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)

Esper April 15th, 2016 9:59 PM

Ugh. I want to disagree because I want to think that liberals and progressives are better than conservatives (sorry, that's my bias), but I'm thinking about the hundreds of people who were arrested protesting at the capitol this week and how no one's hear about it and I have to think that, yeah, the left side is not listening to anyone on the left who isn't behind Obama, Clinton, or the status quo.


Edit: Seems that a recent Reuters poll puts Bernie ahead of Clinton nationally 49-48. It's within the margin of error, but still the first time he's been ahead in any poll that I've seen.

Kanzler April 16th, 2016 7:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Esper (Post 9205197)
Ugh. I want to disagree because I want to think that liberals and progressives are better than conservatives (sorry, that's my bias), but I'm thinking about the hundreds of people who were arrested protesting at the capitol this week and how no one's hear about it and I have to think that, yeah, the left side is not listening to anyone on the left who isn't behind Obama, Clinton, or the status quo.


Edit: Seems that a recent Reuters poll puts Bernie ahead of Clinton nationally 49-48. It's within the margin of error, but still the first time he's been ahead in any poll that I've seen.

EDIT - I really misread your post, sorry :( and I wrote something that basically repeated what I posted before.

Personally, I don't think it's that the left is listening to the establishment as much as more mainstream and centrist gravitating too close to the establishment. But now I think about it, I suppose there are elements of the left who are being co-opted into the status quo message and that isn't something I approve of either.

Also, Sanders met with the Pope! Every media outlet was saying how that likely (or just flat out) wasn't going to happen because of scheduling and other details, so I am pleasantly surprised.

Esper April 16th, 2016 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kanzler (Post 9205721)
Personally, I don't think it's that the left is listening to the establishment as much as more mainstream and centrist gravitating too close to the establishment. But now I think about it, I suppose there are elements of the left who are being co-opted into the status quo message and that isn't something I approve of either.

I mean, there are lots of Sanders supporters, but they really only have Bernie and maybe a few other politicians here and there who will support them or listen to them. Even the non-establishment right-wing groups like the tea partiers have someone like Ted Cruz or whoever to speak for them, and if they were arrested in large numbers for protesting someone would be talking about it.

Kanzler April 16th, 2016 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Esper (Post 9205943)
I mean, there are lots of Sanders supporters, but they really only have Bernie and maybe a few other politicians here and there who will support them or listen to them. Even the non-establishment right-wing groups like the tea partiers have someone like Ted Cruz or whoever to speak for them, and if they were arrested in large numbers for protesting someone would be talking about it.

Hence the political revolution, I suppose. I hope Bernie Sanders is only the beginning - that there will be a cresting wave of political support for campaign finance reform, fighting income inequality, post-secondary education reform and transitioning from fossil fuels to new clean energy tech. I wish the Republican party was more of a progressive conservative party, one that applies smooth braking to the engine of progress not one that will run the vehicle off the road to stop it from moving forward.

Livewire April 16th, 2016 5:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kanzler (Post 9204669)
You know, the last Democratic debate opened my eyes to a major issue in the American party system. Say what you will about Republicans candidates and their ideas, but you have to admit that conservatives and Republicans voters aren't afraid to stand up against their party establishment in large numbers. I feel that Democrats rally around Obama, and by extension the establishment, too much and it shuts down debate about very contentious issues - they are in this sense even more partisan than the Republicans.

When Sanders was giving a very legitimate critique about how Clinton receives big money donations from large corporate interests, how did she respond? "Obama did it too! Did that compromise Obama's decision making?" Invoke his name and all serious discussion stops because well, he's Obama? and the climate of the Democratic party is such that you can't seriously criticize him.

Obama's faced a lot of resistance from Congress for sure, but let's be real here. He has a string of broken promises where (I feel at least) he either didn't get a move on, or didn't create any concrete action. The more important ones have to do with getting rid of tax loopholes for the wealthy, preventing former lobbyists from serving in government, and paying for Social Security by increasing the payroll tax cap. These aren't instances where he got blocked by Congress, these are instances where he really didn't do much after he made promises. These are all instances that sound like the sort of thing big money interests want to lobby for.

And if we're going to talk about how Congress should be blamed for all of the things Obama couldn't accomplish, then that leads us right back to why big money should stay out of politics. It reinforces the point that you cannot expect to receive big money and not be influenced. It means that all politicians have to have a real opportunity at elected office without receiving exorbitant sums of money from big corporate donors. It means we need to get big money out of politics.

The fact that Hillary Clinton can just say Obama's name and throw this very important discussion, one that is fundamental to American democracy, out of a debate is absolutely deplorable. This is not the fault of Clinton, it's the fault of a party base that is too humble towards its establishment and unable to give critique where it counts.

Republicans might have a lot to say about liberty, but I'm sure they would have a lot to say about democracy as well. Democracy is less about free speech than it is about being heard. Even if everybody has the right to speak freely, if the marginalized remain voiceless, then democracy - that form of government that supposedly responds to the voices of the people - remains weak. The United States needs a bipartisan effort to get the influence of big money out of politics and allow the people to be heard. That's something I believe both Republicans and Democrats can get behind.

/endrant

I think it's more partisan intra-party, where Conservatives are more partisan outside of their party rank-and-file. The left isn't quite as homogenous and ideologically pure as the Right - I think that's why we have a Tea Party and the Conservative, establishment, "country club" republican party as two quite separate, distinct political entities. There's isn't a liberal equivalent of the Tea Party shooting off from the "Clinton democrats" just yet, but with the advent of Bernie Sanders, we could very well see that, or he could turn the entire party even more left, which I feel is more likely.

