Shocking news: Hillary Clinton clinches democratic nomination

Discussion in 'Politics & Current Events' started by HeHasTheJazzHands, Jun 6, 2016.

  1. bostjan

    bostjan MicroMetal Contributor

    Messages:
    13,403
    Likes Received:
    1,458
    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2005
    Location:
    St. Johnsbury, VT USA
    Not to marginalize these issues, but most of them are not immediate life or death. Not to mention that there are actually a couple of those, even, where Clinton and Trump essentially agree.

    True

    No nation is invincible. The USA maybe used to be what you said above, but not any more, sadly.

    Yes. But neither Clinton nor Trump are going to improve this country. The DNC and the RNC are not going to do what we need them to do, either.
     
  2. Mathemagician

    Mathemagician SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    1,312
    Likes Received:
    272
    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2014
    Location:
    Tampa, FL
    Oh no, I agree. Neither DNC nor RNC have any interest in the country. They are power machines. Do what it takes to maintain power. Distract from real issues at all costs, and make people feel crazy for not caring about the 3 pre-approved talking points.

    I totally blanked on Flint here too. Nice catch. Any decent person should be trying to vote in anyone who will approve/pass what needs to be done to give clean water to citizens. That should not have been used as a party line wedge. But that's the thing, every conversation get morphed and politicized by the parties.

    "Remember guys, it's us versus them! Just vote for us now, we'll worry about the other problems at a non-committed date in the future."

    Economic issues are not in the control of politicians anyways. You cannot control the business cycle, or the economy. The party in charge just takes credit for improvements and blames the other team for anything that goes south. Regardless of whose plans/lack of investment in infrastructure/etc caused the issues.

    Politicians exist to be re-elected. That's it. So they run on platforms that win. It's then do nothing but revamp their platform for the next cycle. Politicians who do nothing, should be angrily voted out by the ones who picked them. Like "how dare you waste my time & vote!"

    People would start trying to get .... done if they knew they were being watched/evaluated on their actual job performance, like most of us tax payers are.

    Red state wants A, blue state wants B, concerning a reserve that runs through both. You bet they would reach a compromise if they knew it was important enough to their electorate that they'd have zero chance of staying employed should they fail.

    But instead like you said, they grandstand and "fight the power" on issues that will be overturned but they can point to their voters and say "I sure tried hard didn't I guys?" Instead of funding underprivileged schools or pursing better care for veterans. Because the later two would actually be hard work.
     
  3. Randy

    Randy Ooh, Degrasse Tyson-son Super Moderator

    Messages:
    19,838
    Likes Received:
    2,455
    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2006
    Location:
    The Electric City, NY
    My "stop Trump at all costs" comments was mostly targeted at Sanders' endorsement of Clinton. It's common procedure for the other Democratic primary candidates to eventually give an endorsement (even if it's just lip-service), so I think he'd have given Clinton it regardless of who her opponent is, but I do think the language he's been using throughout has been pretty consistent in implying he dislikes the GOP's candidate more than he likes the Democratic Party's candidate.

    I brought that point up because Sanders' (and his followers) decision to back Clinton in this context is very different than my definition of "unity". We're not all sitting side by side singing "Kumbaya" around the campfire. Clinton supporters have been very vocal of their support for her policy choices (more on that later), so I don't think that any of Bernie's platform ideas (accepted by the party or not) are anything Hillary or her supporters are embracing as their own, and I don't think any of the things Hill/DNC refused to cave on have warmed Bernie/supporters up to her or the establishment DNC either. The whole thing wreaks of a "stay together for the kids" type marriage.

    As far as my issue with Hillary and her supporters, yeah, I'd probably lump you in with the stuff I've heard that I didn't particularly like. I mean, I didn't make that comment with you in mind, I don't dislike all your arguments and there's a lot of arguments from OTHERS I mind much more, but there's still an overall cauldron of points (or, IMO, lack of points) made by her camp that have been parroted as policy position of the 2016+ Democratic Party that are diametrically opposed to my style politics.

