# And Your First Potential 2016 US Presidential Candidate Is!!!!



## groverj3

Ted. Cruz.

Ted Cruz Announces Presidential Bid - NBC News

Gross

Maybe I've just been watching a lot of House of Cards lately but I have to wonder if the plan here is to get him to rally the uber right-wing voters and then drop out to pledge his support to someone else that actually has a chance. 

Actually, I'm not sure. Maybe I like him running. It does nothing but fracture the GOP and create more infighting between them all.


----------



## Sumsar

Here we go again:
..Europe grabs popcorn and eagerly awaits the result of your shenanigans:
Will you elect a guy who:

a) Wants to destroy the world as we know it.

or

b) Has vague intentions of making the world a better place.


----------



## groverj3

Imagine the frustration of a sizable number of US citizens having to participate in the joke that is our political system just so we can cast our votes for the least crazy of two candidates and have them still ignore the issues we find most pressing. 

At least I can say that Cruz has about as much of a chance of becoming president as I do . Still, it's irritating to have to come to terms with the fact that people like this are involved in running our government at all.


----------



## Sumsar

I feel you bro. For us it is much the same (atleast here in Denmark, can't speak for other countries). Our candidates only seem to be in politics for their own personal gain - Making the world a better place is so yesterday, apparently.


----------



## TheStig1214

groverj3 said:


> Ted. Cruz.





I'm not democrat or republican, hell I don't know if I'm just independent or libertarian or what. For the love of God, please don't let this guy be president. Please let this be a Tea Party rallying campaign. 

On the other hand, I think this guy is going to have a field day with Ted Cruz's twitter now.


----------



## TRENCHLORD

I don't really mind TC, but he doesn't strike me as a potential winner either.
I'm still predicting Scott Walker to get the nomination at the end of the run.


----------



## Captain Butterscotch

I don't understand how people would vote for this guy. Then again, I don't understand how people would vote for Hillary Clinton. Americans are ....ing dumb.



Sumsar said:


> Here we go again:
> ..Europe grabs popcorn and eagerly awaits the result of your shenanigans:
> Will you elect a guy who:
> 
> a) Wants to destroy the world as we know it.
> 
> or
> 
> b) Has vague intentions of making the world a better place.



+1


----------



## Mike

I'm waiting on this crazy sob's presidential bid.


----------



## pink freud

Sumsar said:


> Here we go again:
> ..Europe grabs popcorn and eagerly awaits the result of your shenanigans:
> Will you elect a guy who:
> 
> a) Wants to destroy the world as we know it.
> 
> or
> 
> b) Has vague intentions of making the world a better place.



To be fair this time around we might elect a gal instead!


----------



## cwhitey2

pink freud said:


> To be fair this time around we might elect a gal instead!



I highly doubt that one!!!


----------



## Sumsar

pink freud said:


> To be fair this time around we might elect a gal instead!



Coming from a country who elected its first female prime minister about 3 years ago, I can tell you that it makes surprising little difference.

Sarah Palin would fit in the category "Wants to destroy the world as we know it." 

For reference our prime minister is the woman on the left:






Danish prime ministers: Spending at least half their time licking some serious boot on whoever is American president.


----------



## groverj3

At this point it's pretty understood the front-runner not just for the Democratic Party's nomination, but the whole race overall, is probably Hillary Clinton.

While I would probably vote for her, in no way is she ideal for me. I'd be much more of a fan of Elizabeth Warren (yeah, I know big surprise coming from me ) but she isn't as experienced and might be too far left for the general public to get behind. I fully expect Warren to run at some point, but probably not until the following election at the earliest.

And, yes, Sarah Palin having the ability to launch nuclear strikes should scare everyone...


----------



## groverj3

Sumsar said:


> Coming from a country who elected its first female prime minister about 3 years ago, I can tell you that it makes surprising little difference.
> 
> Sarah Palin would fit in the category "Wants to destroy the world as we know it."
> 
> For reference our prime minister is the woman on the left:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Danish prime ministers: Spending at least half their time licking some serious boot on whoever is American president.



Michelle looks uber jealous


----------



## asher

No possible way that could be two people sharing some jokes. Obviously bootlicking.


----------



## cwhitey2

groverj3 said:


> At this point it's pretty understood the front-runner not just for the Democratic Party's nomination, but the whole race overall, is probably Hillary Clinton.
> 
> While I would probably vote for her, in no way is she ideal for me. I'd be much more of a fan of Elizabeth Warren (yeah, I know big surprise coming from me ) but she isn't as experienced and might be too far left for the general public to get behind. I fully expect Warren to run at some point, but probably not until the following election at the earliest.
> 
> And, yes, Sarah Palin having the ability to launch nuclear strikes should scare everyone...



I honestly don't think she Hillary will run but thats just my 

That being said, I would vote for her in a heart beat. She's less of a nut job than 95% of the candidates so that's a plus in my book. 

Her experience is pretty tough to beat.


----------



## Devyn Eclipse Nav

I love how everybody seems to miss that he was born in Canada.

Can't be the president unless you were born in the United States, buddy. By all means, run, waste the money, make a fool of yourself, please.

But anybody worried about him actually becoming president, don't be - he can't be!


----------



## asher

Zeno said:


> I love how everybody seems to miss that he was born in Canada.
> 
> Can't be the president unless you were born in the United States, buddy. By all means, run, waste the money, make a fool of yourself, please.
> 
> But anybody worried about him actually becoming president, don't be - he can't be!



... to American citizen parents. He gets citizenship at birth. He's a "natural born candidate" or whatever the technical phrase is.

Unfortunately.

That nobody else on the right is raising *any* stink about it though shows just how "principled" all the birther crap was though.

ed: Hillary is absolutely going to run.

I don't actually think Warren ever will (she's a lot older than she looks!), and I hope she stays in the Senate.


----------



## groverj3

Zeno said:


> I love how everybody seems to miss that he was born in Canada.
> 
> Can't be the president unless you were born in the United States, buddy. By all means, run, waste the money, make a fool of yourself, please.
> 
> But anybody worried about him actually becoming president, don't be - he can't be!



You need to be a natural-born citizen, and 90% of the time that means born within the country. However, his mother was a US citizen, which means that despite being born in Canada he was a cititzen at birth. So, technically he is eligible. He's unfit to be president for a myriad of other reasons though.

I'm waiting for the Ted Cruz birthers to come out . If our current prez was born in Hawaii, an actual US state, and people doubt his citizenship I'm sure there must be plenty that will doubt the citizenship of someone not actually born in the country.

Edit: Ninja'ed


----------



## Sumsar

asher said:


> No possible way that could be two people sharing some jokes. Obviously bootlicking.



Agreed  I more choose the picture because I thought some of you guys may know the guy in the middle of the picture.


----------



## Drew

groverj3 said:


> Ted. Cruz.
> 
> Ted Cruz Announces Presidential Bid - NBC News
> 
> Gross
> 
> Maybe I've just been watching a lot of House of Cards lately but I have to wonder if the plan here is to get him to rally the uber right-wing voters and then drop out to pledge his support to someone else that actually has a chance.
> 
> Actually, I'm not sure. Maybe I like him running. It does nothing but fracture the GOP and create more infighting between them all.



I like fivethirtyeight.com's take: 

Let&#8217;s Be Serious About Ted Cruz From The Start: He&#8217;s Too Extreme And Too Disliked To Win | FiveThirtyEight



> Texas Sen. Ted Cruzs newly minted presidential campaign is the media equivalent of a juicy rib-eye that robbers use to distract a guard dog during a heist.



They don't actually mean that literally, that he's running to make the eventual nominee look moderate _by comparison_... But, that's effectively what will happen.


----------



## bostjan

Zeno said:


> I love how everybody seems to miss that he was born in Canada.
> 
> Can't be the president unless you were born in the United States, buddy. By all means, run, waste the money, make a fool of yourself, please.
> 
> But anybody worried about him actually becoming president, don't be - he can't be!



TRIVIA QUESTION: In what country was John McCain born?

To be fair, Ted Cruz is far from the worst the GOP has to offer, so I don't agree with the idea that he's a decoy.

Then again, when was the last time the GOP presidential nominee was clear this early in the election game?


----------



## Devyn Eclipse Nav

asher said:


> ... to American citizen parents. He gets citizenship at birth. He's a "natural born candidate" or whatever the technical phrase is.
> 
> Unfortunately.
> 
> That nobody else on the right is raising *any* stink about it though shows just how "principled" all the birther crap was though.



Well, ..... Guess I need to do a little more research next time


----------



## pink freud

Zeno said:


> Well, ..... Guess I need to do a little more research next time



Canada gets a pass, but anybody born in Hawaii must be subject to intense scrutiny.


----------



## flint757

I hope he runs in a completely meaningful way to the point where he resign as my state senator. I definitely didn't vote for this blow hard and he only won at all because Texas has one of the most apathetic voting populations in the entire US. It's not like he'll actually win in the general election so there isn't much to be concerned about there. If he wins the primary we'll have a Democrat in office again pretty much by default. He's about as believable as our president as the criminal Rick Perry was and he faced a ton of ridicule/criticism from everyone outside of Texas (and quite a bit from within).


----------



## cwhitey2

pink freud said:


> Canada gets a pass, but anybody born in Hawaii must be subject to intense scrutiny.



I was gonna say the Republicans are just seeing how far they can push it after the crap the put Obama through


----------



## Necris

Who Is Ted Cruz? | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

 I look forward to the Onion's continuing coverage.


----------



## asher

Necris said:


> Who Is Ted Cruz? | The Onion - America's Finest News Source





I hope they keep doing this for every candidate a la their World Cup bios.


----------



## tedtan

groverj3 said:


> Imagine the frustration of a sizable number of US citizens having to participate in the joke that is our political system just so we can cast our votes for the least crazy of two candidates and have them still ignore the issues we find most pressing.



Time for the obligatory









If that's now considered not safe for work, let me know and I'll delete it.


----------



## Alex Kenivel

It'll be between these two :


----------



## pushpull7

This one may be the antichrist liberals are always yammering about. He's a scary dude.


----------



## Eliguy666

I'm pretty sure Vermin Supreme is a more eligible candidate.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4d_FvgQ1csE


----------



## PlumbTheDerps

Europeans who are loling at dumb American politicians with insane beliefs, I have four words for you: Marine ....ing Le Pen


----------



## Sumsar

PlumbTheDerps said:


> Europeans who are loling at dumb American politicians with insane beliefs, I have four words for you: Marine ....ing Le Pen



Oh yeah, we have loads and loads of racist nationalist parties in Europe. The danish, somewhat older version of Marine Le Pen (and maybe her original inspiration) is Pia Kjærsgaard. Her party gets about 20% of the votes, and I believe the same is true in sweden for a similar party.
The weird thing is, no one ever admits that they vote for those racist bastards when you speak with them, so people must know that what they do is wrong  , but voting is (to some degree unfortunately) anonymous.


----------



## TheStig1214

bostjan said:


> TRIVIA QUESTION: In what country was John McCain born?



Oh! Oh! I know this one! (Not that it was serious....)



I also heard Ted Cruz talking about how he thinks the fact that Congress does nothing is a disgrace. You know, completely disregarding that his party (specifically Newt Gingrich) started that whole extreme bipartisanism thing.

I'm just waiting for Jeb Bush to throw his hat in the ring. Despite that he's from Florida and his namesake he seems like one of the few sane... I mean... uh.... viable Republican candidates.


----------



## Drew

TheStig1214 said:


> I also heard Ted Cruz talking about how he thinks the fact that Congress does nothing is a disgrace. You know, completely disregarding that his party (specifically Newt Gingrich) started that whole extreme bipartisanism thing.



Also completely disregarding the fact that if you had to choose the most famous filibuster from the last congress, it'd be him.


----------



## asher

Sumsar said:


> Oh yeah, we have loads and loads of racist nationalist parties in Europe. The danish, somewhat older version of Marine Le Pen (and maybe her original inspiration) is Pia Kjærsgaard. Her party gets about 20% of the votes, and I believe the same is true in sweden for a similar party.
> The weird thing is, no one ever admits that they vote for those racist bastards when you speak with them, so people must know that what they do is wrong  , but voting is (to some degree unfortunately) anonymous.



Hungary is actually rather scary right now.


----------



## Necris

^ The Jobbiks are ....ing terrifying.


----------



## groverj3

I think I'm already enjoying the schadenfreude.

Results for #TedCruzCampaignSlogans


----------



## flint757

What I especially love from his supporters is how the conversation shifted from "Obama is/does/etc. X and we WILL NOT in any way support that. Treason, blah, blah, blah."

Then these same people vote for a guy who fits a similar mold (especially in the birther debate) and the conversation now is "well Obama was too".

Way to stand by ones principles!?!  

Now the conversation will shift to minor failings of his opponents while this guy has been nothing but destructive on capital hill. It's crazy how anti-government, and really by extension anti-american, his supporters are. I don't expect much though since apparently his supporters are completely unaware that executive orders are legal and have been used/existed long before Obama yet they call for 'TREASON!' against him (i.e. they're not that bright).  It'd be especially funny if it weren't so sad that their numbers are enough in some states to vote crazy ....ers like him into office.

Not that it is surprising in this partisan nation. All of it is just thinly veiled spite because their guy isn't the winner of course. In fact this was how he won the senate seat. Not a single ad was about what he could do for the nation or Texas; it was 100% smear campaigns against his competitor. That's literally all he's done his entire political career. He's a ....ing cancer.


----------



## pushpull7

Reminds me of this movie: The Dead Zone (1983) - IMDb

Seems like holding up a baby to save his sorry ass is exactly the kind of thing he'd do (not to mention nuking the world) 

Of course then again, everyone said reagan/bush/bush would nuke the planet so there is that


----------



## TRENCHLORD

He might even frighten Damian Thorne now and then.


----------



## Sumsar

pushpull7 said:


> Of course then again, everyone said reagan/bush/bush would nuke the planet so there is that



Only speaking about my own lifetime: The latest Bush did in my opinion "nuke the planet", only there wasn't really any enemies, so he just invaded two middle eastern countries and bombed them back to the stone age.

However with the ongoing conflict with Russia about Ukraine and the Krim area I am concerned that if you elect a new nutjob who actually thinks he has an enemy he will nuke the world for good.

The Russians isn't helping of cause, only last week the russian ambassador in Denmark publicly threatened us with nuclear destruction should we join the European missile defence. We are however use to the fact that Russia is lead by nutjobs 100% of the time, so we didn't really make anything of it - our foreign minister even refused to call in the ambassador, stating something like: "If we have to call in the russian ambassador each time they make crazy statements, I would be doing that all day."


----------



## bostjan

The truth is that, unless you have a hell of a lot of money, you really will have no idea who the actual nominee will be this early in the game. If you are not a registered republican and a registered US voter, you probably have no say in it at any point anyway.

Relating to the discussion we had in the "what will happen when all the republicans die off" thread, the way republicans get votes is to get someone extreme enough to get people fired up within their own base, but without firing up too many people in the democratic base to offset that. Elections in the USA are not about getting the most people to like you/agree with you, it's about getting people out to vote. If more republicans get out to vote, the republicans win, otherwise, the democrats win. A third party won't ever win, because people won't get out in droves to vote for them - best case scenario is 10% of the vote to a third party, I think, within our lifetimes, and that's extremely optimistic. I think third parties have lost an incredible amount of steam since Ross Perot.

So the republican party needs to nominate someone who will rile the conservative base enough to get them out in November, but who will also generate enough apathy from democrats to keep them home. In that sense, it's a sort of rock-paper-scissors game, depending on who is nominated by each party. I think McCain lost, in part, because of Obama (although primarily because of Palin).

Maybe Ted Cruz won't make the nomination for President, but he might be a ticket balancer as a running mate. The republicans will probably be trying to get the attention of young voters somehow, and might need someone to appeal to an older base for a running mate.

A lot of people in my age group fell in love with GWB. I don't have any idea why, but they did. I know that was the reason he won in 2004, well, that, and it seemed like nobody was super thrilled about Kerry. Bush was rock and Kerry was scissors in that race. Also, Edwards didn't help Kerry's ticket one bit.

I don't know who either nominee will end up being. I don't think Biden has done anything to get attention enough to claim a nomination. If it winds up Clinton vs Cruz, then I think Clinton will have an advantage going in, but that couls all turn around. Clinton is far from squaky clean right now.d


----------



## asher

Democrats always turn out much more strongly in presidential elections, it's why we get clobbered in midterms.

But really, you're never going to get the normal voting base of the other party to change. You're after the what, 10? percent of undecideds in the middle. Which probably makes most of the GOP candidates unwinnable, because they're visibly batkitten insane. We'll see who makes it through the Clown Car Cavalcade though, because the ultimate GOP nominee needs to be able to make it both as a snake-handler (Cruz/Paul/etc side of things) to get the wingnuts and the money man (Bush/Romeny) to get the heavy corporate and donor backing.


----------



## Sumsar

^^ how big a percentage of the population actually vote for your presidential elections? and how many vote for elections concerning their own state affairs?

I guess the European version of US president elections is the elections for the European parliament. They are increasing their powers all the time, in some matters they have more to say than the goverments of sovereign nations, yet the voting system for the EU parliament is horrible, which seems to be the biggist reason that no one really cares about voting - it doesn't make a difference anyway.


----------



## bostjan

asher said:


> Democrats always turn out much more strongly in presidential elections, it's why we get clobbered in midterms.
> 
> But really, you're never going to get the normal voting base of the other party to change. You're after the what, 10? percent of undecideds in the middle. Which probably makes most of the GOP candidates unwinnable, because they're visibly batkitten insane. We'll see who makes it through the Clown Car Cavalcade though, because the ultimate GOP nominee needs to be able to make it both as a snake-handler (Cruz/Paul/etc side of things) to get the wingnuts and the money man (Bush/Romeny) to get the heavy corporate and donor backing.



But then how would you explain 2004? Granted it was more than ten years ago, but that's only 2 presidential elections ago. I mean, GWB couldn't find any of the countries he invaded on a map, made up his own words half the time he spoke, and got stuck in a room trying to pull open a push door, yet he got elected (I don't consider him re-elected since he was appointed in 2000 by the SCotUS).



Sumsar said:


> ^^ how big a percentage of the population actually vote for your presidential elections? and how many vote for elections concerning their own state affairs?
> 
> I guess the European version of US president elections is the elections for the European parliament. They are increasing their powers all the time, in some matters they have more to say than the goverments of sovereign nations, yet the voting system for the EU parliament is horrible, which seems to be the biggist reason that no one really cares about voting - it doesn't make a difference anyway.



Presidential elections are usually 55±8%. Midterm elections (for the legislature and local government) are about 15% lower in attendance, on average.


----------



## asher

bostjan said:


> But then how would you explain 2004? Granted it was more than ten years ago, but that's only 2 presidential elections ago. I mean, GWB couldn't find any of the countries he invaded on a map, made up his own words half the time he spoke, and got stuck in a room trying to pull open a push door, yet he got elected (I don't consider him re-elected since he was appointed in 2000 by the SCotUS).



Kerry was an awful, awful, awful candidate  Bush was more than likely still riding the wartime hero, wounded nation thing.