Kanzler April 16th, 2016 11:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Livewire (Post 9206327)
I think it's more partisan intra-party, where Conservatives are more partisan outside of their party rank-and-file. The left isn't quite as homogenous and ideologically pure as the Right - I think that's why we have a Tea Party and the Conservative, establishment, "country club" republican party as two quite separate, distinct political entities. There's isn't a liberal equivalent of the Tea Party shooting off from the "Clinton democrats" just yet, but with the advent of Bernie Sanders, we could very well see that, or he could turn the entire party even more left, which I feel is more likely.

Here's something I just read on Wikipedia:

Quote:

As presidents, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama both reflected the priorities of the second New Democrat coalition, uniting donors from Wall Street, Hollywood, and Silicon Valley with a “new majority” coalition of racial minorities, immigrants, liberal women, and young voters. Because Democratic voters are disproportionately poor, this has produced a Democratic Party that, in economic terms, is an hourglass coalition of the top and the bottom. Economic populism frightens the party’s billionaire donors, while social populism, which has often been associated with white working-class xenophobia, racism and religiosity, frightens blacks, Latinos, immigrants and white social liberals. The result is what Mike Konczal and others have called “pity-charity” liberalism — a kind of liberalism that appeals to the sympathy of the rich for the poor, rather than appealing, as the New Deal did, to solidarity among the middling majority.
Would the party turn left? I don't think so, the Democratic party could probably win elections anyways. Blacks will overwhelmingly vote Democrat, Latinos vote also vote quite strongly for Democrats and will probably continue to do so as long as Republicans don't budge on immigration reform, Asian Americans tend to be more affluent and can be appealed with low taxes, but they're a small part of the voting bloc and apparently have low turnouts so electorally they're not very important. The two parties will compete for white voters who make up about 75% of the electorate (source), but the Democrats have a distinct demographic advantage that won't go away any time soon.

Based on what I understand, the Democratic party shifted rightwards towards the centre to appeal more to white voters who wanted fiscal conservatism starting with Clinton being the first president to embody this movement and continuing with Obama, and likely Hillary Clinton if she gets the nomination. If the political culture of the US doesn't change, then I think the Democratic party would want to hold on to those white voters it's captured. I think there's no reason to change because the minority bloc is voting for the Democrats anyways, and they need as many white voters as they can get.

I'm not very informed on how election turnouts get into the mix as well as the intricacies of the electoral college, so everything I've said might be distorted.

On a "Tea Party" for the democrats, I'm not too optimistic about that either. The Tea Party had clear political initiatives that it could oppose: the bailout and health care reform. Fighting income inequality and returning democracy to the people could be just as sexy, but it's just business as usual and I don't think there's a big event or happening that people can point to. Furthermore, the Tea Party movement fights for lower taxes and reduced government intervention, which can appeal greatly to business elites and attract political donations as well as media attention from them. I'm sure there are anti-corporate Tea Partiers as well but as far as corporate America is concerned, that's mere rhetoric as long as they remain like-minded on economic policy. The kind of movement that Sanders is inspiring would get zero support from the elite. I suppose this is the kind of scenario where the trade union movement could come into play but, in my understanding, it is weak in the United States.

I think the only solution is making income inequality and democratic reforms really really sexy. That'd give the Democratic party a good reason to move to the left, and that'd also compensate for the lack of elite support for an influential progressive movement. Trouble is that one does not simply "make" issues prominent.

I've probably left a thing or two out - I don't live in the United States, so I don't have the same on-the-ground experience that allows you to better assess what's relevant and what isn't. What are your reasons for believing that Sanders could turn the Democrats more to the left? Believe me, I wish that would both be true and not cost the Democratic party the White House and Congress.

Netto Azure April 17th, 2016 9:33 PM

Speaking of on the ground, the Washington State 34th District caucuses were a mess. It took 10 hours for what should have been at most a 4-5 hour process. There was a lot of shady stuff that went on IMO and as a delegate not having the votes for Congressional District delegates counted tonight when we had ample and excited members of the tallying committee after the Committee chair (who left Midway, got a surrogate to take over and just came back at the end in 9:00 PM) declare that they'll email us the results was the icing to the cake and quite shameful.

If I get elected as a CD delegate I'm going to raise issue with the Washington State Democratic party about this inherently disenfranchising (I.E. the time excruciating hurdle) caucus process.

Kanzler April 17th, 2016 9:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Netto Azure (Post 9207811)
Speaking of on the ground, the Washington State 34th District caucuses were a mess. It took 10 hours for what should have been at most a 4-5 hour process. There was a lot of shady stuff that went on IMO and as a delegate not having the votes for Congressional District delegates counted tonight when we had ample and excited members of the tallying committee after the Committee chair (who left Midway, got a surrogate to take over and just came back at the end in 9:00 PM) declare that they'll email us the results was the icing to the cake and quite shameful.

If I get elected as a CD delegate I'm going to raise issue with the Washington State Democratic party about this inherently disenfranchising (I.E. the time excruciating hurdle) caucus process.

Please get elected as a CD delegate, whatever that is.

