleged victims who have come forth AT LEAST some of the nearly dozen (if not all) of the allegations are genuine. Is it progressive to stigmatize and/or ignore sexual assault victims by powerful white men???

2. Clinton is racist and xenophobic

Clinton has supported the carceral state through pushing the 1994 racist crime bill and racialized crime rhetoric of the "super-predator" (the impacts were disproportionately black incarceration rates, harsher sentencing, fewer rights after release, and more racial profiling), advocating for TANF (decimated welfare, disproportionate benefits to whites vs blacks), advocating and lobbying for the repeal of Glass Steagall [which disproportionately impacted black citizens], exercising acts of war through supporting the invasion of Iraq and Libya other hawkish foreign policy while at the same time accepting money from oppressive dictatorships like Saudi Arabia. Where is the supposed consistent system of values?

As a tribal member, Clinton has been silent and downright ignorant toward the goal of preserving autonomous Tribal Governments. Recently, Clinton had this to say about her experience with Native Americans, "I have a lot of experience dealing with men who sometimes get off the reservation in the way they behave and how they speak." Is casual racism progressive now?!?! Let's throw another PC-time joke in the mix then or ridicule and ignore Black Lives Matter activists. Though Trump is explicitly racist and has made EXPLICIT commitments consistent with his racism/xenophobia against Latinos, Muslims (and Muslim-Americans), and Native Americans, Black Americans it does not mean that Clinton is not also a racist and xenophobe. The same applies to gender.

3. Evolved? More like, Clinton and the core of the DNC ARE the "super-predators" with "no conscious, no empathy". When is the apology coming, or is instituting racialized mass incarceration now just a mere political gaffe?

You can make an argument that Clinton has "evolved" in order to compete against Sanders, but do not try to straightsplain, whitesplain, Christiansplain, or cisplain to me and the othered who do not support Clinton's oppressive policy record, as a GENUINE step toward progress without providing an accurate and detailed deconstruction of Clinton's record, its value system, implications, and why it has changed as the vocal minority has! Do not pretend i Clinton's record does not exist or that it does not matter to those who CONTINUE to suffer the implications of past REGRESSIVE policy, language, and advocacy.

Rather, allow those who do the inter-subjective race and identity research and activism, as well as the the voices of the other in which this research highlights, to express their legitimate claims to oppression against hegemonic in-group ideology [i.e. Black Lives Matter and Critical Race Theorists].

The critique against Sanders' campaign as not taking a more progressive stance, for instance reparations, is more than LEGITIMATE!!! However, it is much easier to identify stances AGAINST the other that Clinton has taken. The DNC (and obviously the GOP!!!) have worked against, spoken for, defined, moderated, and controlled the identity and voices of the other since its inception.

If Clinton's (and the DNC's) policy evolution is "rooted in the same system of values" why do we never hear a philosophical account as to how this transformation took root specifically other than public opinion or arguments akin to "it was a different time"? Being progressive means taking unpopular positions, and yes, sometimes undemocratic action in order to represent the other such as supporting reparations.

Clearly the only value that is consistent with both Clintons' careers is political expediency through utilizing mass public opinion with respect to a specific political context, including a Sanders' presidential bid. Actual progress is achieved through relinquishing power to the other rather than agenda-setting what a "black", "LGBT", or "women's" interest are without actually identifying the root cause -- the in-group ideology which are the white racial frame, male chauvinism, heteronormativity, sex-binary, monotheism (more specifically christian judeo-values) which undergirds our political, historical, and legal norms and policies.

With that said, many Bernie supporters are ignorant on topics of race, gender, ethnicity, and sexuality -- Bernie has also assumed some positions which are seemingly identity-neutral, but at least he is not engaging in the business of controlling and oppressing identity as both the republican and democratic bases have done for decades -- being "better" than the republican does not exclude you from being a party to oppression. [ i.e. stabbing someone in the leg instead of the heart is still an act of stabbing.]

By claiming progress based on sex as a descriptive trait of a candidate rather than identifying how gender identity has been represented through a clear and consistent action, philosophy, and language you are disservicing those of us who do not want to follow the set of politically and socially constructed norms by those with power. Politically constructing identity and interests of the other through agenda-setting philosophically inept "pragmatism", rather than genuine revolutionary change, sustains norms that suppress individuality and genuine freedom of expression of the other in the political process. A record marred by gendered and racialized oppression indicates how Clinton's white, monotheistic, and 1-percenter identity are actually politically salient to exercises of power -- not gender identity.

In voting "Clinton", I will be voting AGAINST Trump, not for genuine gender, racial, and secular progressivism unfortunately. Sander's record is more demonstrative of progress especially with respect to his long held support of LGB (AND EVEN T), anti-racist, secularized, and anti white-male wall-street policy advocacy and rhetoric. Though Sanders' campaign has a MORE progressive and revolutionary stance than any competitive presidential candidate, that is not saying much given a history of US political oppression. In the future I hope we see exponentially more progressive candidates perform well. Since I cannot vote for a Republican without excessively harming myself and others, I am a captured voter of the DNC in order to avoid said harm of the GOP. I assume many others are as well. Do not Hillaryspain or DNC'splain to me or others who have criticized Clinton's lack of progression with regard to identity politics.

PS - For those of you using "[blank]spain" be mindful as to how you may also be engaging in that very process of suppressing the other who have legitimate political criticisms.

Kanzler June 9th, 2016 11:19 AM

Quote:

captured voter of the DNC in order to avoid said harm of the GOP
There we go. That's the word I've been looking for.

Netto Azure June 9th, 2016 11:21 AM

Personally I am quite happy with Clinton as the nominee. I do agree, she has the experience and is highly qualified for the job.

Still, while there is a slight resentment over Sanders not getting the nomination, the fact that Sanders was able to fight Clinton for almost half of the pledged delegates with a more or less repeat of the 2008 battle between Clinton and Obama with a much more forceful Center-left platform really did brought to a head the unrest within the Democratic party base. While many folks are quite grateful for Obama's presidency, there is a disappointment in the way he basically bent over backwards trying to accommodate the Republicans and FIRE (Finance, Insurance and Real Estate) industries. Which manifested in the long-shot Sanders campaign being highly successful in fighting the Clinton campaign. I still do believe that Sanders should continue this all the way to the convention. No one mentions how Hillary also did so in 2008.

I won't be cynical in thinking that "the elites" won't take notice as to how close this primary was, but in the end this has been a much milder primary compared to 2008. Just look at the PUMA's and the release of photos of Obama in foreign garb back then. It got quite ugly.

Anyway, on the other hand, I do not like the fact that some are taking this quite bitterly. Our landlord for one called Sanders supporters "traitors" as if that would court an integral part of the Democratic party's activist wing. While I do believe that a majority will unite behind Clinton (Just stopping Trump notwithstanding) the sniping and name-calling isn't doing the Clinton campaign any favors.

Entermaid June 9th, 2016 11:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by colours (Post 9278942)
How disappointing, really, that some people are so cynical and hateful of Clinton.



The hateful vitriol and the Bernie or Bust movement isn't helping, either. But that's on the fault moreso of Sanders, I believe, for reasons I already wrote an essay about in my previous post.

Why not critique leaders who have done so much harm? By cynical do you mean unfounded or not submissive?

I will never stop fighting against oppression of myself and others - period. The "hate" and "fear" of the other is why I am expressing my concern personally -- please do not silence or trivialize my voice please. If you would like, examine the actual quotes of hate speech and white/christian/cisgender/sexist/heteronormative policy I presented rather than dismissing genuine criticism.

Also many people are voting against Trump, but democracy is more than a vote. Active participation requires one be knowledgeable about policy implications rather than DEFENDING and LEGITIMIZING acts of hate by ignoring or justifying them.

I will not conform my political philosophy if that means giving up hope of dismantling in-group hegemony. In voting Clinton, it is IMPORTANT to those who have been harmed by a extensive political career that I continue to make Clinton accountable for these actions and still EXISTING consequences for many of us.

Entermaid June 9th, 2016 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by colours (Post 9278968)
Would appreciate it if you weren't to react in such a hostile way, because my comment wasn't specifically directed towards you.