I'm pretty sure that is the only presidential election in the last.. 25 years? that the Democrats have not won the popular vote for.


----------



## Eliguy666

A big part of the issue is gerrymandering. The electoral-college system makes ZERO sense, as it negates the votes of a significant portion of state populations. There's pretty much no reason for me to vote democratic in Texas, for example.


----------



## ferret

How to explain 2004? That's easy. The republican political machine under Karl Rove ensured that state ballots were loaded with bans on gay marriage, and similar initatives, which drove the religious right out to vote.

It's kinda of a one shot deal though, because you can't keep voting to ban gay marriage every 4 years.

Also Kerry sucked. To be honest though, he actually would be a much much better candidate now than he was then.


----------



## asher

Eliguy666 said:


> A big part of the issue is gerrymandering. The electoral-college system makes ZERO sense, as it negates the votes of a significant portion of state populations. There's pretty much no reason for me to vote democratic in Texas, for example.



It screws the House and state politics so much harder than it does the EC too


----------



## bostjan

ferret said:


> How to explain 2004? That's easy. The republican political machine under Karl Rove ensured that state ballots were loaded with bans on gay marriage, and similar initatives, which drove the religious right out to vote.
> 
> It's kinda of a one shot deal though, because you can't keep voting to ban gay marriage every 4 years.
> 
> Also Kerry sucked. To be honest though, he actually would be a much much better candidate now than he was then.



In 2004, I really wanted to see GWB ousted. Objectively speaking, he was one of the worst presidents in history. A lot of people really loved him, though, at that time.

Kerry/Edwards was a horrible ticket, but, I'm still surprised GWB managed a landslide.

I think Kerry would still be a tough sell these days. To be fair, Obama was a bit of a lay-up. Here's this guy preaching change and hope for the future, he's young, he's got very little dirt on him, and, even though it should not matter, you'd be voting for the first ever black PotUS. Sure, the same old haters hate him, but I think he was an easy sell to the public. I'm not his biggest fan by any measure, but I think he's the best president the US has had since Nixon, which isn't saying much coming from me.

Moving forward, though, I don't think people are near as excited about Hilary Clinton. There really aren't any politicians amongst the democrats that have the charisma needed for a strong ticket. I think the 2016 election may well be a contest to see who is the least boring or who is the lesser of two evils. I may well go back to voting third party, although I'm likely going to fall for the fear I will end up having for the GOP candidate, especially if they run someone like Santorum or Bachmann.


----------



## ElRay

And he made the announcement at Liberty "University", who's founder claimed that Gays were the cause of 9/11 

Sums things up rather nicely.


----------



## asher

ElRay said:


> And he made the announcement at Liberty "University", who's founder claimed that Gays were the cause of 9/11
> 
> Sums things up rather nicely.



I often feel kinda bad that the firm I'm at is doing quite a bit of architectural work and campus planning there (I'm not alone either).

But most of their students are just students and deserve good buildings as much as at any other university. I think.


----------



## TheStig1214

Side note, I just found out Ted Cruz did not buy "tedcruz.com"

Home


----------



## Necris

^ Was hoping for something a bit more nsfw featuring a person who happened to have the same name.


----------



## asher

TheStig1214 said:


> Side note, I just found out Ted Cruz did not buy "tedcruz.com"
> 
> Home



That's actually owned by someone else named Ted Cruz I think I read. Like, a real person. I think they just changed their site since Monday


----------



## ElRay

Eliguy666 said:


> A big part of the issue is gerrymandering. The electoral-college system makes ZERO sense, as it negates the votes of a significant portion of state populations. There's pretty much no reason for me to vote democratic in Texas, for example.



Actually, the Electoral College makes a lot of sense. Crazy gerrymandering causes problems, but the combination of proportional and equal representation that's present in Congress, makes a lot of sense. Without it, populous states would dominate even more than they already do.


----------



## ElRay

asher said:


> I often feel kinda bad that the firm I'm at is doing quite a bit of architectural work and campus planning there (I'm not alone either).
> 
> But most of their students are just students and deserve good buildings as much as at any other university. I think.



Yeah, but every $ they spend on plans & construction, is a $ they can't spend on lies & misinformation. 

Ray


----------



## TheStig1214

ElRay said:


> Actually, the Electoral College makes a lot of sense. Crazy gerrymandering causes problems, but the combination of proportional and equal representation that's present in Congress, makes a lot of sense. Without it, populous states would dominate even more than they already do.



The Electoral College makes zero sense. Especially when you factor in that:

- The people voting in it have no obligation whatsoever to vote how their respective states/regions vote.

- A failure rate of 5% (people who won the popular vote but not the EC vote)

- It can tie, which leads to a whole clusterflux of 18th century rules to settle it.

- It unfairly represents high population states.

- It unfairly represents voters who vote against their state's traditional voting pattern.

- You can win the Presidential Election with only 22% of the popular vote. 

And swing states, let's not forget swing states.


----------



## metallatem

^ agreed on all counts.

What is also ridiculous is the primary system. Why do people in Iowa and New Hampshire get to decide who the front runners are in each party?


----------



## TheStig1214

metallatem said:


> ^ agreed on all counts.
> 
> What is also ridiculous is the primary system. Why do people in Iowa and New Hampshire get to decide who the front runners are in each party?



Because it's the closest thing to entertainment we get in the Presidential Elections process.


----------



## asher

metallatem said:


> ^ agreed on all counts.
> 
> What is also ridiculous is the primary system. Why do people in Iowa and New Hampshire get to decide who the front runners are in each party?



That's kinda a party-manufactured thing, though.


----------



## flint757

The primary system is also why Texas always ends up with extreme Republican candidates. The extremists sweep the primaries and then in the general election people in Texas tend to just vote straight Republican because 'screw liberals' even though they themselves probably would prefer a different GOP candidate.


----------



## ferret

flint757 said:


> The primary system is also why Texas always ends up with extreme Republican candidates. The extremists sweep the primaries and then in the general election people in Texas tend to just vote straight Republican because 'screw liberals' even though they themselves probably would prefer a different GOP candidate.



This is a problem in a lot on places. I'm convinced a lot of people are casting their vote for Republican with a "Ehhhhh... this guy...." feeling, but they are so set in the mindset of "I'll die before voting in a liberal" that they are trapped....

... mostly due to fear mongering on what "liberal" even is...


----------



## asher

ferret said:


> This is a problem in a lot on places. I'm convinced a lot of people are casting their vote for Republican with a "Ehhhhh... this guy...." feeling, but they are so set in the mindset of "I'll die before voting in a liberal" that they are trapped....
> 
> ... mostly due to fear mongering on what "liberal" even is...



And voting on personality and image I guess?

See: Polling where fairly Dem policies (min. wage, health care, welfare, reforms, etc) are strongly popular when worded without party affiliation, then they go vote in a Republican who hates all of that.


----------



## flint757

I think that has more to do with support in spirit while not wanting to have to physically contribute to it happening. In other words, they selfish.


----------



## Sumsar

flint757 said:


> I think that has more to do with support in spirit while not wanting to have to physically contribute to it happening. In other words, they selfish.



Yes people vote selfishly, but people are also very stupid.
Min. wage, health care, welfare, reforms etc would be a good thing for like 80 - 90% of americans, having the rich pay for the poor instead of the other way around. To convince poor people that lower taxes, no welfare or healtcare is a good thing for them takes a pretty impressive amount of manipulation. But oh well I guess the only competition FOX news has with regard to manipulation is Russia in general and Hitler.


----------



## TheStig1214

Sumsar said:


> ...but people are also very stupid.



You could have just left it at that 

I think we are at a point where the average voter has no idea what's actually going on with politics. They just vote for who has the best personality and promises to singlehandedly fix congress the most.


----------



## flint757

Sumsar said:


> Yes people vote selfishly, but people are also very stupid.
> Min. wage, health care, welfare, reforms etc would be a good thing for like 80 - 90% of americans, having the rich pay for the poor instead of the other way around. To convince poor people that lower taxes, no welfare or healtcare is a good thing for them takes a pretty impressive amount of manipulation. But oh well I guess the only competition FOX news has with regard to manipulation is Russia in general and Hitler.



Very true. 

I was more referring to people who don't need any of those services/programs to be improved, which would be lower middle class and up really. A lot of them would like for things to change, but don't want an increase in their taxes to make it happen. So they just vote for the party that promises to cost them less money overall (even though it doesn't usually work out that way ).

Yeah, I have no response to the way some poor people choose to vote. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense. I know quite a few of them are socially conservative so they vote along those lines and the rest just buy into the BS machine I suppose.



I honestly can't stand it when people say they aren't interested in politics. It doesn't matter if you like them or wish to discuss them, but it is paramount that you have a passing idea of whats going on and participate at least some of the time. Otherwise you end up with crazy ....ers shutting down the government, trying to legislate sexual preferences, giving money to businesses that don't need it (and could be applied more usefully elsewhere), start wars, add/remove regulation, etc. No matter ones personal leanings there is something some politician somewhere is doing that has an affect on you. After all, they write the laws we have to abide by. It's these people who tend to vote selfishly, if at all, because their lack of interest is directly correlated to the lack of impact it has currently on their life. Sadly it's too late to prevent something once it has begun to affect them negatively (like when Cruz shut down the government).


----------



## TheStig1214

flint757 said:


> Very true.
> 
> I was more referring to people who don't need any of those services/programs to be improved, which would be lower middle class and up really. A lot of them would like for things to change, but don't want an increase in their taxes to make it happen. So they just vote for the party that promises to cost them less money overall (even though it doesn't usually work out that way ).
> 
> Yeah, I have no response to the way some poor people choose to vote. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense. I know quite a few of them are socially conservative so they vote along those lines and the rest just buy into the BS machine I suppose.
> 
> 
> 
> I honestly can't stand it when people say they aren't interested in politics. It doesn't matter if you like them or wish to discuss them, but it is paramount that you have a passing idea of whats going on and participate at least some of the time. Otherwise you end up with crazy ....ers shutting down the government, trying to legislate sexual preferences, giving money to businesses that don't need it (and could be applied more usefully elsewhere), start wars, add/remove regulation, etc. No matter ones personal leanings there is something some politician somewhere is doing that has an affect on you. After all, they write the laws we have to abide by. It's these people who tend to vote selfishly, if at all, because their lack of interest is directly correlated to the lack of impact it has currently on their life. Sadly it's too late to prevent something once it has begun to affect them negatively (like when Cruz shut down the government).



I usually tell people I have no interest in politics to avoid talking about it. My rule in life is don't talk about politics or religion with people you like. In my personal experience it's a great way to make them leave you. But I agree, everyone should have a basic working knowledge of at least some of the issues in current political elections, more than just "This is what my friends/neighbors/coworkers/colleagues/family/race/spiritual leader/culture told me to vote for".


----------



## pushpull7

flint757 said:


> Very true.
> 
> I was more referring to people who don't need any of those services/programs to be improved, which would be lower middle class and up really. A lot of them would like for things to change, but don't want an increase in their taxes to make it happen. So they just vote for the party that promises to cost them less money overall (even though it doesn't usually work out that way ).
> 
> Yeah, I have no response to the way some poor people choose to vote. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense. I know quite a few of them are socially conservative so they vote along those lines and the rest just buy into the BS machine I suppose.
> 
> 
> 
> I honestly can't stand it when people say they aren't interested in politics. It doesn't matter if you like them or wish to discuss them, but it is paramount that you have a passing idea of whats going on and participate at least some of the time. Otherwise you end up with crazy ....ers shutting down the government, trying to legislate sexual preferences, giving money to businesses that don't need it (and could be applied more usefully elsewhere), start wars, add/remove regulation, etc. No matter ones personal leanings there is something some politician somewhere is doing that has an affect on you. After all, they write the laws we have to abide by. It's these people who tend to vote selfishly, if at all, because their lack of interest is directly correlated to the lack of impact it has currently on their life. Sadly it's too late to prevent something once it has begun to affect them negatively (like when Cruz shut down the government).



Wait until you get to be my age and realize that after 50 years of raging against the machine, you realize nobody of any importance really gives a f..k and the more things change, the more they are exactly the same 

Seriously, it makes you want tune it all out and concentrate on more important things (things you can control)


----------



## flint757

For the life of me I hear people say that all the time and I can't fathom how anyone buys it. Lets just look over the last 50 years. We integrated minorities back into all white schools, gone to several battles/wars, brought women into the workforce, began the removal of anti-gay laws, reformed welfare, began and ended school race quotas, went to the moon, reduced gun violence, overall crime is on a downward trend, etc. and all of these things are directly tied to particular politicians who we vote into office at the local, state, and national level (or policies they supported). When only people passionate about politics participate you end up with a majority extremists voter turnout. A lot of people like to focus on the president in this regard, but I'm referring to house, senate, state house and senate, governors, anyone who appoints judges, etc. It may not be obvious, but they have an impact and we drive their level of impact.

Consider that in my state Rick Perry held two special sessions to effectively ban abortions (second because he failed the first time). If he weren't the governor those would have never happened. It's a complex problem, but we're all pieces of the puzzle.


----------



## bostjan

Progress in the US government is like a frog that jumps 3 feet up the side of a well, then slides two feet back down. It's ever so frustrating for the frog, but he eventually works his way up.


----------



## asher

Real progress is mostly punctuated by significant crises, unfortunately.


----------



## pink freud

bostjan said:


> Moving forward, though, I don't think people are near as excited about Hilary Clinton.



Hilary is in the "I'll vote for Hillary even though I wish I was voting for Elizabeth Warren" conundrum.


----------



## asher

pink freud said:


> Hilary is in the "I'll vote for Hillary even though I wish I was voting for Elizabeth Warren" conundrum.



Wonder if O'Malley will actually make a bid?

She's still millions of miles ahead of any of the other likely options. And that standard is really "not publicly committed to destroying the institution they hate in which they're seeking power."


----------



## groverj3

pink freud said:


> Hilary is in the "I'll vote for Hillary even though I wish I was voting for Elizabeth Warren" conundrum.



Unfortunately Warren is in the situation where running is bound to elicit a response of "crazy socialist!" from the Republicans, though I wouldn't classify her as a socialist, myself.

People are so afraid of anything even partially resembling socialism in the US that Republicans can probably turn public opinion against a candidate by using that kind of rhetoric.


----------



## pink freud

groverj3 said:


> Unfortunately Warren is in the situation where running is bound to elicit a response of "crazy socialist!" from the Republicans, though I wouldn't classify her as a socialist, myself.
> 
> People are so afraid of anything even partially resembling socialism in the US that Republicans can probably turn public opinion against a candidate by using that kind of rhetoric.



Yep. I kind of wish I could travel into the future and see what the political landscape of the US will be once it is at least three generations removed from anybody who was alive during the Cold War.


----------



## groverj3

pink freud said:


> Yep. I kind of wish I could travel into the future and see what the political landscape of the US will be once it is at least three generations removed from anybody who was alive during the Cold War.



A lot is going to depend on the role the US has in world events going forward. With so many countries developing larger economies and increasing the size of their middle class I would think that things are going to become much more of an even playing field, geopolitically. This doesn't make a lot really nationalistic people happy, but I think it might be a good thing back here at home.


----------



## flint757

We've been stagnant as a nation for a long time now. Other countries have better healthcare, better education, more people getting/affording an education, better or on par middle classes, better conditions for the poor and if you account for your tuition cost and medical costs into each individuals taxes we don't pay that much less than some of the top contenders. The high end on our tax system is 40%. If you add medical costs and school tuition it would easily bring that up to what countries like Japan pay in taxes, yet they get way more for their money.


----------



## pushpull7

flint757 said:


> For the life of me I hear people say that all the time and I can't fathom how anyone buys it. Lets just look over the last 50 years. We integrated minorities back into all white schools, gone to several battles/wars, brought women into the workforce, began the removal of anti-gay laws, reformed welfare, began and ended school race quotas, went to the moon, reduced gun violence, overall crime is on a downward trend, etc. and all of these things are directly tied to particular politicians who we vote into office at the local, state, and national level (or policies they supported). When only people passionate about politics participate you end up with a majority extremists voter turnout. A lot of people like to focus on the president in this regard, but I'm referring to house, senate, state house and senate, governors, anyone who appoints judges, etc. It may not be obvious, but they have an impact and we drive their level of impact.
> 
> Consider that in my state Rick Perry held two special sessions to effectively ban abortions (second because he failed the first time). If he weren't the governor those would have never happened. It's a complex problem, but we're all pieces of the puzzle.



Sorry, have to clean up a little upchuck (for mentioning rick perry  )

Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama walk into a bar and sit down. They just kinda look at each other and the bust out laughing. Bartender says "what's so funny" and they look at him, look at each other, and start laughing again. George says (turn on dubbya voice) "Well, people sure as hell don't understand the meaning of 'won't get fooled again' "

Progress? It's inevitable. Been happening since that monkey threw a bone into the air and it turned into a satellite. But true progress in how people treat each other? Sorry, not buying it. Politicians get sleazier and sleazier and find new and creative ways to hide it and justify it. People are getting so desensitized to things, I wonder why anyone complains at all. 

Don't like the history you've been taught? Why hell.....just rewrite it......there's an app for that 

Sorry, I see what's buzzing on youtube and I promise you that at least 50% of the time it's mean/....ty/sleazy things. And people like it like that.

Why would politicians be any different? 

Ok, that's my second and last rant today......I promise


----------



## pushpull7

BTW, don't let my cynicism fool you, it's a perfectly logical conversation and I in no way am saying we shouldn't be talking about it. But I do have a different POV on the subject.


----------



## flint757

That explains ones disinterest, but it doesn't tackle the point I was making at all. These are things that specific politicians made happen. These are things that would have happened earlier, later or not at all had someone else been in charge at the time. I don't disagree that politics and politicians are just full of sleaze, but they literally control what you are allowed to do. They're the ones that allow the MPAA, RIAA, FDA, SEC, EPA, FCC, what big business can do with the internet (SOPA, PIPA, Net Neutrality), what taxes you pay, what benefits you receive, what penalty certain crimes are, what drugs are legal, etc., etc.

It doesn't matter if you like politics or the politicians participating because they are doing their thing whether you get involved or not. At least if you get involved we can keep the crazy to a minimum. Ted Cruz won the state election because of how the primary system works (narrowing candidate choices down) and because Texas voters are so apathetic. The primary system doesn't work in states where a single party dominates every single year. The primaries essentially become the general election, but you can't participate unless you become a member of the GOP (if I understand correctly). It's broken and a joke for sure, but not participating and not knowing what is going on is not the remedy. All that's going to do is make the problem even worse (even sleazier politicians a la Rick Perry and Ted Cruz).


----------



## pushpull7

Well you make a good point. I actually appreciate that because us old farts do become bitter and cynical.


----------



## Sumsar

Necrobump I guess

So now that Hillary Clinton woman wants to run for President (not really surprising). Anyway: You American people seem to have a better idea about how things run than the idiots that are the journalist of Denmark, so tell me: Does she have a remote chance of winning or is this more of the strategic wankery that is politics nowadays and then later on someone else will actually run for president for the democrats?


