# Shocking news: Hillary Clinton clinches democratic nomination



## HeHasTheJazzHands (Jun 6, 2016)

Hillary Clinton clinches nomination: Here's how she did it

As one of the (probably) few Clinton supporters here, I'm glad this is finally settled.


----------



## asher (Jun 6, 2016)

Fvcking finally.


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Jun 6, 2016)

Except she hasn't yet, and this is in all likelihood a very aggressive and convenient tactic used to sway any last minute decides away from Sanders tomorrow in California. If Sanders does well there, he'll be substantially closer to Hillary, and Superdelegates are not Pledged Delegates.


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands (Jun 6, 2016)

Adam Of Angels said:


> Except she hasn't yet, and this is in all likelihood a very aggressive and convenient tactic used to sway any last minute decides away from Sanders tomorrow in California. If Sanders does well there, he'll be substantially closer to Hillary, and Superdelegates are not Pledged Delegates.



Clinton wasn't the one that announced this.  It was the Associated Press. If anything, Clinton can LOSE momentum from this since people will think she already has it in the bag. She probably didn't want the announcement to happen in the first place. 

On top of that, unless some monumental cluster.... happens on Clintons part (her going to prison, which a LOT of people seem to want), I highly doubt superdelegates will sway towards Bernie. He's been doing a terrible job of trying to convince them to sway. Given the negative campaigning he's been doing in the passed month and all the allegations of fraud, I doubt he's going to do a good job of convincing people.

As for him doing good in California, the most generous polls have Bernie behind by 2 points, and the mail-in ballot polls have Clinton winning by as much as double-digit points.

EDIT: Actually, I take it back. A lot of Hillary's voters usually go with an absentee ballot. So yeah, this could hurt Bernie.


----------



## Randy (Jun 7, 2016)

Bernie's not going to flip it but the shouting him down for staying in it and the insistence Hillary has had it locked up for over a month hasn't done much to sooth any issues I've had with her.

The DNC had a chance to compromise with Bernie when they chose convention chairs and co-chairs and instead they picked 3 out of his 40 recommendations and they kept in place his most vitriolic opponents (such as Barney Frank). Whether Bernie admits it or not, he never had a chance and he knew that but he needed to wage a persistent campaign to get the party to start considering Progressives in a serious way. If they offered any significant indications they were going to even marginally capitulate, he would've probably hung it up already. Instead articles like this and the collective refusal to offer any compromises is going to galvanize the disenfranchised center-left independents more and he's going to (rightfully, IMO) keep needling the party up to and potentially after the convention.

I've said it a million times now. I hate Hillary Clinton but I'd put her at least marginally above Trump. The way things are right now, I don't care enough to even show up to vote in November but I'm not opposed to showing up, holding my nose and voting Hillary if I'm offered anything at all. So far all Sanders supporters have been offered is 1.) "anyone but Trump" 2.) You're stupid kids, just get over it and vote like a big boy 3.) Hillary's platform is progressive enough, she does need to change one bit.

If you wanted to create the perfect storm to give Trump the presidency, the DNC has been doing a bangup job at it.


----------



## dr_game0ver (Jun 7, 2016)

good thing i am not American so i don't have to chose between a racist crazy clown f*ck or a lunatic mentally sick left wing trash trying to create a 4th reich... until next year.


----------



## celticelk (Jun 7, 2016)

Randy said:


> The way things are right now, I don't care enough to even show up to vote in November but I'm not opposed to showing up, holding my nose and voting Hillary if I'm offered anything at all. So far all Sanders supporters have been offered is 1.) "anyone but Trump" 2.) You're stupid kids, just get over it and vote like a big boy 3.) Hillary's platform is progressive enough, she does need to change one bit.



Exit polling and surveys suggest that ideology/policies are not the main drivers of the Clinton/Sanders split: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/23/o...rs-favor-his-policies.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0. Specifically, Sanders voters were *less* likely than Clinton voters to support Sanders' policy proposals. Under those circumstances, I wouldn't expect the Clinton team to make significant concessions to Sanders' positions during the general election.


----------



## TheTrooper (Jun 7, 2016)

Let me say something (here comes the guy that lives in the most desperate, corrupted, rotten, comical Nation of the World)

It's not over at all.
If You listen/read the .... that Rolling Stone says well, I'm sorry for You but Clinton doesn't have 2383 delegats, primaries in California aren't done yet and things change along the way.

Sure, Clinton will probably be the Democratic Nominee since she's way ahead of Sanders, but she's not *yet*


----------



## Mordacain (Jun 7, 2016)

Oh, the AP continues to make the same mistake they've made since before the campaign even started and is counting pledged superdelegates as if they've actually voted?  

I'd have preferred if Bernie hadn't had to resort to running a negative campaign; of course he's just firing the gun and Clinton and the DNC are the ones giving him the ammunition. Most recent example: the state department postponing releasing her emails on TPP until November; that's not suspicious at all 

I'm on the fence if I could hold my nose and vote for her. Pragmatically, I know she is the lesser of two evils (though only just) but it does seem more likely that the inevitable sheer incompetency of a Trump presidency might be enough to push the voting population over the cliff and embrace a true progressive candidate (say an Elizabeth Warren) in 2020. True, historical data would show that never being the case, but as we've seen, historical data hasn't been worth a .... this election cycle and the new generation coming into the polls for the first time this election cycle are overwhelmingly progressive from a policy standpoint.

Luckily for this go-round my vote is absolutely worthless (I live in South Carolina and Clinton is never getting even close to the majority here) so I can vote my conscious and vote for Jill Stein).


----------



## bostjan (Jun 7, 2016)

How many people will actually vote for whomever they want to win?

If a majority of people are voting based upon whomever they hate least, then the election process has already failed the nation.


----------



## Randy (Jun 7, 2016)

celticelk said:


> Under those circumstances, I wouldn't expect the Clinton team to make significant concessions to Sanders' positions during the general election.



Not entirely sure what you're implying the end game is here. Sanders supporters actually like Hillary's policies better, so they're all of the sudden going to forget who's mouth they're coming out of and vote for her in November, or her numbers are good enough without them that all of Bernie's supporters can stay home in November and she'll still win handily?


----------



## Mordacain (Jun 7, 2016)

Randy said:


> Not entirely sure what you're implying the end game is here. Sanders supporters actually like Hillary's policies better, so they're all of the sudden going to forget who's mouth they're coming out of and vote for her in November, or her numbers are good enough without them that all of Bernie's supporters can stay home in November and she'll still win handily?



I don't think we can really say the Sander's supporters actually like Clinton's policies better. I've only seen one article (which cites no proper references, mind you: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/23/o...do-sanders-supporters-favor-his-policies.html) and it was from the the New York Times, whose pro-Clinton bias is well established. That article was based on exit polling from 22 of the primaries, many of which were closed primaries which blocks many of Sander's supporters from even voting, let alone taking an exit poll.

To even address whether or not Clinton can win the general without the Sander's supporters coming over we'd have to look at the break-down of what states she has carried on her own. By and large, the states that propelled her to the lead in the nomination are states that she cannot possibly win in the general (namely, mostly Southern, blood-red states) or that are at best very close swing states. Given the break-down of total votes in states like Florida, Trump had her beat in raw voter turnout in general. Going by primary voter turnout numbers, she really does need all of the Sanders' supporters and independents she can get.


----------



## vilk (Jun 7, 2016)

Randy was suggesting/asking if that the other dude was implying the stuff that Randy wrote, I thought.


----------



## Mordacain (Jun 7, 2016)

vilk said:


> Randy was suggesting/asking if that the other dude was implying the stuff that Randy wrote, I thought.



Yea, that's my bad. I can see that being confusing now. I was just responding to the idea about policies in the most convenient way to me.

Apologies for slight thread derailment.


----------



## Randy (Jun 7, 2016)

vilk said:


> Randy was suggesting/asking if that the other dude was implying the stuff that Randy wrote, I thought.



Mostly just asking him to clarify. He's implying something without stating it explicitly and I'm a little unclear on what his point is.

My common sense has said what Mordacain wrote is how things play out and celticelk's post says basically the polar opposite. I'm open to the idea that my supposed 'common sense' is wrong but I'd like to hear a more full throated explanation if I'm going to accept such a radically different viewpoint.