I think I've changed my mind a bit regarding the previous post. I think Bernie Sanders could have a greater appeal to working class whites, due to his position on trade and economic populism. I have no idea how that would play out against Trump or Cruz, since I am not a working class white male and I don't really know much about working class white American males, but I think Sanders' policy positions are a factor, if not a significant one. But then again, the Democratic Party might not need these voters if they have a winning coalition anyways. Could they count on Trump and Cruz reducing turnout for whites alone? Clinton herself might also reduce turnout for white voters, but I think both her presence and the opposition would galvanize black and Latino voters to turn out.

These questions are posed for everyone, I guess: How do you think these primaries will affect American politics going forward, regardless of their outcomes? Have they already changed the political landscape?

Netto Azure April 17th, 2016 10:02 PM

It's the Congressional District caucuses (CD)

It goes like this:

- Precinct Caucuses (Which was the one back in March 22)
- Legislative District Caucuses (Today)
- County Convention (For rules and Congressional purposes only, not Presidential. Open to all LD's) (May 1)
- Congressional District caucus (May 22)
- State Convention (June 14)
- National Convention (August)

Also, you have to fund yourself as a delegate to drive to the conventions otherwise YOUR VOTE DIDN'T COUNT. See how Caucuses are inherently disenfranchising? Still at least now the distribution of delegates is set in stone and can't be manipulated.

Oh best part of this whole thing, our specific legislative district caucus made it in the front page of the Seattle Times website!

http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/washington-democrats-feel-the-burn-of-disorganized-legislative-district-caucuses/

Belinda April 19th, 2016 5:47 PM

CNN just projected Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton winners in New York.

Ivysaur April 20th, 2016 12:54 AM

[19/04/2016 23:12:40] Víctor: the question is not whether trump will win
[19/04/2016 23:13:22] Víctor: he has 64 delegates in the bag already
[19/04/2016 23:14:31] Víctor: sorry, uh, 68 delegates in the bag out 95
[19/04/2016 23:14:55] Víctor: the question is how many of the remaining 27 he'll grab as well
[19/04/2016 23:16:13] Víctor: for that, he needs to: a) get over 50% of the vote in every CD, or b) if he doesn't hit over 50% in some CD, that cruz and kasich stay under 20% in that one
[19/04/2016 23:17:32] Víctor: but "winning"? if Trump doesn't win NY, he will collapse on the stage, all his previous results will be annulled, pollsters will commit mass suicide and Jeb Bush will be elected candidate

He won 91 delegates. Thought so. he's still on track for the nomination. Tight, but on track.

Klippy April 20th, 2016 1:23 AM

Trump's inarguably got the best path to the nomination. There's still ~700 delegates left and he's only about ~400 away. He's on the path for sure.

Bernie...losing confidence in. His voters seem to be everywhere and preaching about "GOTV" and how important it is, but they're clearly not showing up or Hillary's somehow wooing voters still. It's amazingly sad.

Kanzler April 20th, 2016 8:17 AM

Keep in mind that the NY primary is closed and has been "closed" since October 2015, which means you must have been registered as a Democrat six months ago. Sanders campaign relies on getting his name out, so if you're someone who felt the Bern since Iowa, since the beginning of this year, or even since November of last year, you didn't have the chance to vote for him in NY.

I don't think Obama's legacy was particularly inspiring, in fact I'd say it wasn't inspiring at all. He ran as a much more progressive and principled candidate, what we got was much less than that. He was black - yaaay - but he continued the Clinton legacy of Third Way politics - liberal social policy with conservative economic policy. Sixteen or even eight years ago you might've said that economic move to the right was necessary to get the votes, but looking at where we are now that gave the Republicans an excuse to move even more to the right, so that right wing economics are the new normal.

Sanders' presence continues to be as indispensable as it ever was. Even if he can't claim the White House, the progressive movement needs his leadership to ensure that Clinton will be held to her word, that she has the Congress she needs to back up her recent moves to the left, and that the progressive movement will keep growing its political influence and won't be co-opted into liberal feel-goodism. At this point I don't care if Clinton as president gets to take credit for the grassroots or the policies she didn't really fight for.

He needs to continue fighting all the way to the convention win or lose, and negotiate significant concessions from Hillary Clinton. Clinton must recognize this as well, lest she lose the new voters and energy that Sanders has brought into the political process.

As a Canadian, I take a reasonable minimum wage, social programs, democratic robustness, and universal healthcare almost for granted and I am disappointed in the signal that the NY primary sends - that the American people are not serious about these very important reforms, although all facts considered I shouldn't be surprised.

Ivysaur April 20th, 2016 11:21 AM

On judging Obama's legacy- take into account that he has spent 6 years with an obstructive Congress whose only goal in life was "stopping Obama from doing anything meaningful" while not passing any laws of its own. In a presidential system, it's hard to asses the level of responsibility of each president. Obama couldn't do more ebcause he can't pass laws, and he needed to "deal" with the republicans to get anything at all passed. When he had an amicable Congress, he did much more :\

Kanzler April 21st, 2016 8:42 AM

Right, but exit polling only represents those who voted in the primary, that is, people who were registered democrats since October. Obviously I have a difference of opinion with those who believe that status quo politics is the way to go. If people are truly satisfied with the condition of the country then they'll vote that way. I have to say that I am disappointed that more people aren't advocating or supportive of more change because what I hear is everybody agrees that the system is broken and as an outsider looking in it certainly looks that way.