Also, please do not claim I am "trivializing" or "silencing" concerns. I am expressing my own viewpoints, and that it is disappointing that so much vitriol is spread. That is all.

Yes, but you specifically sidelined concerns by stating that criticism is cynical, as if it is not real. I do not care if you are speaking to me or someone else you were microaggressing and trivializing real concern. I am intolerant of intolerance; I am outspoken against bigotry and those who are silencing the other. You can express your own view point but I have the right to state and provide reason why it produces harm.

Kanzler June 9th, 2016 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Netto Azure (Post 9278938)
I won't be cynical in thinking that "the elites" won't take notice as to how close this primary was, but in the end this has been a much milder primary compared to 2008. Just look at the PUMA's and the release of photos of Obama in foreign garb back then. It got quite ugly.

It's 2016. You can't get away with shit like that anymore. I don't think it reflects the mildness of the race as much as the times we live in.

Both Sanders and The Dark Avenger are "hostile"? Man that's a new one for me. Down with establishment politics.

Nah June 9th, 2016 12:43 PM

....would everyone please mind calming down a bit? I understand that the 2016 US presidential race and its 3 main candidates are stuff that people feel strongly about, and I think I get why people feel as strongly as they do, but people are starting to get like low-key nasty towards each other in this thread with all the assumptions and the heavy language being used and whatnot. It's kind of stifling any real discussion.



Something I wanted to talk about was what is Bernie Sanders going to from here on out? Barring some crazy shit from now till they officially announce the Democratic candidate, he's lost. So how is he going to spend the next how many ever weeks until they officially declare one of them the one? What is he going to do after that?

Maybe it's obvious enough that no one's felt the need to say, but Donald Trump becoming the next President of the United States is a very real possibility. And if anyone wants to prevent that, the only viable option at this point is, at least after the convention, for Clinton and Sanders to unite in some fashion. Splitting the Democratic voting base will give Trump an easy win in November, yes?

Nah June 9th, 2016 1:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by colours (Post 9279024)
To be truthful, yes. However, Trump might not win so easily as people may think: With the recent controversy of the whole "him denouncing a judge because he's mexican" thing and another one because they were Muslim (someone correct me if I'm wrong on that), I think voters and especially more moderate republicans would start to drift away from Trump and probably just sit home or vote Clinton.

It's worth it to keep in mind that Hispanics are quite the sizable part of the voting population, so if Trump keeps going with his racist rhetoric, it's only a matter of time until he loses the general election before it evens starts, mostly because of Florida (and we have a lot of Hispanics, here).

I dunno, I'm not that sure. For the entire race so far, people have always been saying that Trump won't really make and that he'll eventually lose, there's no way someone like him could really get elected. And yet he's made it this far, and is the only Republican candidate left, even though I doubt that most non-Trump supporters would've thought so at first. If his racism, inflammatory/controversial statements, and everything else people don't like about Trump are gonna be the death of him in the general election, I would think that he would've sunk a while ago and not cleanly beat out the other Republican candidates in the majority of states in the primaries, instead of losing late in the game.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Murmansk (Post 9277938)
I for one find my interest more in line with Trump so I'll be voting for him, which isn't usually my cup of tea but it's the best shot at having the dire straits the US is in stabilize.

Oh yeah, I was hoping that you could elaborate? Trump supporters are a bit of a rarity in this thread and it'd be interesting at least to hear someone (who's not your stereotypical right-wing nut) explain why they think that Trump is the US's best option of the 3 right now.

Kanzler June 9th, 2016 1:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by colours (Post 9278991)
You know, it's kind of interesting how I've explained my reasoning in as much of a respectful way as I can and yet I get met with patronizing and sarcastic comments, as if they're making light of my thoughts.

I thought we're supposed to be open-minded and respectful for each other's opinions here? I sincerely apologize if that's not the case and we've turned to snippy comments and throwing shade.

It seems apparent that you've ignored my entire reasoning for viewing Sanders as I do, and in that case, so be it.

Sanders didn't do what you expected him to do, thus he is egotistical, abysmal, senile, crass, aggressive. He filled his supporters with vitriol, tells them to hate the Democratic Party and is personally responsible for the Bernie or Bust movement. Also, he's just a message candidate.

Is that what you call reasoning or is that a hyperbolic level of spin?

If you already couldn't tell, I don't have much appreciation for your reasoning, when all it considers are the instances of his personal opposition to Clinton (and exaggerated at that), projects the bad behaviour of his most diehard supporters to the man himself, and ignores his message (that you supposedly liked) completely.

But you know what? I don't think my criticism of your reasoning means anything. Let people make up their own minds. This is what you said about his speech:

Spoiler:
Quote:

It seems that today, it's painfully obvious that, from the impression that I've gotten from Sanders' speech, he'd rather see the world burn than to work with any sort of deal with Clinton. His tone has gotten increasingly hostile, as he continued on and on to attack the democratic establishment, and to an extent, Clinton. In his speech tonight (unless I've missed it), he didn't even bother attacking Trump. All he did was recycle the same "take the power away from the billionaire class, breaking big banks" etc etc.


This is what Bernie Sanders said in his speech:
Spoiler:
Quote:

Thank you. Thank you, LA! Thank you all.

Thank you. Let me … Let me thank … Let me thank … Let me thank [laughs].

Let me thank all of you for being here tonight. And let me thank all of you for being part of the political revolution. I especially want to thank the tens of thousands of volunteers here in the state of California. And I want to thank the people of California for their incredible hospitality. It has been one of the most moving moments of my life to be out throughout this state in beautiful evenings and seeing thousands and thousands of people coming out. People who are prepared to stand up and fight for real change in this country.

All of you know, all of you know, that when we began this campaign a little over a year ago we were considered to be a fringe campaign. But over the last year, I think that has changed, just a little bit. By the end of tonight, we’ll have won, I believe 22 state primaries and caucuses. We will have received well over 10 million votes. And what is most extraordinary to me is that in virtually every single state, we have won in big numbers, the votes of young people. Young people understand that they are the future of America, and they intend to help shape that future. And I am enormously optimistic about the future of our country when so many young people have come on board and understand that our vision, a vision of social justice, economic justice, racial justice, and environmental justice, must be the future of America. Our vision will be the future of America.

Our campaign from Day 1 has understood some very basic points, and that is first, we will not allow right-wing Republicans to control our government. And that is especially true with Donald Trump as the Republican candidate. The American people in my view will never support a candidate whose major theme is bigotry. Who insults Mexicans, who insults Muslims and women and African Americans. We will not allow Donald Trump to become president of the United States.

But we understand that our mission is more than just defeating Trump, it is transforming our country. The vast majority of the American people know that it is not acceptable that the top tenth of 1 percent owns as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent; we’re going to change that. And when millions of Americans are working longer hours for lower wages, we will not allow 57 percent of all new income to go to the top 1 percent. And we will end a corrupt campaign finance system.

Democracy is not about billionaires buying elections. And we will end a broken criminal justice system. And we will break up the major banks on Wall Street. And we will join the rest of the industrialized world and guarantee health care to all people as a right. And we will bring about real immigration reform and a path toward citizenship. And we will tell the billionaire class and corporate America that they will start paying their fair share of taxes. And what we understand, and what every one of us has always understood, is that real change never occurs from the top on down, always from the bottom on up.

That is the history of America, whether it is the creation of the trade union movement, the civil rights movement, the women’s movement, the gay movement. And that is what OUR movement is about.

But you all know it is more than Bernie. It is all of us together. It is what this movement is about. Is millions of people from coast to coast standing up and looking around them and knowing that we can do much, much better as a nation. That whether Wall Street likes it, whether corporate America likes it, whether wealthy campaign contributors like it, whether the corporate media likes it, we, together, together we know what our job is. And that is to bring the American people together to create a government that works for us, not the 1 percent.

Next Tuesday, we continue the fight in the last primary in Washington, D.C. We are going, we are going, we are going to fight hard, we are going to fight hard to win the primary in Washington, D.C. And then we take our fight for social, economic, racial, and environmental justice to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania!