----------



## Randy (Jun 7, 2016)

Mordacain said:


> Yea, that's my bad. I can see that being confusing now. I was just responding to the idea about policies in the most convenient way to me.
> 
> Apologies for slight thread derailment.



No derailment at all. Like I said, you basically typed what I've been thinking. I just wanted the other guy to clarify his points further.


----------



## CapnForsaggio (Jun 7, 2016)

TECHNICALLY, aren't the super delegates "free" until they cast their ballots at the convention?

A big Bernie win in California may set some of them afloat. They won't say, 'I'm going to go Bernie.' But they might say 'I'll think about it. See you at the convention.'

Especially considering the dislike-a-thon taking place between Hillary and Trump....?


----------



## celticelk (Jun 7, 2016)

Randy said:


> Not entirely sure what you're implying the end game is here. Sanders supporters actually like Hillary's policies better, so they're all of the sudden going to forget who's mouth they're coming out of and vote for her in November, or her numbers are good enough without them that all of Bernie's supporters can stay home in November and she'll still win handily?



My point was that since the data suggest that primary votes against Clinton are based on things *other than* policy preferences, it makes little sense for Clinton to push her platform further left in the vain hopes of attracting those votes back. (And before anyone brings it up: of course there are people who prefer Sanders based on policy, but the point of these data is that policy differences are apparently less important than other factors in determining Democratic primary votes.) This point is especially pertinent (and I didn't make this clear in my initial response) if, by tacking left, Clinton risks alienating moderate independents who are actually considering voting for Trump as a serious choice between candidates rather than as an exercise in anti-establishment advocacy (which seems to be the case for a fair few voters on the Sanders side). Does that make more sense?


----------



## celticelk (Jun 7, 2016)

CapnForsaggio said:


> TECHNICALLY, aren't the super delegates "free" until they cast their ballots at the convention?
> 
> A big Bernie win in California may set some of them afloat. They won't say, 'I'm going to go Bernie.' But they might say 'I'll think about it. See you at the convention.'
> 
> Especially considering the dislike-a-thon taking place between Hillary and Trump....?



Obviously they *might*, but the preponderance of the evidence suggest they *won't*. The votes of the superdelegates have not contradicted the vote outcome of the pledged delegates in any Democratic primary in the last three decades, since the superdelegate system was instituted, and Clinton is going to win the majority of the pledged delegates. The burden of proof is on those claiming that things will be different this year.


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands (Jun 7, 2016)

^Thats what I was trying to say. The chances of supers flipping to Sanders is extremely slim. Given Clinton has the most votes so far, they're going for her. Hell, the only time a super flipped this election season was a Puerto Rico one from Bernie to Hillary, because she had better policies for Puerto Rico.

Also, given that Clinton also has a higher chance of winning Cali today (a lot of Clinton voters used an absentee ballot), once again, chances of supers flipping from Clinton to Hillary are small unless Bernie _demolishes_ her in Cali. And by the looks of it, it'll be a very close race. Clinton has to completely .... up Cali, but even then it looks like it'll still be in her favor.


----------



## Randy (Jun 7, 2016)

I'm not really into 'horse race' politics, so I don't really care what the numbers look like today and I have a feeling they won't make a difference on Sanders or his supporters position going forward.


----------



## Randy (Jun 7, 2016)

celticelk said:


> by tacking left, Clinton risks alienating moderate independents who are actually considering voting for Trump as a serious choice between candidates rather than as an exercise in anti-establishment advocacy (which seems to be the case for a fair few voters on the Sanders side)



By your own admission, Sanders appeal isn't entirely based on 'left-right' politics or more specifically, how much "further left" he is than Clinton. There are a lot of ways Hillary can appeal to his base (and voters like me) without having to move linear left (ie of 'linear left movement: reduced interest student loans -> free college for all, low premium insurance coverage -> medicare for all) as you seem to be implying. I'm not a college student and NYS already extends to me healthcare at no premium, so I've got no personal investment in that platform anyway. 

This still returns to my original point, which is that I'm an open minded Sanders supporter (and not even one that believes the Democratic candidate needs to be 'extreme left') and I've still been offered no solid reasons to vote Hillary other than "stop Trump". Maybe it's just an anecdote or I'm an anomaly but that's not inspiration enough for me to vote for her in November and I'd start to be concerned with the idea that other people who feel the same way might present a problem if not dealt with. 

In your assessment, people like me are marginal and they can afford to ignore us. I'd be inclined to believe that's foolish.


----------



## celticelk (Jun 7, 2016)

Randy said:


> By your own admission, Sanders appeal isn't entirely based on 'left-right' politics or more specifically, how much "further left" he is than Clinton. There are a lot of ways Hillary can appeal to his base (and voters like me) without having to move linear left (ie of 'linear left movement: reduced interest student loans -> free college for all, low premium insurance coverage -> medicare for all) as you seem to be implying. I'm not a college student and NYS already extends to me healthcare at no premium, so I've got no personal investment in that platform anyway.
> 
> This still returns to my original point, which is that I'm an open minded Sanders supporter (and not even one that believes the Democratic candidate needs to be 'extreme left') and I've still been offered no solid reasons to vote Hillary other than "stop Trump". Maybe it's just an anecdote or I'm an anomaly but that's not inspiration enough for me to vote for her in November and I'd start to be concerned with the idea that other people who feel the same way might present a problem if not dealt with.



What, exactly, *would* sway you to vote for Clinton?


----------



## CapnForsaggio (Jun 7, 2016)

celticelk said:


> Obviously they *might*, but the preponderance of the evidence suggest they *won't*. The votes of the superdelegates have not contradicted the vote outcome of the pledged delegates in any Democratic primary in the last three decades, since the superdelegate system was instituted, and Clinton is going to win the majority of the pledged delegates. The burden of proof is on those claiming that things will be different this year.



It is OBVIOUS to me that a win in California is very important to Clinton. Why else the staged "Clinton has won it" dialogue 24 hours before the California primary? There haven't been any primaries or changes for at least a week... But last night, it was finally determined that she already won.... 24 hours before the most important state primary of the season.... huh....

I'm not providing any proof of anything, but you have to admit it smells fishy.


----------



## celticelk (Jun 7, 2016)

CapnForsaggio said:


> It is OBVIOUS to me that a win in California is very important to Clinton. Why else the staged "Clinton has won it" dialogue 24 hours before the California primary? There haven't been any primaries or changes for at least a week... But last night, it was finally determined that she already won.... 24 hours before the most important state primary of the season.... huh....
> 
> I'm not providing any proof of anything, but you have to admit it smells fishy.



Never mind that Clinton's campaign immediately and publicly declared that such an announcement was premature: AP: Clinton is presumptive Democratic presidential nominee

(BTW, the AP report was based on "additional new votes from superdelegates, the party officials and activists who have a vote at the convention and can support a candidate regardless of primary results," so it's entirely plausible that those numbers were brand-new at the time that the AP reported them.)

Also, I'd like to know on what basis you think that CA is the most important primary of the season, given the polling, Clinton's lead, and the fact that Democratic primaries all apportion their votes proportionally.


----------



## celticelk (Jun 7, 2016)

^^^ For additional counterweight to the "most important primary" claim: It&#8217;s Almost Over: A Guide To The Final Primaries | FiveThirtyEight


----------



## Randy (Jun 7, 2016)

celticelk said:


> What, exactly, *would* sway you to vote for Clinton?



I've seen her talk about things like healthcare and student loans, etc. Her competitor is saying "I'll give you all that stuff for free" and she does a pretty effective job of rolling back expectations and she's sold a lot of people on her pragmatism. When she says "look, I wish it could be free too but it's not practical, so we're going to do this instead and I know, I agree with you and it doesn't sound as great but realistically that's where we're at and this is what we need to do" it resonates, she can be apologetic but honest, and still stand strong on those positions. That's good.