She certainly won those low income votes but I'm not confident that Clinton is the best candidate for low income people. It's worth recognizing that the ability to win votes does not necessarily translate to the ability to execute on the promises made.

The realism argument bothers me because both candidates have to deal with congress so both candidates will be forced to be "realistic". I don't think sanders is promising anything, in fact I watch most of his speeches and he doesn't explicitly promise anything. But he is a champion for what I feel is the right direction and Clinton honestly doesn't seem like a fighter with all her talk about "realism". Maybe I'm cynical but it sounds like by making more modest goals she's keeping expectations lower and that communicates to me that she won't try as hard. Obama talked about this in "The Audacity of Hope" - that when you are close to big money interests your drive and your intimacy with the needs of the common man diminishes.

Lastly I don't think anybody is making the claim that Clinton herself bought the election. The claim isn't that politicians but big money buys elections because they are able to influence politicians on both sides to support policies friendly to capital at the expense of the common worker.

@ivysaur I acknowledge congress' role in limiting what Obama was capable of doing but there are instances (I believe I address in a previous post) where he never made a move on campaign promises having to do with taxation and funding SS. It's those instances where he never got a chance at being obstructed by congress I'm disappointed in.

Esper April 21st, 2016 9:19 AM

The way I look at it Clinton is the candidate for low information voters. The low info voter knows that she's a woman who's been in politics and survived and done well for herself (a "winner" to use Trump's terminology) so that means she can "get stuff done" and even the low info voter knows that stuff ain't getting done now. People don't like that government is all arguing and not doing things so she seems like the right choice. And since she's running as a Democrat people assume her goals and the voters' goals will more or less align.

I don't say this to diminish these voters. Trying to understand the headache of economics and business and money is not easy. And I did the same thing when I voted for Obama. I liked his talk and I expected him to do the walk. On social issues he did (and I expect Clinton would, too) but on economic issues I'm still unhappy that in his first term he didn't really do much to change the system in a big way, particularly around healthcare. Yeah, we got Obamacare, but it's imperfect and we could have gotten single payer healthcare. I'm expecting Clinton will be more or less the same.

And the thing is, with social issues, for the most part progressives are winning those regardless of who is in office. North Carolina passes a bathroom bill which stigmatizes trans people and EVERYONE comes out against it. I'm not saying I don't want a president who is pushing a progressive social agenda (I do) but that's not all I want.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kanzler (Post 9211463)
Maybe I'm cynical but it sounds like by making more modest goals she's keeping expectations lower and that communicates to me that she won't try as hard.

No, I totally understand what you mean. This is what I don't understand. We know that whoever wins will have to compromise (barring a landslide in the House and Senate, which isn't too likely) so why is Clinton already compromising herself before she even gets into negotiating with Republicans? Like, if you wanted to sell something and you wanted to get at least $20 on it your opening offer shouldn't be $20, it should be $30 with the option to haggle it down to $20.

Esper April 21st, 2016 11:32 AM

Lemme just say that I'm glad for Clinton supporters here because it's not really good to be in an echo chamber.

Quote:

Originally Posted by flight (Post 9211585)
I do have a question for the Bernie supporters like Scarf and Kanzler...you guys raise questions and concerns of whether or not Clinton will be held to her world by the time she gets to the White House, but who's to say Bernie will accomplish half of what he says he will do in a hypothetical presidency?

First, I think Bernie has always had the same message so I believe that he believes in his message and will not compromise without giving it his all. For an example, here he is from 1988 saying almost in the exact same words the same things he says in his speeches today: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uBMIA46oV6U Clinton, on the other hand, seems too ready to compromise and we've learned that the Republicans won't meet any Democrat's willingness to compromise unless it's so lopsided as to essentially be the Democrat giving the Republican everything. My worry is that she'll give in too easily for expediency, and that she's coming from a more centrist position so the 'middle ground' between her and Republicans is somewhere slightly right-of-center. For Bernie the middle ground is probably center or left-of-center and honestly I'd rather not have a right-leaning law passed just for the sake of getting it passed if it means better laws will be harder to get passed to replace it.

Second, I think that there is more enthusiasm for Bernie and that means more people will show up to vote which means more down ticket wins for Democracts which could mean a Democratic leaning Congress. That would make it easier for Bernie to get stuff done. Voter turnout in places like New York aren't really an indication of the true level of support for him because it was a closed primary and 100,000 people in Brooklyn alone were blocked from voting. All other things being equal, if we were to put Sanders and Clinton in the Oval Office with the exact same Congress then, yes, I think they'd be able to get about the same amount done, but I think that each of them will affect who turns out to vote.

Kanzler April 21st, 2016 4:03 PM

That's true. Bernie Sanders has been criticized for not using his campaign donations to help congressional races, but if Clinton becomes the Democrat nominee, no amount of money will inspire people to turn out. One exception would playing towards the politics of fear but some people would say that just decreased voter turnout in general. If Sanders becomes the Democratic nominee then his message of the political revolution would have a truly national platform and I think he'll be able to engage the disengaged to vote for those downticket races.

Clinton is going to want to co opt Sanders as hard as she can to avoid losing his supporters, to harness the excitement he generates, and to convince voters to bring in the biggest Democratic wave in Congress possible. This would be the best possible case for her legacy, because then she can claim to have fulfilled all those promises she's recently moved on and also claim to have surpassed Obama (which would be highly ironic since her rhetoric so far suggests that she's in his shadow). But I have reason to be cynical about this. I've already provided my reasons for why the Democrats can win without expanding the effective electorate in previous posts. In the case of a Cruz or Trump nominations, that will probably cause so many Republican voters to stay home so she can double down on excluding Sanders' vision from mainstream discussion.