I am pretty good at arithmetic, and I know that the fight in front of us is a very, very steep fight, but we will continue to fight for every vote and every delegate we can get. Tonight I had a very kind call from President Obama and I look forward to working with him to ensure that we move this country forward. And tonight, I had a very gracious call from Secretary Clinton and congratulated her on her victories tonight. Our fight is to transform our country and to understand that we are in this together. To understand that all of what we believe is what the majority of the American people believe. And to understand that the struggle continues.

I want to thank the people of North Dakota. It appears that we will likely win Montana as well. I don’t think anybody knows where we’ll end up in California, but I suspect the gap will significantly diminish. And if this campaign has proven anything, it has proven that millions of Americans who love this country are prepared to stand up and fight to make this country a much better place.

Thank you all, the struggle continues.


So apparently that is Sanders "rather [seeing] the world burn than to work with any sort of deal with Clinton", an "increasingly hostile tone". Also "And tonight, I had a very gracious call from Secretary Clinton and congratulated her on her victories tonight." is continuing to attack, "to an extent", Clinton. Also:

Quote:

Our campaign from Day 1 has understood some very basic points, and that is first, we will not allow right-wing Republicans to control our government. And that is especially true with Donald Trump as the Republican candidate. The American people in my view will never support a candidate whose major theme is bigotry. Who insults Mexicans, who insults Muslims and women and African Americans. We will not allow Donald Trump to become president of the United States.
is apparently not bothering to attack Donald Trump. Yes, you missed it.

To echo The Dark Avenger, yes, you are marginalizing the issues that Bernie Sanders and many Americans find important when "[recycling] the same "take the power away from the billionaire class, breaking big banks" is all you make of his speech that night. I don't know if you mean what you say, but those words do not strike me as coming from someone who cares deeply about campaign finance, income and wealth inequality, a broken criminal justice system, and healthcare for all.

Or maybe you do care deeply and don't really see the point of Bernie Sanders' candidacy when Hillary Clinton has fulfilled all those things sufficiently already. If so, I must extend my congratulations to the Clinton campaign, because their strategy to sideline Sanders by co-opting his positions and rhetoric worked.

Being respectful doesn't give what you have to say any weight - using reasoning and being objective does. Obviously, it's not a crime to be subjective about some things, but you've strayed from passionate into hyperbolic rhetoric. To the point that I think that most people will look at Sanders' speech and what you said about his speech, and wonder if you were really talking about his speech or something else.

I think your arguments are heavily biased (the rhetoric betrays that) and you never really address that. Your posts are ranty (as you readily admit), but you don't really seem interested in having "any real discussion" when you say something like:

Quote:

You are free to believe and have your opinions in regardles to Clinton in the very same fashion I am free to have my viewpoints and and expression in regards to her. You believe (according to your paragraphs) that she's a bigot, racist, and xenophobic (a notion in which I heavily disagree with) and I believe otherwise. It's as simple as that.
You state that you're being respectful, but it doesn't really matter whether I or anyone else believes that because it doesn't make what you have to say any clearer or any easier to engage with. I would much rather dissect reasoning and play with more objective arguments than parse whether someone's tone is hostile or aggressive.

The bottom line for me vs. you is give Bernie Sanders a damn break - the President's done it, the Vice-President's done it, Hillary Clinton doesn't need to do it and I'm totally fine with that - because he's made it this far as a non-establishment candidate and because we might as well afford Sanders the same treatment we gave Clinton in 2008. That, and I think it's unrealistic for you to expect for him to shower Clinton with the praise and good vibes you think she deserves because Sanders has a strong message, has stayed ever true to that message, and is respected by people of all political stripes by his integrity and honesty. You can't have it both ways. It wouldn't be true to his nature, and more importantly to you and Clinton, the people that support him won't buy it (and like you've said, you want their support). But I've already made that argument before.

Kanzler June 9th, 2016 4:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by colours (Post 9279092)
He was a message candidate at first, and that's what he ran mostly as, to spread the message of political revolution. If you don't agree with that reasoning, that is completely fine. That is how I see it.

My point is that he's more than just a message candidate, you might or might not disagree with that. I take him at his word when he talks about changing American politics and economy. If you think he's just a message candidate, and he wasn't serious about change, then that means you don't take him at his word and I would consider that unreasonably uncharitable. If you think he's more than just a message candidate, then we have no disagreement.

But you haven't addressed the hyperbolic rhetoric that I gave a few examples of there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by colours (Post 9279092)
I'm not really sure I understand where you're going with this. If you do not like my reasoning, that is fine. We're free to have our differences in that regard.

The point is that your posts are less reasoning and more rhetoric. There's a lot of bias, and a lot of spin. You say you like his message, but don't talk about it in your posts. You project the bad behaviour of the Bernie or Bust people onto him, which isn't fair. I don't think anybody should be responsible for the actions of people they have no control over. And your posts lately have been focusing on his opposition to Clinton and demonizing that, while not addressing how those actions can improve the likelihood that a more progressive platform can be produced (which Clinton now apparently espouses). It's not just a matter of having personal differences: these examples constitute a high level of bias that makes for poor reasoning.

Quote:

Originally Posted by colours (Post 9279092)
Way to ignore a large part of what I posted? He became aggressive and hostile over a period of time. Obviously you're not going to see Sanders slam Clinton outright because that'd be a stupid thing to do. However,

This is what Clinton said in her speech (I can't find any actual version of it online so here's the video):



Do you see the difference? Do you see how Clinton attempts to reach out her hand to Sanders' own supporters (and Sanders himself), and all Clinton got back was "congratulations".

That's why I feel you're missing the bigger picture, here. I ultimately feel that Sanders is not working with Clinton but working against Trump, which is really troubling.

Well, obviously, because he hasn't drop out of the race yet. As long as he's still in the race, Sanders will be, in a very significant way, not be working with Clinton. He's been working against Trump however, and he's always been working against Trump just like how Clinton has always been working against Trump.

Now should Sanders be working with Clinton right now? You clearly want it to be so. But you cannot reasonably expect for him to work with Clinton to the extent you desire and still be in the race at the same time. They are mutually exclusive. If he's out of the race and he's attacking Hillary Clinton when he committed to support her, that's a different story. But it's simply illogical to expect him to act like he's behind her when, at first glance, he's still running against her.

If you think it's inappropriate for him to stay in the race, consider that Clinton stayed in the race in 2008 until the final primary. That's just a week away. Joe Biden is totally cool with Sanders staying in the race, treating it as a personal decision.

But anyways, I just don't see how you could characterize him as aggressive and hostile. He's as chilled out as a candidate can be. The "vitriol" in this race is not close to what happened in 2008, ask Netto Azure if you don't believe me. And you have to take into account that Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton are a lot more different than Obama and Clinton in 2008. It's in Clinton's interest to be conciliatory to Obama back in 2008 because a) she gets a great appointment which b) sets her up for 2016, and c) she doesn't lose much if she concedes in rhetoric when they are so similar in stance to begin with. Sanders on the other hand, isn't interested in 2020 or 2024 and would have much to lose policy-wise if he conceded early and couldn't exert as much influence on the Democratic party. He's bringing something new to the table, he's not redundant to the extent that Clinton/Obama were in 2008.

Also Sanders' "attacks" on Clinton aren't especially aggressive, they're unsavoury truths. She is close to the financial industry, she does have a reputation as a war hawk, and she was for many policies she now opposes for much of her political career. I don't think I'm being aggressive just for stating facts. It seems like the only way for Sanders to not be aggressive is to simply not mention these unfortunate truths. And he still didn't talk about those damn e-mails. What would any other politician have done? It's definitely nowhere close to:

Quote:

She'll say anything, and change nothing.
So that's why I think it's unreasonable for you to describe Sanders as being aggressive. 1) He doesn't exactly pursue these aggressive lines of argument (although he does address them) which makes "aggressive" and "hostile" not exactly accurate, 2) he's still in the race and we should expect him to act like he's still in the race, 3) he deserves to be in the race as much as Clinton did at this point in the contest back in 2008.