Then you get to speaking engagements infront of Wall Street and she pleads the fifth. I'm not looking to 'whitewash' villainize Wall Street because of how incestuous the relationship is between them and the government and the economy of the United States, that they're intrinsically linked and in all practicality, deals have been done and will continue to be done that the populous won't be big fans of. I get that. If she came out with WHAT she said in those speeches and she used the same "real talk" she's used around all other subjects, I'm sure people wouldn't like to hear it but if it's the truth and what she believes is necessary, than people will shake it off. Depending on the content (which, as you can tell with how I prefaced this, I'm very fair and flexible on), I'd be willing to shake it off.

That's one subject regarding her but there's others. If she was outright and honest about them, I'd say "oh well" and deal with it. When somebody's willing to be straight and honest, and talk down your expectations into trying to be realistic and pragmatic, but they shy away COMPLETELY from letting you in on certain stuff... that worries me.


----------



## Randy (Jun 7, 2016)

celticelk said:


> Never mind that Clinton's campaign immediately and publicly declared that such an announcement was premature: AP: Clinton is presumptive Democratic presidential nominee
> 
> (BTW, the AP report was based on "additional new votes from superdelegates, the party officials and activists who have a vote at the convention and can support a candidate regardless of primary results," so it's entirely plausible that those numbers were brand-new at the time that the AP reported them.)
> 
> Also, I'd like to know on what basis you think that CA is the most important primary of the season, given the polling, Clinton's lead, and the fact that Democratic primaries all apportion their votes proportionally.





celticelk said:


> ^^^ For additional counterweight to the "most important primary" claim: Its Almost Over: A Guide To The Final Primaries | FiveThirtyEight



Wow, the double speak. So the race "isn't over" but it's "been over"?


----------



## Mordacain (Jun 7, 2016)

celticelk said:


> What, exactly, *would* sway you to vote for Clinton?



She could totally win my vote if she did all of the following:

Fully denounce TPP and commit to repeal NAFTA, CAFTA and generally commit to introducing legislation to combat American companies' off-shoring and move towards re-shoring.

Denouncing the drone strike program and commit to ending prolonged military action in the middle east (as clearly we don't know what the .... we're doing and just making the situation worse). Commit to not being a war-hawk once in office.

Commit to reinstating Glass-Steagall and enforcing Dodd-Frank.

Commit to institute an aggressive carbon tax within her 1st six months in office. Remove anyone in the EPA that has been employed by the fossil fuel industry. Firmly condemn fracking and move to ban the practice.

I could go on but seriously, she's not going to do any of those things (and has already said as much in debates against Sanders).

So what I'm saying is...nothing. The only thing she has going for her is she isn't Trump.


----------



## tacotiklah (Jun 9, 2016)

celticelk said:


> What, exactly, *would* sway you to vote for Clinton?



Probably if she were on Survivor and there was a home audience poll to vote her off the island. She'd have my vote then.


----------



## bostjan (Jun 9, 2016)

Obama sold me on withdrawing troops out of dangerous places where the USA has no business and closing GitMo. If Clinton took a similar position, I'd be too skeptical, because of her history, and because Obama didn't do what he promised, either, at least not right away. So, to get my vote, she'd need to:

A) Have a life-changing epiphany due to something or other very personal, and make it believable enough that I could buy that she's not a cannibal blancmange from planet Skyron in disguise, then make a believable appeal that she stands for individual libery for all Americans.
B) Donate all her money to charity and apologize for being a horrible person, plead guilty to mishandling classified information and obstruction, get pardoned by Obama, and somehow still manage to run a campaign based on corruption reformation in federal government.
C) Show her true colours by publicly declaring she is a follower of the Cthulhu cult and only wants the presidency to awaken the Deep Ones and re-engineer planet Earth to his vision.


----------



## Edika (Jun 9, 2016)

TheTrooper said:


> Let me say something (here comes the guy that lives in the most desperate, corrupted, rotten, comical Nation of the World)



I challenge that notion as I come from an even more desperate, corrupted, rotten, comical Nation of the World even if I don't live there anymore.

Aside from that Clinton against Trump goes beyond being between a rock and a hard place, it's like being between sharktopus vs whalewolf (yes I went there!). It seems like cheesy science fiction/horror but it's true. Nevertheless I prefer the corruption of Hillary to the crazy of Trump.


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands (Jun 9, 2016)

Even more shocking news.


----------



## CapnForsaggio (Jun 9, 2016)

Edika said:


> I challenge that notion as I come from an even more desperate, corrupted, rotten, comical Nation of the World even if I don't live there anymore.
> 
> Aside from that Clinton against Trump goes beyond being between a rock and a hard place, it's like being between sharktopus vs whalewolf (yes I went there!). It seems like cheesy science fiction/horror but it's true. Nevertheless I prefer the corruption of Hillary to the crazy of Trump.



No, you prefer the status quo, which is what Hillary represents. 

And that is OK.... just don't act surprised that many, many people are tired/done with the status quo.

There are essentially 2x groups who will defend the status quo to the death:

1) the "successful" - not 1%ers, but anyone who is upper middle class or above. 

2) the lowest tier, who subside on government assistance. 

These groups get what they need out of government, and do not want change.


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Jun 9, 2016)

The way I see it, Trump doesn't even deserve to be taken seriously, and so he is automatically disqualified from consideration. That leaves me to think about Clinton as President, and I absolutely don't want to see that happen. I'll be voting for a third party/write-in.


----------



## ThePIGI King (Jun 9, 2016)

Adam Of Angels said:


> The way I see it, Trump doesn't even deserve to be taken seriously, and so he is automatically disqualified from consideration. That leaves me to think about Clinton as President, and I absolutely don't want to see that happen. I'll be voting for a third party/write-in.



I don't want to instigate, but I tend to do just that.

But why doesn't Trump deserve to be taken seriously and Clinton does? Clinton has just as many non-supporters as Trump does. What makes Clinton any more valid to be President than Trump?

I see Clinton as a liar. Not that it's any news, really, since most people pursuing anything political are, but she tends to come off as worse. When asked about wiping her email server, she replied with something along the lines of, "What? You mean wiping the server off with a dust rag?". Now, either she's a really, really desperate and bad liar, or she's really, really stupid. And, in my opinion, I don't want a president that is either stupid or somebody that isn't tough enough to "man up" to their mistakes or faults and work on them. Just my opinion, like I said, I'm not trying to start any arguments, I'm just looking for opinions from people that are going to vote for her.


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Jun 9, 2016)

^ Clinton is a liar. What makes her able to be taken seriously is the fact that she makes coherent points, answers questions (at least some of the time), and knows what she is talking about. Those aren't compliments, just proof that she has basic communication skills. Trump, on the other hand, almost never actually says anything - literally: he sort of just babbles without taking a breath until either a buzzword or an insult finds its way out of his mouth. Leading up to those moments, he navigates with body language and emotion more than he does with intelligible language skills. It's unbelievable that he has made it anywhere in this race, yet here we are.


----------



## Mordacain (Jun 9, 2016)

ThePIGI King said:


> I don't want to instigate, but I tend to do just that.
> 
> But why doesn't Trump deserve to be taken seriously and Clinton does? Clinton has just as many non-supporters as Trump does. What makes Clinton any more valid to be President than Trump?
> 
> I see Clinton as a liar. Not that it's any news, really, since most people pursuing anything political are, but she tends to come off as worse. When asked about wiping her email server, she replied with something along the lines of, "What? You mean wiping the server off with a dust rag?". Now, either she's a really, really desperate and bad liar, or she's really, really stupid. And, in my opinion, I don't want a president that is either stupid or somebody that isn't tough enough to "man up" to their mistakes or faults and work on them. Just my opinion, like I said, I'm not trying to start any arguments, I'm just looking for opinions from people that are going to vote for her.



Well, for one, Trump doesn't detail any of his policy positions; he speaks in hyperbole and when anyone actually tries to get him to detail specific policy positions and how they would work, he can't do it.

Being president is NOT about character, it's about who can be a capable administrator. Clinton can absolutely be a capable administrator which we can see from her time as Secretary of State. Of course, she'll be a hawkish administrator, happily propelling us into never-ending war while continuing to strangle the middle class and send the profits to her donor base. However, the US basically continues in a business as usual fashion with some token social progress.