----------



## michblanch

Sumsar said:


> Necrobump I guess
> 
> So now that Hillary Clinton woman wants to run for President (not really surprising). Anyway: You American people seem to have a better idea about how things run than the idiots that are the journalist of Denmark, so tell me: Does she have a remote chance of winning or is this more of the strategic wankery that is politics nowadays and then later on someone else will actually run for president for the democrats?




I think she has a chance, but it's so early and there is a lot of baggage to be handled and some clean up work on her image. 
She is such a Washington insider that it may affect her in a negative way. 

But it's early so there may be a darkhorse out there that people aren't paying attention to. 

Barrak was that person very early in his first campaign.


----------



## Church2224

I expected something like this to happen 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXdNYXMQoy8#t=308


----------



## flint757

I think she'd make a solid candidate personally. Every president we've had that came from the 'outside' of Washington has gotten hardly anything done due to the nature of favors in politics. Sadly politics is all about who owes you a favor and what can you do for someone else. She's heavily embedded into politics which means she'd likely accomplish more with less resistance if she were to win.


----------



## PlumbTheDerps

michblanch said:


> I think she has a chance, but it's so early and there is a lot of baggage to be handled and some clean up work on her image.
> She is such a Washington insider that it may affect her in a negative way.
> 
> But it's early so there may be a darkhorse out there that people aren't paying attention to.
> 
> Barrak was that person very early in his first campaign.



By April 2007 Obama had already announced an exploratory committee. There is literally nobody else on the democratic side. The only other people who have been mentioned are Bernie Sanders (way too liberal, no campaign organization set up), Martin O'Malley (ditto), and Jim Webb (nobody knows who he is, no campaign organization set up). Hillary is 100% going to be the nominee. She may lose the general election, but there's no way she gets primaried like in '08.


----------



## TheStig1214

Hillary has this weird dichotomy about her. Republicans paint her as the anti-christ, even though there are politicians out there far more liberal than her. She just has an extremely strong personality, which can turn off some. But as a politician she is pretty good. I know when she was a NY senator during Bush's terms she did a good job, and she was a very good secretary of state, normal Washington gridlock taken into account. 

If she wins the Democratic primary I'd probably vote for her, and that's not just because the Republican candidate would have to be abnormally moderate-liberal for me to vote for them.


----------



## flint757

So far the only sane candidate I'm aware of that they've even considered is Jeb Bush. Cruz is a complete nut job who has an ego the size of Texas. Reading through Everson's campaign promises it's all cleverly coded negative things with a positive spin put on top. Rather oddly he wishes to re-instate the draft. Why, I have no clue as we have more servicemen than we need at the moment AND a national service draft would be better anyhow if one were to be considered (where joining the fire department, police, EMT, etc. would also be an option). Rand Paul is your typical too far to the right candidate that gets pushed forward through the primaries. Jack Fellure is again too conservative to win the general election. I mean he was a part of the prohibition party. You can't get more small minded than that this day and age.


----------



## TheStig1214

flint757 said:


> So far the only sane candidate I'm aware of that they've even considered is Jeb Bush. Cruz is a complete nut job who has an ego the size of Texas. Reading through Everson's campaign promises it's all cleverly coded negative things with a positive spin put on top. Rather oddly he wishes to re-instate the draft. Why, I have no clue as we have more servicemen than we need at the moment AND a national service draft would be better anyhow if one were to be considered (where joining the fire department, police, EMT, etc. would also be an option). Rand Paul is your typical too far to the right candidate that gets pushed forward through the primaries. Jack Fellure is again too conservative to win the general election. I mean he was a part of the prohibition party. You can't get more small minded than that this day and age.



I REALLY want to like Jeb Bush. He's probably the smartest of the Bush clan, and he's fairly moderate in terms of political stance (plus, like you said, he's sane). But he still just clings to the typical conservative viewpoints on things like abortion and climate change too much for me.


----------



## flint757

TheStig1214 said:


> I REALLY want to like Jeb Bush. He's probably the smartest of the Bush clan, and he's fairly moderate in terms of political stance (plus, like you said, he's sane). But he still just clings to the typical conservative viewpoints on things like abortion and climate change too much for me.



Yeah, assuming there is a practical more liberal alternative I'd never vote for him personally, but he's the only one that wouldn't have me wishing to flee to the border. 

As a Republican candidate you can only expect so much. National parties have their members tow the line and until they change their stance on such things their candidates will implicitly, if not explicitly, support them. I don't see their stance changing anytime soon unless their support ratings slip to a completely unacceptable level.


----------



## PlumbTheDerps

TheStig1214 said:


> I REALLY want to like Jeb Bush. He's probably the smartest of the Bush clan, and he's fairly moderate in terms of political stance (plus, like you said, he's sane). But he still just clings to the typical conservative viewpoints on things like abortion and climate change too much for me.



Yeah, me too. I tend to be economically conservative on issues like service-sector regulation and trade- stuff that facilitates an open economy- but Hillary basically is already for all that stuff because she's essentially a conservative democrat. At the end of the day, if you agree with Bush on most economic stuff but disagree on cultural "wedge issues" like abortion and climate change, Clinton is basically perfect for you, personal issues aside.


----------



## Sumsar

Please no more US presidents named Bush! What, you want to start world war 3? Next thing you tell me that Vladimir Putin has a son that will take over after him, right?

If you do however, it seems a good idea to put his father before the International Criminal Court in Hague for war crimes, just to draw a line in the sand to stop his son from invading .. I dunno .. Iran maybe?


----------



## flint757

In fairness, out of all the Bush family he was the only one I'd consider 'worthy' of the task, if that makes any sense. I have a sister who has been in and out of jail, drug user and has had too many children before she's even 30. I'm a college student, never get into legal trouble and have no kids. You can't really determine who someone is by who they're related to. They had no control over that. 

That being said, I wouldn't vote for him either way.


----------



## Sumsar

^ Right I agree with you on that, but in 4 years time when you are fighting 3 wars in various places around the globe and have a president last named Bush, please let me be the first one to say "I told you so"


----------



## areyna21

I see Rand Paul becoming the last minute libertarian candidate. I see Chris Christie running on how he handled hurricane sandy. I don't see him winning at all though honestly. Marco Rubio is another possibility since republicans have a bad rep for dealing with immigration. I could see him being that middle man for the issue. Being mexican myself I see a lot of conservative views in my culture. I think if anyone is going to sway the independent vote it will be Rand Paul though. I see more and more independents instead of people saying they are republican or democrat. I want to see the debates though and I would love to see a Hilary vs Rand debate honestly.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim

Sumsar said:


> Please no more US presidents named Bush! What, you want to start world war 3? Next thing you tell me that Vladimir Putin has a son that will take over after him, right?
> 
> If you do however, it seems a good idea to put his father before the International Criminal Court in Hague for war crimes, just to draw a line in the sand to stop his son from invading .. I dunno .. Iran maybe?



Jeb Bush isn't G.W. Bush's son, he's his brother. Or were you proposing George Bush Sr be tried for war crimes?


----------



## Sumsar

Grand Moff Tim said:


> Jeb Bush isn't G.W. Bush's son, he's his brother. Or were you proposing George Bush Sr be tried for war crimes?



Ah okay, what do I now, I am not american - Well the "war on terror"-Bush should be tried (and convicted) for war crimes / crimes againts humanity.


----------



## TheStig1214

Sumsar said:


> Ah okay, what do I now, I am not american - Well the "war on terror"-Bush should be tried (and convicted) for war crimes / crimes againts humanity.







areyna21 said:


> I see Rand Paul becoming the last minute libertarian candidate. I see Chris Christie running on how he handled hurricane sandy. I don't see him winning at all though honestly. Marco Rubio is another possibility since republicans have a bad rep for dealing with immigration. I could see him being that middle man for the issue. Being mexican myself I see a lot of conservative views in my culture. I think if anyone is going to sway the independent vote it will be Rand Paul though. I see more and more independents instead of people saying they are republican or democrat. I want to see the debates though and I would love to see a Hilary vs Rand debate honestly.


 
Christie is another candidate I really want to like. Having such close ties to New York and NYC especially he's very moderate for a Republican leader. He was very good during Hurricane Sandy and he's an overall good governor despite Jersey's credit rating plummeting under him. I'm willing to forgive the "Bridgegate" thing. He's sort of anti vaxer though  I just think it would be hysterical for him to undo everything Michelle Obama has done in terms of the war on obesity


----------



## areyna21

Sumsar said:


> Ah okay, what do I now, I am not american - Well the "war on terror"-Bush should be tried (and convicted) for war crimes / crimes againts humanity.



Pick a Bush any Bush and you all find a trail of blood that follows them. Samuel Prescott Bush was involved in the merchants of death during WWI. He helped sell weapons to multiple sides of the conflict. He also helped set up the German Steel Trust which combined 4 small companies into one giant. The German steel trust went on to supply the German defense force in WWII. Then most of us know about the atrocities that came later with George Bush Sr. And Jr. It's bad enough that we have career politicians and no term limits. Then we have these families that can have power throughout generations. I'm done with the Bush family altogether. I'll end my rant though before I derail the thread.


----------



## vilk

^I'm pretty sure it's not derailing the thread to talk about presidential/election related stuff. I feel like this thread should sort just become the ubiquitous 2016 campaign thread.

Also I do realize that people who are related to each other can be very different, but I kinda disagree on principle with 3 people from the same household getting to run this country for potentially a total of 20 years.


Also I'm not super excited about Hillary, mostly because I don't know anything about her, but I'm super stoked that she's driving across the country in the Mystery Machine from Scooby Doo.


----------



## PlumbTheDerps

areyna21 said:


> atrocities that came later with George Bush Sr.



Such as?


----------



## asher

Krugman dispensing wisdom.



> So Hillary Clinton is officially running, to nobodys surprise. And you know whats coming: endless attempts to psychoanalyze the candidate, endless attempts to read significance into what she says or doesnt say about President Obama, endless thumb-sucking about her positioning on this or that issue.
> 
> Please pay no attention. Personality-based political analysis is always a dubious venture  in my experience, pundits are terrible judges of character. Those old enough to remember the 2000 election may also remember how we were assured that George W. Bush was a nice, affable fellow who would pursue moderate, bipartisan policies.
> 
> In any case, there has never been a time in American history when the alleged personal traits of candidates mattered less. As we head into 2016, each party is quite unified on major policy issues  and these unified positions are very far from each other. The huge, substantive gulf between the parties will be reflected in the policy positions of whomever they nominate, and will almost surely be reflected in the actual policies adopted by whoever wins.
> 
> For example, any Democrat would, if elected, seek to maintain the basic U.S. social insurance programs  Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid  in essentially their current form, while also preserving and extending the Affordable Care Act. Any Republican would seek to destroy Obamacare, make deep cuts in Medicaid, and probably try to convert Medicare into a voucher system.
> 
> Any Democrat would retain the tax hikes on high-income Americans that went into effect in 2013, and possibly seek more. Any Republican would try to cut taxes on the wealthy  House Republicans plan to vote next week to repeal the estate tax  while slashing programs that aid low-income families.
> 
> Any Democrat would try to preserve the 2010 financial reform, which has recently been looking much more effective than critics suggested. Any Republican would seek to roll it back, eliminating both consumer protection and the extra regulation applied to large, systemically important financial institutions.
> 
> And any Democrat would try to move forward on climate policy, through executive action if necessary, while any Republican  whether or not he is an outright climate-science denialist  would block efforts to limit greenhouse gas emissions.
> 
> How did the parties get this far apart? Political scientists suggest that it has a lot to do with income inequality. As the wealthy grow richer compared with everyone else, their policy preferences have moved to the right  and they have pulled the Republican Party ever further in their direction. Meanwhile, the influence of big money on Democrats has at least eroded a bit, now that Wall Street, furious over regulations and modest tax hikes, has deserted the party en masse. The result is a level of political polarization not seen since the Civil War.
> 
> Now, some people wont want to acknowledge that the choices in the 2016 election are as stark as Ive asserted. Political commentators who specialize in covering personalities rather than issues will balk at the assertion that their alleged area of expertise matters not at all. Self-proclaimed centrists will look for a middle ground that doesnt actually exist. And as a result, well hear many assertions that the candidates dont really mean what they say. There will, however, be an asymmetry in the way this supposed gap between rhetoric and real views is presented.
> 
> On one side, suppose that Ms. Clinton is indeed the Democratic nominee. If so, you can be sure that shell be accused, early and often, of insincerity, of not being the populist progressive she claims to be.
> 
> On the other side, suppose that the Republican nominee is a supposed moderate like Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio. In either case wed be sure to hear many assertions from political pundits that the candidate doesnt believe a lot of what he says. But in their cases this alleged insincerity would be presented as a virtue, not a vice  sure, Mr. Bush is saying crazy things about health care and climate change, but he doesnt really mean it, and hed be reasonable once in office. Just like his brother.
> 
> As you can probably tell, Im dreading the next 18 months, which will be full of sound bites and fury, signifying nothing. O.K., I guess we might learn a few things  Where will Ms. Clinton come out on trade agreements like the Trans-Pacific Partnership? How much influence will Republican Fed-bashers exert?  but the differences between the parties are so clear and dramatic that its hard to see how anyone who has been paying attention could be undecided even now, or be induced to change his or her mind between now and the election.
> 
> One thing is for sure: American voters will be getting a real choice. May the best party win.



http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/13/opinion/it-takes-a-party.html?_r=0


----------



## PlumbTheDerps

The key phrase in that op-ed is "try to." There is no way in hell that Democrats would give Republicans the votes needed to modify social security/medicare in the ways that they would like to. Likewise, there's no way Republicans would give Democrats the votes needed to implement a serious carbon-trading or taxing regime. The difference on major policy issues between Hillary, a hawkish, conservative democrat with close ties to Wall Street, and Jeb Bush, a hawkish, moderate Republican with close ties to Wall Street, is not as large as Krugman would like people to believe. That isn't the case for Rand Paul or Ted Cruz, but I think we're either getting Bush, Rubio, Walker, or somebody similar, and most of the same ideas apply. Think of it this way: Obama had a supermajority for two years and was just barely able to pass a very watered-down and middle-of-the-road health care reform.


----------



## asher

Walker is insanely anti-worker and anti-welfare.

Key words on climate is executive order.

Republicans well may not need Democratic votes to do what they want if they wind up holding the White House.

Hillary, even though more hawkish than many Democrats would like, is going to be balanced by the doves. The GOP is entirely, ENTIRELY made of hawks.

ed: also, I submit how so utterly wrong the "Gush/Bore" slogans were about 2000 about the thought that Hillary and Jeb are not all that far apart.

And that you are significantly understating how obstructionist the GOP went with Obama.


----------



## areyna21

PlumbTheDerps said:


> Such as?



His invasion of Panama to extract Manuel Noriega was worse then the media led us to believe at the time. There were thousands of people that were killed to extract one man. Over ten thousand people were placed into refugee camps. Most of the people that died were just innocent bystanders. This is someone that Bush had a close relationship before the invasion. All because he was starting to pull away from US influence and Bush wanted to keep control of the Panama Canal. Manuel Noriega was a known drug pusher but it wasn't until he started to pull away that something was done to him. Barrios were bombed thinking that Noriega was there only to leave people dead.


----------



## TheStig1214

asher said:


> *super long NY Times article*



Sad but true. What also doesn't help is the polarizing attitudes from the aforementioned Republican hawks *coughcough Newt Gingrich coughcough*. I find it incredible that these politicians have somehow gone to basically being at war with each other. They know they are technically co-workers right?


----------



## flint757

I always look forward to the general election because during the primaries they all tear each other down, then once they step down or lose the vote they're like, "I support this guy I called an asshole yesterday".


----------



## beyondcosmos

Saw this thread and thought: "Oh lawdylawdylawdylawdylawdy gotta get my two cents in on this one!"

All the candidates are horrible. You know it. I know it. See you all in hell...... or whatever America's future will be.


----------



## PlumbTheDerps

areyna21 said:


> His invasion of Panama to extract Manuel Noriega was worse then the media led us to believe at the time. There were thousands of people that were killed to extract one man. Over ten thousand people were placed into refugee camps. Most of the people that died were just innocent bystanders. This is someone that Bush had a close relationship before the invasion. All because he was starting to pull away from US influence and Bush wanted to keep control of the Panama Canal. Manuel Noriega was a known drug pusher but it wasn't until he started to pull away that something was done to him. Barrios were bombed thinking that Noriega was there only to leave people dead.



There are no credible sources that suggest thousands of people were killed, much less thousands of civilians. Americas Watch, SOUTHCOM, and the UN all estimated casualties around 300-500 Panamanians. The litmus test of whether you think the invasion was ultimately justified rests upon whether you think Noriega would have actually violated the Carter-Torrijos treaties by preventing the passage of U.S. goods through the canal or impeding the U.S.'s ability to defend it. I think he was certainly showing signals that made it seem credible and probable at the time. It's murky enough that I certainly don't think it falls into the category of an atrocity. It's not as if the civilian deaths were deliberate.


----------



## Captain Butterscotch

beyondcosmos said:


> Saw this thread and thought: "Oh lawdylawdylawdylawdylawdy gotta get my two cents in on this one!"
> 
> All the candidates are horrible. You know it. I know it. See you all in hell...... or whatever America's future will be.



Same as every election. Both candidates will be absolutely filled to the brim with bullsh1t and will absolutely be already bought by their donor corporations. All I'm hoping for is that whoever gets in will at least get some kind of term limits thing passed. 

I sincerely hope that neither a Bush nor a Clinton wins, though. Something about that just rubs me the wrong way. I also hope that people vote for Hillary Clinton based upon whether or not they agree with her voting record or public office record and what they think she can do for the country, not what set of genitals she happens to have. A woman president would be awesome, but not just for the sake of having one. That's stupid and belittling.


----------



## TheStig1214

Captain Butterscotch said:


> Same as every election. Both candidates will be absolutely filled to the brim with bullsh1t and will absolutely be already bought by their donor corporations. All I'm hoping for is that whoever gets in will at least get some kind of term limits thing passed.
> 
> I sincerely hope that neither a Bush nor a Clinton wins, though. Something about that just rubs me the wrong way. I also hope that people vote for Hillary Clinton based upon whether or not they agree with her voting record or public office record and what they think she can do for the country, not what set of genitals she happens to have. A woman president would be awesome, but not just for the sake of having one. That's stupid and belittling.



The US elections are usually choosing between the shinier of 2 turds or a few smaller piles of dirt. A third party president would be awesome, but it will nevereverevereverever happen.


----------



## beyondcosmos

Captain Butterscotch said:


> A woman president would be awesome, but not just for the sake of having one. That's stupid and belittling.



That's what I'm saying. I think Obama was the better choice given the state of things back in 2008/2009, but when I realized that so many people voted for him just because he became our first black president (and he's not even 'black'--he's half black, half white).... I felt like that was wrong.


----------



## asher

beyondcosmos said:


> (and he's not even 'black'--he's half black, half white)







"Everyone is all equally kitteny" is both objectively false and The Reason We Can't Have Nice Things.


----------



## flint757

beyondcosmos said:


> That's what I'm saying. I think Obama was the better choice given the state of things back in 2008/2009, but when I realized that so many people voted for him just because he became our first black president (and he's not even 'black'--he's half black, half white).... I felt like that was wrong.