Quote:

Originally Posted by colours (Post 9279092)
Interesting. I'm marginalizing what Bernie Sanders and many Americans find important while I'm supporting the candidate that finds those very same issues important as well. Hm.

Also - re: "take the power away from the billionaire class/breaking big banks"

Is that or is that not roughly half of the speech that you posted?

You support Hillary Clinton and you think she finds the very same issues important. That's not my point - my point is that when Sanders is stumping the same speech he's had since day one and what you get out of it is "recycling the same", that sounds like making light of what he has to say, that sounds like marginalization. I'm not crucifying you for saying the word "recycling", but it's simply not a word that evokes appreciation for the same etc.

Quote:

Originally Posted by colours (Post 9279092)
Oh I do see the point of it. If you want to colour my posts with disregard, that's your prerogative.

It doesn't change the fact the Clinton has tried to outflank Sanders on the left from the right - saying look, I'm just as interested and will go as far as Sanders while not actually going the distance. You don't have much to say about Sanders ideas, and you characterize Clinton as being just as invested and shown just as much integrity about those issues, which goes to show that their message is successful. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Quote:

Originally Posted by colours (Post 9279092)
Being patronizing and condescending (as you have been throughout most of this thread) does not give what you have to say any weight either, and you've not been very objective yourself. Obviously, I will have a different interpretation of his speech than you do, and that's fine! If you feel that his speech was heartwarming and striking, then I'm not going to chide you for it. It's just that I feel differently and that the Bernie Sanders that I once knew, promising a peaceful revolution is no longer the Bernie Sanders that I see recently.

I admit that I've been a bit condescending, but I hope that you'd look past my sass and understand my reasoning. I've given you reason after reason why I think your recent posts have been unobjective, excessively biased, and as a result poorly reasoned. You've been dodging my critique, of which I make mention in this very post. You claim that I haven't been very objective myself, so provide me with examples and reasoning. I've done the same for you, it's only fair for me to expect the same. Those kinds of claims ought to be supported.

Quote:

Originally Posted by colours (Post 9279092)
I'm not going to address your other points, because they're, bluntly speaking, and with all due respect, ridiculous. In a presidential nomination, it's hard not to be biased to some degree. Of course I'm biased towards Clinton, but that doesn't mean I'm turning a blind eye to what Sanders has to say. I like the guy, and in the beginning, despite being strongly for Clinton, I was very interested in what Sanders had to say and what his points and positions were. When Clinton lost some states yeah, I was disappointed, but I was proud for Sanders because he pushed his vision forward, and people resonated with it. However, recently, I do not see that to be the case anymore. Again, with 51 percent of Sanders supporters having an unfavorable view of her, and with Sanders absolutely refusing to (or just flat out not doing it) connect with Clinton in the same way that she's been trying to connect with his supporters, then yes, I will see him as stubborn, obstinate, and egotistical. If he cared about defeating Donald Trump, then I believe he should've concede a long time ago and put forth a lot more effort into unifying the Democratic Party so that Clinton would've had a chance against Trump.

I hope you realize that my point was never against you being biased to some degree, because we're all biased to some degree and that's perfectly fine. I've said it before, and I've said it again: it's excessive and unchecked bias that ruffles my feathers - excessive given your choice of vocabulary vs. Sanders that is, well, extreme, and unchecked given that you don't address my points, some of which I delineate quite clearly with an a), b), and c).

Can you point to an instance where Sanders "absolutely [refuses] to (or just flat out not doing it) connect with Clinton"? Because there's this:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/09/politics/bernie-sanders-washington/

Which is pretty representative of what he's been saying the entire campaign. I don't know where you get your information from concerning Sanders, but I've watched all of the debates and many of his speeches and he says "the Secretary and I agree" and things of that sort over and over so I'm just very surprised when you call him aggressive and obstinate. And especially egotistical - because "not me. us." is a very prominent theme and he talks so much about the political revolution/movement which is decidedly not an egotistical thing to do. I just don't think it's reasonable for you to consider all of this, but then call Sanders egotistical because he's still in the race. Staying in the race doesn't make anybody egotistical, especially when that person has vowed to support the eventual candidate, vowed to fight against Trump, vowed to continue fighting for populist values and principles, etc etc.

And I've mentioned this in a previous thread, but unifying a party is more than just conceding and expressing support for that candidate. It involves setting an agenda that is inclusive of the disparate constituencies of the party. I could easily make the argument (and I already have) that Sanders, by staying in the race, is doing much more to unify the party because he'll be better able to convince the DNC to adopt the policies that will ensure the support of his supporters. If he conceded early and didn't have as much influence over policy (which let's be real is what were concerned with), and the agenda set at the DNC isn't convincing to his supporters, do you expect them to follow Sanders personality alone? I don't think so.

Quote:

Originally Posted by colours (Post 9279092)
Instead, he's carrying on a battle that he knows he's not going to win for no other reason other than he wants to be told he lost at the convention. That's really about it. I don't see what going all the way to the convention achieves when it's going to result in riots and violence when he could've conceded and endorsed Clinton; that's what Clinton did back in 08 and the election was quite a bit worse than this then, because it was much tighter.

I don't know about the rest of you guys, but I really don't think riots and violence are going to happen.


Quote:

Originally Posted by colours (Post 9279092)
Also, I do want to bring up something else as a matter of my personal concern in this thread. Especially troubling giving Kanzler's post

When in this thread, I am giving my own opinions and thoughts regarding both Sanders and Clinton. I've given reasonable criticisms towards both (and if you say I haven't, you haven't been reading my posts), but yet it seems that the atmosphere this thread is promoting is troublesome for the reason that, god forbid you have something negative to say about Sanders, for you'll get assailed in this thread for being biased, unreasonable, among other things.

I understand that each of us has a strong opinion on who we prefer as a candidate, but that is no actual reason to throw shade, make sarcastic comments, be patronizing or rude to one another. This does not help anyone's point and it instead antagonizes the opposition. Unfortunately, politics brings out the worst in people, and neck-grabbing happens, which I wish it wouldn't.

Just because someone doesn't support your candidate or criticizes them in any way doesn't mean you have to jump on them and shove your reasoning down their throats. While I may disagree with someone who says negative things about Clinton (such as she's racist, xenophobic, hawkish, war-mongering, literally it's endless), that doesn't mean that I am unreasonable and do not see the positive things in Sanders (he's super determined, persistent like no other candidate was before bar Clinton in a good way, strongly believes in the message that he gives, very inspiring, has a better way of communicating his speeches in a way than Clinton does since he excites so many young voters, etc).

In short, I disagree with how this thread is basically, to sum it up, "Feel free to support Sanders in this thread, but don't you dare criticize him", or rather, promoting that kind of atmosphere for what seems like at least the past couple of pages.

I'm really hoping we can be respectful of each other in this thread, because above all else, even if you're objective, it's hard to be taken seriously when you're just being a jerk.

I have to admit that I can be impatient sometimes. I don't like having to repeat myself over and over, especially not I've put an effort in making my point clear just to have that not addressed post after post. I get snarky because, well, I guess I think my posts get ignored because people don't really pay attention, and that snark grabs your attention.

@colours I'm frustrated at you especially because I don't think you've really touched on my reasoning in your posts. I feel like my arguments have been sidestepped. From my perspective, it looks like your concern for respect is just there to avoid addressing those who poke at your arguments. I don't think I'd have as much of an issue with it if you elaborated your arguments a bit more and explained "why" instead of falling back on "we have our differences and that's that". I don't think it's your intention to use concern to avoid addressing rebuttals, but it can be really frustrating all the same.

I think my previous post was fairly articulate and explanatory, but I've addressed your concerns (and pushed you where you haven't addressed my concerns) in this post and I haven't included any jabs here.

tbh I think the frustration in this thread has less to do with Sanders vs Clinton and more to do with people not explaining themselves. At the end of the day, nobody really cares about someone else's opinion, but they're a lot more concerned when they feel like legitimately crafted arguments are ignored. RT runs on mutually referencing arguments. If arguments don't really address one another, then no discussion thread would get anywhere, regardless of how polite the participants are.