Trump on the other hand, has leveraged the bankruptcy system to take his failing as a businessman and socialize the losses to the American people. He also said he'd do the same for the USA with the idea that he could negotiate a better deal with our creditors. Unfortunately he doesn't know enough to know that the world economy is tied to the dollar. If we fail, the world fails, anarchy ensues and it's suddenly Mad Max out there. That's not even taking into account the stupidly expensive wall that would cost more to build and maintain than the amount that illegal immigration already costs our GDP...or his plan to gut the constitution so he can keep Muslims out of the country...or his plans for those he likes to call "his African American." I could go on, but you get the general idea.

I do take him seriously...as a threat to our constitution and the principles this country was founded on (regardless of how far afield we are from them at present).


----------



## celticelk (Jun 9, 2016)

Mordacain said:


> .
> Being president is NOT about character, it's about who can be a capable administrator.



I disagree insofar as the president is also the diplomat-in-chief, which is yet another reason to support Clinton over Trump. His public persona is apparently founded entirely on bluster, condescension, and self-aggrandizement. Can you imagine him sitting down for a serious, nuanced discussion of issues with the leader of any of our allied nations? (And, on a more self-serving note, I can't bear four years of media clips of his "speeches." The man makes GWB sound like a champion orator.)


----------



## Mordacain (Jun 9, 2016)

celticelk said:


> I disagree insofar as the president is also the diplomat-in-chief, which is yet another reason to support Clinton over Trump. His public persona is apparently founded entirely on bluster, condescension, and self-aggrandizement. Can you imagine him sitting down for a serious, nuanced discussion of issues with the leader of any of our allied nations? (And, on a more self-serving note, I can't bear four years of media clips of his "speeches." The man makes GWB sound like a champion orator.)



I agree in principle, but in the character department we have what is a tie to me. Clinton might not say the outrageous ...., but her voting record and propensity to change positions with the wind doesn't exactly instill a vote of confidence in her character to me.

At least Trump tells you he's a raging douchecanoe up front. Clinton makes you work for it.


----------



## Hachetjoel (Jun 10, 2016)

tacotiklah said:


> Probably if she were on Survivor and there was a home audience poll to vote her off the island. She'd have my vote then.



Actually I'd rather she just stay on the island. Forever.


----------



## QuantumCybin (Jun 10, 2016)

Gary Johnson 2016 will be my vote, just like it was in 2012. I believe this is the first year a third party candidate (libertarian in this case) will be on the ballot in all 50 states. Screw bipartisanship; it's so bloated and ridiculous. Seriously, why other parties don't get federal funding or are allowed to participate in nationally televised debates is beyond me!


----------



## Edika (Jun 10, 2016)

CapnForsaggio said:


> No, you prefer the status quo, which is what Hillary represents.
> 
> And that is OK.... just don't act surprised that many, many people are tired/done with the status quo.
> 
> ...



I actually don't prefer the status quo or government and politics remaining stagnant in the pool of thei own filth. I rarely get surprised by politicians, when Obama was ready to take office I was expecting him to do even less from what he did, even if most people were ecstatic in the US. I'm sure Hillary will be a quite awful US president that will mainly pander the 1%. I never saw number two happen in your country and it isn't going to happen anytime soon as government assistant is considered a vile slur in your neck of the woods.

However I prefer the crazy person being in charge to be at least a medicated one that kind of goes to therapy (but secretly is planning to slash my throat) than the one shouting at the streets and sharpening his knife at plain view with a grin on his face looking at me.


----------



## bostjan (Jun 10, 2016)

Anyone making a bid for presidency backed by a large pool of monetary resources _needs_ to be taken seriously.


----------



## Drew (Jun 10, 2016)

Mordacain said:


> She could totally win my vote if she did all of the following:
> 
> Fully denounce TPP and commit to repeal NAFTA, CAFTA and generally commit to introducing legislation to combat American companies' off-shoring and move towards re-shoring.
> 
> ...



Not picking on you in particular, just looking to highlight the complexity of this - I'm actually pretty pro-free-trade, and that's one of the reasons that I supported her over Sanders. NAFTA hasn't been bad for America - for all that talk about a "giant sucking sound of jobs leaving for Mexico" in the 90s, it wasn't even a blip on American employment. And protectionism doesn't make much sense - sure, Chevy may be making cars in Mexico, but Toyota's making them here, too - it goes both ways. And America's economy hasn't been manufacturing driven for decades, anyway - we're a service sector country, and our intellectual capital is a greater differentiator than manufacturing might. I'm fine with expanding free trade, especially with deals like the TPP also coming with expanding market liberalization abroad for participant companies. That's a good thing for America, and a good thing for the rest of the world. 

Glass-Steagall is a little iffy, too - retail banking isn't too exciting, but it offers huge capital buffers to shelter losses in other areas of the business, so breaking up retail banks and investment banks will likely increase risk for investment banks, fairly significantly. I think the Dodd-Frank/Basel 3 approach of instead requiring larger risk-weighted capital buffers is probably something that will result in the banking industry as a whole being more stable, for all its flaws (one unintended side effect is it seems to be causing banks to further consolidate - retail banking is largely driven by the differential between the interest rate paid on liabilities vs received on assets, so the best way to grow revenue is get bigger). 

And I don't think America can plausibly step back from the rest of the world. If there's anything we learned in the cold war, pulling out of a conflict (Afghanistan, after we defeated the russians) and the vacuum that can leave can often be more dangerous than going in in the first place. I don't want to see us make that mistake again. 

Idunno, man. It's tough. 

Randy - for reasons to vote for Clinton, I'd offer these; she wants to make a significant increase in the minimum wage. She's interested in overhauling America's education/student loan system to make it easier and more affordable for American students to go to college. She wants to further expand access to health care coverage for Americans, both public and private sector. She's highly likely to seat at least one, possibly more, supreme court justices, and she will undoubtedly select a liberal justice. She, at a minimum, will not weaken financial regulation, and as she continues to court Warren she may even look to further strengthen them. She's pro-immigration, pro-same-sex marriage, and enjoys massive support from the African-American community so she must be doing something right there too. She wants to make our tax code more progressive. 

And, I mean, I know you don't consider "stopping Trump" a reason, but personally I find "she doesn't want to build a wall with Mexico, she doesn't want to ban all Muslims, even US citizens, from the US, unless they're her personal friends, and she doesn't want to default on US debt and "renegotiate" Treasury bonds with the rest of the world" pretty compelling reasons.  It's been a while since we've had a Republican president. I want to keep it that way.


----------



## Mordacain (Jun 10, 2016)

Drew said:


> Not picking on you in particular, just looking to highlight the complexity of this - I'm actually pretty pro-free-trade, and that's one of the reasons that I supported her over Sanders. NAFTA hasn't been bad for America - for all that talk about a "giant sucking sound of jobs leaving for Mexico" in the 90s, it wasn't even a blip on American employment. And protectionism doesn't make much sense - sure, Chevy may be making cars in Mexico, but Toyota's making them here, too - it goes both ways. And America's economy hasn't been manufacturing driven for decades, anyway - we're a service sector country, and our intellectual capital is a greater differentiator than manufacturing might. I'm fine with expanding free trade, especially with deals like the TPP also coming with expanding market liberalization abroad for participant companies. That's a good thing for America, and a good thing for the rest of the world.
> 
> Glass-Steagall is a little iffy, too - retail banking isn't too exciting, but it offers huge capital buffers to shelter losses in other areas of the business, so breaking up retail banks and investment banks will likely increase risk for investment banks, fairly significantly. I think the Dodd-Frank/Basel 3 approach of instead requiring larger risk-weighted capital buffers is probably something that will result in the banking industry as a whole being more stable, for all its flaws (one unintended side effect is it seems to be causing banks to further consolidate - retail banking is largely driven by the differential between the interest rate paid on liabilities vs received on assets, so the best way to grow revenue is get bigger).
> 
> ...



I agree it's tough and there is no one right solution. However, we've tried the free trade route and the American people have not reaped the benefits. Take NAFTA for instance - we were at a 181 Billion trading deficit with our trading partners as of 2014 (not sure what it is at currently so take that with a grain of salt).