Kanzler April 26th, 2016 9:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flight (Post 9216462)
Rant:

I'd just like to take a moment and say that it's really sad how a lot of people view Clinton as dishonest, conniving politician that snakes her way to the presidency, despite there being evidence to the contrary. Granted this may or may not be an opinion article more than anything else, but it does highlight that Clinton is actually not as dishonest as people think she is, and that by calling her a liar, you're by extension calling Bernie a liar, because both of them tell the truth at roughly the same percentages, with Bernie being a point or so below Hillary.

I didn't know that you could turn truth-telling into percentages that you can meaningfully compare. Here's what I don't like about Hillary Clinton's "honesty":

She hyperbolically stated that she was "under sniper fire" in Bosnia. She wasn't. Maybe she didn't mean to "misspeak". But it sounds like how teenage boys like to exaggerate their stories to make it more interesting. Doesn't pass the smell test.

Quote:

"I'm the only candidate in the Democratic primary, or actually on either side, who Wall Street financiers and hedge fund managers are actually running ads against."
No, you're not. Spur of the moment exaggeration.

Quote:

The gun industry is "the only business in America that is wholly protected from any kind of liability."
She's repeated this line over and over in this campaign, including townhalls and debates. It's a flat out lie. Of course most people will take her at her word, but I've read the legislation and from what I understand her assertion is absolutely false. Not only is the gun industry open to liability due to negligence, other industries have similar protections against frivolous lawsuits. Is the average person going to look into it? Of course not, she can get away with saying something like this.

She's also flip-flopped on the $15 minimum wage and the TPP. Why does it matter that she's dishonest? It's because we don't trust her to fight as hard as she says she'll fight for the causes she's talking about. Liberals love her because gun rights and gender equality and for those issues even I could easily look past her shiftiness, but for people whose priorities are income inequality, it's difficult to trust her.

Quote:

Originally Posted by flight (Post 9216462)
And the whole transcript speeches thing (which is one of Sanders' main points against Hillary): why does anyone care? If Hillary went up and showed everyone a transcript right now, what would it affect? In general, what's the point of even hounding on her about that in the first place? If political analysts have generally proven that she's sincere about the claims that she makes in debates and speeches, then why are you, the average citizen, caring so much about something that's....truth be told, not all that important, anyway? Am I missing something, here? Is there some correlation between having speeches written and performance in the Presidency that I'm unaware of?

It's just disappointing to me that people really don't see that.

"Is there some correlation between having speeches written and performance in the Presidency that I'm unaware of?"

Yes, it's that if she's giving rah-rah speeches to Wall Street, and is frightened enough of the contents that she's delayed releasing them for so long, then we don't trust her to be tough on Wall Street, to raise taxes on the rich, to improve income inequality in the United States. Liberals like to focus on liberal social policy, but something that's neglected is economic policy. It's been said time and time again that the Democrats have shifted right on economic policy and that frankly does not benefit working and middle class Americans. I come from Canada where income redistribution is a lot more radical (har har) so I can't help but take seriously the fact that in the wealthiest country in the world the poor are so damn poor.

I'm not sure what the value is of political analysts "proving" Clinton's sincerity. First of all, you can't "prove" someone's sincerity. She might have not outright lied very often, but she's exaggerated, she's deflected, she's changed her views so many times that it's difficult to get a read on how sincere she is on some of the issues she supposedly is a champion for. Secondly, I think this election cycle has been very revealing about the power of the establishment - politicians, business, and media. Clinton is and has been the establishment favourite for a long time, and the media will frame issues in her favour. In this context, I don't think anybody can meaningfully say that the political analysts are in a position to prove anything because it is readily apparent that the establishment media has a much lower standard for falsehood from Clinton than the American people. Why don't the political analysts take more seriously or draw attention to what the average citizen think is very important about Clinton's insincerity? Why is it that the "average citizen" cares too much about something and not that these political analysts don't care enough?

Kanzler April 26th, 2016 4:34 PM

While Sanders may have exaggerated certain claims he's made on the campaign trail, very few, if any of them detract from his sincerity about his core message. That's not something I can say about Clinton. In New York she criticizes guns and bashes the gun manufacturers, now that she's in Pennsylvania she's all about Second Amendment rights.

Politifact just measures whether or not a claim is true. It does not reflect where a claim stands in the broader message or the narrative that the candidate is projecting. Bernie Sanders has made some exaggerated claims but the vast majority don't take away or twist his central message.

"Americans work longer hours than any other major country." The fact is, no, the Greeks and the Irish work more hours per capita than Americans. But what's Sanders' point? Americans are working longer hours for lower wages in an economic system that doesn't benefit them. Politifact rates it as false but he's still on point.

"We win when voter turnout is high, we lose when it is low." According to Politifact that’s false because he won caucuses and caucuses have lower turnouts than primaries. Why Politifact would treat primaries and caucuses as equivalent is beyond me. His point that he wins when voter turnout is high still stands because when voter turnout is high, 18-45 voters tend to make a up a greater proportion of the total vote. Because people who normally don’t show up to the polls are showing up. Because that's what the political revolution is about, engaging the entire voting public. This says nothing for Sanders or against Clinton, it’s just really bad judgement/bias on Politifact’s part, to be honest.