Kanzler June 9th, 2016 5:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by colours (Post 9279177)
I wrote a ten thousand character post explaining myself already, where the aggression from Bernie's sidecomes from, and I have repeated myself several times.

That's all I'm really going to say here, Kanzler. Otherwise, this is going to go in circles. Obviously, you dont see it the same way. Interestingly enough, despite my positive praise of Bernie throughout this thread, your post has not one for Clinton, yet I'm "unobjective" and "excessively biased". I don't understand that kind of logic, but I think that says enough and we should agree to disagree, here. We're obviously not going to convince each other, here (if that's where you're getting at, idk).

First off, I am not concerned about whether you praise or denounce Bernie Sanders. I don't think it's necessary in this thread for people to praise or give equal value to all the candidates. What I am concerned about is that perfectly good arguments that ask for responses remain unresponded. But I can give you my thoughts on Clinton to flesh out what I think of this presidential race in general (since that's what the thread ultimately is about).

Spoiler:
I think Clinton has reasonable positions. Coming from my background, I would support Sanders hands down, but Clinton's positions have a good compromise. 1) The American healthcare system might just be ****ed and incremental change is what's possible at this juncture (until people rise up in the streets or money gets out of politics). 2) I don't have a problem with her being hawkish a) because I'm not American and b) foreign policy is a difficult matter and I have some insight into how contingent and crisis-mode foreign policy can be. I'm suspicious of hawkishness, but with foreign policy anything can happen and I'm well satisfied that Clinton has the chops there. 3) I don't think I have anything to complain about when it comes to Clinton's support of civil rights. Environmental policy is probably in there too, but I'm not informed on that. 4) $12 minimum wage is a heck of a lot better than the $8 or whatever you have now. $12 vs. $15 isn't that important to me but $15 seems well reasonable in 8 years. 5) She has similar positions to Bernie in a whole other bunch of other issues but that leads us to the next issue...

Which is trust. I am not a fan of her political rhetoric. I don't like how she can stake out diametrically opposing positions and argue in favour of them with equal conviction. Two big issues come to mind: TPP and campaign finance reform. She's saying all the right things now, but it's hard to buy it when there's someone else who's been saying the same thing from the start.

I think she's accomplished and competent. I think she built up quite a reputation for capability during the Clinton presidency. I think she has good experience as Secretary of State, although her Senate accomplishments don't seem nearly as extensive as Sanders'. I have no qualms about her smarts and her ability, just whether she'll do the things she says she wants to do.

Personality-wise there's a lot to be desired, but it's honestly not a big deal. I don't like how she's shrill though - and don't take this the wrong way, shrillness is a turn-off from both men and women. I wish she'd stay away from catchy slogans speak more directly. I don't like her debate tactics. They don't phase me, I catch her deflecting, and I can't help but feel cynical about her.

I think the Democratic party is more appropriate for the USA, and Clinton is not a bad candidate although she's not likeable (read: trustworthy) enough for my liking. At this stage, I would not be voting for her, but voting against Donald Trump.


This isn't a pissing contest where we compare how objective or biased we are. I admit that I probably haven't said much about Clinton herself for this entire thread, and yes, I am very much in support of Bernie Sanders. But I'd like to think I've been comparatively objective (because in my arguments I deliver a claim, then follow with one or more disputable reasons) even though I haven't been balanced (not really talking about Clinton).

But I'm not comparing myself to you. I don't know why you're comparing yourself to me. What I do know is that I've made plenty of (what I think to be) clearly articulated arguments. What I do know is that you've repeated yourself a lot, and explained yourself a lot, but you haven't really addressed my arguments.

I don't think we're going in circles. I think a more apt description is that we're both going in the same direction, except whenever I seem to get close to you, you end up just a little further out of reach. If you repeat yourself over and over, then of course that would be in vain. But if you respond to my arguments instead of merely repeating what you've already said, then we'd be going somewhere.

Netto Azure June 9th, 2016 8:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kanzler (Post 9278987)
It's 2016. You can't get away with **** like that anymore. I don't think it reflects the mildness of the race as much as the times we live in.

Well on the Democratic primaries at least. I think the standards for the Republicans past Trump got significantly lower. u_u

Heck he's being blatantly racist towards a federal judge. And I thought standards couldn't get any lower than menstruation euphemisms and mentions about man part sizes.

gimmepie June 10th, 2016 2:04 AM

Keep it civil and focus on discussing the candidates and the election instead of launching attacks on each other. Your opinions of one another are irrelevant to the discussion.

Kanzler June 10th, 2016 3:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by colours (Post 9279382)
Oh, I think he's genuine about what he says, I disagree with he way he goes about his message. I say he's a message candidate in a way that his campaign is strongly advocating for a particular cause. If that's incorrect terminology to use, then apologize for the mis-wording, but generally speaking that hasn't changed since he started his campaign.

Fair enough, I understand.


Quote:

Originally Posted by colours (Post 9279382)
He does have control over that, to some degree. Obviously he can't force his supporters to think a certain way, but he has a huge amount of influence on what direction they should go after he loses. Therefore, I'd say that's a reasonable amount of control, but feel free to disagree!

What do you mean by huge?


Quote:

Originally Posted by colours (Post 9279382)
Feel free to bring up a specific quote and I'll be more than happy to explain myself.

You brought up his body language in debates in your last post and how that makes him come across as senile. That's obviously subjective, but I think senile is a tad strong.

Quote:

Originally Posted by colours (Post 9279382)
And sadly, they are not working together against trump.

But given the state of the race so far, you can't just expect him to fall in line, can you? I don't think it's realistic.

Quote:

Originally Posted by colours (Post 9279382)
Really? You mean, he can't just be in the race anyway, take his "fight" (without any negative rhetoric, key point here), to the convention and encourage his supporters and endorse Clinton all the while promoting his point of a liberal/progressive (whichever term you want to use) agenda, and unify the party then? Is there really no such thing? Not trying to be snarky, genuinely curious.

I thought you had an issue with him taking the fight to the convention and endorsing Clinton then. I also thought you considered him not to be working with Clinton enough at the moment.

Quote:

Originally Posted by colours (Post 9279382)
Bolded part is exactly my point, and why Bernie has shot himself in the foot multiple times (or at least, I see it that way). It's simply illogical to me to not utilize your influential position as a presidential candidate to unify your supporters with your opponent who's basically on the same side as you are, and continue a nonsensical battle to the convention in which you're going to lose anyway, and your supporters would still claim that it's rigged. That is my worry.

Winning would be nice, but losing the nomination now or later isn't the only objective of Sanders' run. The longer he stays in the race, the more influence he has versus the DNC. If he drops out now before any concessions are made (and you can bet that they're talking to each other behind the scenes), then it's possible that he'll just be effectively forgotten and he wouldn't have made an impact on the democratic party.

I've said this before, but I'll say it again for the benefit of those still following: it's simplistic to think that a Sanders endorsement of Clinton constitutes unifying the party. A lot of his supporters don't see it your way - that they're basically on the same side as Clinton - and would be satisfied with a more progressive platform. It's not about what he says, it's about whether the political vehicle that is the Democratic Party has seats for Sanders supporters. If they feel that their views aren't represented, nothing that Bernie Sanders says can do anything about that. If you go into the store and want to buy something that's red, and they don't have it in red, no salesman pitch would change the fact that they just don't have it in red.

That's why I've said that it's not illogical for Sanders to not unify the party in the way you've been demanding of him so far.


Quote:

Originally Posted by colours (Post 9279382)
Unless I'm incorrect, she dropped out right after California on June 7th, right? Or was D.C somehow a week earlier?

The schedule of the Democratic primary actually changes every election cycle. The last primaries was held in Montana and South Dakota on June 3. She conceded and endorsed Obama on June 7th of 2008.

Quote:

Originally Posted by colours (Post 9279382)
Bernie Sanders doesn't lose much if he concedes because him and Clinton are so similar in stance to begin with? Wait, didn't you say something like this yourself?