My industry (IT) in particular is really hurting from the current regulations. I've been with my company just about 15 years and in the last 5 alone almost all of our new employment has been in Egypt, Indonesia, China and a small outfit in the Czech Republic. Our breakdown used to roughly match the dispersion of customers (as we're a global operation). Roughly 70% of our customer base is in the USA and that used to be roughly our concentration of staff in the USA. It's now down to about 35% in terms of support staff located in the USA. That's all from well within the time period of the Obama administration. I don't see Clinton improving that situation, particularly since the policies that started that originated in the Bill Clinton administration and he is who she's putting back in charge.

Most economists agree Glass-Steagall (in it's original form, not the neutered version we had in 1999) would have prevented the 2007-2008 crash; I'm not an economist, so I'll take their word for it. What I do know is that consumer banking needs to be isolated from investment banking to protect average people's investments in their property.

I'm not a big fan on the concept of privatizing gains while socializing losses.

As far as international conflict goes - we already made the vacuum; Clinton in particular (Libya) and she doesn't regret any of her actions. The US has meddled in foreign affairs for years with main goals of monetary gains from arms production and natural resource thievery. It's beyond time for it to stop. I don't need people calling themselves Democrats when they act like Republicans in policy decisions.


----------



## Drew (Jun 10, 2016)

Most economists disagree on everything.  I think, high level though, there are too sides to that debate, first whether it would have prevented it (and it may have), and second, at what cost would it have prevented it. Financial innovation has done a lot of good, too. 

I'm in the Financial industry (no crap, eh? ) and for a while we were seeing a lot of outsourcing of low-level operations roles. However, in the finance industry, that trend has reversed - "on-sourcing" is the new buzzword, with firms pulling jobs back. I'm no longer in the fund administration/operations industry, but my experience working on outsourced projects (I spent a couple months in India in '07) leads me to suspect that it's no longer cost-effective due to the rapidly increasing cost of labor, and that the quality of work being done was never all that great to begin with. These days the focus is on lower-cost domestic operations, as well as moving support staff offshore when it makes sense from a time zone standpoint for coverage for global operations. Have you seen a similar trend in your field?


----------



## Mordacain (Jun 10, 2016)

Drew said:


> Most economists disagree on everything.  I think, high level though, there are too sides to that debate, first whether it would have prevented it (and it may have), and second, at what cost would it have prevented it. Financial innovation has done a lot of good, too.
> 
> I'm in the Financial industry (no crap, eh? ) and for a while we were seeing a lot of outsourcing of low-level operations roles. However, in the finance industry, that trend has reversed - "on-sourcing" is the new buzzword, with firms pulling jobs back. I'm no longer in the fund administration/operations industry, but my experience working on outsourced projects (I spent a couple months in India in '07) leads me to suspect that it's no longer cost-effective due to the rapidly increasing cost of labor, and that the quality of work being done was never all that great to begin with. These days the focus is on lower-cost domestic operations, as well as moving support staff offshore when it makes sense from a time zone standpoint for coverage for global operations. Have you seen a similar trend in your field?



Yes, I have seen a similar trend in our operation, but it's still disproportionate (in terms of US to offshore resources) when looking at the proportions of our customer base. 

Labor in India and Egypt is on the rise, as you stated and so there are now resources being tapped in Indonesia / Philippines and most recently in mainland China.

Of course, once cost of labor equalizes across the globe it will be mostly a moot point, but that's still the better part of a century away and der Trumpen-fuhrer might have radiated the planet, or Exxon / Mobil / BP / insert your fossil fuel company of choice) has otherwise made the planet uninhabitable by the time that happens.

I'm for free-trade in theory, I just don't think the agreements themselves have been conducive to growth for the American people at large. It's certainly been beneficial to some people, but those are typically people that like to hoard large sums of money and not inject it back into the economy where it can do some real good.


----------



## Drew (Jun 13, 2016)

Mordacain said:


> I'm for free-trade in theory, I just don't think the agreements themselves have been conducive to growth for the American people at large. It's certainly been beneficial to some people, but those are typically people that like to hoard large sums of money and not inject it back into the economy where it can do some real good.



This is an attitude I see a lot, and I kind of wonder how much of that has to do with the _nature_ of the economic recovery we've seen. 

Since the market crash in 2007, we've seen a strong recovery in the stock market (thanks in large part, I suspect, to zero interest rate policies and quantitative easing encouraging a risk-on trade, though it helps that the US is essentially the only developed market economy putting up growth right now), but at the same time we've seen low inflation (which has kept personal balance sheet leverage higher than it might otherwise - inflation reduces debt in "real" terms) coupled with low average income growth. So, because of that, people with large amounts of investable wealth have done pretty well in the last decade, while people whose incomes are primarily from wages and not investment income have comparatively lagged. 

We're starting to see wage growth pick up a little bit so there's hope, but I do kind of wonder if a lot of this growing income inequality has a lot to do with the fact that return on capital has been a lot higher than return on labor. 

Just thinking out loud here.


----------



## bostjan (Jun 20, 2016)

Fart In 
Anyone going to this?


----------



## CapnForsaggio (Jun 20, 2016)

bostjan said:


> Fart In
> Anyone going to this?



Now that's defending democracy and the right to choose your leaders /s

We are a nation of puffs.


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands (Jul 12, 2016)

Bernie Sanders endorses Hillary Clinton - CNNPolitics.com

This is what we need: Unity. It was eventually gonna happen, but good on Bernie for finally doing it.


----------



## Randy (Jul 12, 2016)

HeHasTheJazzHands said:


> This is what we need: Unity. It was eventually gonna happen, but good on Bernie for finally doing it.



"Stop Trump at all costs" =/= Unity

I'm a life-long Democrat and I can tell you Hillary's nomination and the arguments made by the people who support her (several of which that have participated in this very thread and others on here) have absolutely turned my stomach to supporting this party going forward.


----------



## Mordacain (Jul 12, 2016)

Randy said:


> "Stop Trump at all costs" =/= Unity
> 
> I'm a life-long Democrat and I can tell you Hillary's nomination and the arguments made by the people who support her (several of which that have participated in this very thread and others on here) have absolutely turned my stomach to supporting this party going forward.



Yea, I'm done as far as the Democratic party is concerned; the actions of the establishment in this primary have disgusted me.

I'll vote for her in the general (or I would if I lived in a swing state) but I'm in camp meteor at this point.


----------



## Mathemagician (Jul 12, 2016)

Johnson > Kasich > Sanders

In this election cycle in order of who I would want to have as a president. Too bad my vote is reduced to "not Trump tho". We ....ing deserve this .... show though. A country that repeatedly has young people that just don't bother showing up. Only old people who bother showing up for all the smaller elections in each state. A complete lack of term limits and people uninterested in voting for it/pushing the issue. 

This is what happens when people let "other people" run the show for too long. We have schools in states that think not teaching science and climate change is a good thing. And people just let it happen. 

It sucks, but I'm glad it's embarrassing. No one paid attention to candidates that may have potentially been better candidates because that takes effort. And this election was run purely on brand power, which is what they always devolve into. Then by the end it's just "red team or blue team".


----------



## bostjan (Jul 13, 2016)

Mathemagician said:


> Johnson > Kasich > Sanders
> 
> In this election cycle in order of who I would want to have as a president. Too bad my vote is reduced to "not Trump tho". We ....ing deserve this .... show though. A country that repeatedly has young people that just don't bother showing up. Only old people who bother showing up for all the smaller elections in each state. A complete lack of term limits and people uninterested in voting for it/pushing the issue.
> 
> ...



So, the parties are organized such that they have a better chance of winning. I get that. You compromise on a lot of lesser issues in order to have someone in place to push the bigger issues your way. But the democrats and republicans seem only to differ on smaller issues, mostly, meaning that it's time for the next evolution of US politics. Maybe it won't happen today, but it has to happen soon, or else this country will go the way of the dodo.


----------



## Mathemagician (Jul 13, 2016)

bostjan said:


> So, the parties are organized such that they have a better chance of winning. I get that. You compromise on a lot of lesser issues in order to have someone in place to push the bigger issues your way. But the democrats and republicans seem only to differ on smaller issues, mostly, meaning that it's time for the next evolution of US politics. Maybe it won't happen today, but it has to happen soon, or else this country will go the way of the dodo.