I voted for him because of his campaign promises. Couldn't have given 2 ....s about his skin color.  Although you're right that some people did vote for him because he was black. Probably about the same number that voted for Romney/McCain because they weren't black. Similarly the only reason anyone could have thought Palin was a good choice for anything is because she's a woman (because she is insane).


----------



## FretsOnFyre

Captain Butterscotch said:


> I also hope that people vote for Hillary Clinton based upon whether or not they agree with her voting record or public office record and what they think she can do for the country, not what set of genitals she happens to have. A woman president would be awesome, but not just for the sake of having one. That's stupid and belittling.



This. Fvcking *this*.

Then again, there's always Vermin Supreme


----------



## asher

Lesser-Evilism We Can Believe In | The Nation


----------



## beyondcosmos

flint757 said:


> I voted for him because of his campaign promises. Couldn't have given 2 ....s about his skin color.  Although you're right that some people did vote for him because he was black. Probably about the same number that voted for Romney/McCain because they weren't black. Similarly the only reason anyone could have thought Palin was a good choice for anything is because she's a woman (because she is insane).



I wasn't old enough to vote just yet, but I remember getting hyped as fvck for him, really wanted to vote for him if I could have during the first election he won. But I realized in the coming years that all he promised, like with all presidents, gets belittled by how much of a clusterfvck our entire government is.

I think the key to changing with our votes is not to just vote for presidential candidates and certain reps, but also for literally every other government office someone is running for. People forget about all the small things, like people in charge of funding for public endeavors, or other federal positions, and when we neglect the little positions and the same idiots go into those positions year after year, it all snowballs into one giant problem.

AND SPECIAL SHOUT OUT TO THAT GUY MENTIONING VERMIN SUPREME!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4d_FvgQ1csE


----------



## TRENCHLORD

Now it's between Walker and Rubio, and I'm good with either one.
Both would do well with the I. vote, but Rubio obviously would have a greater chance to capture the Hispanic voters in the general election. 
It's a good time to be a conservative now. 
With another extremely dishonest Clinton in the mix it's just about a done deal, and now we'll have much more time to just sit and enjoy the fool she continues to make of herself.


----------



## pushpull7

flint757 said:


> I voted for him because of his campaign promises. Couldn't have given 2 ....s about his skin color.  Although you're right that some people did vote for him because he was black. Probably about the same number that voted for Romney/McCain because they weren't black. Similarly the only reason anyone could have thought Palin was a good choice for anything is because she's a woman (because she is insane).



Here's the problem FWIW:

Though there are some that voted against him because he was black, there were a TON of people that voted for him BECAUSE HE WAS BLACK 

That to me is just as racist. I remember what pissed me off was chris rock on snl saying "who do you think I'm voting for, a black man, or a white woman"

Horrible.

I hope Hillary gets it. I'll not mention the horrible irony over the last time she ran (nobody was worried about BO  ) but despite her faults, she's pretty studious and knowledgeable about many world events. I'll take that over "well we can't just play wackamole"


----------



## flint757

I'd agree except he isn't the first black guy to run so that can't be entirely true.


----------



## pushpull7

flint757 said:


> I'd agree except he isn't the first black guy to run so that can't be entirely true.



No no, I remember Jesse Jackson  But back in those days we didn't have the net, social media, and didn't have the TV dedicated to minorities we do now (is there even such a word now? I mean, it's kinda just one big melting pot these days.....right?) But it was an issue back then.

I just wanted to say I was pissed about chris rock


----------



## UnderTheSign

pushpull7 said:


> Here's the problem FWIW:
> 
> Though there are some that voted against him because he was black, there were a TON of people that voted for him BECAUSE HE WAS BLACK
> 
> That to me is just as racist. I remember what pissed me off was chris rock on snl saying "who do you think I'm voting for, a black man, or a white woman"
> 
> Horrible.
> 
> I hope Hillary gets it. I'll not mention the horrible irony over the last time she ran (nobody was worried about BO  ) but despite her faults, she's pretty studious and knowledgeable about many world events. I'll take that over "well we can't just play wackamole"


How is a minority supporting one of their own racist?


----------



## asher

beyondcosmos said:


> I wasn't old enough to vote just yet, but I remember getting hyped as fvck for him, really wanted to vote for him if I could have during the first election he won. But I realized in the coming years that all he promised, like with all presidents, gets belittled by how much of a clusterfvck our entire government is.
> 
> I think the key to changing with our votes is not to just vote for presidential candidates and certain reps, but also for literally every other government office someone is running for. People forget about all the small things, like people in charge of funding for public endeavors, or other federal positions, and when we neglect the little positions and the same idiots go into those positions year after year, it all snowballs into one giant problem.



He actually managed to get quite a bit of his agenda done anyhow, even if none of it was in the full ideal form (because it never would be):

Dodd-Frank and other pieces of financial reform legislation, which have been quietly effective;
the 2009 stimulus package, which while not nearly big enough, was quite helpful in keeping things from being much worse;
PPACA, which has been massively effective;
beefed up EPA and environmental regulations;
Holder's DoJ aggressively pursuing civil rights cases;
etc.

Also, yes. Every election matters. Local and state elections seriously matter. It's a well made point in the Lesser Evil article.


----------



## Captain Butterscotch

UnderTheSign said:


> How is a minority supporting one of their own racist?



It's kind of a dumb reason to vote for someone, imo


----------



## vilk

UnderTheSign said:


> How is a minority supporting one of their own racist?



It depends on how you define racism. I think there are two popular definitions that are actually quite different despite that everyone uses them.

1. racism (n) - hating people because of their race

2. racism (n) - treating people differently from one another based on their race.


By definition 1, it isn't racist. By definition 2, it is racist. Sometimes I don't know which definition should really mean racism. But imo only the first definition is inherently bad.


----------



## asher

vilk said:


> It depends on how you define racism. I think there are two popular definitions that are actually quite different despite that everyone uses them.
> 
> 1. racism (n) - hating people because of their race
> 
> 2. racism (n) - treating people differently from one another based on their race.
> 
> 
> By definition 1, it isn't racist. By definition 2, it is racist. Sometimes I don't know which definition should really mean racism. But imo only the first definition is inherently bad.



Except 2 isn't really the same thing? It's still dumb, but...



> racism (countable and uncountable, plural racisms)
> 
> The belief that each race has distinct and intrinsic attributes.
> The belief that one race or group of races is superior or inferior to another race or group of races.
> Prejudice or discrimination based upon race. &#8195;[quotations &#9660;]


----------



## vilk

That's what I'm saying. They're not the same thing, but people don't seem to be acknowledging the fact that the word racism is being used to mean either one of these things but not always both.

And while dictionaries are well and good, if people are popularly using a word for a meaning that doesn't fit the dictionary definition, I call the definition wrong, not the people. But also I kind of feel that my definitions are pretty close to the dictionary there.


----------



## asher

Just trying to get at the fact that the word requires it to be inherently negative, and not sure #2 fulfills that requirement.


----------



## vilk

^Ash this is exactly my point; do you get it?


----------



## tedtan

Providing preferential treatment to one group due to their race would still be a negative to those of other races, so it still counts as racism in my book.


----------



## vilk

Since when is race equality zero-sum?

I am having a beach party. I give my irish friends 2 bottles of sunblock. I give my latino friends 1 bottle of sunblock. Am I a racist?
Am I a bad person?


----------



## asher

Imma step out of the weeds on this one - yeah, I do understand what you guys are saying.

What evidence are we using to say that a statistically significant amount of people voted for Obama simply because he was black?


----------



## vilk

I think one circumstantial evidence point (I have no reference) is that it's like the only election with those kind of turn-out numbers for black voters.


----------



## asher

vilk said:


> I think one evidence point (I have no reference) is that it's like the only election with those kind of turn-out numbers for black voters.



Don't they usually turn out reasonably large and reliably for Dems in presidential years though?

Is voting for someone who you perceive as being very much of your own culture and view point just because they're black? You don't *remotely* see that kind of support for Herman Cain, Allen West, or Ben Carson.


----------



## beyondcosmos

asher said:


> beefed up EPA and environmental regulations;



Definitely something I'm happy Obama has done. No matter what your opinion on him or on environmental issues is, it's clear that the EPA needed a boost, and he delivered.

No matter who the next president is, I sincerely hope he/she just keeps enforcing environmental responsibility and care even more. We've finally started to make headway in being a more eco-friendly nation. Let's not mess that up just because someone else is in power.


----------



## asher

beyondcosmos said:


> Definitely something I'm happy Obama has done. No matter what your opinion on him or on environmental issues is, it's clear that the EPA needed a boost, and he delivered.
> 
> No matter who the next president is, I sincerely hope he/she just keeps enforcing environmental responsibility and care even more. We've finally started to make headway in being a more eco-friendly nation. Let's not mess that up just because someone else is in power.



Unfortunately, this means you have one option to vote for 

(this is not how it should be, but it is how it is).


----------



## beyondcosmos

asher said:


> Unfortunately, this means you have one option to vote for
> 
> (this is not how it should be, but it is how it is).



I'm assuming you mean Hillary.... ?


----------



## vilk

Dude, GOP literally _hates_ the environment. And so do its constituents. They would sacrifice the environment for almost any other thing. They'd cut the EPA even if they didn't have to. I bet half of religious voters could care less about the planet because they believe God is going to destroy it anyway.


----------



## asher

beyondcosmos said:


> I'm assuming you mean Hillary.... ?



It's a Republican shibboleth that regulating corporations is universally bad and that climate science is liberal propaganda. It's guaranteed that ANY Republican candidate would gut the EPA and environmental regulations.

This holds true of more than just presidential candidates.

See the Krugman post in the previous page.


----------



## ArtDecade

... I really don't like any of the candidates ...


----------



## Konfyouzd

asher said:


> No possible way that could be two people sharing some jokes. Obviously bootlicking.



Well after seeing Rousey at Wrestlemania, I can't tell you how many posts I saw afterwards saying: "I bet the Rock smashed..."

You're always up to no good if you're in the public eye...


----------



## Sumsar

asher said:


> It's a Republican shibboleth [...] that climate science is liberal propaganda.



I would correct that to:

It's a Republican shibboleth that science is liberal propaganda.


----------



## Konfyouzd




----------



## flint757

asher said:


> Just trying to get at the fact that the word requires it to be inherently negative, and not sure #2 fulfills that requirement.





tedtan said:


> Providing preferential treatment to one group due to their race would still be a negative to those of other races, so it still counts as racism in my book.



Came back to say just that. Technically it is negative to the other party as if you're supporting one race over another just because of their race then you are deliberately also not voting for the other party because of theirs. Now, I can't argue that was the case for Obama as like Asher pointed out you didn't see people going to the voting booth to vote for the numerous other black candidates that have cropped up over the years. People liked what he had to say. Not to mention, for him to win more than black people had to participate and vote for the guy.



beyondcosmos said:


> I'm assuming you mean Hillary.... ?



Really any Democrat would at least leave what has been done alone. If Hillary wins the primary then yes...


----------



## ElRay

groverj3 said:


> Ted. Cruz.



Holy Crap. I hadn't really looked into him other than his current political nonsense. He's definitely shown heavy duty GOPuritan leanings, but I didn't realize he comes from a Dominionist family -- basically folks that feel that it's their duty as christians to rule everybody else, set-up a christian caliphate, etc.

What's really scary is that his Dad/Pastor/Closest-Advisor isn't that far from a Christian Daesh/ISIS/ISIL:
Men should rule women in the home
The &#8220;average black&#8221; doesn&#8217;t understand much
Atheism leads to Child Molestation and Perversity
Homosexuality is a plot to destroy the nation, family, and belief in God
Global warming science, endangered species law, and pretty much all environmental protection are a plot to destroy America
Michelle Obama is a spell-casting witch
Barack Obama is an atheist-Muslim-Communist out to destroy God and Christianity
 Barack Obama should go back to Africa

And, of course, like father, like son, they seen no problem hypocritically breaking their own 8th/9th Commandment (depending on which of the 200+ versions of the bible you read) by lying about a nonexistent increase in violent crime and a nonexistent increase in teen pregnancy rates on a nonexistent removal of prayer and bible instruction in school.


----------



## asher

That is a kitten impressive array of facepalms.

Anyone from the klown kar not named Bush or Walker are running a vanity campaign.


----------



## FretsOnFyre

ElRay said:


> groverj3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ted. Cruz./QUOTE]
> 
> Holy Crap. I hadn't really looked into him other than his current political nonsense. He's definitely shown heavy duty GOPuritan leanings, but I didn't realize he comes from a Dominionist family -- basically folks that feel that it's their duty as christians to rule everybody else, set-up a christian caliphate, etc.
> 
> What's really scary is that his Dad/Pastor/Closest-Advisor isn't that far from a Christian Daesh/ISIS/ISIL:
> Men should rule women in the home
> The average black doesnt understand much
> Atheism leads to Child Molestation and Perversity
> Homosexuality is a plot to destroy the nation, family, and belief in God
> Global warming science, endangered species law, and pretty much all environmental protection are a plot to destroy America
> Michelle Obama is a spell-casting witch
> Barack Obama is an atheist-Muslim-Communist out to destroy God and Christianity
> Barack Obama should go back to Africa
> 
> And, of course, like father, like son, they seen no problem hypocritically breaking their own 8th/9th Commandment (depending on which of the 200+ versions of the bible you read) by lying about a nonexistent increase in violent crime and a nonexistent increase in teen pregnancy rates on a nonexistent removal of prayer and bible instruction in school.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...wow. This left me absolutely speechless.
Click to expand...


----------



## beyondcosmos

vilk said:


> Dude, GOP literally _hates_ the environment. And so do its constituents. They would sacrifice the environment for almost any other thing. They'd cut the EPA even if they didn't have to. I bet half of religious voters could care less about the planet because they believe God is going to destroy it anyway.



Don't worry dude, there's plenty of religious voters who care for this planet and everyone who lives in it, whether they share our beliefs or not.  I'll concede though, and agree with there being plenty of Bible-thumpers who don't care about the things people should care about. Makes me mad like you would not believe.

I haven't looked through the whole thread, so maybe this guy was mentioned earlier, but....

Who here thinks Bernie Sanders should just be put in power? I really am sad he's not running.


----------



## flint757

Opinions of him aside, I think he's far too old. If he got 2 terms he'd be 81 before leaving office.


----------



## FretsOnFyre

beyondcosmos said:


> Who here thinks Bernie Sanders should just be put in power? I really am sad he's not running.



I looked him up after reading your post and I believe he's just gone to my top choice. He's still considering it, apparently...Sanders to decide on presidential run by April 30 | WWLP.com


----------



## celticelk

TRENCHLORD said:


> Both would do well with the I. vote, but Rubio obviously would have a greater chance to capture the Hispanic voters in the general election.



The fact that Rubio could carry Florida doesn't guarantee Hispanic appeal in the general election. He's a Cuban, and the Hispanic bloc in Florida has a much higher Cuban population than the rest of the nation, and Cuban-Americans tend to lean more conservative than American Hispanics generally. Frankly, if the Republicans want to make broad appeal to Hispanics a key part of their strategy for 2016, Jeb Bush is probably a better choice.


----------



## flint757

FretsOnFyre said:


> I looked him up after reading your post and I believe he's just gone to my top choice. He's still considering it, apparently...Sanders to decide on presidential run by April 30 | WWLP.com



That's so risky though. If he passes then whomever his VP is becomes president and we have zero say on who that is. If he does run and people vote for him I hope people take into consideration who is VP is as well just in case.


----------



## pushpull7

UnderTheSign said:


> How is a minority supporting one of their own racist?



Say wha? Voting for "their own?"

I'm talking about mostly white people 

Anyways, people are going to come to irrational conclusions to suit their own POV vs the actual truth.


----------



## vilk

Holy ....! Ted Cruz pops is bat.... ....ing crazy! How is that not getting more media attention? I read NPR every day and haven't seen a thing about it.


----------



## asher

Because the MSM is terrible.


----------



## tedtan

celticelk said:


> The fact that Rubio could carry Florida doesn't guarantee Hispanic appeal in the general election. He's a Cuban, and the Hispanic bloc in Florida has a much higher Cuban population than the rest of the nation, and Cuban-Americans tend to lean more conservative than American Hispanics generally. Frankly, if the Republicans want to make broad appeal to Hispanics a key part of their strategy for 2016, Jeb Bush is probably a better choice.



It's more than just the conservativeness of Cubans; I was just talking about this with a (Mexican-American) friend a few days ago and was informed that "Rubio doesn't have a shot at the Hispanic vote outside of Florida because most Mexicans would never vote for a Cuban".


----------



## ferret

Stay classy, Hillary haters....

Hillary Clinton's Father's Tombstone Knocked Over


----------



## flint757

That's pretty pathetic. I wouldn't do that to my worst enemy.


----------



## vilk

I think I might like this O'Malley guy after I've read an interview with him. But I'm just curious what everyone on here thinks, since I'm easily misled by politicians. 

Transcript: NPR's Full Interview With Martin O'Malley : It's All Politics : NPR


I wonder if this dude will gain any traction. I feel like a lot of people who would vote Hillary might go for this guy instead since he doesn't have the same last name as someone who was already president.


----------



## FretsOnFyre

vilk said:


> I think I might like this O'Malley guy after I've read an interview with him. But I'm just curious what everyone on here thinks, since I'm easily misled by politicians.
> 
> Transcript: NPR's Full Interview With Martin O'Malley : It's All Politics : NPR
> 
> 
> I wonder if this dude will gain any traction. I feel like a lot of people who would vote Hillary might go for this guy instead since he doesn't have the same last name as someone who was already president.



I feel like he'd be a good choice - I was on the fence about him because he was very vague about the climate change issue (he doesn't comment on it much here either, but he does acknowledge it), but I like his stance on marriage so he'll be on my radar when the primaries roll around.


----------



## UnattendedGolfcart

I don't like anybody, at least yet.

Hillary is a big no for me, and I don't know about any other major Democrat candidate as of yet.

Ted Cruz is also a no, any Republican running on a heavily religious stand is out for me in general. I was reading a newspaper article about Marco Rubio's pro-immigration stance and that gave me some respect for him, I'll have to check him out. Rand Paul has some okay ideas but they're usually overshadowed by some other hypocritical idea. The fact that everyone thinks he's a libertarian and he's running on that even though he really isn't for small government irks me, and I'm sure it irks other libertarians.

If Gary Johnson ran I'd be interested, but it seems like he might not run (unless I missed something)

In all honesty I doubt I'm gonna vote because I can't see anyone I actually want to get behind that I wouldn't regret later.

Ron Paul save us pls it's happening


----------



## vilk

Tell me why you don't like O'Malley?


----------



## asher

Elder and Jr. Paul are both grifter extrordinaires. Junior Paul votes party line GOP pretty much, despite any of his rhetoric.

GolfCart, you should go back a page and read the Lesser Evilism article I linked.


----------



## UnattendedGolfcart

asher said:


> Elder and Jr. Paul are both grifter extrordinaires. Junior Paul votes party line GOP pretty much, despite any of his rhetoric.
> 
> GolfCart, you should go back a page and read the Lesser Evilism article I linked.