    I don't really want to wade too deep into the specifics of my complaints, because the list is rather long but the "pragmatic" argument REALLY bothers me. All the talk about "what can the president pass with this current Congress" is the negotiating you do once you're there. An election year for president also means an election year for Congress, as well as a typically more energized base (if handled correctly), so a functioning party would be focusing on policies they can put before the Congress of 2017 or 2019, not what they think they can put infront of Congress TODAY (when they're not president yet anyway).

    And that's nothing new... for as long as I've been following or involved in politics, the goal of the party in a big national election year was always to win as many seats in as many states as possible and come up with an ideal platform, and then adjust depending on where the chips fall; in Obama's case, those chips fell with having a Democratic executive branch and both Houses. Not everyone can be that lucky but I certainly don't agree with tailoring my "big picture" branding decisions based on what I think I can (and I assure you, will not) pass by a Paul Ryan/Mitch McConnell tag-team.

    That's not the only thing that bothers me and not even my greatest concern, but it's one that stands out. And when offered that sort of concern on some issues, the closest thing to a concession I've heard from Hillary and her supporters have been doubling down on incrementalism as their goal OF CHOICE. Some things like 100% renewable energy power grid might be something you do incrementally, but things like picking a legitimate benchmark for a living wage ($15/hr today is very different than $15/hr 3-5 years from now) or filling in gaps in ludicrously overpriced healthcare that are still going on TODAY don't require incrementalism.

    I know Hillary's at least feigned interest in movement on some of those things (kicking and screaming) but to my overall point, first explanation being "hey, that's what we can pass today" and second explanation being "well, those goals are good enough regardless" has NOT done much to inspire me in believing this party, it's leadership and apparently it's voter base are in touch with the needs in this country, especially those that are in line with the Democratic Party of the 21st century. :2c:

    The "grow up and vote for the center left candidate most likely to win, like a big boy" routine hasn't helped my attitude any either.
     
  4. Drew

    Drew Forum MVP

    Messages:
    26,534
    Likes Received:
    1,972
    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2004
    Location:
    Somerville, MA
    I'm not on the DNC mailing list. :lol:

    I'd say the irony is I've heard way more about how Sanders is "prepared to do anything he can to defeat Trump" than I have about Clinton supporters saying Sanders supporters need to rally behind her to "make sure Trump loses," and - again, I'm not on their mailing list - I wouldn't be shocked if "defeat Trump" is more of a rallying cry from Clinton supporters to other Clinton supporters, than it is as an appeal to Sanders supporters, kind of like "Yankees suck!" isn't ACTUALLY supposed to convince any New York Yankees fans who happen to be in Fenway Park that they're rooting for the inferior team, but rather just get Sox fans fired up for the game. :lol:
     
  5. Drew

    Drew Forum MVP

    Messages:
    26,534
    Likes Received:
    1,972
    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2004
    Location:
    Somerville, MA
    Well, as always, if you happen to come through town, happy to discuss this stuff over a beer. :yesway:




    ...or just have the beer and talk about my shock that you're not ACTUALLY a hot blond chick. :lol:
     
  6. Randy

    Randy Ooh, Degrasse Tyson-son Super Moderator

    Messages:
    19,838
    Likes Received:
    2,455
    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2006
    Location:
    The Electric City, NY
    If you think that I'm going to be swayed by hearing your Hillary apologist rhetoric in your deep, Barry White-toned voice then... well, okay, you may be right.
     