What the ....?

Small issues?

Immigration 
Reducing taxes/simplifying the tax code
Freedom of religion not being used as a shield to bigotry
Access to women's medical needs
Birth control
Social Equality (how the .... does it take 50 years since the civil rights movement for gay people to be legally treated like other red blooded tax paying citizens.)
Letting trans people poop in peace
Gun Control (personally I think automatic rifles are just toys, everyone should be able to own as many handguns/shotguns/non AR's as they want though)
Science denial
Foreign policy with depth greater than "no more people of various shades of brown/black"

These are not small issues. It's just that the candidates for important jobs are crap, because as citizens many of us do not put forth the time and effort to review our options regularly and critically, and vote in people who seem to be getting work done and vote out career butt-sitters. 

This country is not going the way of the dodo ever, due to the fact that it is still one of the best places to invest, begin a new company, securely raise a family, amongst many other first world benefits we enjoy. 

That doesn't mean we should be as lazy and apathetic as most of the country has been for so long. 

I really hope the younger end of the millenial voting block starts getting involved so we can start making some progress/negotiations/compromises and move into the next century properly. We're the most dopest country to live in or start over in, and we drag ass at so many things we should be able to improve. (Not magically fix overnight, but like CPR some improvement is better than none.)

Gens X and Y whined a lot, but never mobilized enough to really care outside of presidential elections, because things were largely still pretty good for them. 

I hope people start looki up their senators/congressmen. Even if we disagree, you should still vote beyond which color team they are. Registered democrat here but often like republican/independent candidates more so I vote accordingly. Mind you, I'm still guilty of waiting to the last minute before looking anything up, so I'm not trying to to act like a saint. We're all busy, I get it, but whining because we put no effort in at any point in 4 years and now want things to matter isn't how the world works. 

You don't sleep through college for 4 years and get rewarded with a degree and job. You don't blow off all elections for any leaders then act mad when they don't give a .... about what you care about. $0.020001


----------



## flint757 (Jul 13, 2016)

...and meanwhile they are fairly soon going to be in recess and their top priorities are not fixing things like the water crisis in Flint, but instead on polarizing issues like gun control they can use as leverage for November.

I'm honestly convinced that a lot of the things Republicans do is just political catnip that they don't have any intention on getting done or having it stick around. Like when Texas tried to diminish the right to access abortion they had to know it'd eventually get struck down, but they pursued it anyhow because the people who vote for them want these things even though it is a complete waste of time. It's the same exact thing that occurred when they were attempting to repeal Obamacare WHEN OBAMA WOULD OBVIOUSLY VETO IT IF IT GOT TO HIS DESK. Politicians are manipulative not dumb.

When it comes to corporations, banking/financing, trade, and things that affect the economy/market there really isn't a lot of difference between the two parties. They both talk about tax reform, but it never seems like they get it done, or get it done in any meaningful way, and if you compare Obama's tax rates with Clinton's Obama still reduced the tax rate across the board. 

Seriously though, there is no reason anything else should be debated at the moment until Flint and cities with similar problems get the resolution they so dearly deserve. It has been a problem for over two years and has been considered a state of emergency by both the federal and state government for six months. The reason Democrats chose to do a sit-in for gun legislation instead of issues like this is because, you guessed it, gun legislation is political catnip for liberals. All they care about is getting reelected. It's not that the issues they choose to bring to the table don't matter, but that there are seriously more pressing issues that go ignored because there is nothing to gain politically by solving them. [IMO]


----------



## Drew (Jul 13, 2016)

Randy said:


> "Stop Trump at all costs" =/= Unity
> 
> I'm a life-long Democrat and I can tell you Hillary's nomination and the arguments made by the people who support her (several of which that have participated in this very thread and others on here) have absolutely turned my stomach to supporting this party going forward.



I'm sorry to hear you feel that way, and I hope you don't group me in there, since I definitely tried to give you other reasons to support Clinton than "she's not Trump." Which, to be fair, was an argument I must have just run into a lot less than you, because I was under the impression that there were plenty of other reasons given for Sanders supporters to rally behind Clinton in the general.


----------



## flint757 (Jul 13, 2016)

On any Sander related page Clinton supporters have been seriously overusing Trump as a rally cry or making false claims about voting third party in attempt to convince/force people to vote the way they want. 'Unite to defeat Trump' is an incredibly common theme I've seen all over the web and even in my emails from the DNC. I'm surprised you haven't seen it more often. More likely it just doesn't bother you as much so it doesn't register on your radar though, because it's everywhere.


----------



## bostjan (Jul 13, 2016)

Mathemagician said:


> What the ....?
> 
> Small issues?
> 
> ...



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.



Mathemagician said:


> These are not small issues. It's just that the candidates for important jobs are crap, because as citizens many of us do not put forth the time and effort to review our options regularly and critically, and vote in people who seem to be getting work done and vote out career butt-sitters.



True



Mathemagician said:


> This country is not going the way of the dodo ever, due to the fact that it is still one of the best places to invest, begin a new company, securely raise a family, amongst many other first world benefits we enjoy.
> 
> That doesn't mean we should be as lazy and apathetic as most of the country has been for so long.



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



Mathemagician said:


> I really hope the younger end of the millenial voting block starts getting involved so we can start making some progress/negotiations/compromises and move into the next century properly. We're the most dopest country to live in or start over in, and we drag ass at so many things we should be able to improve. (Not magically fix overnight, but like CPR some improvement is better than none.)
> 
> Gens X and Y whined a lot, but never mobilized enough to really care outside of presidential elections, because things were largely still pretty good for them.
> 
> ...



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.


----------



## Mathemagician (Jul 13, 2016)

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.


----------



## Randy (Jul 13, 2016)

Drew said:


> I'm sorry to hear you feel that way, and I hope you don't group me in there, since I definitely tried to give you other reasons to support Clinton than "she's not Trump." Which, to be fair, was an argument I must have just run into a lot less than you, because I was under the impression that there were plenty of other reasons given for Sanders supporters to rally behind Clinton in the general.



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. 

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.


----------



## Drew (Jul 13, 2016)

flint757 said:


> On any Sander related page Clinton supporters have been seriously overusing Trump as a rally cry or making false claims about voting third party in attempt to convince/force people to vote the way they want. 'Unite to defeat Trump' is an incredibly common theme I've seen all over the web and even in my emails from the DNC. I'm surprised you haven't seen it more often. More likely it just doesn't bother you as much so it doesn't register on your radar though, because it's everywhere.



I'm not on the DNC mailing list.  

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.


----------



## Drew (Jul 13, 2016)

Randy said:


> 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.



Well, as always, if you happen to come through town, happy to discuss this stuff over a beer.  




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


----------



## Randy (Jul 13, 2016)

Drew said:


> Well, as always, if you happen to come through town, happy to discuss this stuff over a beer.



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.


----------



## Drew (Jul 13, 2016)




----------



## Randy (Jul 22, 2016)

Aaand I'm officially Democrat for the fact NYS is a closed primary state. Beyond that, they are not getting another penny from me and no more voting down ballot for Democrats. 

http://heavy.com/news/2016/07/wikil...damaging-worst-rhode-island-delegate-fec-jvf/


----------



## flint757 (Jul 24, 2016)

Randy said:


> Aaand I'm officially Democrat for the fact NYS is a closed primary state. Beyond that, they are not getting another penny from me and no more voting down ballot for Democrats.
> 
> http://heavy.com/news/2016/07/wikil...damaging-worst-rhode-island-delegate-fec-jvf/



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


----------



## wankerness (Jul 24, 2016)

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.


----------



## Hollowway (Jul 24, 2016)

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.


----------



## will_shred (Jul 24, 2016)

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..


----------



## TheHandOfStone (Jul 25, 2016)

Hillary isn't Trump, so that's pretty neat. Other than that, meh.


will_shred said:


> 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..


I share all your concerns. I realize it's a somewhat different game now, but nothing I've seen so far has been encouraging.


----------



## Randy (Jul 25, 2016)

will_shred said:


> 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..



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.


----------



## wankerness (Jul 25, 2016)

will_shred said:


> 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..



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.


----------



## CapnForsaggio (Jul 25, 2016)

However you need to justify your vote man.