Eh. That's why I can't vote. The whole Lesser Evilism thing doesn't sit right with me. My Democrat-leaning dad and my Republican-leaning mom have both told me to always go with the lesser evil, and I always think, that still assumes you're choosing _some_ amount of evil, or something where you have to heavily compromise what you believe to get a little bit of what you want.

If I have regrets or hesitation voting for somebody then I'm not going to vote for them, even if I agree with parts of what they believe. I'd rather not vote at all than do that. I'll get more informed in the coming months but I'm probably not going to vote because I can't feel good about getting behind any of the candidates.

I can't wait to not vote because I don't like anybody!


----------



## asher

... did you actually read the article?  It's about exactly why you should hold your nose any vote anyway.

Because you're voting for way more than the POTUS - and it affects a lot of people.


----------



## flint757

Yeah, when you vote you vote for more than just the president. There's an election every year. Also, not voting doesn't actually change things anyhow. It's one less vote for either party. It's the equivalent to voting for both and if the guy you really don't like wins you might have wished you did.


----------



## TRENCHLORD

celticelk said:


> Frankly, if the Republicans want to make broad appeal to Hispanics a key part of their strategy for 2016, Jeb Bush is probably a better choice.



I might agree if it were ONLY about bringing in the Hispanic vote, but it's about capturing more of the Hispanic vote without losing numbers from the other blocks. 
They won't need a majority of Hispanics, but they'll sure need a reasonable improvement over 2012. 
IMO Rubio is the better candidate (or Walker) over Bush, because really how many people think we need another Bush? Not I.


----------



## UnattendedGolfcart

asher said:


> ... did you actually read the article?  It's about exactly why you should hold your nose any vote anyway.
> 
> Because you're voting for way more than the POTUS - and it affects a lot of people.



Is what you're talking about the Krugman thing? Because if so, yes I did, unless there was another post that I missed...lol

Anyway, I should clarify I would vote on a local and state level but voting for a President isn't likely from me. I don't care if nothing comes from my non voting, I'd rather not vote than throw my vote to someone I don't like.

I used to be so textbook Democrat, what happened to me?


----------



## asher

UnattendedGolfcart said:


> Is what you're talking about the Krugman thing? Because if so, yes I did, unless there was another post that I missed...lol
> 
> Anyway, I should clarify I would vote on a local and state level but voting for a President isn't likely from me. I don't care if nothing comes from my non voting, I'd rather not vote than throw my vote to someone I don't like.
> 
> I used to be so textbook Democrat, what happened to me?



Lesser-Evilism We Can Believe In | The Nation

Protest votes are for primaries.

General elections are too damn important.

Don't give the GOP a chance to nominate more SCOTUS seats.


----------



## UnattendedGolfcart

asher said:


> Lesser-Evilism We Can Believe In | The Nation
> 
> Protest votes are for primaries.
> 
> General elections are too damn important.
> 
> Don't give the GOP a chance to nominate more SCOTUS seats.



"Vote for Democrats who we admit we don't really like because all Republicans are 100% evil" ok

I'll vote where I want and not vote where I want. I'm not voting for someone I do not agree with because they're a certain party.

I don't want to sound mad over this or like I don't care, because I'm still impacted by whatever happens, no doubt about it. But I don't feel like taking part in it, at least the presidential election, if there is no candidate I can get behind.


----------



## crg123

Michele Bachmann: The Rapture Is Coming And It's Obama's Fault

LOL I can't even. I can't believe this isn't something from the Onion.



> We in our lifetimes potentially could see Jesus Christ returning to earth and the rapture of the church,&#8221; Bachmann said. &#8220;We see the destruction, but this was a destruction that was foretold.&#8221;


----------



## asher

UnattendedGolfcart said:


> "Vote for Democrats who we admit we don't really like because all Republicans are 100% evil" ok
> 
> I'll vote where I want and not vote where I want. I'm not voting for someone I do not agree with because they're a certain party.
> 
> I don't want to sound mad over this or like I don't care, because I'm still impacted by whatever happens, no doubt about it. But I don't feel like taking part in it, at least the presidential election, if there is no candidate I can get behind.



You've got the candidates you've got, not the ones you want. We'll never actually get the one we want.

But you're not just voting for one person, you're voting for a whole damn party and all that comes with it. It might suck, it's not ideal, but that's the reality and it's naive to think otherwise. Individual personality is almost totally irrelevant... I'd actually be _much_ less concerned about one from the Clown Car Cavalcade getting into the office if it were just merely the one person.

General elections are not the time for philosophical stands. There's way too much on the line to not be pragmatic about it.


----------



## UnattendedGolfcart

asher said:


> You've got the candidates you've got, not the ones you want. We'll never actually get the one we want.
> 
> But you're not just voting for one person, you're voting for a whole damn party and all that comes with it. It might suck, it's not ideal, but that's the reality and it's naive to think otherwise. Individual personality is almost totally irrelevant... I'd actually be _much_ less concerned about one from the Clown Car Cavalcade getting into the office if it were just merely the one person.
> 
> General elections are not the time for philosophical stands. There's way too much on the line to not be pragmatic about it.



You're right though, to an extent. I've got more to learn about every candidate for all of the government levels (local and state I care about more than federal even though federal has more power). I just don't believe in the whole "Everyone in 'this party' is good and we need to vote for them because they'll save us from everyone in 'the other party'" schtick.


----------



## asher

UnattendedGolfcart said:


> "Everyone in 'this party' is good and we need to vote for them because they'll save us from everyone in 'the other party'" schtick.



That's not what's actually being said.

The Democrats are not remotely perfect or uniformly good. But for the most part, they're doing OK to good stuff.

The large majority of elected Republicans in the last six, eight years (at least) have empirically proven themselves to be, at best, detrimental leaders, and at worse outright hateful.

Find me the Democrats who are writing and passing: bigoted, discriminatory legislation (like the license to discriminate stuff in Indiana or legislation banning gay marriage outright); sexist, discriminatory policy on not just abortion, but large matters of women's right to their health choices (numerous); racist voter ID laws to target non-existent voter fraud (the numerous studies back up my words); predictably, empirically proven to be terrible economic policy (Scott Walker's put Wisconsin's economy in the hole, not to mention has shredded worker's rights; Sam Brownback has been able to run the dream Republican economic policies in Kansas, and it's completely annihilated the state's economy). Or the ones actively subverting national diplomatic relations & negotiations.

Find me the Republicans who have actually proposed any ACTUAL policy to replace the PPACA they so vehemently oppose.


----------



## FretsOnFyre

crg123 said:


> Michele Bachmann: The Rapture Is Coming And It's Obama's Fault
> 
> LOL I can't even. I can't believe this isn't something from the Onion.


----------



## Konfyouzd

That title... There's no way I could bring myself to read that after the title... That is pandering to a very specific subset of people.


----------



## crg123

^ The best part is its just a normal MSN article. Not from any wackado sites. It's crazy that they'd even publish her crazy views. I started laughing so hard in the office when I read that. I really couldnt believe it wasnt parody.


----------



## michblanch

crg123 said:


> Michele Bachmann: The Rapture Is Coming And It's Obama's Fault
> 
> LOL I can't even. I can't believe this isn't something from the Onion.



She is absolutely insane. 

JFK was the antichrist. 
Ronald Reagan was the antichrist. 
People actually believed this.


----------



## right_to_rage

Bernie Sanders.

BOOM!

Bernie Sanders on the Issues


----------



## asher

right_to_rage said:


> Bernie Sanders.
> 
> BOOM!
> 
> Bernie Sanders on the Issues



I am very, very happy he is running. Hillary needs a serious from-the-left challenge to pull her that direction some.


----------



## pushpull7

crg123 said:


> Michele Bachmann: The Rapture Is Coming And It's Obama's Fault
> 
> LOL I can't even. I can't believe this isn't something from the Onion.



IIRC, she is the idiot who said that the hurricane was a way of god cleansing. It's sad stuff. Even though I don't buy into the propaganda most people use to make the left "less evil" the repubs sure are not making it any easier on themselves


----------



## flint757

Presidential candidate Ted Cruz fails to identify clitoris on female anatomy chart. | 16 Inch City



This is kind of hilarious...


----------



## bonga

I am from India and just thought on posting the perspective of a foreign citizen. I also have many friends in the middle east. The first thing is no one wants another Bush. And the other Republicans aren't that known outside the US, except maybe for Fiorina because of her work with HP. People here are just assuming Hillary is going to win .


----------



## crg123

flint757 said:


> Presidential candidate Ted Cruz fails to identify clitoris on female anatomy chart. | 16 Inch City
> 
> 
> 
> This is kind of hilarious...



Dude. You made my week.

EDIT: Damnit, I wanted this to be real so badly


----------



## QuantumCybin

My vote is going to Flocka.

Rapper Waka Flocka Flame blazes 2016 Trail - CNNPolitics.com


----------



## asher

QuantumCybin said:


> My vote is going to Flocka.
> 
> Rapper Waka Flocka Flame blazes 2016 Trail - CNNPolitics.com



Sanders/Flame 2016!


----------



## groverj3

bonga said:


> I am from India and just thought on posting the perspective of a foreign citizen. I also have many friends in the middle east. The first thing is no one wants another Bush. And the other Republicans aren't that known outside the US, except maybe for Fiorina because of her work with HP. People here are just assuming Hillary is going to win .



That's not a bad assumption.

I don't know anyone who cares about the email "scandal," and she has the memories of the good times (1990s) on her side to potentially steal some GOP-voters. If she can push some of the issues that us left-leaners care about I don't think she'll have a hard time winning.

To be fair, I like Bernie Sanders' positions on most issues better. However, get real. This is still the US and anyone who calls themselves anything close to a socialist will never win a major election. Granted, he's a democratic socialist in favor of scandanavian-style social democracy, but people are stupid and go insane about anything even resembling socialism.

I wish I could be proven wrong though.


----------



## vilk

I trust Flocka Flame more than I would trust most elected officials. I think Sanders/Flame could do more decent than most might guess.


----------



## QuantumCybin

vilk said:


> I trust Flocka Flame more than I would trust most elected officials. I think Sanders/Flame could do more decent than most might guess.



President Flame sounds badass  has a nice ring to it. He's not 35 though so I don't think he could run even if he wanted to hahaha


----------



## AugmentedFourth

asher said:


> I am very, very happy he is running. Hillary needs a serious from-the-left challenge to pull her that direction some.



From what I understand, Sanders isn't running in hopes of being a serious candidate. He's more one of the runners who does it to give exposure to his views, so I wouldn't count on Clinton or anyone else thinking of him as a serious challenge.


----------



## vansinn

There's an election? The way I see it, Hillary was pre-selected long ago and will be made to win..
The Obama V.2 (s)election was about more Changes You Can Believe In vs More Sables And Horses as the opposing scare tactic, and Obama once again came out with another version of Yes We Can (who 'We'?.
This time, I expect sortof the same mechanism, just a different algorithm factored-in.


----------



## Sumsar

Meanwhile today in Denmark it was announced that the election for the parliament (which also determines who will be prime minister) will be in 3 weeks time. So the stupid election campaigns began today as well .. and it will all be over in 3 weeks 

Ofc various politicians have been going on about electoral promises for the last 6 months but they have been largely ignored (even by the media) because people know that they are just that - promises - and none of it will ever become reality anyway.


----------



## asher

vansinn said:


> There's an election? The way I see it, Hillary was pre-selected long ago and will be made to win..
> The Obama V.2 (s)election was about more Changes You Can Believe In vs More Sables And Horses as the opposing scare tactic, and Obama once again came out with another version of Yes We Can (who 'We'?.
> This time, I expect sortof the same mechanism, just a different algorithm factored-in.



wat


----------



## Shewter

Hillary will probably win, and it's scary that people *will* vote for her. Not that there is a perfect candidate on either side of the fence, but quite frankly that woman has done and said so many things that should be red flags to everyone.


----------



## TRENCHLORD

I don't think she'll win the general, but she'll sure get much more than her "fair share" of votes IMO.


----------



## FretsOnFyre

AugmentedFourth said:


> From what I understand, Sanders isn't running in hopes of being a serious candidate. He's more one of the runners who does it to give exposure to his views, so I wouldn't count on Clinton or anyone else thinking of him as a serious challenge.



That was my impression as well, but he's been in the media more than I expected - probably because he's got a very no-nonsense way of talking about his views. He's shaping up to be more of a threat than I had anticipated.


----------



## Glosni

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2XH0B9c8DFs

My body is ready.


----------



## asher

Glosni said:


> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2XH0B9c8DFs
> 
> My body is ready.



The Lizza List: Fourteen Memories of Rick Santorum - The New Yorker


----------



## celticelk

TRENCHLORD said:


> I don't think she'll win the general, but she'll sure get much more than her "fair share" of votes IMO.



I'm thinking that whether the general is an actual race or a Clinton victory lap depends on the last person left in the clown car after the Republican primaries. The base doesn't appear to have been getting any less extreme over the past few years, and most of the current crop of nominees would get eaten alive by the Clinton political machine, IMO.


----------



## flint757

The only people 100% convinced she'll lose, like her or not, are people who watch Fox news where they've been relentlessly trying to destroy her reputation since campaigning has begun again. The only problem with that plan is the people watching Fox already wouldn't vote for her anyhow so I don't see that translating to anything meaningful for the right as far as diminished votes.

I'm not a huge fan of the Clinton's, but that doesn't cloud my judgment to the point of thinking she's a guaranteed lose. 

While I appreciate the Clinton's ability to get both sides to come to an agreement every now and then, at least historically, Bill put through a lot of pro corporate policies and I don't see Hilary being any different. Obviously whomever takes the Republican role in this melodrama will equally be pro corporate so if it comes down to it I'd still vote for her, but I wouldn't mind seeing someone else come primaries.


----------



## FILTHnFEAR

flint757 said:


> I'm not a huge fan of the Clinton's, but that doesn't cloud my judgment to the point of thinking she's a guaranteed lose.



This. 

People thinking she doesn't even have a chance are in for a reality check, I think. I cringe at the thought of her as POTUS, but it is a real possibility. And with her "competition" on the other side of the aisle, or lack thereof I should say, her chances are only increased.


----------



## celticelk

flint757 said:


> Obviously whomever takes the Republican role in this melodrama will equally be pro corporate so if it comes down to it I'd still vote for her, but I wouldn't mind seeing someone else come primaries.



I would certainly vote Sanders in the Dem primary as a way of saying "hey, take the actual left wing of the party a little more seriously," but there's not a chance in hell that the surviving Republican candidate wins my vote over Clinton.


----------



## vansinn

flint757 said:


> While I appreciate the Clinton's ability to get both sides to come to an agreement every now and then, at least historically, Bill put through a lot of pro corporate policies and I don't see Hilary being any different. Obviously whomever takes the Republican role in this melodrama will equally be pro corporate so if it comes down to it I'd still vote for her, but I wouldn't mind seeing someone else come primaries.



Interesting points..
And likewise interesting how few politicians will talk openly about the world of corporations [that we live in].
I find it strikingly problematic looking at the differences between 1776 and post-1933..


----------



## bostjan

Not that it's likely, but if we end up with something like Sanders versus Santorum, this country will become far more polarized than it already is.


----------



## asher

I don't really see anyone beating ¡Jeb! from the laughtastic GOP bench.


----------



## jernigant

*Looks in thread and sees all the republican hate*
*Slowly and quietly exits the thread before anyone sees me*


----------



## asher




----------



## vilk

Well I mean, I think it looks like we're all hating on republicans, but really I think most of us hate everyone and it's just that GOP is very very blatant and obvious about doing things that absolutely no forward-thinking person could condone. I'm sure there are just as many dems that would do the same but they at least have to lie about it because of the people who are voting for them.

GOP voters:
exceedingly wealthy
people who perceive themselves as wealthy enough to be on the deficit end of welfare (regardless of whether or not they actually are)
hicks/racists
religious fundamentalists
"old fashioned" people who have "traditional values" (which as far as I can tell usually boils down to not wanting to help any group that might include non-whites or homosexuals)
People whose parents/trust fund paid for their education.
People who perceive themselves to have worked harder than others (which of course cannot really be measured)


Dem voters:
All non-whites
Scientists/Secularists
People who care about the environment
People who borrowed money to pay for their education
Anyone with queer friends/family
People who have traveled to/ are friends with people from nations with proper social welfare (Northern Europe, Japan, Canada)




*Of course, I'm just pulling this all out of my ass like always. But here is something I would like to think about for a second: How many people who personally are close to a homosexual person, immigrant, or any of these other minority groups who the GOP has explicit plans to .... with would still vote GOP? @dueman above who sidled in and out the thread--be real, honest, do you have any gay friends? Do you hang out with ANY Mexicans? None of those stretches where you think about some dude who's on your facebook that you talked to 5 years ago in uni.


----------



## jernigant

vilk said:


> Well I mean, I think it looks like we're all hating on republicans, but really I think most of us hate everyone and it's just that GOP is very very blatant and obvious about doing things that absolutely no forward-thinking person could condone. I'm sure there are just as many dems that would do the same but they at least have to lie about it because of the people who are voting for them.
> 
> GOP voters:
> exceedingly wealthy
> people who perceive themselves as wealthy enough to be on the deficit end of welfare (regardless of whether or not they actually are)
> hicks/racists
> religious fundamentalists
> "old fashioned" people who have "traditional values" (which as far as I can tell usually boils down to not wanting to help any group that might include non-whites or homosexuals)
> People whose parents/trust fund paid for their education.
> People who perceive themselves to have worked harder than others (which of course cannot really be measured)
> 
> 
> Dem voters:
> All non-whites
> Scientists/Secularists
> People who borrowed money to pay for their education
> Anyone with queer friends/family
> People who have traveled to/ are friends with people from nations with social welfare (Northern Europe, Japan, Canada)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Of course, I'm just pulling this all out of my ass like always. But here is something I would like to think about for a second: How many people who personally are close to a homosexual person, immigrant, or any of these other minority groups who the GOP has explicit plans to .... with would still vote GOP?



While I agree the GOP is far from perfect I have to disagree with your assumptions about GOP voters. I'm a republican  and guess what...
- I think gay marriage should be legal.
- Pot should be legal.
- The Military budget should be gutted.
- Religion should never ever, ever, ever mix with politics. 

Of course your entitled to your own opinion and I respect your opinion just know that not all republicans are ignorant assholes.


----------



## celticelk

jernigant said:


> While I agree the GOP is far from perfect I have to disagree with your assumptions about GOP voters. I'm a republican  and guess what...
> - I think gay marriage should be legal.
> - Pot should be legal.
> - The Military budget should be gutted.
> - Religion should never ever, ever, ever mix with politics.
> 
> Of course your entitled to your own opinion and I respect your opinion just know that not all republicans are ignorant assholes.



Which leads to the question: given the mismatch between your policy preferences and the Republican platform, why are you a Republican? That's not a troll - I'm asking honestly.