"We are imprisoning or giving jail sentences to young people who are smoking marijuana." Politifact deems this Mostly False because relatively few people get prison sentences for marijuana possession. But what’s Sanders’ point? Besides his statement not even being false, he’s sending the message that there are too many people in the criminal justice systems for non-violent crimes, that spending time in the criminal justice system is disruptive to so many people’s lives even if they’re not sentenced for it, and that has disrupted a whole generation of Black and Latino young adults.

“Climate change is "directly related" to the growth of terrorism.” Politifact feels that there isn’t enough evidence for a “direct relationship”. What is the relationship then? Well, climate change reduces access to food and water and other resources which produces instability which produces fertile grounds for terrorism. Sure, there are obvious other factors in terrorism that literally everybody knows about because of how the media beats it into our heads – religious ideology, ethnic tensions, political repression. I’m not exactly sure why Politifact calls his assertion Mostly False because they don’t like his phrasing of “directly related” when they too agree that terrorism and climate change ARE related and everybody knows the more obvious factors behind terrorism.

“’I helped write’ the Affordable Care Act.” Is what Sanders said according to Politifact. They rate this statement false because he wrote one provision of it and so he doesn’t have a claim to have “helped write” it. This is what he actually said in full context: "We’re not going to tear up the Affordable Care Act. I helped write it." The point isn’t that he contributed so much to the ACA, the point is that he’s not going to touch the ACA in response to Hillary’s insinuation that he would “tear it apart”. Politifact misses the point and redirects in a direction that Sanders didn’t intend, given the entire context. At this point I’m doubting whether Politifact is valuable at first glance.

Relying on Politifact percentages to make a judgement on the candidates’ honesty is a bad idea because they often exclude the context in which the quotes existed. It says nothing about whether a candidate is consistent in their ideals or is telling different things to different people. You know, I could go to rich businessmen and tell them that NAFTA has contributed greatly to GDP growth and has made supply chains in North America much more efficient. I could go to poor manufacturing workers and tell them that NAFTA has been responsible for hundreds of thousands of job losses and is the reason that your wages are low and your benefits are gone. Neither of what I said is false. But what truly is my agenda when it comes to trade? And would you describe my actions as honest?

That's what so many people find dishonest about Hillary Clinton. #WhichHillary exists for a reason. It's not about how true what she says is at face value - that's probably not going to differ much between Clinton and Sanders because politicians don't have perfect information, they often exaggerate to make a point and they bullshit when they're just not informed - it's about their sincerity for the platform and vision they are projecting. Clinton appears to want to be all things to all people (except the religious right) and that comes across as being dishonest because you don't know what she represents.

What I like about Bernie Sanders is how he says "These are my views, this is what I think. You may disagree with it" instead of telling the other side what they want to hear. For one that's the kind of attitude I like to have in RT. But it's also more honest about the kind of candidate he is. That's the kind of honesty that has earned him the respect of congressmen and independents over the years.

tl;dr If you're just looking at the % of true/false claims, then you're missing the bigger picture. It’s not just about off-the-wall comments. Facts can be twisted, that happens all the time. But when you have projected a narrative that is twisted, and present a different face to different people, people are going to be less forgiving and more suspicious of that.

RE: the Iraq War. People dislike her on the Iraq War not because she's insincere, but because she's perhaps too sincere about a position they don't like. Many American people are tired of wars - sick of the money that's spent, sick of the American lives that have been lost or damaged, sick of the innocents who die, sick of image of the American people as a warmongering race that they want no part of. People who dislike her for this issue have no question about her sincerity for hawkish and "muscular" foreign policy.

RE: Benghazi. Mostly a Republican critique. I don't identify with it and you'd be better answered by a more conservative person.

RE: E-mails. Even if she didn’t do anything illegal, the whole setup seems super sketch and it only reinforces her image of being someone who’s calculating and secretive. When people clamour for someone who’s transparent and honest, Clinton’s actions with her emails will not help her there. Most reasonable people don’t give her a pass just because she’s had to face off against investigations for much of her career since politicians are held to a high standard of transparency anyways.

Klippy April 26th, 2016 6:37 PM



You can at least respect that Bernie Sanders is a consistent person with consistent values over his career. Clinton goes whichever way the wind blows and anyone that can say she's an honest person (or even a consistent person) is very misinformed. That's just 13 minutes of footage where she doesn't tell the truth, gives a half truth, completely misrepresents the truth, or entirely lies. It's not some propaganda piece (well, it might be) when the words are her own and her own words conflict with what she's said in the past. Don't pretend this candidate is anything but a typical lying politician (I'd actually say she's a bigger liar than most).

Benghazi, emails, Bosnia, gay marriage sance, NAFTA, TPP, Wall Street speeches, attacking other Democrats on universal healthcare, her battles with Obama during the '08 primaries, and probably plenty more in her score of time in politics.

It's delusional to think any of these candidates (save maybe Bernie, but I'd wager he's not even immune to doing it) do anything but lie most of the time and it's certainly a huge stretch to claim she's "more honest than people give her credit for".