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


----------



## flint757 (Jul 25, 2016)

wankerness said:


> 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*.
> 
> ...



You should have read my location before replying to my post in the other thread. 

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.


----------



## wankerness (Jul 25, 2016)

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


----------



## CapnForsaggio (Jul 25, 2016)

wankerness said:


> I guess it comes down to this:
> 
> Do you think anyone other than Hillary or Trump has a chance?
> 
> ...




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.


----------



## flint757 (Jul 25, 2016)

wankerness said:


> I guess it comes down to this:
> 
> Do you think anyone other than Hillary or Trump has a chance?
> 
> ...



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.


----------



## flint757 (Jul 25, 2016)

CapnForsaggio said:


> 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.



The issue with the conservative judges is they aren't as by the book as you'd like to believe either, at least the ones we've had haven't been. They're just pandering to conservatives as well. There have been quite a few conservative majority rulings that I wouldn't consider in the best interest of our citizenry or constitutional.


----------



## wankerness (Jul 25, 2016)

flint757 said:


> 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.



Fair enough. It's unfortunate that with my local/state elections there often ISN'T any alternative to terrible ones.


----------



## flint757 (Jul 25, 2016)

wankerness said:


> Fair enough. It's unfortunate that with my local/state elections there often ISN'T any alternative to terrible ones.



I'm in the exact same boat unfortunately and it isn't like I could run my own campaign as it would never gain any traction in Texas (I'm extremely left leaning).

I wish there was a rule present that required a certain number of votes to legitimize an election. For instance, if less than 60% participate a new election has to be held. That would at least allow not voting to hold some significance and then if anyone did win at least it was with a large number of citizens. There are definitely times when I feel like 'None Of The Above' should be an option.


----------



## wankerness (Jul 26, 2016)

I just spent an hour or so reading the comments on the AV club article about the Sarah Silverman thing. That is a serious SJW site with probably about 1/50 of the population republican. Yet, incredibly (to me), I'd say a good 80% of the comments were like "YOU TELL EM SARAH" "BERNIE BROS ARE SUCH SEXIST DBAGS" "EVERYTHING BAD ABOUT HILLARY IS A RIGHT WING LIE I CAN'T BELIEVE THEY ARE PERPETUATING THEM." I now almost want to vote for Trump! The smugness of these people is astounding. It's not even "lesser of two evils," it's "you lost, shut up babies, we won your vote far and square!!" And these are people that would normally be labelled extremely liberal! Mind-blowing.


----------



## Randy (Jul 26, 2016)

wankerness said:


> I just spent an hour or so reading the comments on the AV club article about the Sarah Silverman thing. That is a serious SJW site with probably about 1/50 of the population republican. Yet, incredibly (to me), I'd say a good 80% of the comments were like "YOU TELL EM SARAH" "BERNIE BROS ARE SUCH SEXIST DBAGS" "EVERYTHING BAD ABOUT HILLARY IS A RIGHT WING LIE I CAN'T BELIEVE THEY ARE PERPETUATING THEM." I now almost want to vote for Trump! The smugness of these people is astounding. It's not even "lesser of two evils," it's "you lost, shut up babies, we won your vote far and square!!" And these are people that would normally be labelled extremely liberal! Mind-blowing.



Glad I'm not alone in this observation.


----------



## flint757 (Jul 26, 2016)

I think what infuriates me the most about all of this is that we get fairly consistent proof that some rather underhanded things happen, which indirectly lends credence to past indiscretions, yet even the undeniable one's get called out as 'whining' or 'right wing lies'. The FBI did for a fact call Clinton's actions reckless, there is actual proof that the DNC, Clinton and party leaders colluded and behaved unethically (and may have indirectly committed fraud due to donations by not being unbiased and fair as it is required), there are emails and tons of video footage showing her inconsistencies, but they just don't seem to care and, more importantly, some still don't even believe that it is true, or they try to deflect blame on literally anyone else (or change the subject). The hypocrisy is what pisses me off the most. If Sanders did this to Clinton he'd be blacklisted, called a sexist pig trying to keep women down and all sort of hateful thing (hell that was happening when he wasn't even doing anything wrong; thus the birth of the Bernie Bro bull....). He'd be driven out of Washington. That is exactly how many die hard Democrats behave when any Republican has any sort of indiscretion that is uncovered. They want blood...but only when it suits them. The difference for myself is that if it turned out Sanders was a POS I'd turn my back on him in a heart beat. I support the ideas, not the party or the politician. On the other hand, the Clinton supporters I've run into online are gigantic hypocrites. I have some die hard Clinton followers in my family and normally they're pretty cheery about the idea of Clinton becoming president, but even they seem a bit gloomy on the subject. They're loyal to a fault either way though and will continue to shower her in support.

I don't agree with it, but I do understand the people who feel like Clinton is the last option to stop Trump. However, the people who think she is spotless and that the Democrats and Clinton have been honest, fair, and 100% guilt free are just deluding themselves (same with the people who claim the 'everyone does it' shtick). Sure, some of the past controversies could be BS, but quite a bit of their dirty laundry is simply undeniable and literally in your face. Like with what went down in the Nevada primary. There is mountains upon mountains of footage proving that the DNC was doing something wrong, and the emails prove collusion existed with the media, which explains the Debbie interviews and chair throwing nonsense that followed (one of many numerous attempts to discredit Bernie).

I'm about as livid as it gets right now. I think I need a couple day's break from politics before I get heart palpitations. 

---

I still find it rather bonkers that when I was campaigning for Bernie I'd be told by Hill Supporters that he won't get anything done, that the president can't act unilaterally, that the president isn't what is important congress is and we should focus our efforts there instead (all for the most part true), but yet these same people will sit here and tell me the end of the world is coming if Trump wins. Mind you this is literally the exact same thing Trump supporters are saying about Hillary on more conservative rags. This is also something people say EVERY single election about the party they oppose and it's pretty much never as bad as it is made out to be because the president is not that powerful.


----------



## celticelk (Jul 26, 2016)

flint757 said:


> I still find it rather bonkers that when I was campaigning for Bernie I'd be told by Hill Supporters that he won't get anything done, that the president can't act unilaterally, that the president isn't what is important congress is and we should focus our efforts there instead (all for the most part true), but yet these same people will sit here and tell me the end of the world is coming if Trump wins.



Those aren't inconsistent positions given that whoever wins the White House, the House of Representatives is still going to be controlled by Republicans, and a Trump win likely also means a Republican-controlled Senate while a Clinton win doesn't guarantee a Democratic-controlled Senate. Ergo, Clinton's initiatives get stonewalled by Congress and Trump's don't. Sure, you can make the argument that Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell will suddenly grow spines and take action to deflect Trump's more outrageous "policy" proposals in the teeth of their political best interests (since a Trump win would probably signal a sea change in the controlling interests of the Republican Party), but I'm not willing to bet the next four years on it.


----------



## Randy (Jul 26, 2016)

celticelk said:


> Those aren't inconsistent positions given that whoever wins the White House, the House of Representatives is still going to be controlled by Republicans, and a Trump win likely also means a Republican-controlled Senate while a Clinton win doesn't guarantee a Democratic-controlled Senate. Ergo, Clinton's initiatives get stonewalled by Congress and Trump's don't. Sure, you can make the argument that Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell will suddenly grow spines and take action to deflect Trump's more outrageous "policy" proposals in the teeth of their political best interests (since a Trump win would probably signal a sea change in the controlling interests of the Republican Party), but I'm not willing to bet the next four years on it.



You unknowingly bring up an important point.

We're 6 years out from the Republicans taking BOTH houses of Congress, and the Democrats haven't been able to flip either since (despite the Republicans historic low approval ratings, a successful leadership coup in the House and a near successful coup in the Senate). And even this year, 3 full Congressional elections since the flip, and the Democrats are already admitting defeat. 

Why is this the case and how come there appears to be no substantive attempt to change it? By your own admission, Hillary won't be able to do diddly dick with the Congress she's inheriting so what's with just rolling over about it?