Quote:

I don't know where you get your information from concerning Sanders, but I've watched all of the debates and many of his speeches and he says "the Secretary and I agree" and things of that sort over
Look, sometimes when you make an argument, you take quote out of context and as a result misrepresent the meaning of that quote. I noted Sanders' comparatively conciliatory attitude during debates in response to your assertion that:

Quote:

Sanders absolutely refusing to (or just flat out not doing it) connect with Clinton in the same way that she's been trying to connect with his supporters
I don't think that Sanders and Clinton are very similar in their stances - they have some major differences. But I think it counts as extending a hand that he not only makes mention, but also highlights his agreement with Clinton where they exist. He also says "this is where the Secretary and I differ" a lot too, but when I wrote that statement, it was to make the point to the Democratic audience that there's a lot that they have in common, and therefore a lot they can work towards. Obviously they have some major differences, but we have to consider both similarities and differences.

Bernie does have a lot to lose: 1) less-interventionist foreign policy, 2) less pressure on minimum wage, 3) potentially less pressure against TPP if Clinton flipflops back, 4) less pressure to get money out of politics, among others.

Quote:

Originally Posted by colours (Post 9279382)
He already exacted influence on the Democratic Party. His general point is to turn the party as left as possible, instead of being flat out center (or center-left), is that correct? With only one primary remaining, and a month separating and the Democratic National Convention, I'm not exactly sure, barring conceding to Clinton and endorsing her/campaigning for her and spreading his message to shape the party (which is my point), what else he can really do. Take big money out of politics? Clinton and Sanders both agree on that. International trade deals? Eh, that can probably be worked on, I dont think it's a huge contention between both of them.

The change he argues for is more revolutionary, admittedly, but I honestly don't think that most Democrats disagree with his goals - they just think it's not politically possible. Trade and war policy there will be genuine disagreement on. But expanding and deepening healthcare coverage for all Americans? - no Democrat could say no to that. And $15 minimum wage? It's definitely more liveable and dignifying than $12, but some people think it might be too much of a shock to the economy. My assertion is that most Democrats agree with Sanders' "Left" vision (barring war and trade, and perhaps some others), but aren't as comfortable with the idea of getting there as soon as possible. A lot of Democrats talk "left" but when push comes to shove, they are satisfied with less.

The big thing vs. Clinton is trust. It seems like you trust her to carry forth with all of the positions she advocates at this moment (some of which she's changed on within the last couple of years). Obama ran on a much more progressive platform than the actions he championed as President. I think if Obama had more pressure on him, he could have kept more of his word. Same thing with Clinton.

Quote:

Originally Posted by colours (Post 9279382)
And why is it that Sanders, when its this near the convention, which is the most pivotal moment for any party in the hopes of winning the general, still acting like it's the middle of the primary? His "recycled" rhetoric is exactly what bothers me. In my eyes, If all Sanders is going to do is attack Clinton, he's just giving more ammo to Trump for the general election, and even Trump admitted this.

But it's not just rhetoric, it's what he's stood for since the beginning of his political career. It's what many Americans, some of which are on this forum, agree with. Bernie Sanders is an advocate and I don't think it's fair to expect him to shut down his "recycled rhetoric" because of political expediency. For example, Clinton and Sanders both want to get money out of politics, so why shouldn't they talk about her expensive speeches? They're there and they're ugly, but the fact of the matter is that they've happened and we all know they've happened. The speeches and the continued absence of their being addressed don't really support a reputation of being tough against money in politics.

It would help Clinton to divert attention away from her unsavoury aspects, but many of those aspects are representatives of big issues that need political attention. Winning isn't everything, and I believe that there are limits to the actions we take in order to win. I don't think the end of winning the election justifies the means of silencing reasonable political criticism.

Quote:

Originally Posted by colours (Post 9279382)
It's not like Bernie will become irrelevant if he does concede at this point, contrary to what many may think. His message of a political revolution, to take big money out of politics, to make college education cheaper, to make healthcare more affordable, etc will live on through many young people who will vote for the Bernie Sanders equivalent in Congressional and District races, because that's how politics works. That's not being irrelevant or losing influence policy-wise; I'd argue he's successfully run a pretty damn good race.

People like winners, which Sanders most likely won't be :( But people like fighters too. My worry is that if Sanders quits too early it'll give people the impression that change was never going to happen anyways. If he continues to fight, then that (at least for me) gives me the impression that yes, the vision that Sanders espouses is worth fighting for even if the man himself cannot win - that the message can transcend his candidacy. Bernie Sanders won't become irrelevant if he concedes now, but I think it's important that it gets across to the American public that a vision of an America that works better for the 99% should not go down with the candidates that support it. He might have run a good race, but what's more important is enduring ideas.

Quote:

Originally Posted by colours (Post 9279382)
I'm getting the impression that you're more disappointed that she isn't outright adopting Sanders' policies. I don't expect her to, to be completely honest. I think the two should compromise on something, but it's kinda silly to expect Clinton to suddenly go as far left as Sanders without losing the support of moderate and conservative Democrats. In short, she's playing it smart: she's saying she can compromise while not specifically adopting his policies, because that'd be alienating people who already support her for being pretty liberal but not FAR left liberal.

Not exactly. It would be nice for her to do so, but the main issue is trust and whether she'd keep to her word. Some of her rhetoric is not very trustworthy, and to me it implies that although she wants us all to believe that she's just as progressive as Sanders, she waffles in her rhetoric because she can't say the same message with as much conviction as Sanders.

Personally, I don't think what a lot of what Sanders is calling for is politically viable in the short term, but it's the right direction. What I worry about is that, in her attempts to differentiate herself from Sanders, she's advocated against the right direction. She helped write a healthcare bill in 1993 that did not provide for a single payer system because she felt it wasn't politically viable. Now she's on tape saying that single payer will never ever come to pass. That sounds like she's closing doors that shouldn't be closed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by colours (Post 9279382)
I did.

What do you think of his policies? What of his stance & rhetoric vs. the financial industry, eliminating the influence of big money from politics, a $15 minimum wage, eliminating tuition from public universities, expanding social security, adopting a less interventionist foreign policy, increasing the tax burden on the top 1%, and moving to a single payer healthcare system?

Quote:

Originally Posted by colours (Post 9279382)
Ignoring the unobjective and excessively biased because I think those are pretty silly terms to use especially in a political debate where everyone is really biased to a degree, I already explained myself multiple times, and I've explained my reasoning multiple times as well. It's just that you see things differently than I do, which is fine.

I don't think it's silly. I have no problem with bias existing in a debate, because it does and I respect that it exists and even if I didn't there's nothing anybody could do about it. But I have an issue with excessive bias. It's like saying that I have no problem with pepperoni on my pizza, but I really hate it when there's too much pepperoni.

I've disagreed with Harley Quinn, and gimmiepie, and Carcharodin, and Ivysaur (and more but I can't recall from the top of my head) and I'm totally fine with that, because they acknowledge their biases and acknowledge my arguments by responding to them. I feel totally fine to disagree with you, because why else would I be active in this section? I don't mind that we see things differently, but I'd like it if you addressed some of my concerns. For example, when I accuse you of not talking about Sanders policies, you say "I did" and just leave it at that. That's not a rebuttal, that's just an expression of disagreement. I don't really want to go back to the previous posts because that's tedious, so whatever.

Quote:

Originally Posted by colours (Post 9279382)
And should I go back and quote every single post in your thread where, except for one instance, it seems that have showered Sanders with praise and back and flat-out ignored Clinton accomplishments or demonized it? I dunno, feel free to prove me wrong here. I'd really love to see it!

What would the point of that be? I have a lot more to say about Sanders and a lot more to criticize about Clinton. I don't think it's important to treat all the candidates with equal amounts of praise. Obviously we haven't been doing that with Trump. I don't think participants in a political debate thread should be balanced vis a vis the candidates, because that just stifles the presentation of personal opinions, but I think the participants should avoid excessive bias (obviously having bias is fine and is to be expected) and do that by responding to critiques.