Klippy April 26th, 2016 7:46 PM

Regardless of its intended audience, the clips in it are only her and her alone speaking - not someone speaking on behalf of her or anything but contradictory statements she's making. You not taking it seriously is your own deal. It's just her speaking and making statements that contradict others she's made. Somehow twisting that to claim it "demeans her" makes no sense regardless of the video's intended goals. If you can explain how the content of the video is a contorted attempt to demean her (AKA why she claims to have been under sniper fire repeatedly, then be shown greeting a child on the runway - without the "I was tired" excuse, or any other contradictions in the video), then I'd surely reconsider it. Dismissing it, however, doesn't change that it's there or that it - at the very least - proves she's not so honest/truthful/factual/fair.

---

I've given up on Bernie winning though. He's fighting from behind and his supporters just, clearly, are not showing up. Sucks for him. He's a man with ideas and he's certainly more of a solid candidate over Clinton. I wouldn't vote for Clinton any day of the week, so when/if Bernie loses, I'd not anticipate me flipping to blue.

Kanzler April 26th, 2016 8:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flight (Post 9217093)
OK, Kanzler. Lets toss politifact out of the picture entirely (although I don't know why you would, though I guess relying entirely one website isn't necessarily a good thing but politifact is generally a pretty reputable site, but lets just say it's full of crazy biased people that don't know what they're talking about), can you name me another fact-checking site that analyzes these politicians claims and reports on them in an objective manner so a comparison can be made? A website that actually includes full context so a misunderstanding can't be made? I'm having a hard time finding such a site, which is why I included politifact itself. Whether or not you take their word for it is entirely up to you; they're generally the most well-known fact-checking website. Not saying they're unbiased (I find it hard to believe that some news sources can't be, at least slightly. Maybe it's just my cynicicsm here), but that's why I said you rely on them as a general guide to determine a candidate's reliability and honesty.

If the best fact-checking website is Politifact, and if there's significant doubt that Politifact inform us about how honest or dishonest a politician is (due to the analyzing claims and quotes individually and out of context), then maybe we shouldn't put much stock in fact-checking sites. I don't think any fact-checking website can be objective although they can certainly try to be balanced. You can't rely on anybody to give you the full context, so that's why we're discussing it here and bringing our own understanding of the context to the table.

Quote:

Originally Posted by flight (Post 9217093)
Fair point, but let me flip that example on you as it pertains to this nomination: why would you make presumptive judgments about Clinton's agenda if you don't know yourself whether or not she's really lying? Sure, she may give off the impression that she goes along wherever the wind takes her, but is that in itself absolute proof that she's a liar and dishonest? Do we know for sure that she's going to turn a 180 as soon as she enters the Oval Office?

That's what trust is all about, isn't it? Whether you believe someone will do something when there is no certainty. We can't know what Clinton will do in office anymore than we know what Sanders or Trump or Cruz would do. But Clinton does have a trust deficit in some Democrats, Independents, and obviously most Republicans. There's no absolute proof that she'll do 180's or be inactive on important issues just as there's no absolute proof that she'll fight hard on those issues either.

Quote:

Originally Posted by flight (Post 9217093)
For myself (I can't speak for any other Clinton supporter), I do trust that she'll end up doing what she campaigned for all along, but I wouldn't be disappointed if she delivered only on a number of them. But that's the thing though, Kanzer. I can go through any political fact-checking website (not even politifact, really) and go back and forth on this with you with twisted claims, out of context stuff that these sites managed to pick out, but again, you're missing the bigger picture of what I'm saying, and I said this before: Clinton is more honest than people give her credit for. I link to these website as a general pointer, of course to be taken with a grain of salt, but not disregarded in all of its entirety.

I get the picture of what you're saying, but I don't know if I'm the best audience for your message. A lot of Clinton's scandals is Republican noise. I don't believe her vote for Iraq is a sign of her dishonesty. I'm not vocal about how late in the day she was for same sex marriage, although it is a bit late to me. I'm not clamouring for Clinton to get indicted for her e-mail scandal, although I do recognize how it's terrible optics for the American public. Heck, I'm not familiar with half the scandals that Republicans say she should own up to. I don't think, however, that her Wall Street speeches are forgiveable when she boasts so strongly about standing up to Wall Street and how Wall Street fears her so much that she's the only candidate they're running ads against (not true by the way). I agree with you that Clinton is more honest than people give her credit for, but I think I give her a lot more credit than the people who really want to see her burn.

Quote:

Originally Posted by flight (Post 9217093)
Kanzler, If you want to talk about core message for Clinton, it's simple. It's continuing Obama's policies, and exit polls after exit polls demonstrates that voters care about that. Heck, take a look at this Pennsylvania exit poll, for your viewing. as well as Maryland's. You're free to criticize Obama all you'd like, sure, but the fact remains that Clinton has made it a clear part of her campaign's message to be essentially Obama's third term, and that's what people want, which is a large part of why Clinton is winning. Heck, take Conneticut, a state in which Sanders is barely leading, and look at the exit polls for yourself so far. The fact of the matter is, Clinton's policies are more or less in tune with something Obama would do, and cloaking yourself in Obama's legacy sounds a lot better to most people than promising super radical """socialist""" change by someone who's """not a true democrat""" (I'm putting these in quotes because they're the biggest criticism for sanders).

The 'not a true Democrat' argument is a point of view promoted by Clinton, I believe. And whether that claim is true or false depends on how far back you're willing to go. I'll give you that Sanders is not a true Democrat if you consider what the Democratic Party is post 1992. But Sanders' vision of social, political, and economic justice goes back to the New Deal and through the Civil Rights Era up to the late 70's, congruent with a Democratic Party with its ears closer to the pulse of the working and middle class.