----------



## celticelk (Jul 26, 2016)

Randy said:


> You unknowingly bring up an important point.
> 
> We're 6 years out from the Republicans taking BOTH houses of Congress, and the Democrats haven't been able to flip either since (despite the Republicans historic low approval ratings, a successful leadership coup in the House and a near successful coup in the Senate). And even this year, 3 full Congressional elections since the flip, and the Democrats are already admitting defeat.
> 
> Why is this the case and how come there appears to be no substantive attempt to change it? By your own admission, Hillary won't be able to do diddly dick with the Congress she's inheriting so what's with just rolling over about it?



There's a difference between "acknowledging reality" and "rolling over about it"/"admitting defeat." As for why the Democrats haven't succeeded in taking back Congress: Republican control of statehouses in 2010 leading to gerrymandering of Congressional districts; the documented phenomenon whereby voters rate their local Congresscritter much higher than they rate Congress as an institution; lack of Democratic turnout for off-year elections.

What, exactly, do you think the Democrats should be doing about control of Congress that they aren't already doing?


----------



## Randy (Jul 26, 2016)

celticelk said:


> What, exactly, do you think the Democrats should be doing about control of Congress that they aren't already doing?



Accusations of gerrymandering are a white-wash. I'm not saying it doesn't exist but it's more complicated than that; especially in a state like NY where corruption trumps party affiliation, although I'd be inclined to believe it's more widespread than just being here.

My old Congressman was Paul Tonko. While generally liked in his district and usually a 'shoe-in' for his races, he did a lot of really damaging things to the economy to the rural parts of the district. In my town in particular, he was heavily involved with the moving of a factory from there to a more urban area on the other side of his district, resulting in the loss of over 350 jobs to a town of < 3,000 people, decimating the tax base and leaving us with a leviathan of a building literally falling apart in the middle of downtown. And his partners in cementing the move were none other than Chuck Schumer and Hillary Clinton.

By total coincidence rolleyes, when the districts were "gerrymandered", magically Paul Tonko district was moved to not include any of the rural areas that were screwed over in his redevelopment deal. If you look at a map of the way the districts were redrawn, they basically drew Tonko's district to primarily cover urban and metropolitan areas where he'd remain safe.

My current congressman is Chris Gibson, a Republican who won very handily in an angry anti-"Taxin' Tonko" (mind you, Tonko won with a landslide his whole career up to this point) district. All the Democrats who were put up against him were "out of towners" or from more liberal "downstate" pockets like Rhinebeck, who absolutely could not connect with people living in a poor rural area like this. 

Since then, this district hasn't been even remotely competitive in a Congressional race, including little to no resources spent for Democrats here. I didn't see a single lawn sign for an hour in any direction for the last D that they ran, and when I called to ask if I could get any, they said I would have to go to their office 2 1/2 hours away to get one!

Call me overly cynical, but that doesn't sound like a party making much of an effort to flip districts, even in a "liberal state" like New York. That's all added to the fact that it was rather transparent that pro-corporate Democrats had a hand in redrawing the district to favor them anyway. 

I have a hard time believing they're being any more effective and any less crooked in a lot of these other races, where they weren't even able to push out the widely panned Tea Party losers who did literally nothing for the whole 4 (and now 6) years they've been there.

If you want to naively place the blame on gerrymandering by state legislatures, maybe the place the party needs to focus on are in state and local races then?


----------



## wankerness (Jul 27, 2016)

Gerrymandering is a gigantic deal in Wisconsin. I don't have any idea if it is elsewhere. I think right now we're sort of a national laughingstock, though. It's like some kind of weird dystopian right-wing nightmare on a state level.

https://www.thenation.com/article/the-gops-war-on-voting-is-working/

The general decline is worse than indicated by the article. It's all very efficient. ALEC hands bills to the legislature and they pass them. The only time they get checked is on plainly stupid s*** with bad optics, like changing the mission statement of the UW system to that of a vocational school. That veterans thing referenced in the article got enough attention that he added that veteran ID to the list of acceptable IDs...AFTER the election, of course.

The Department of Natural Resources is headed by a former home builder who got pissed off that they put a snake on the threatened species list and cites that as her inspiration for getting into politics. It's a fairytale story of regulatory capture, really. She unfavorably compared DNR scientists to McDonald's employees when she was a manager, who were able to respond to an unexpected busload of patrons. 

Other great things Walker has done include:

-Removed collective bargaining rights for government workers (except police officers and firemen because they donated to him)
-Slashed the very good and successful state university system budget by 25% to stick it to tenured professors or something (Walker dropped out of Marquette)
-Allowed mining in northern Wisconsin despite the DNR protesting because f nature and f people who like to do outdoor recreation
-requires people on food stamps to be tested for drugs

Also, he wants to cut $4.5 million per year out of the state parks' budget.

Both of my parents are music educators, and my mother runs a non-profit for concert series as well. Despite doing this for decades, they don't really feel secure anymore. My sister-in-law also just got her doctorate and is looking for music professor jobs, and she's probably going to have to move to another state to get a job with any security.

It's going to take a very, very long time for this state to get un-f***ed.


----------



## bostjan (Jul 27, 2016)

Hillary will win the election, one way or the other. I don't think Trump is going to be able to out-cheat her. Neither of these candidates are worth considering. Vote for whomever you want, not just because you should anyway, but because it won't matter going toward who wins and we need to use our voice to tell the powers that be that this kind of bull.... is not okay.


----------



## Drew (Jul 27, 2016)

Randy said:


> You unknowingly bring up an important point.
> 
> We're 6 years out from the Republicans taking BOTH houses of Congress, and the Democrats haven't been able to flip either since (despite the Republicans historic low approval ratings, a successful leadership coup in the House and a near successful coup in the Senate). And even this year, 3 full Congressional elections since the flip, and the Democrats are already admitting defeat.
> 
> Why is this the case and how come there appears to be no substantive attempt to change it? By your own admission, Hillary won't be able to do diddly dick with the Congress she's inheriting so what's with just rolling over about it?



Well, two things. 

1) The House is probably out of play this year - there just aren't enough Republican seats up in competitive districts - but the Democrats have a realistic shot at flipping the Senate this year. 

2) The House will probably REMAIN out of play until at least 2020, barring some major demographic shifts in the country. States redistrict every 10 years, after each new census, and that process is overseen by the state government. In 2010, the Republican party controlled a majority of governorships and state legislatures, and was able to redraw district maps in such a way to favor Republican candidates. For the Democrats to bring the House back into play, they either need to gain control of enough state governments to get the opportunity to redraw district maps in 2020 to favor their own party, or just hope that demographic changes in the country occur such that previously Republican-friendly maps become more Democratic-friendly. 

Really, I'd rather see the redistricting process taken out of the hands of elected politicians, but that's probably a pipe dream.


----------



## celticelk (Jul 29, 2016)

Randy said:


> If you want to naively place the blame on gerrymandering by state legislatures, maybe the place the party needs to focus on are in state and local races then?



Who says they're not? This ties into one of the other problems that I mentioned: off-year election turn out for Democratic voters is, in relative terms, lower than for Republican voters. Lots of those races are settled in non-presidential-year elections, and so Democrats are already fighting uphill to win them.


----------



## flint757 (Aug 3, 2016)

Everything that's been uncovered, and covered up, these past weeks has totally reinvigorated my political resolve: the things going on in and outside the DNC, covering up of protests, faux unity chatter, slogan laden speeches, Wikileak leaked emails and voicemail, fraud lawsuits, lack of honest media coverage about all of these things, and so much more, have really put the fire under my belly to get them all thrown out as quickly as possible. Even poor Bernie looked so deflated anytime he was on camera.

What really grinds my gears is the 'USA' chanting the DNC incited, and other ridiculous chants, to drown out protesters saying No More Wars. Everyone who spoke on foreign affairs sounded so Republican it is dumbfounding ("We're number one","We're going to destroy them","Patriotism blah blah blah"). To then silence dissent with chants of "USA!USA!USA!" is just gross and borderline fascist sounding. They did a lot more than that, but that's more than enough for the time being. Democrats are currently giving liberals a bad name and so far more look to be on their way out the back door. I don't expect it to make any difference though. Corruption runs deep in politics. 

I'll be happy to post videos and articles to different things if people are interested, but I don't want to drown out my point with a tldr post.


----------