----------



## vilk

^So my question is then, if you truly believe gay people are equal, how can you in good conscience vote GOP? Is it because you believe you've worked harder than others to get where you are and other people don't deserve handouts since you didn't get any? and your conviction about this overrides sympathy for homosexuals who want equal treatment? I'm not trying to elicit something I'm just being straight.

edit:  'd lol

Also, I wasn't calling republicans ignorant assholes, but honestly in my mind those groups are just how the cards fall when it comes to who votes for whom. I mean it kinda makes sense, statistically backed I'm sure to some extent. I bet there a tantamount ratio of non-white ignorant assholes all voting dem for just as little reason as the white ignorant assholes voting gop. It's just that the ignorant assholes voting dem might stand more to gain from it (doesn't matter how ignorant you are, a vote for social welfare is gonna help the poor) than the ignorant assholes voting gop (stopping gay people from marrying doesn't actually_ help_ anyone_)_


----------



## jernigant

celticelk said:


> Which leads to the question: given the mismatch between your policy preferences and the Republican platform, why are you a Republican? That's not a troll - I'm asking honestly.



I can understand the confusion.
The thing is I feel that a lot of so called "republicans" have lost sight of one of the key things the party stands for which In my opinion is that the government should stay the .... out of peoples business, financially and socially. I'm not going to sit here and act like i agree with gay marriage on a personal level. I think marriage is for a guy and a girl. That being said its not up to me to decide that for others. This is America if someone want to marry someone of the same gender, it shouldn't be up to me or anyone else to decide that for them. I'm not comfortable with the government being allowed to dictate what people are allowed to do. Point is its kinda like being a Megadeth fan. While yes I am a fan and think they are fantastic musicians (whats left of the band anyways) I think supercollider is the most terrible thing ever conceived. Same goes for the GOP candidates. I am a republican but that doesn't mean I agree with everything they do or have done.


----------



## vilk

OK, so, if You = republican =/= supportive of current GOP, do you still reckon you'll vote a straight ticket?

Also saying "gay marriage should be legal but I don't believe it's right" is still kind of a bigoted thing to say imo. But I guess we're still at that stage where saying that feelings of love that gay people have towards each other isn't deserving of the same respect that the feelings of love straight people have for each other is considered an "opinion" and not just plain wrong, bad way to think and feel.


----------



## jernigant

vilk said:


> ^So my question is then, if you truly believe gay people are equal, how can you in good conscience vote GOP? Is it because you believe you've worked harder than others to get where you are and other people don't deserve handouts since you didn't get any? and your conviction about this overrides sympathy for homosexuals who want equal treatment? I'm not trying to elicit something I'm just being straight.
> 
> edit:  'd lol
> 
> Also, I wasn't calling republicans ignorant assholes, but honestly in my mind those groups are just how the cards fall when it comes to who votes for whom. I mean it kinda makes sense, statistically backed I'm sure to some extent. I bet there a tantamount ratio of non-white ignorant assholes all voting dem for just as little reason as the white ignorant assholes voting gop. It's just that the ignorant assholes voting dem might stand more to gain from it (doesn't matter how ignorant you are, a vote for social welfare is gonna help the poor) than the ignorant assholes voting gop (stopping gay people
> from marrying doesn't actually_ help_ anyone_)_



1) I understand you didn't call republicans ignorant assholes that just the general feeling I got from this thread after reading all of it.
2) The problem with the guys voting for social welfare is that in the long run they don't realize it's just going to hurt them and the country more. I completely agree on stopping gay marriage doesn't help anyone.
3) You ask how can I in good conscience vote GOP the answer is simply I cant . But unfortunately sometimes you have to, as others in this thread have stated, choose the lesser of two evils. In my mind while it may make things harder for gays to get equal rights and of course its ....ed up, Gay marriage is going to be legalized no matter how much hard right republicans are going to try and stop it. Pot will be legalized in time. The hope is the economy doesn't .... it self any worse than it already has in the time it takes for these social changes to occur.


----------



## vilk

^that is a point I've considered, too, I guess. It doesn't matter how much some republicans might disapprove of homosexuality, it's coming either way. So you can sort of make that vote but at least you have an excuse up your sleeve to help waive any guilt. 

I don't see what pot has to do with anything other than the origins of its prohibition being an attack on blacks and Mexicans. No political party, or legal team, or scientific community, or anyone really can make a decent argument for why pot was _ever_ illegal. I'm still confused about why the law isn't ipso-facto eliminated now that we as a nation have the general knowledge about it.


----------



## jernigant

vilk said:


> OK, so, if You = republican =/= supportive of current GOP, do you still reckon you'll vote a straight ticket?
> 
> Also saying "gay marriage should be legal but I don't believe it's right" is still kind of a bigoted thing to say imo. But I guess we're still at that stage where saying that feelings of love that gay people have towards each other isn't deserving of the same respect that the feelings of love straight people have for each other is considered an "opinion" and not just plain wrong, bad way to think and feel.



I'm not old enough to vote 

Also after reading what you said about "love that gay people have towards each other isn't deserving of the same respect that the feelings of love straight people have for each other is considered an "opinion" and not just plain wrong, bad way to think and feel" and how what i said was a "bigoted thing to say"..... your right, I was wrong.


----------



## vilk

Are you ....tin me? Woohoo! I think that's the first time anyone has ever written that on the internet.


----------



## jernigant

vilk said:


> Are you ....tin me? Woohoo!




Though I might not agree with you on everything. I'm willing to admit when I'm wrong.I know its the internet your probably not use to that. I'm still a republican though.


----------



## vilk

Good thing you can't vote then!


----------



## jernigant

vilk said:


> Good thing you can't vote then!



Just gotta wait till February. 

Also I might be republican but that doesn't mean I'm not willing to look at and consider all the candidates. As Obama likes to say "All options are on the table."


----------



## asher

jernigant said:


> 2) The problem with the guys voting for social welfare is that in the long run they don't realize it's just going to hurt them and the country more. I completely agree on stopping gay marriage doesn't help anyone.



Citation needed. If you mean what I suspect (it makes people dependent, lazy, and unwilling to work, it reduces social mobility, it's too expensive and we can't afford it, etc), it's factually incorrect.



> 3) You ask how can I in good conscience vote GOP the answer is simply I cant . But unfortunately sometimes you have to, as others in this thread have stated, choose the lesser of two evils. In my mind while it may make things harder for gays to get equal rights and of course its ....ed up, Gay marriage is going to be legalized no matter how much hard right republicans are going to try and stop it. Pot will be legalized in time. The hope is the economy doesn't .... it self any worse than it already has in the time it takes for these social changes to occur.



You can't do it in good conscience, but you go ahead and identify with them anyway?

"I believe in all these social causes that everyone in the party I affiliate with hates and does everything in their power to stop or damage, but... they'll lose eventually, so it's okay?"

How about health insurance? Are you okay affiliating with a party whose governors *will cause thousands of unnecessary deaths by not accepting Medicare expansion, just to spite Obama*?

The small government fiscally conservative party you're looking for doesn't actually exist - especially if by fiscally conservative, people are trying to conjure the image of fiscally _responsible_. Which the GOP is anything but. They hate regulation for business, but absolutely love to pass incredibly obtrusive laws against womens' health care rights, immigrants, and the poor (drug testing welfare recipients, sadistically long lists of banned food stamp items that Wisconsin is passing) that are anything but small government.


----------



## jernigant

asher said:


> Citation needed. If you mean what I suspect (it makes people dependent, lazy, and unwilling to work, it reduces social mobility, it's too expensive and we can't afford it, etc), it's factually incorrect.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about health insurance? Are you okay affiliating with a party whose governors *will cause thousands of unnecessary deaths by not accepting Medicare expansion, just to spite Obama*?



1) IMO it's common sense. Social welfare cost money. The government pays money for social welfare services. the more they pay the more they tax?

2) Not trolling but seriously If you can find sources that say this about health insurance I would love to read them.


----------



## ferret

jernigant said:


> 1) IMO it's common sense. Social welfare cost money. The government pays money for social welfare services. the more they pay the more they tax?



What exactly is the issue there? Taxes are not inherently evil.

But alternatively, you could support a living wage so fewer people need to rely on social welfare.


----------



## jernigant

ferret said:


> What exactly is the issue there? Taxes are not inherently evil.
> 
> But alternatively, you could support a living wage so fewer people need to rely on social welfare.



The issue is these people think that they are saving money when they actually have to pay more. To be more specific I'm talking mostly about federal taxes, I understand Taxes aren't inherently evil and we do need them to an extent.


----------



## asher

jernigant said:


> 1) IMO it's common sense. Social welfare cost money. The government pays money for social welfare services. the more they pay the more they tax?



Not every cent increase of spending needs to be immediately offset by raised taxes. It's not like there aren't other gigantically oversized budget items (or that our tax rates are, like, actually fair).

Not to mention that unemployment benefits and other bits of welfare help push the economy as a whole out of recessions, because it... puts money in peoples' pockets to spend they otherwise wouldn't have.




> 2) Not trolling but seriously If you can find sources that say this about health insurance I would love to read them.





> Delay still brings enormous human costs. Nearly 5 million low-income Americans are income-eligible for Medicaid under the ACA, yet live in states that now reject the Medicaid expansion. Within this rather small but critical low-income population, that same one-per-830 estimate implies that almost 5,800 people will die every year as a result of being left uninsured. Thats only an estimate. It may overestimateor underestimatethe true human consequences.
> 
> Read more: Death on the Installment Plan - Harold Pollack - POLITICO Magazine


----------



## asher

jernigant said:


> The issue is these people think that they are saving money when they actually have to pay more. To be more specific I'm talking mostly about federal taxes, I understand Taxes aren't inherently evil and we do need them to an extent.





I've heard many terrible arguments for gutting welfare, but... this is new. And I don't get it 

Which people are "these" people? Saving money and spending more how?


----------



## ferret

Yeah, I've never heard a supporter of social welfare claim that it would "save them money" ...


----------



## jernigant

^Saving might have been a bad word. What I'm saying is these people that are getting welfare are costing the government more money and this has to be offset somehow.


----------



## celticelk

jernigant said:


> ^Saving might have been a bad word. What I'm saying is these people that are getting welfare are costing the government more money and this has to be offset somehow.



To some extent, money will return to the federal government via taxes: poor people who receive money generally spend it (unlike rich people, who generally save it), and that economic activity is taxable. In more general terms, yes, anything that the federal government spends has to come from somewhere. I generally support more progressive taxation (read: higher rates on the wealthy), which is one possible source; reduction of spending on defense would be another way to make welfare spending revenue-neutral.


----------



## asher

Not to mention that if you set it up right, it'll give recipients an actually better chance to move upwards socially and _actually_ do that bootstraps thing Americans love to talk about, in which case they go off assistance and start paying taxes back.


----------



## bonga

What happened to all the Eisenhower Republicans? or the Rockefellar Republicans?


----------



## asher

bonga said:


> What happened to all the Eisenhower Republicans? or the Rockefellar Republicans?



In the latter case, they're literally all dead.

In the former case, they're mostly dead.


I'm not even being flippant. Those are two very, very old age groups now if they were active and identifying in those periods. The Eisenhower Republicans that are left have either gotten sucked into the right wing noise machine and vote like hardcore FOX viewers, or realized the party has drifted to bat.... insane levels of conservatism and have moved left. Well, vote left - the center/right side of the modern Democratic party isn't a vast distance from Ike's party.


----------



## Mprinsje

ferret said:


> Yeah, I've never heard a supporter of social welfare claim that it would "save them money" ...



As a receiver of social welfare (or something of the like), it's not that we're off cheaper in the long run, it's that we're not faced with unexpected costs when all of a sudden you've got some kind of disease or have broken a bone. I've seen some bands raising funds because a member or family has got cancer and they need to raise in the ten thousands of dollars to cover the medical bills. When i see stuff like that i'm so happy that i'm earning eighty bucks less a month to prevent a situation like that from happening.

EDIT: after reading somewhat better, i do realize my comment is more about healthcare insurance.


----------



## Sumsar

asher said:


> Not to mention that if you set it up right, it'll give recipients an actually better chance to move upwards socially and _actually_ do that bootstraps thing Americans love to talk about, in which case they go off assistance and start paying taxes back.



Haha yeah, there is a reason why this semi-famous quote exist "If you want to live the American dream move to Denmark".
We have a pretty aggressive redistribution of wealth though taxes. Rich people end up paying 60% tax while poor people "only" pay 40%.

The good thing about people receiving welfare is that they don't do crime (and end up in prison, costing the government even more money!) and as you said it allows people to move up the social ladder.


----------



## groverj3

Basically, a lot of people are dicks that think that poor people should die if helping them should in any way inconvenience themselves.

(Kind of trolling. But only kinda)

In all seriousness though. My Father is one of those people who occasionally turns on Fox News and is like "Yeah! Get those illegals out of MY country! Obama hasn't done anything for me!" Then I explain to him how backwards Fox News and the Republicans are compared to the rest of the developed world. Easy to do when you're a scientist and graduate student whose livelihood is constantly under attack from the christian right wing conservative types. Then he agrees with me.

Moral of the story: people are very impressionable and appealing to nationalistic feelings and the deeply ingrained "American Dream" nonsense about the USA being a perfect meritocracy that gets beaten into kids at a young age is incredibly effective at convincing people to vote one way or another. Even if all you do is spew hateful stuff on a cable news network.


----------



## aesthyrian

bonga said:


> What happened to all the Eisenhower Republicans? or the Rockefellar Republicans?



They call themselves "conservative democrats".

I'm still looking for those "liberal republicans" but I can't seem to find them. 

Basically, there is no room for moderates in today's GOP. Not much room for thinkers, even.


----------



## estabon37

jernigant said:


> ^Saving might have been a bad word. What I'm saying is these people that are getting welfare are costing the government more money and this has to be offset somehow.



I tend to have super long posts, but I'll do what I can to avoid it in this case, because I don't want to derail the awesome conversation going on.

Ever heard the phrase "Money spent is money earned"? In some cases, the money spent on welfare is offset by the money that the people receiving welfare later contribute to the economy. I'll start with a simple example.

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) is an international body that was founded to stimulate economic progress and world trade. It's a great organisation. They cover all of the important social arenas in their research, and are about as independent, comprehensive, and objective an organisation as you're likely to find. 

They release a yearly report on education, called 'Education at a Glance'. The crazy fuckers think 570 pages is a 'glance', which is why I used the word 'comprehensive' above. Because I'm boring, I like to scan through this stuff, and found an interesting nugget. Pages 150-151 focus on post-secondary education, and research finds that (next section stolen from an essay I recently wrote) [FONT=&quot]higher educational outcomes are associated with both improved chances of employment _and_ lower chances of unemployment (these are related but distinct possibilities), better health outcomes, and greater civic engagement. The social by-products include reduced public expenditure on welfare programs, higher revenues on tax, and a net public return on educational investment that doubles the amount of money spent on women and almost triples the money spent on men[/FONT]. This is a pretty strong argument in favour of education welfare.

For a more specific example closer to the circumstances in the US, check out Utah's solution to homelessness: give them homes. Five years after the program was implemented, 88% of the homeless people given shelter were still living in their apartments at a lower cost to taxpayers and the state government because they no longer needed to rely on the inefficient medical and shelter systems.

The point: welfare is often actually about saving money by trying to keep people from falling into circumstances that are extremely expensive to repair, so it essentially offsets its own costs. We've covered this extensively in other threads, if you want to have a look around this part of the forum.


----------



## crg123

I want this shirt for my birthday. When you read it you'll see why it relates to this thread and why I want it... (sorry for the ....ty quality I found it online).

Edit: Wait S.h.i.t is censored now too?? When did that happen? That's barely even a swear 

EDIT 2: So someone just unearth this album Bernie made/ sung on in 1987. I love it so much

http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/berniesandersweshallover


----------



## Eliguy666

The censor is weird. You can say cock all you want, but "p*nis" is censored.

Cock dick cock dick cock dick ......


----------



## asher

crg123 said:


> I want this shirt for my birthday. When you *If you can* read it you'll see why it relates to this thread and why I want it... (sorry for the ....ty quality I found it online).



FTFY.

I can't. I have no idea what it says.

Oh. There we go.

Yeah, I'd rock that.


----------



## leftyguitarjoe

I've been saying for years that I wont be happy until we clone FDR. Bernie is the closest to that, if not even better! He is literally the only viable candidate we've had in decades. Hillary is just another corporate shill too moderate to make a difference.

Get out during the primaries and vote Sanders. Tell everyone about him.


----------



## crg123

leftyguitarjoe said:


> I've been saying for years that I wont be happy until we clone FDR. Bernie is the closest to that, if not even better! He is literally the only viable candidate we've had in decades. Hillary is just another corporate shill too moderate to make a difference.
> 
> Get out during the primaries and vote Sanders. Tell everyone about him.



This!


----------



## asher

Hillary is running far left of where I thought she'd be given 2008. She's not ideal on economics, but she's not exactly just a shill either.


----------



## leftyguitarjoe

asher said:


> Hillary is running far left of where I thought she'd be given 2008. She's not ideal on economics, but she's not exactly just a shill either.



She's a shill.


----------



## asher

Yes, we all know she gets money from large corporations and that she comes from business friendly heritage.

She's also been running an extremely Warrenesque campaign so far.

I very much look forward to Clinton/Sanders debates.

ed: don't get me wrong. Sanders is awesome. And I was pretty skeptical of HRC going into this cycle, but I feel much more comfortable with the prospect now.


----------



## flint757

If he wins the primaries this might be the most divided race yet considering how far right almost every Repub candidate is (and considering at the end of the day Hilary is fairly moderate). It'd be nice to have a pro workforce candidate for once (not business owners, but employees/unions). 

Some cool things happening on that front with overtime exemption policies being changed in favor of employees.


----------



## Eliguy666

Hillary could honestly probably run the republican ticket, she's so moderate.



> I've been saying for years that I wont be happy until we clone FDR.


As long as we don't bring back Theodore Roosevelt. That guy was a madman. He would kill and stuff animals for display at the age of six and never really kicked the habit, and that's not to mention his home life.


----------



## flint757

I have a soft spot for Theo. He was an environmental activist and heavily opposed big business. He put forth a lot of anti-trust legislation and also felt that the government needed to regulate the work on the railroad to curb corruption. He's also responsible for regulating many industries as at the time it was pretty much nonexistent and definitely needed as just like the railroad industry, corruption was everywhere. His view on foreign policy were largely great, excluding perhaps the Panama Canal (and his personal imperialist views). Despite his personal views he brokered a lot of treaties during his presidency. He even finished a speech with a bullet lodged in his chest from an assassination attempt. That's pretty bad ass.

We actually need someone with strong anti-trust leanings nowadays as too many businesses have gotten too big. We live in a Corporate Oligarchy today and someone like Theo could absolutely put them in their place. Now, his personal beliefs are pretty out there and I don't support them, but he never acted on them while in office so it is honestly moot.

FDR was a bad ass as well for a number of reasons. It amazes me that the mid-west doesn't seem to properly know the history of why the mid-west isn't just a giant desert now. Hello federal intervention. How time makes people forget...


----------



## asher

Eliguy666 said:


> Hillary could honestly probably run the republican ticket, she's so moderate.
> 
> 
> As long as we don't bring back Theodore Roosevelt. That guy was a madman. He would kill and stuff animals for display at the age of six and never really kicked the habit, and that's not to mention his home life.