What are Obama's main accomplishments? He passed the ACA, but Clinton doesn't want to go further. He stimulated the economy and arguable prevented the recession from deepening, but we're not in recession anymore. He stopped the Iraq War and wound down Afghanistan, but they're done now. He got bin Ladin, maybe Clinton will get al-Baghdadi. He passed some environmental legislation, but the oil and gas companies still have their tax loopholes. He passed financial reform, but the too-big-to-fail banks are just as big if not bigger than they were in 2008.

Obama's two terms were about mitigating crises. Now that the crises are gone, Clinton doesn't really have to do much to be Obama's third term. She doesn't have an America to save, she inherits an America that is ready to grow. Obama is a popular president but times have changed and committing to be Obama's third term is setting the bar too low. I must say that I am disappointed that so many people are satisfied for the next President to rest on Obama's laurels.

Quote:

Originally Posted by flight (Post 9217093)
See Kanzler, you're also missing a super huge picture here: Obama has pretty much set a super high standard for what the next president SHOULD be like. When you consider his sky-high approval ratings for the exact same demographic groups that's giving Hillary such huge boosts around these primaries, you really shouldn't be surprised. What this data tells me, and the results of the primaries so far, is that a lot more Americans ultimately want the next President to continue Obama's policies and essentially be Obama's third term, and they're afraid that Bernie, someone who's actually an Independent and "not a real democrat" would not continue along that course and/or gets absolutely nothing done, or do something entirely opposite of what Obama would do. It's an ingenious strategy by Clinton, and it's been working so far throughout this campaign.

Obama's popular, he didn't deliver much because of intense crises, but now these crises are over. I certainly hope it is not Clinton's intention to continue a low-delivery presidency without the challenges Obama faced. It might be a good political strategy, and it might get her elected, but it's not going to deliver the changes to American democracy and economy. Personally, statesmanship is more important to me than winning.

Quote:

Originally Posted by flight (Post 9217093)
I can understand the skepticism behind Hillary's positions, but a lot of voters think "Is this something Obama would do?" In an age where people are fearful that the U.S is going to be shattered in ruins by the next president, and the fact that, throughout these 8 years, most people felt Obama been the defacto standard of what a president should be like and should do, it's going to be hard to break from that train of thought, which is why I don't think the U.S, at least in currently, is not quite ready yet for a socalist candidate. They want someone who can continue change at he way Obama would handle it, because it makes people comfortable and have that piece of mind.

The independents and young people who can't or don't vote in primaries, as well as a not-insignificant number of poor white conservatives (and Klippy who might be neither poor nor white :P) sure are ready for a "socialist" like Bernie Sanders.

Quote:

Originally Posted by flight (Post 9217093)
Does this all make sense? Feel free to disagree with any of these points, but these are all based on observations made throughout the primary so far. It's not that it's not hard to identify where Hillary is, it's really simple to identify where she is, and that gives her the flexibility to assume positions that are either similar to Obama's, or something that he would do, anyway, which gives her reign to criticize Bernie over of a number of his positions.

It makes sense but I disagree with your conclusion. It's not hard to identify where Clinton "wants" to be when she talks about Obama's third term and 'breaking barriers'. It's hard to tell where Clinton is because she flip flops and panders. I don't think anybody wants a President who is "flexible" per se - what they want is someone who is principled and can compromise. Nobody doubts that Clinton can compromise, but a lot of people think that her principles are compromised.

Quote:

Originally Posted by flight (Post 9217093)
This also leads to your post previously given how, if Obama's name is invoked, all discussion essentially ceases to be relevant. While yes, it is possible to criticize Obama and his policies, it's not a smart thing to do. Every president can be criticized, that's fine. Obama's not perfect, but like Trump convincing his voters and playing into the fears of his voters that "the system is rigged", Hillary is telling her voters that "it's ok, I will continue everything the way that Obama wanted it to be, because we're making progress and Bernie is going to mess up all the progress we've made so far", which is actually working, compared to Bernie's "we're going to upheave the political system entirely because it's full of crap", because while a lot of people do feel that our politics is full of garbage, a lot MORE people trust that someone like our current president would handle things just fine enough.

All I have to say is that I cannot in good conscience describe the American system as working when the rich get richer while the poor get poorer and when the ridiculous influence of money in politics turn the problems of ordinary people into "abstractions to be managed rather than battles to be fought".

RE: the video. It's a youtube video, it makes Clinton look really bad and it just wouldn't be professional to show that on mainstream news to make a political statement. The mainstream news conveys their bias through subtle ways. Even Fox would find that video a bit too crude. To make a larger point about mainstream news, don't expect them to criticize the mainstream candidate.

If Clinton gets into the White House, I will give my soul to Christ (i'm atheist) if she's able to follow through on all the progressive stances she's making now. jk i wouldn't outright do that but i will consider it

@Klippy: O'Malley "Actually you're not" LOL

Kanzler April 26th, 2016 9:56 PM

Oh my god this is so good:


Ivysaur April 27th, 2016 11:03 AM

With Cruz's path to a contested nomination vanishing by the minute, he's going to announce Carly Fiorina in the hopes of changing the topic after yesterday's Trump sweep and hoping it can revive him in Indiana and, most importantly, try to save his dwindling California prospects. Because if Trump wins Indiana, he can essentially get to 1,237 just by showing up in the remaining contests.


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.