![]() |
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.
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
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. |
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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
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. |
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. |
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. |
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.
|
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. |
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.
|
TED CRUZ DROPS OUT OMGWTF
The Republican Party has decided to unite behind Trump after all. So much for all that contested convention talk. |
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 |
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.
|
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. |
Quote:
|
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. |
Quote:
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. |
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. |
Amidst all the hubbub the continued disintegration of the American middle class goes unnoticed.
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
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:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
|
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.
|
yo that's kinda fucked up
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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. |
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. |
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?
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
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.
|
I used to live right around that area too o-o
|
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. |
Quote:
|
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. |
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. |
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. |
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.
|
Quote:
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. |
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. |
Quote:
I could see him not debating go either way as well. |
Doesn't that make Sanders look stronger? Neither of the people still in the race want to debate him. Trump is a "pussy".
|
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. |
Pretty disappointed it won't be happening. I was hoping all three would somehow end up in one debate.
Quote:
|
Quote:
Spoiler:
|
Quote:
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:
Quote:
|
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.
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
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:
|
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.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
As much as I dislike Trump, I dont think he is racist. I have to agree with @ShinyUmbreon here. |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
|
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.
|
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.
|
Quote:
what does anybody know this guy can bernie sanders please win california jeez this race gets better and better |
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 |
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.
|
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.
|
So I'm assuming 2 people can't win the nomination? That's too bad... Although I would be happy with Hilary as well.
|
Quote:
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. |
woo can finally fucking vote in the primaries
Besides New Jersey and California, what other states are voting today? |
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:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
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.
|
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.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
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:
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
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. |
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. |
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.
|
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. |
Quote:
|
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. |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Both Sanders and The Dark Avenger are "hostile"? Man that's a new one for me. Down with establishment politics. |
....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? |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
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:
This is what Bernie Sanders said in his speech: Spoiler:
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:
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:
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. |
Quote:
But you haven't addressed the hyperbolic rhetoric that I gave a few examples of there. Quote:
Quote:
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:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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:
Quote:
@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. |
Quote:
Spoiler:
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. |
Quote:
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. |
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.
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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:
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:
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:
Quote:
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:
Quote:
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:
Quote:
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:
Quote:
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:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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:
Quote:
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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. |
![]()
© 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.