Quote:

Originally Posted by colours (Post 9279382)
Also, being a jerk in a debate doesn't help people to "see your reasoning". I mean, that's just how debating works. You present arguments utilizing your own language and the oppositions language in the hopes that you as well as the opposition can find a middle ground, or you just debate by trying to understand to come to some sort of understanding where they're coming from. Nowhere in debating does it qualify being a jerk, throwing shade, making sarcastic remarks, being pedantic, condescending, patronizing, disrespectful or rude in any shape or manner whatsoever. Doing so, you've effectively invalidated your own argument, because acting like a polite human being helps in actual discussion.

Well my points still stands. I don't think that either Sanders or The Dark Avenger was being hostile. I don't think Sanders is much different from Obama in his "hostility" towards Clinton. Both of them have been noted as being unwilling to fully pursue Clinton. Both of them stepped up their attacks towards the end of the campaign. Even though Obama eventually won, I'd say they were both pretty similar in their behaviour versus Clinton on the campaign trail. As for The Dark Avenger, he disagreed with you and explained why quite extensively and articulately. If his comments were directed at me, I wouldn't consider them to be hostile.

I don't think my argument or any argument becomes invalidated because of the attitude of the proponent, or because of the proponent at all. That's the beauty of arguments - it's an idea that stands regardless of whose mouth it's coming out of. I admit that I could've been much less rude, and that's why I'm trying to do now, but ignoring a logically consistent and otherwise valid argument because of attitude is just ignoring the argument. I don't mean to persuade any individual person in this thread, but I do mean to articulate an argument clearly, and follow up on rebuttals.


Quote:

Originally Posted by colours (Post 9279382)
I'm confused. You have no problem with me being biased, but yet I'm criticized for being unobjective?

It's all about degrees. I've repeated this so many kinds: issue is not with whether bias exists, but how much of it there is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by colours (Post 9279382)
Sorry, I tend to ignore people when they respond to me in an unreasonable "tone" (that can be described on the internet, anyway). It gives off the impression that they have no interest in what I have to say and that they're just really want to shove their views down my throat and nothing more. My vocabulary in utilizing Sanders is perhaps extreme yes, but it was far from unfounded. But that's just me.

You might ignore what I have to say, but I hope that people who aren't as invested in this discussion won't. Look, if I read an argument and I think there's something wrong with it, or make a challenge that isn't responded to, I'm going to point that out and there's nothing personal about it. I have no desire to shove my views down your throat - you're just one person and that kind of thing doesn't matter to me personally. Also, there's quite a bit of a gap between extreme and unfounded.

Anyways, I've gone out of my way to structure my arguments and I hope that will be a good example to how to explain your argument more clearly in cases of misunderstanding.



Quote:

Originally Posted by colours (Post 9279382)
Interesting. I'm actually pleased because despite ignoring Clinton's victory yesterday (which he was criticized for a lot, and "i congratulated her on the phone" isnt really saying much). Perhaps with this we can actually move forward at this point.

But outside

Which he seems to do according to you link, so that's fine.

You don't think I have a point with Sanders still having an objective to stay in the race by exerting influence on the DNC to present to Sanders supporters commitments instead of just rhetoric and better ensure their loyalty come November?

Quote:

Originally Posted by colours (Post 9279382)
It certainly happened at the Nevada convention. Who's to say it won't happen at the Pennsylvania convention next month? Who's to say that Bernie's supporters still feel like he got screwed out of the election and they'll storm the stretch outside the DNC until he gets nominated? Who's to say (and this happened a lot in American history), they'll create a massive protest where hundreds of people get arrested just for the sake of wanting to prove some sort of point?

I wouldn't really call that a riot. I recall the 2011 riots in Vancouver, the 2010 G20 riots in Toronto, and the Baltimore riots last year, and that's not exactly what happened at the Nevada convention. But yeah, maybe riots do happen. But couldn't they happen anyways even if Sanders concedes? That could be the inciting event for further riots, because Sanders supporters might perceive that as the ultimate betrayal.

Quote:

Originally Posted by colours (Post 9279382)
The problem is you repeat your point, each more condescending than the next, which causes me to ignore it because it's condescending, therefore causing you to repeat yourself more with snark, which doesn't really help your point any. Ergo, you should've skipped out on the snark in the first place. I don't like repeating myself either, and I felt like you ignored a lot of my points (or misinterpreted them in some way), but you don't see me making ad hominems in here.

Ad hominem attacks are those that are directed towards your character, not at your arguments. I think I have gone out of my way to make my posts about the flaws in your arguments. I don't think I ever said that your arguments are invalid because you're rude, or because of some other aspect of your personality, because that would be an ad hominem attack.


Quote:

Originally Posted by colours (Post 9279382)
...

Which seems to imply you don't care what someone's tone is in a debate as long as they present logical arguments, which is precisely why D&D/RT/OC fell into pieces earlier, because newer members didn't find a reason to participate in a forum with discussion if they're just going to get chastised for their own views and thoughts.

It doesn't imply that. That is not logically valid - not wanting to tone-parse does not mean I don't care about how other people present themselves. In fact, if everybody presented themselves politely, then I wouldn't have to tone-parse so it's completely reconcilable that I both care about attitude and not want to dissect other people's tone.

I think D&D/RT/OC "fell into pieces" earlier because people weren't presenting logical arguments, but were chastising each other and ignoring logically valid points in place of that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by colours (Post 9279382)
Because you should've worded them in a more respectful way. Like I said, I tend not to respond to points that I feel are generally either roundabout ad hominems, because there's no reason to and it just defeats the purpose of debating in the first place.

Well, my last two posts are devoid of jabs (which you admit earlier), so there's quite a reserve of respectfully worded concerns that could be responded to.

Quote:

Originally Posted by colours (Post 9279382)
There's another view to look at this: despite the flip-flopping, it can also be argued that Clinton has changed her viewpoints and has simply outgrown them. I suppose it is particularly difficult to trust a politician when they do change positions like we change clothes daily, but I find it unfair that, if we as human beings are able to have a change of opinion on a subject matter, is it such a bad thing that a politician does so within reason?

Flip-flopping, to me, will always be an iffy argument to use depending on the context and why the politician changed, but I firmly believe Clinton legitimately changed her views throughout time and now genuinely believes what she does now--she isn't all talk--and that's the kind of message that I get from her speeches and her actions (I mean it's hard to deny that she's been a serious political/social activist for YEARS).

We'll see after the fact, once she gets elected.

Quote:

Originally Posted by colours (Post 9279382)
I think she'll be able to. I can raise this same question about Sanders though. Out of the blue, Sanders can turn a 180 on his policies and implement something different. However, like you said in an earlier post in this thread, isn't that what trust is about?

Any human being is able to change their mind. But the issue isn't whether or not Clinton or Sanders have the potential to change their minds, it's who do you trust to stay the course once campaigning turns into governing. Sanders has a long track record of saying and doing the same old thing for a very long time, so I trust him to stay the course if in power. Clinton on the other hand, has maintained positions opposite to the ones she holds now for much of her political career, so the possibility that she changed her mind for political expedience exists. Both of them are capable of changing their minds, but Clinton has a risk factor that Sanders doesn't have, so Sanders is the more trustworthy one.

Quote:

Originally Posted by colours (Post 9279382)
Then why did you bring up the fact that I was "excessively biased" anyway? If you wanted more reasoning, you could've (and should've) asked nicely. It's odd that you dismiss this since you brought up the fact that I was unobjective or unbiased in the first place. If you don't want it to be discussed, then don't bring it up as a supportive argument. oO

My point isn't that hey you can't call me biased because you're just as biased as I am. My point is that hey you're biased because of a), b), and c).

Quote:

Originally Posted by colours (Post 9279382)
You just did...?

I had a feeling this could be brought up and should've changed the word. Read "more or less", "rather", "pretty", "somewhat", or another moderating adjective.

Quote:

Originally Posted by colours (Post 9279382)
Then this was moreso an argument that basically says that it's kind of hypocritical to call me heavily biased when you are also biased on your own throughout most of this discussion.

I don't give the candidates equal coverage, but I don't think I'm biased by ignoring your points. My issue with your bias isn't that you need to talk more or less about Bernie Sanders, but that I don't think you've sufficiently addressed my rebuttals and therefore haven't considered all of the points when it comes to a specific issue (because I raise points that you don't raise).