Maybe the Republican ticket of 1988.


----------



## leftyguitarjoe

Eliguy666 said:


> As long as we don't bring back Theodore Roosevelt. That guy was a madman. He would kill and stuff animals for display at the age of six and never really kicked the habit, and that's not to mention his home life.



You gotta give him credit for his giant balls though.


----------



## vilk

Am I the only one under this impression?: 

No one who isn't GOPped up on goofballs wants Clinton over Sanders. The only reason people are saying that Hillary is going to win is because she has a ton of money. And she probably is going to beat out Sanders, and that probably is the reason why. But essentially we're all admitting that we want someone else but conceding because we accept that elections must be purchased.


----------



## celticelk

vilk said:


> Am I the only one under this impression?:
> 
> No one who isn't GOPped up on goofballs wants Clinton over Sanders. The only reason people are saying that Hillary is going to win is because she has a ton of money. And she probably is going to beat out Sanders, and that probably is the reason why. But essentially we're all admitting that we want someone else but conceding because we accept that elections must be purchased.



I'm certainly not taking this position. I'd vote (will vote) for Sanders in the primary, and if he won the primary I'd definitely back him in the general. But I don't assume that a majority of the Democratic coalition has my policy preferences (I am an unabashed democratic socialist), and apart from her $$$ Clinton definitely has a higher media profile and better name recognition just based on her political history, plus the first-woman-president angle. I'll also concede that since general elections have to be won, Clinton probably has a better chance of capturing the middle than Sanders does, even given the inevitable Republican attack machine. A Clinton presidency is definitely better than a GOP presidency, in my book, even if it's not as desirable as a Sanders presidency.


----------



## vilk

I'm trying to figure out where you're not agreeing with me...

edit: Oh, I got it, the amount of people who like Bernie more than Hillary. I'm saying it's most all of us, but you're saying it's probably not.

I dunno, his turnouts at some places are suggesting otherwise? But yeah definitely Hillary is better than the GOP has to offer, if only just for actually acknowledging the environment as a priority.


----------



## asher

Bernie is like awesome sauce for those of us who are on the left/progressive edges, but angry old white guy is going to have a harder time holding all of the Obama coalition together to win a general. And it's not worth the risk

He's already succeeded at holding Hillary's feet to the fire and pulling her left, so I hope he keeps doing what he's doing.


----------



## celticelk

vilk said:


> I'm trying to figure out where you're not agreeing with me...
> 
> edit: Oh, I got it, the amount of people who like Bernie more than Hillary. I'm saying it's most all of us, but you're saying it's probably not.
> 
> I dunno, his turnouts at some places are suggesting otherwise? But yeah definitely Hillary is better than the GOP has to offer, if only just for actually acknowledging the environment as a priority.



If "us" is "the Democratic coalition," then yeah, that's exactly what I'm saying. And if turnout at early-campaign events had anything to do with how the primary votes would fall out, Ron Paul would have won a Republican presidential nomination by now.


----------



## crg123

https://twitter.com/nightlyshow/status/631608554089279488

https://pbs.twimg.com/tweet_video/CMPsodKWgAACKOJ.mp4


----------



## asher




----------



## vilk

I was reading on NPR about this candidate who is a Harvard college professor who is running (or wanting/trying to) as a single-issue president, and that would be to just make laws so that big money can't get involved in politics. He'd also make election day a national holiday that you can't force people to work on so that we can all go vote every time.

I'll tell you what, I think that's a cool idea. I think we'd get a wayyyyy huger voter turn-out if that was the case. Who knows, maybe the results would even reflect what we as a nation want, instead of just the old codgers who vote since minorities (and young folk) get fired if they're late for a shift.


----------



## celticelk

^^^ The problem is that a president can't accomplish either of those things without Congress on-board, and that seems fairly unlikely given the direction Congress has been headed over the past few years.


----------



## asher

Lessig is an idiot. There's no universe in which that's remotely possible.

Lawrence Lessig, and how not to run a single-issue campaign


----------



## celticelk

Man, I respect Lessig a lot, but seriously, a presidential campaign is not the right way to try to make that change. I would expect someone as smart as he is to grasp that.


----------



## vilk

Oh, I didn't mean that I thought it was a good idea how he's going about it. I'm just saying I really like the idea of a campaign that's all about kicking money out of politics and especially I really like the idea of making election day a national holiday. Frankly, I don't understand why no one else has thought to do that yet... probably because they don't want everyone voting lol


----------



## asher

People have thought of that before, but nobody's gotten it to go anywhere.

The GOP is very heavily invested in voter suppression.

Kicking _all_ money out would actually kneecap a lot of necessary things like grassroots organizations and GotV stuff. But fvcking reverse _Citizens United_ and stuff.


----------



## tacotiklah

Speaking of Bernie, I wonder who he'd want his running mate to be? I know people are going to say Hilary if she loses the Democratic primary, but I would love it if Barney Frank ran. The first openly gay VP in US history? That would be amazesauce.


----------



## asher

I doubt he'd come out of retirement for any politics, sadly.

He's also pretty damn old too.

Maybe Gillibrand?


----------



## celticelk

tacotiklah said:


> Speaking of Bernie, I wonder who he'd want his running mate to be? I know people are going to say Hilary if she loses the Democratic primary, but I would love it if Barney Frank ran. The first openly gay VP in US history? That would be amazesauce.



That *would* be amazesauce, but Dodd-Frank has been contested enough since its passage that I think there's way too much downside to that particular choice. Ideally you want a VP who's going to bring much more that's positive to the ticket than negative, and while I think the GOP would have to be very cautious about going after Frank on his orientation (though no doubt there would be some carefully coded dog whistles for that portion of the GOP base), they're not going to have any qualms about using his legislative history against him.


----------



## bonga

celticelk said:


> That *would* be amazesauce, but Dodd-Frank has been contested enough since its passage that I think there's way too much downside to that particular choice. Ideally you want a VP who's going to bring much more that's positive to the ticket than negative, and while I think the GOP would have to be very cautious about going after Frank on his orientation (though no doubt there would be some carefully coded dog whistles for that portion of the GOP base), they're not going to have any qualms about using his legislative history against him.



Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren - That would be one hell of a team!


----------



## celticelk

bonga said:


> Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren - That would be one hell of a team!



I'd rather keep Warren in the Senate, where she can actually do something useful. Let's be brutally honest: the VP in the U.S. federal system doesn't do much except break tie votes in the Senate and act as an emergency backup president. It's theoretically a grooming post for the presidency, but historically it's an iffy one: the last VP to be elected President was Bush 41, who only lasted one term, and before that...Nixon, I guess, though he didn't go directly from one to the other. Johnson and Truman both succeeded after a sitting president died, and then were elected outright in the next term, so they're special cases. Those might be the only 20th-century cases. If you want Warren in the White House eventually, give her a couple of terms in the Senate to build a track record and then let her run for the top spot. I'd vote for her.


----------



## estabon37

celticelk said:


> the last VP to be elected President was Bush 41



There's been 41 President Bushes?! I could've sworn I only slept six hours last night, not six centuries.

Can I ask a quick question on what I guess I'll call 'political literacy'? The only reason I have any idea about what's happening in American politics is that I really enjoy(ed?) watching The Daily Show (which eventually expanded to include Colbert and Last Week Tonight, not really a Nightly fan yet). We get a bit of American political coverage on our news channels in Australia, and Bernie Sanders has been mentioned a few times on our national broadcaster. 

I watch this stuff because I find politics fascinating, and if I'm completely honest, Australian politics has been all about shit-slinging for roughly a decade. The topics are important, but the intricacies are essentially absent, because we have very very few mediums that are willing (or financially able) to engage and analyse rather than join the shit-show.

So, my question: is there a widespread mainstream understanding of the candidates in America? I ask because I consider most people that post on this forum to be fairly socially engaged and have pretty high political literacy, and the same can likely be said of the audiences of the shows I mentioned above. By memory, only about 50% of the country on average tends to actually vote, so can we assume that they at least somewhat know what they're doing?

EDIT: To refine a little, what percentage of Americans do you think could tell you that Elizabeth Warren or Mitch McConnel are senators? They're some of the 'bigger' names in that building; does that mean most people know who they are and what they do?


----------



## asher

Widespread political literacy in this country is *horrible*.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim

The only senator I can name is Palpatine.


----------



## asher

Grand Moff Tim said:


> The only senator I can name is Palpatine.



He's the only one you need to.


----------



## asher

Grand Moff Tim said:


> The only senator I can name is Palpatine.



He's the only one you need to.


----------



## odibrom

Grand Moff Tim said:


> The only senator I can name is Palpatine.



I prefer Padme Amidala... is Jarjar Binks a Senator?


----------



## celticelk

odibrom said:


> I prefer Padme Amidala... is Jarjar Binks a Senator?



Representative, if I remember correctly.


----------



## estabon37

Know why I love you guys? Because you always manage to go that extra mile by not just answering a question, but by making me realise that most people could probably name more fictional politicians than real ones. At first I was like:







But then I realised we were talking about Star Wars, which is way more fun than politics, so I was like:


----------



## Eliguy666

As far as congressfolk go, John Lewis is a pretty solid guy.


----------



## Emperor Guillotine

What about.............................Deez Nuts?

No, seriously. 9% of North Carolina polled support for an independent candidate named: Deez Nuts.

'Deez Nuts' rising in polls; at 9 percent in N.C. - Washington Times

Trump's momentum grows in NC, still leads GOP but surprise candidate makes poll | abc11.com

I love being from North Carolina.


----------



## michblanch

odibrom said:


> I prefer Padme Amidala... is Jarjar Binks a Senator?




Why did you have to mention that name? 
That character was everything that was wrong with the later movies. 
They took my favorite childhood movie franchise put it all in an illiterate bumbling fools character and then had him Spray Fart it right in my face. 
Even to this day I have pinkeye and I will never get over it!! 

George Lucas is a fool, a fool I tell you.


----------



## crg123

rofl


----------



## Captain Butterscotch

Anderson Cooper is in the damn house.

EDIT: Seriously, no one watched the debate?


----------



## Rev2010

Captain Butterscotch said:


> Anderson Cooper is in the damn house.
> 
> EDIT: Seriously, no one watched the debate?



Downloaded and watched it last night. Was more eye-rolling than the Republican debate IMO.


Rev.


----------



## ferret

TL;DR version: Bernie won every imaginable poll and focus group (Even the conservative ones), while mainstream media proudly proclaimed a clean sweep for Hillary with no serious competition.


----------



## odibrom

estabon37 said:


> Know why I love you guys? Because you always manage to go that extra mile by not just answering a question, but by making me realise that most people could probably name more fictional politicians than real ones. (...)



I love you too

... I am not living in the land of the free nor the brave, so please count me out of that statistic. I may, however, list some politicians _chez moi_, or, in other words, _aqui do bairro_...


----------



## asher

ferret said:


> TL;DR version: Bernie won every imaginable poll and focus group (Even the conservative ones), while mainstream media proudly proclaimed a clean sweep for Hillary with no serious competition.



Next week, it'll be back to nothingburger email stories.

I've seen some people posit the MSM's overreacting to her, like, being competent, given how much they otherwise trash her, plus suggestions that Sanders supporters are way more likely to internet poll.

Not to mention the RNC has a vested interested in pushing Sanders, because they'd really like there to be actual competition in the Democratic primary, and they're actually scared ....less of Hillary.


----------



## flint757

Personally, I'd love a Bernie/Hillary combo for presidency/VP or vice versa. Hopefully they go that route when the official Democrat winner is determined.


----------



## asher

I'm not sure if Bernie would accept VP or not, but I'd be perfectly happy with Clinton/Sanders. I still ultimately think Hill is an overall better qualified candidate, but Bernie has done an *excellent* job of pulling her and getting people excited for the primary.


----------



## estabon37

odibrom said:


> I love you too
> 
> ... I am not living in the land of the free nor the brave, so please count me out of that statistic. I may, however, list some politicians _chez moi_, or, in other words, _aqui do bairro_...



I only understood about 1/3 of those words, despite the fact that that roughly 80% of them are English (yeah, I'll mix fractions and percentages; WHADDAYAGONNADOABOUTIT?). Despite the general lack of understanding I both accept your love and hope more people climb aboard the love train. Also, being that I live in the land of the Vegemite and home of the "What the fuck is with all the dangerous animals?", I'd be counted out of the statistic if I didn't think it was a worldwide consensus. I realise that many countries outside of US and Aus are generally more engaged with politics than we are, but I'm pretty sure they're also more engaged with entertainment than politics, so the statistic might hold up.

And now to move closer to the recent conversation: is it possible that few people here commented on the debate because there are really only two contenders in the Democratic race and we're all sick of it already? Would I be wrong in assuming that many feel the same way about the debates as John Oliver does about covering Trump? To double down on Oliver's comments in that clip, there are more important things to talk about than which face may or may not lead either of the major parties into an election that is still 13 months away. This stage of the process is so tedious and formulaic I really don't understand why anybody puts a camera in a room with the candidates once let alone several times unless they're deliberately trying to feed the late night talk shows, at which point they should probably cut the bullshit and send footage of Clinton making faces and Sanders' slightly disheveled hair, because that's basically all you get commentary on.

Holy shit, did I just turn into an old man in the space of a single post? IS THIS WHAT MIDDLE AGE FEELS LIKE?!


----------



## Church2224

And Jim Web just ended his bid. A Shame, I really liked him.


----------



## TRENCHLORD

The only Web left in the race now is the web of lies and deceit Hillary has spent her entire life spinning . 

She should go to jail for her carelessness with national security related documents. At the very least she should be held accountable and punished just as General Petraeus has been.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petraeus_scandal


----------



## asher

Oh TRENCH


----------



## asher

Tl;dr of yesterday's clown show:


----------



## crg123

I'm not even the biggest Hillary supporter but I listened to the whole thing. She definitely got an 11 hour ad in her favor. Still voting for the Bern in 2016 though .


----------



## TRENCHLORD

She's nothing more than a tired old tool that knowingly lied repeatedly for weeks to the American people for the sake of her own future political ambitions, not to mention for the sake of covering up her own buttery-fingered fumbles.


----------



## kmanick

TRENCHLORD said:


> She's nothing more than a tired old tool that knowingly lied repeatedly for weeks to the American people for the sake of her own future political ambitions, not to mention for the sake of covering up her own buttery-fingered fumbles.




Amen brother
it just boggles my mind how anyone can still support this lying hag. It's so amusing to me that the Left keeps trying to push this as a political attack on her personally.
Clinton and Obama made this Political in the first place by trying to spin this to keep his presidential race going. And on top of it all, some poor guy got thrown in jail for absolutely nothing and yet no one talks about that at all.
People under 35 years old really need to read George Orwells "1984" .


----------



## tacotiklah

I'm one of those damn fandangled uber left-wing democratic socialists whom lives in the nightmares of right winged conservatives as they wake up in cold sweats at night, and even I think the left is being absolutely dumb in trying to support Hillary in any way regarding these damn emails. Yes, I am tired of hearing about it myself and there does seem to be a real conservative witch hunt going on involving her, but that doesn't absolve her of her bullcrap either. If she's using unsecure emails to communicate sensitive information, then that's a problem and she needs to really rethink the way she does OpSec.

I really do find it hilarious that the right hates her as much as they do given that's very much one of them, albeit trying to pretend to be a democrat. She's about as pro-war as they come, and she has no compunction about sending people's kids off to die in foreign lands to help bolster her own self-interests. She's one of those rich, greedy ....tards that rubs elbows with the very same bankers that precipitated the 2008 stock market crash that nearly destroyed the economy, and I guaran-damn-tee you that she'll work hard to ensure that ....heads like the Waltons keep fleecing hardworking employees to the point of having to have government assistance subsidize their jobs. Everyone bitches about how their taxes pay for people that are unemployed, but have no problem with the fact that a HUGE portion of their taxes actually pay for corporate welfare. Hillary of course would do .... all to change any of that and continue down the path of misleading the middle class into blaming the poor for all their problems, all while silently eroding the middle class into oblivion. All we'd be left with is haves and have-nots. And you bet your ass she'd be one of those "haves".

If Bernie doesn't get the nomination, then the Dem party can eat my ass with spoon and my vote is going to Jill Stein.


----------



## flint757

I've been thinking about it a lot lately.With each new era of technological revolution a job sector disappears and a smaller one pops up in its place. We've already seen this historically with machine assembly lines replacing human labor during the industrial revolution. Even today we see this with automated tellers, automated cashiers, tablets at your table instead of waiters, self serving food/drink machines, etc. As software gets more and more robust the same is going to happen in most other industries as well. It's not a matter of if, but when ultimately. Companies like Amazon even make use of robots in their warehouses. 

Now here is where our current economic/political system can't manage this. We are currently working in a system where most people are working 40 hours or more a week, multiple jobs, and still not making it by as well as they could due to our ....ty political system. Considering our ever growing population size once the tech revolution takes hold, especially in a global market, we're going to hit some rough times if we don't dramatically change both the system and what it means to work in the US. I don't expect any of that to happen in the more immediate future, but we're going to have to make so many major changes it really needs to start now IMO.

The depressing part is I don't think it's even crossed our nations leaders minds at all. If any have they fall in the minority and in our political system that means nothing will come of it.


----------



## crg123

estabon37 said:


> Know why I love you guys? Because you always manage to go that extra mile by not just answering a question, but by making me realise that most people could probably name more fictional politicians than real ones. At first I was like:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But then I realised we were talking about Star Wars, which is way more fun than politics, so I was like:



So this happened....

"Emperor Palpatine" Victorious in Ukraine City Council Election - Hollywood Reporter


----------



## Rev2010

tacotiklah said:


> Hillary of course would do .... all to change any of that and continue down the path of misleading the middle class into blaming the poor for all their problems, all while silently eroding the middle class into oblivion.



Actually, Hillary has been blaming every problem with this country on the Republicans. Have you seen the democratic debate? It sickens me that people just keep eating up her sh_i_t. And even though we have a democratic president for two terms she still blames the republicans in congress for all the country's problems. And yes I know very well the republicans in congress, and having a republican majority, are responsible for trying to make life incredibly difficult for the dems, but come on it's ridiculous to act like the republicans are the only one's responsible for all our problems. I felt like I was watching a child on stage with her constant blaming and jabs at the republicans.

And as you mentioned - the middle class. She's so full of sh_i_t with her constant pandering to the middle class when it's well known she's going to F us all that much harder! She and Bernie are talking about free college tuition for city universities, and who's going to pay for it really?? THE MIDDLE CLASS!! They talk all this BS about taxing Wall Street, what a load of BS, that isn't going to happen. And if they were to try to get the taxes from the wealthier or businesses it would still come out of the middle class'es pockets via increased priced for products and services. The extra money always gets pushed onto us. And why are we even talking about free college at this point in time when we haven't even gotten all the kinks of ObamaCare worked out? The country at this point in time, and with this deficit, cannot just keep taking on these new Utopian ideologies, we're not ready yet. I'm all for them and think it's the way of the future, I always thought education should be free and am all for universal healthcare, but it's being pushed too fast too soon by people unqualified to implement these plans.


Rev.