  7. Drew

    Drew Forum MVP

    Messages:
    26,534
    Likes Received:
    1,972
    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2004
    Location:
    Somerville, MA
  8. Randy

    Randy Ooh, Degrasse Tyson-son Super Moderator

    Messages:
    19,838
    Likes Received:
    2,455
    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2006
    Location:
    The Electric City, NY
  9. flint757

    flint757 SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    6,400
    Likes Received:
    197
    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2011
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    Between the wikileaks and her VP choice I'm done as well. She will be appealing to anti-Trump Republicans and moderates from now on. In her mind the fear of Trump has her getting the liberal vote in the bag no matter what she does at this point, and many on SSO prove that to be true. The people who believe she is going to attempt to be a 'progressive' candidate at all are deliberately fooling themselves. She's always been a 'moderate' (by US standards) and she will continue to be. She's willing to say whatever she needs to get a vote, and considering both Obama and her VP support things she claimed to be against to get liberals to vote for her in the primary, I suspect she'll be recanting on most of them as the election progresses, or rather she'll have a 'change of heart'.

    Our system is so binary that now that the only true liberal is 'out' of the race, for all intents and purposes, and the wikileaks prove most of what we thought wasn't just a conspiracy theory, she made it so she is the only 'liberal' left on the ticket. Now that no threat comes from the left she'll safely skate back to her comfort zone. This isn't unusual by any means, as most presidential hopefuls do exactly that, but many of us Sander supporters are angry about exactly this sort of .... that the system propagates. I've voted Democrat in every election I've voted in, and I voted in every single one, but no more. Not when they're practically laughing in our faces. It is not possible to create change from within, not when the system itself has as much power as it does. It's not even possible to make anything a media sensation anymore as often times they're running their articles in front of these horrible people first before publishing. To make matters worse when the narrative might hurt those in power they simply discredit them. It happened with #OccupyWallstreet and it's happening now with #blacklivesmatter.

    This primary was absolutely not executed in good faith and everyone who pretended it was, despite the writing on the wall, should be eating crow right about now.

    #JillStein2016
     
  10. wankerness

    wankerness SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    4,055
    Likes Received:
    166
    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2012
    Location:
    WI
    I've said all along Hillary was awful, but it's downright irresponsible not to vote for her. Trump is actually dangerous and is VERY close in the election numbers, especially now that all this stuff is becoming very public. Trump would be an absolute disaster. Hillary would merely be like Obama: the more war-hawk edition. If the Republican candidate was another Mitt Romney, I could see throwing your vote away for a principled stand, because the only real ill effect would be the supreme court getting messed up. But, that is really playing with fire right now. We absolutely don't need a brexit of our own.
     
  11. Hollowway

    Hollowway Extended Ranger

    Messages:
    11,860
    Likes Received:
    2,418
    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2008
    Location:
    California
    My main problem with Clinton isn't her platform. It's her dishonesty. She clearly believes she's above the law, and it's not clear what she actually thinks, or what she believes in. She changes what she stands for based on what it will get her. I mean, Charles Koch even said he'd back her if she softened her rhetoric. She adopted Sanders' platform items when it became clear she'd get more votes that way. She's got a history of going back and forth on what she says she believes in, just in order to get what she wants. To me, that's way more dangerous than Trump. I actually think Trump is far more centered than he appears to be, and I think he wouldn't do anything nearly as drastic as he says. For me, the scary thing about Trump is that I don't think he actually wants to be president. I don't think he wants to put the work in, or do the research, or anything else that comes along with the job. What's scary is he'll be winging it. So, with the two parties, we have one that believes in nothing other than gaining power and money, and one who has no interest in doing his homework.

    I disagree that a vote for a third party candidate is wasted. If enough people actually vote for who they want to, we have a real chance at change in the country. I'm voting for either Stein or Johnson. I know they are at opposite ends of the spectrum on most issues, but in the research I've done on their platforms, either system could work. I just need to do my homework and figure out which one makes the most sense to me. They agree on the issues that are deal breakers to me, but the other issues - like gun control - I can go either way on. I know that sounds weird, but I can't make up my own mind, because I can see both sides.
     
  12. will_shred

    will_shred not that good.