Quote:

Originally Posted by colours (Post 9279382)
I feel it's kinda circular when this discussion amounts to "YOURE being biased", "no YOURE being biased", "no, clearly im being objective and clear, you're just being unobjective and unreasonable".

I think we are using "bias" in different senses. I brought this up first and meant to refer to how certain factors were being ignored when you make your judgements and how attempts to point out the ignoring remain unaddressed. From what I understand, and that's just how I understand it at the moment, you felt that you were not as biased as I said you were because you had given Sanders praise and thus adequate acknowledgement of his efforts/accomplishment/race etc. You also said that I wasn't being objective because I had little or nothing good to say about Clinton, and I addressed that by more extensively explaining my views about her in my previous post.

I don't think the discussion is actually circular - we were talking about two different ways of the same idea. I hope my more in-depth discussion about Clinton addresses your concerns for bias on my part, and I hope you address more fully (and don't worry I'm not saying you haven't addressed any of my points - I got some of that) my rebuttals and the factors you haven't so far considered.

Quote:

Originally Posted by colours (Post 9279382)
If you made your points with politeness instead of snark and being condescending, then we'd be going somewhere. Of course, according to your earlier quote, I'm not sure if that seems to be something that you're willing to take into account. This isn't shade, this is genuine concern.

---

Last point I'm going to make: Kanzler, if there's one thing I really dislike, it's people misinterpreting my posts or presenting them as something that they're not. If something I'm saying is unclear, you ask for clarity in a polite/nice way. That's not hard in the slightest. I understand that I can word my points and arguments in a rather vague or unclear way; after all, I'm not exactly the best at articulation by any means. But this doesn't mean anyone should have to jump at me and make preemptive judgments or read too much into what I'm saying. All that's going to do is create unnecessary conflict because of simple misunderstandings.

I get that, and I don't want to make this go any longer, but don't you think that elaborating more clearly is something you do regardless of how the other person behaves? Personally, I try my best to be articulate and be clear and give structured arguments without any condition as to what the other person does. I might only be able to meet the other person half way, but I'm going all the way on my part.

Quote:

Originally Posted by colours (Post 9279382)
That being said, another thing should be made clear, that I feel should be ignored throughout my previous post about Bernie Sanders: whether he chooses to conceded after the D.C primary or whether he concedes after the convention is yes, ultimately up to his choice. However, I feel that timing of when he concedes is important here. It's pretty hard to ignore that that tensions are high between Clinton supporters and Sanders supporters, because the latter feels like they've been wronged by the system and blame the former unreasonably for doing the such. I mean for goodness sake, there are entire Facebook groups dedicated to either writing Sanders' name in, voting Trump (which would go against what Sanders stood for in the first place) or just voting Green party or staying home. This is precisely why I believe it's logical and reasonable for Sanders to concede early so he can utilize his influential position and convince his supporters that we should all work together and unite against the GOP's nominee (which he seems to have done today by the link that you posted, but it still doesn't really make sense that he's still fighting to the convention despite this).

Kind of responded to this earlier, but conceding before the DNC delivers more concrete commitments would undermine his influential position. I don't think Bernie Sanders' integrity and his reputation as a passionate, principled politician is unassailable. I'm closer to the Sanders crowd than you are, and I'd feel a bit betrayed if he dropped out right now (especially since he vowed not to already).

Quote:

Originally Posted by colours (Post 9279382)
With all of that explained, I hope that, even if you cannot respond to this humongous, gigantic, 27,000+ character post taking your recent posts, sentence by sentence and responding to them with reasoning and my own positions, that you be able to understand my positions even to some degree and why I make the arguments that I do. It's just that Sanders' recent actions has left me cynical when he could've avoided those actions entirely which gained him a good amount of negative media attention.

and the rest

I don't think you should be so cynical because of Sanders' recent actions, because in short they're to be expected. He has expectations to uphold from his supporters, and he needs to continue to sufficiently uphold those expectations if we want his supporters to transfer their allegiance to Clinton. If he can't uphold those expectations, then he loses, Clinton loses, and nobody wins.

He might have a lot of negative attention on mainstream media, but people who put a lot of faith in that tend to be the people who didn't vote for him in the first place. It doesn't really affect the people who really support him. I'm making this argument because I have the feeling that you didn't consider these factors when you made that initial judgement.

Murmansk June 10th, 2016 9:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nah (Post 9279052)
Oh yeah, I was hoping that you could elaborate? Trump supporters are a bit of a rarity in this thread and it'd be interesting at least to hear someone (who's not your stereotypical right-wing nut) explain why they think that Trump is the US's best option of the 3 right now.

For a lot of people he's not going to be the "best candidate" But I think he is going to be the best candidate for the average person over the long run.

Given the policies, past actions and speeches I've heard from all the people bidding for this race it's apparent to me that Trump is the only one who really understand where a lot of underlying economic problems are. Namely debt and the mismanagement of the economy by the federal reserve. And even then he's not fully tackling the roots of these issues, he's just going at least somewhat in the right direction.

If you read a lot of the raw economic data put out by various institutions then you're gonna start seeing some bad signs... but you don't even need to do that. Anyone who has a pair of eyeballs can see how badly the average American is hurting at the moment, it's become this weird perpetual groundhog day of endless stagnation while we creep closer to our graves. Folks aren't getting any younger and are largely unable to progress.

Only the highly intelligent are able to turn drastic times like these around in their favors, but that's not the majority of folk, the majority of people don't like taking serious risks because it could go badly, and that's what I want to avoid. I want to avoid the majority of people being plunged into even greater hardships thus there needs to be thriving industrial sectors and otherwise that allow your folk of average ability to earn a steady wage and provide well for a family.

And even then he's not going to be able to stop the tidal wave of hardships that's already breaching the shores of the US. There's a lot of data that show the US is already back into another recession.

Beyond that, he's going to be the candidate that's the most helpful for minorities in the US because massive influxes of foreigners, especially illegal foreigners aren't good for the groups in the US that have less economic mobility.

He's also the person who brought the issue of illegal immigration to the forefront of the political landscape. I'm an Anarcho Capitalist myself, but if you're going to have a welfare system to any degree at all then you need strict border control because otherwise you get a displacement of the native population by economic migrants who have a hefty incentive to squat on benefits.

For most people - you'd be out of your mind not to take free stuff that's offered to you, but it's pushing the strain on the dwindling productive sector of the US to a breaking point. And if there is a meltdown then there needs to be an ability for the US to reign in immigration and to cut benefits while lowering taxes. I'm not even saying Trump will do this, but I think his history shows he's the most likely to enact some of these policies which will give the middle and lower classes some breathing room to recover in a time of oncoming hardship.

Otherwise, things are going to be fairly grim. When cornered people will fight rather viciously, and if these tough issues aren't acknowledged and dealt with them it's going to cause a hard collapse and I don't expect most people to take a reduction in benefits in stride.

Basically, we just need more people who might look the average voter or citizen in the eye and say "Folks, we've been living beyond our means for quite some time. We're well past our due date on our bills and yes it sucks to confront it but if we put it off any longer there may be no recovery. And it's not fair, we can't sell the rights we've inherited nor the futures of our children for an easy compromise in the moment, it's just not an option."


Also, I'm just curious but, how would you classify someone as a left-wing nut?


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:52 AM.


Like our Facebook Page Follow us on Twitter © 2002 - 2018 The PokéCommunity™, pokecommunity.com.
Pokémon characters and images belong to The Pokémon Company International and Nintendo. This website is in no way affiliated with or endorsed by Nintendo, Creatures, GAMEFREAK, The Pokémon Company or The Pokémon Company International. We just love Pokémon.
All forum styles, their images (unless noted otherwise) and site designs are © 2002 - 2016 The PokéCommunity / PokéCommunity.com.
PokéCommunity™ is a trademark of The PokéCommunity. All rights reserved. Sponsor advertisements do not imply our endorsement of that product or service. User generated content remains the property of its creator.

Acknowledgements
Use of PokéCommunity Assets
vB Optimise by DragonByte Technologies Ltd © 2023.