![]() |
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. |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
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. |
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. |
Quote:
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? |
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/ |
CNN just projected Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton winners in New York.
|
[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. |
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. |
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. |
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 :\
|
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. |
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:
|
Lemme just say that I'm glad for Clinton supporters here because it's not really good to be in an echo chamber.
Quote:
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. |
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. |
Quote:
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:
Quote:
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:
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? |
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. |
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". |
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. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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 |
Oh my god this is so good:
|
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. |
![]()
© 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.