    Messages:
    2,844
    Likes Received:
    364
    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2012
    Location:
    Rochester NY
    I think that all in all Hillary Clinton is running a terrible campaign and it makes me very nervous. #TrumpYourself was childish and cringe worthy, all of her social media presence is spent on attacking Trump and not talking about actual policy. I really think she should have picked a progressive for VP, that would have been a really good olive branch to extend to the enormous part of the democratic constituency that she will need the backing of to win this election. Now this whole thing about hiring DWS as her campaign coordinator, it just looks bad. It seems like they just don't understand how to tap into the energy that Sanders did..
     
  13. TheHandOfStone

    TheHandOfStone E♭M7(♭5)

    Messages:
    1,848
    Likes Received:
    176
    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2007
    Location:
    Eastern PA
    Hillary isn't Trump, so that's pretty neat. Other than that, meh.
    I share all your concerns. I realize it's a somewhat different game now, but nothing I've seen so far has been encouraging.
     
  14. Randy

    Randy Ooh, Degrasse Tyson-son Super Moderator

    Messages:
    19,838
    Likes Received:
    2,455
    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2006
    Location:
    The Electric City, NY
    I don't interact with a lot of people who are or were pro-Hillary, so I've got no direct observations to go along with what's been going on. The two most vocal, pro-Hillary people I've interacted with have been on here and that's Drew and celtick. When confronted with the questions you bring up, the answer seems to be "her support among Democrats is still strong" "85 of Sanders voters still say they'll vote for her" "she won the primary with 4 million more votes than Sanders" "people who don't like her now never did, never will and probably would've voted 3rd party anyway."

    So essentially, you ask the question "what have you done to not alienate voters like me?" and the answer you get is that people like you either don't exist or don't matter, which isn't exactly comforting or inclusive. I'm an objective enough person to understand when I'm in the minority and accept that, but I'm also objective enough to see when what I'm hearing doesn't match reality entirely.

    Whether or not I like or can even accept Hillary Clinton as a candidate, it's hard not to look at this from the sidelines and feel like Hillary and her camp could be buying too much into their own hype, ultimately underestimating their competition. So if you're like I was (idgaf at this point), you bring up these points because you legitimately want to stop Trump even if you don't get 100% of what you want, and the dismissiveness, and you get insulted and offered no consolation, as if the assumption is you bring up these points only to satisfy your personal political beliefs. By the third or fourth time that happened, I started saying either I'm totally wrong (entirely possible but seems implausible based on all listed earlier) or these people are stubborn enough and have no interest in representing you regardless, that I'm all out of energy trying to fight them while trying to fight for them.

    The Wasserman Schultz hire seals it for me. The scandal proves that DWS and the DNC she ran had no objectivity and were fully invested in one solution, only. Keep in mind, her only success (DWS) was getting a wildly popular POTUS re-elected; which is somehing that's near automatic often. Alongside of that is the fact the Democrats lost the House and Senate in the first election she managed directly and it's stayed that way ever since, crippling the president's ability to do his job anyway.

    At best, that means DWS was hired by Hillary's campaign as payback for rigging the primary (in spite of her universally poor abilities on display everywhere else) and at worst, they're stupid enough to overlook what an awful campaign strategist she is (including the likelihood she can and probably will chase off a lot of Bernie supporters still on the fence). Neither of those scenarios, in the context of the questions I've posted, bode particularly well for their aspirations or their maanagement style even if they do win.
     
  15. wankerness

    wankerness SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    4,055
    Likes Received:
    166
    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2012
    Location:
    WI
    She's a complete idiot and an awful candidate and is corrupt as hell. I don't want the world to end, though, so the only responsible vote is one for her. There is no area in which Trump sounds better, and refusing to vote or voting independent is the same thing as voting for trump if you live in any state other than like, California or Oregon or Washington or NY. If you live in one of those, by all means, vote independent. Hillary is a horrible candidate and this party is going to get "Trumped" next primary cycle, that's for damn sure. As in, NO ONE is going to vote for the establishment candidate and they're going to vote for whoever is least like her corrupt ass.

    Debbie Wasserman Schultz belongs in the unemployment line. Hillary appointing her is such an arrogant, ....ty act. It's like a blatant, public refusal to admit that what she did was wrong.

    Throwing your vote away is not a revolutionary act, nor is refusing to vote. The latter is lazy and both are an active contribution towards making the country worse when TRUMP is the only real opposition.

    I suppose if you live in Texas, you should vote third party to voice your disagreement, since there's not a chance in hell the democratic candidate would win anyway.
     
  16. CapnForsaggio

    CapnForsaggio Cap'n (general)

    Messages:
    785
    Likes Received:
    24
    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2016
    Location:
    Albany, OR
    However you need to justify your vote man.

    Those are some mental gymnastics you are using to legitimize the lizard queen we have running.
     
  17. flint757

    flint757 SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    6,400
    Likes Received:
    197
    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2011
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    You should have read my location before replying to my post in the other thread. :lol:

    I'd argue being 'business as usual' with how things are is equally lazy personally, bordering on being just as indifferent as those who don't even bother voting at all (I have the distinct feeling this election will have one of the worst turnouts ever). The downside to a Republic is that we the people have to use surrogates to get things done or stop everything in our lives and become politicians/lobbyists ourselves. I can't do either of those and with my history I'd get destroyed by negative PR I'm certain if I were to even try.

    Ultimately, the boogeyman routine doesn't effect me as much as it used to. I bolded some key phrasing in your post because the idea that she's acceptable collateral seems equally ludicrous to me, as for me these particular points are not what make a good leader. This election feels like it's just as controversial as Watergate and ultimately it doomed Nixon.
     
  18. wankerness

    wankerness SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    4,055
    Likes Received:
    166
    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2012
    Location:
    WI
    I guess it comes down to this:

    Do you think anyone other than Hillary or Trump has a chance?

    Do you think things will be better with Trump in charge?

    Do you want a conservative appointed to the supreme court?

    If "no" to all three, why would you vote for anyone else if you live in a swing state? "Personal stands" are great in theory, but the system is totally f'd and you won't have a chance to do anything to change it until next primary cycle in four years. If you live in a swing state and vote for anyone other than Hillary or stay home, you're voting for Trump. Being a pragmatist is the only form of damage control you can do here. If you vote for the third party candidate now and get Trump elected, the only signal you're going to send is that "America voted to elect Trump." Bernie gets this, but his die-hard supporters sure don't seem to. They're right to be infuriated, but as he's saying, to essentially "vote Trump" is to flush any tiny chance of anything good at all happening for the next four years straight down the toilet.

    My ideal scenario would be for Hillary to get indicted, drop out of the election, and have someone else entirely get the nomination. >:O
     
  19. CapnForsaggio

    CapnForsaggio Cap'n (general)

    Messages:
    785
    Likes Received:
    24
    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2016
    Location:
    Albany, OR

    No.
    Maybe. Unknown. I KNOW what Hillary is, and I don't trust/like it.
    Yes, I want 4x conservative judges.

    The SC is not for pandering to special interests and ruling on cakes and gay marriage, it is for figuring our complex law, by the books.
     
  20. flint757

    flint757 SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    6,400
    Likes Received:
    197
    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2011
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    I get your perspective, truly, but on the other side of that coin is giving the current group of politicians implicit approval for their illegal/inappropriate actions. In 4 years time most of your 'always blue' type liberals will have completely forgotten the ridiculous crap their party pulled and likely there would be a new boogeyman to justify some other lesser evil when the time comes. There always is. You also have the lifers who live in complete denial about the issues within the party, or see nothing wrong with blatant rule/law breaking as long as it works in their favor (the true selfish a-holes in this discussion).

    Change isn't waiting for another 4 years anyhow. This election has more than just the president up for grabs and in 2 years time there will be more seats up for reelection. If you vote locally, or on state issues, then even odd year elections should hold some significance for you. In fact, in the long run, it's the people who either never vote, or only vote for the president every 4 years, that have led us down this horrible path with the choices we are now left facing.
     

Share This Page