----------



## asher

I'm curious if you can point out where more substantive progress could have been made.


----------



## Rev2010

asher said:


> I'm curious if you can point out where more substantive progress could have been made.



Not sure I get your question. Are you referring to programs like Obamacare?


Rev.


----------



## TRENCHLORD

Rev2010 said:


> Actually, Hillary has been blaming every problem with this country on the Republicans. Have you seen the democratic debate? It sickens me that people just keep eating up her sh_i_t. And even though we have a democratic president for two terms she still blames the republicans in congress for all the country's problems. And yes I know very well the republicans in congress, and having a republican majority, are responsible for trying to make life incredibly difficult for the dems, but come on it's ridiculous to act like the republicans are the only one's responsible for all our problems. I felt like I was watching a child on stage with her constant blaming and jabs at the republicans.
> 
> And as you mentioned - the middle class. She's so full of sh_i_t with her constant pandering to the middle class when it's well known she's going to F us all that much harder! She and Bernie are talking about free college tuition for city universities, and who's going to pay for it really?? THE MIDDLE CLASS!! They talk all this BS about taxing Wall Street, what a load of BS, that isn't going to happen. And if they were to try to get the taxes from the wealthier or businesses it would still come out of the middle class'es pockets via increased priced for products and services. The extra money always gets pushed onto us. And why are we even talking about free college at this point in time when we haven't even gotten all the kinks of ObamaCare worked out? The country at this point in time, and with this deficit, cannot just keep taking on these new Utopian ideologies, we're not ready yet. I'm all for them and think it's the way of the future, I always thought education should be free and am all for universal healthcare, but it's being pushed too fast too soon by people unqualified to implement these plans.
> 
> 
> Rev.




And I'd add to that, that the Dems actually did have the majority for the first 2 yrs of Obama's administration. Even since then they had the Senate and yet still couldn't get an annual budget passed for years and years. (couldn't even get a budget plan through their own Senate just to be clear, of course that must have been Paul Ryans fault also, somehow)


----------



## asher

Rev2010 said:


> Not sure I get your question. Are you referring to programs like Obamacare?
> 
> 
> Rev.



You seem to be implying that, somehow, the Democrats could have gotten a whole lot more done in the last eight years with the other party firmly committed to scorched-earth obstructionism since day one, and I was wondering if you could come up with examples of where you thought they realistically fell short (e.g., not "Obama could have had single payer!" because that wasn't remotely possible).


----------



## Rev2010

asher said:


> You seem to be implying that, somehow, the Democrats could have gotten a whole lot more done in the last eight years with the other party firmly committed to scorched-earth obstructionism since day one



Aaah, well then you misread me. I didn't mean that at all, I don't think things would've been much different. I only referenced the republican majority since the democrats also always used that as an excuse why they couldn't get things done.

The main point was Hillary simply passing blame to the other side repeatedly. I consider myself in the middle, I think our highly polarized political system is absurd. It seems more to me like joining a clan. I wish a viable candidate more in the middle could have a shot at being president.


Rev.


----------



## tacotiklah

Rev2010 said:


> Actually, Hillary has been blaming every problem with this country on the Republicans. Have you seen the democratic debate? It sickens me that people just keep eating up her sh_i_t. And even though we have a democratic president for two terms she still blames the republicans in congress for all the country's problems. And yes I know very well the republicans in congress, and having a republican majority, are responsible for trying to make life incredibly difficult for the dems, but come on it's ridiculous to act like the republicans are the only one's responsible for all our problems. I felt like I was watching a child on stage with her constant blaming and jabs at the republicans.



No joke though, literally the last 4-6 years has seen the WORST Republican congress ever. I'm sorry, but when you have douchebags like McConnell, Rubio, and Boehner SHUTTING DOWN THE ENTIRE GOVERNMENT to advance a political agenda, that's a form of political terrorism. Holding federal workers and senior citizens hostage in the form of no work and no benefits because they wanna be the party of NO to literally everything that comes across their desk is unacceptable and every single one of them need to gtfo of congress. Marco Rubio should be in jail, not running for president for that crap. Even worse, HE WANTS TO DO IT AGAIN. Yeah, so if he succeeds at that and your grandma is on social security, guess who isn't going to eat that month. If you have a cushy federal job, guess who's not gonna be working that month. And what for? To one up another political party and to stick it Obama, who btw is POTUS emeritus and cannot be elected again. So why are Republicans still doing the same damn "I'll screw over all of America just to stick it to you, Obama" tactics? That is a damn fine shining example of beating a dead horse. They spent years rabbling about whether or not the president is from Kenya, all while voting no on literally EVERY job bill that Obama tried to bring forward, simply because he's Obama. Their hate for the man far outweighs their desire to do anything useful or meaningful for the American people, and that right there is why sh_i_t is so backwards and upside down. Imagine if Republican party finally booted out all these damn extremists, finally left Obama the hell alone, and brought some sanity back to the party...
Well hell, debates might actually be meaningful and some actual work might get done in the legislative branch of our federal government.

Yeah, Hillary is a douche, but she's not wrong when she starts saying that Republicans are to blame for a lot in the last 7-8 years. Though, I'd probably say that it's more the extreme Tea Partiers in the Republican party that are shutting out the voices of the more level headed "Goldwater" Republicans that even I as a "Socialist" could respect and work with. 

But I think that makes Hillary even more vile. She'll rant and rave about how crappy Republicans are, but she's essentially one of them. At least the Rubios and McConnells in Congress don't hide who they are. They're assholes and they act like they're pretty much proud to be one. I can have some level of respect for that. Hillary is more or less a political insider with no real moral backbone that will sway whichever way the political winds blow. Gay marriage was something she was vehemently against for many years, but now that it's become the law of the land, she's all for it. It sickens the hell out of me.

I will also say this though, the first Republican debate was a goddamn free-for-all cage match. The first Democratic debate was actually pretty civilized and focus on issues were more important. One exception being Jim Webb bitching about not getting to speak enough, but he had a fair point. Anderson and CNN are more or less blowing Hillary right now and not giving nearly enough equal time to all candidates to talk about issues. 

I'm not nearly drunk or stoned enough to be able to sit through the sh_i_tstorm that is a GOP debate. Ideology differences aside, having 16 goddamn candidates for one party nomination is asinine as all hell. Add in that I think every single one of them is completely and utterly insane, and I feel that watching a marathon of cyst and abscess popping videos on youtube is a less grotesque and more productive use of my time. Kasich seems to be the least crazy of them, and thus probably the most tolerable. I still disagree with his stances, but I get the feeling that as a dem, I could still work with him to get the business of the country handled if I were in office. People that can disagree and still get stuff done are the people we need in office, especially after 4-6 years of temper tantrums and petulant bullsh_i_t.


----------



## Drew

tacotiklah said:


> No joke though, literally the last 4-6 years has seen the WORST Republican congress ever. I'm sorry, but when you have douchebags like McConnell, Rubio, and Boehner SHUTTING DOWN THE ENTIRE GOVERNMENT to advance a political agenda, that's a form of political terrorism.



I should REALLY know better than to get involved here, and I'm probably just going to comment and bail. But, that said...  

With the benefit of hindsight, I blame Boehner less than I used to for that. At the time? Rip$h1t mad about it. Right down to the "I don't usually swear on facebook, but John Boehner? F*** you" post on facebook linked to an article about S&P cutting our credit rating over the political impasse. 

I think with the Freedom Caucus throwing Boehner out and then torpedoing McCarthy's nomination, though, I have a little better understanding of just how hard it must be to try to govern the Republican party right now, though. It's completely fractured - we have your tradictional republican "Establishment" core, your "evangelical" bible belt wing, your "Tea Partier" anti-government wing, your pro-business republicans, your libertarian-leaning ones, and probably a couple other groups that I'm forgetting. Most of them can be corralled together well enough for the most part, but the problem is so many of these groups came to power with a strong anti-establishment bent; the Freedom Caucus actually covers a fairly wide idealogical swathe, but the problem is theyre united by a belief that the GOP SHOULDN'T compromise. 

So, while the shutdown and debt ceiling fight was completely infuriating to me, less as a liberal than as a financial professional working in the bond market where everything prices off the Treasury curve because it's theoretically riskless and these jackasses are jeoparizing that, with the benefit of hindsight I think Boehner needed to let it go to the brink like that. Boehner lt the anti-establishment GOPers have it their way and took the fight literally to the brink of a default, and in the end had to cave and accept a worse compromise than Obama had even originally offered as a starting point - it was a bitter, humiliating, humbling defeat. At the time, I thought it was a defeat for Boehner, but really, it wasn't - it was a defeat for the wing of the GOP that thought shutting down the goverment was a perfectly valid tactic for advancing their agenda. Boehner, say whatever else you will about him, was always a backroom negotiator who was pragmatic before he was partisan, and for a solid two years after that fight, he was able to be at least somewhat pragmatic as the Speaker of the House, because he'd tried the Freedom Caucus way and it blew up in their faces. I don't know what happened recently, but evidently the last straw was Boehner wouldn't tie defunding Planned Parenthood to a debt cap increase because he was more interested in getting a deal done than scoring political points. Maybe the Freedom Caucus thought they could get away with it this time around, with Obama entering the final year of his presidency, who knows. 

I'll say this, though - I don't envy Paul Ryan. Today probably felt a lot like a triumph for him, but he just accepted the worst job in the world. He's gonna get crucified by his own party.


----------



## tacotiklah

^Solid points there, so no worries about flames from me. 

The tea party was single handedly the worst thing that's happened to the Republican party. As I've mentioned before, I used to be a registered Republican. Seeing what those crazy people are doing to Lincoln's party is sad in a lot of ways, and their particular brand of nuttiness is raking the whole party's name through the mud. 
Trying to steer that whole mess must be like trying to slalom through a narrow set of orange cones in one of these:





Then I remember that it's Paul Ryan (the guy that thinks Ayn Rand is the greatest thing since sliced bread) and I don't quite feel as bad.


----------



## celticelk

Drew said:


> So, while the shutdown and debt ceiling fight was completely infuriating to me, less as a liberal than as a financial professional working in the bond market where everything prices off the Treasury curve because it's theoretically riskless and these jackasses are jeoparizing that, with the benefit of hindsight I think Boehner needed to let it go to the brink like that. Boehner lt the anti-establishment GOPers have it their way and took the fight literally to the brink of a default, and in the end had to cave and accept a worse compromise than Obama had even originally offered as a starting point - it was a bitter, humiliating, humbling defeat. At the time, I thought it was a defeat for Boehner, but really, it wasn't - it was a defeat for the wing of the GOP that thought shutting down the goverment was a perfectly valid tactic for advancing their agenda. Boehner, say whatever else you will about him, was always a backroom negotiator who was pragmatic before he was partisan, and for a solid two years after that fight, he was able to be at least somewhat pragmatic as the Speaker of the House, because he'd tried the Freedom Caucus way and it blew up in their faces. I don't know what happened recently, but evidently the last straw was Boehner wouldn't tie defunding Planned Parenthood to a debt cap increase because he was more interested in getting a deal done than scoring political points. Maybe the Freedom Caucus thought they could get away with it this time around, with Obama entering the final year of his presidency, who knows.



If the shutdown fight was a defeat for the radical GOP wing in the House, someone should tell them that. There's exactly zero evidence that they viewed the episode as a failure of their tactics, and every evidence that they thought that their leadership should have been *less* willing to cave, even in the face of potentially catastrophic consequences for the country (of course, most of them are denying that those catastrophic consequences could have happened, showing that they're as ignorant about economics and finance as they are about politics). The Boehner-Tea Party struggles have made the TP *more* radical, not less.


----------



## crg123

Bahahahhahahaahh

Twitter Reacts to the Ben Carson Rap That Shouldn't Exist | WIRED

One of the tweets: 


> CARSON CAMPAIGN: how can we appeal to urban youth
> 
> SUBURBAN MIDDLE SCHOOL PRINCIPAL: leave this to me



It reminds me so much of this: 


I like rap but this is so condescending in the manner its done.


----------



## hairychris

As someone who is outside your country:

What, by all that is unholy, is going on with the Republican candidates? They all seem to be liars or complete lunatics. Or liars and complete lunatics.

Ben Carson thinks that the Egyptian pyramids were built by Joseph to store grain. I have no words.

(FWIW no comment on the Dems as they don't seem to be imploding quite as spectacularly)


----------



## celticelk

hairychris said:


> As someone who is outside your country:
> 
> What, by all that is unholy, is going on with the Republican candidates?



Quite a few of us within the country are asking the same question.


----------



## flint757

Well, Republican candidates are always where the crazies seem to lie. That's nothing really new. Things that Carson believes only really scratch the surface on the weird things that party indirectly supports by bringing them in for leadership roles. What's genuinely baffled me though is that Trump has people supporting him. I never thought anyone would be that dumb, but even some family members of mine, albeit distant, support that guy.

I think the most amusing part of this part of the election cycle is that we're now voting for people we once thought weren't worthy of the position in past elections. How many times can Republicans put forward the same people and the citizens not wonder to themselves, "if they weren't worthy of the job last election, why would they be worthy now?" (applies to both parties every election to a degree).


----------



## hairychris

flint757 said:


> *I think the most amusing part of this part of the election cycle is that we're now voting for people we once thought weren't worthy of the position in past elections.* How many times can Republicans put forward the same people and the citizens not wonder to themselves, "if they weren't worthy of the job last election, why would they be worthy now?" (applies to both parties every election to a degree).



That seems to be true.

TBH I think that the problems started when Obama won in 2008. There's a very vocal lunatic minority who seem to have come out of the woodwork as they think that a black *gasp* president is the start of the apocalypse.

And then they really lost their .... when he won again in 2012.

It's a race to the bottom as far as I can see from here!


----------



## vilk

Supporting Trump = you don't like Mexican people / You want USA to stay white

As far as I can tell, the only policy/issue/cause Trump has is keeping Mexicans out and kicking out the ones that are here.


----------



## flint757

Sadly, that does seem to be the case. What everyone's calling 'not afraid to speak his mind' is really just open bigotry. I imagine the bulk of his supporters fall into the anti-PC camp because it's just 'horrible' when you can't look down on other people or use offensive words. It's not like the English language has synonyms we can use for words we want to say.


----------



## estabon37

flint757 said:


> I imagine the bulk of his supporters fall into the anti-PC camp because it's just 'horrible' when you can't look down on other people or use offensive words. It's not like the English language has synonyms we can use for words we want to say.



I don't know much about the bigotry side of things, but one of the things I've noticed in the few 'anti-PC' people I've met is not so much an inability to accept people whose lives and opinions differ from their own as it is an inability / unwillingness to articulate or elaborate on their own reasoning. I've been 'accused' of being politically correct by asking people to explain the thinking behind their position on an issue, regardless of whether or not I'm taking a position myself. To many people "freedom of speech" translates to "you have to accept anything I say and I'm not obligated to support my arguments with evidence or reasoning". In this regard, Trump probably appeals to people that don't necessarily agree with bigotry, but also don't want to have to spend any time thinking critically about the basis of their feelings and opinions, let alone spend time considering the feelings and opinions of others.


----------



## Andromalia

Rev2010 said:


> I consider myself in the middle, I think our highly polarized political system is absurd. It seems more to me like joining a clan. I wish a viable candidate more in the middle could have a shot at being president.
> 
> 
> Rev.



Just a thought as an outsider: your political system isn't really polarised: yes, it revolves around two poles, but, those two poles are both right wing, with one looking positively idiotic when seen from the outside.
Nothing changes because except for a few differences in social areas, both parties aim for the rich to get richer and the people to toll for it.


----------



## flint757

Even if we had an extremely left-leaning president it wouldn't make a difference because our Congress is extremely right leaning.


----------



## TRENCHLORD

The Democratic debate was a disgrace. They want to continue to completely ignore all important issues and concentrate on far-left ideological social "issues".
Any of the Republican canidates would be a vast improvement over what the Dems have to offer, which is just nothing more than the same failed "social justice" programs and attitudes.

The current crop of Democrats are a total disgrace to our nation and it's founding principals.


----------



## flint757

I really hope you put more thought into your vote next year than just simply not voting Democrat. There are lots of clowns in that clown car from the Republican party right now. It's fine if you feel the same about the Democrats, but that doesn't really change the fact that the same absolutely applies to the Republican party as of late. 

The 'lesser of two evils' argument no matter what side you fall on politically will be the death of this country. We're so apathetic as a nation that we've let a lot of things happen in the business sector that no party should be okay with. The same applies in our political system as well. The status quo needs to change, not stay the same.


----------



## leftyguitarjoe

TRENCHLORD said:


> The Democratic debate was a disgrace. They want to continue to completely ignore all important issues and concentrate on far-left ideological social "issues".
> Any of the Republican canidates would be a vast improvement over what the Dems have to offer, which is just nothing more than the same failed "social justice" programs and attitudes.
> 
> The current crop of Democrats are a total disgrace to our nation and it's founding principals.




Because racism, warmongering, and sexism are true principals of america, right?


----------



## TRENCHLORD

leftyguitarjoe said:


> Because racism, warmongering, and sexism are true principals of america, right?



VS what? Race hustling, isolationism, and the "war on women" narrative .
What better examples to the success of "social justice" politics than Chicago and Baltimore right? Those there Dems sure do got things figured out huh?

You aware that after all these decades of "the war on poverty" that there now exist the same % living in poverty as the day the "war" started, and conditions for minorities in impoverished areas are declining not improving?


----------



## vilk

^With that in mind, wouldn't you want to vote for someone who might actually try to do something to help, instead of people who essentially say "Hey, if you're in poverty, .... you you deserve that for not working as hard as my parents may or may not have done during the bubble"

I mean, isn't that most of the GOP rhetoric in regards to poor people? "Cut all social welfare and let these people starve or whatever who cares as long as no one makes me pay attention"


----------



## leftyguitarjoe

vilk said:


> I mean, isn't that most of the GOP rhetoric in regards to poor people? "Cut all social welfare and let these people starve or whatever who cares as long as no one makes me pay attention"



"Let all the companies outsource everything via horrible trade deals to maximize profit. Lets also not not raise minimum wage to maximize profit. Lets also not make them pay taxes by not closing loopholes. Now lets not help the millions of people suffering because we are greedy old assholes" - The republican party


----------



## celticelk

TRENCHLORD said:


> You aware that after all these decades of "the war on poverty" that there now exist the same % living in poverty as the day the "war" started, and conditions for minorities in impoverished areas are declining not improving?



Citation needed. I'm also dying to hear you explain how the current crop of Republican candidates, peddling the same old discredited economic theories and anti-immigrant nativism, are going to be better executives than Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders, especially since the current Republican front-runners have both (a) never held elected office and (b) seem at least mildly reality-challenged. Or are you hoping that the base will see sense and nominate a nice, clean, respectable conservative stuffed shirt like Marco Rubio?


----------



## asher

I would have thought that 2000, and then 2004, would have shown everyone that there is indeed a *very* good reason to hold your nose and vote for "lesser evil", even if that's actually true (hint: It's usually complete crap).


----------



## Captain Butterscotch

My favorite thing about the current Republican front runners is that they are Our Bronze Father and a guy that disregards hundreds of years of research and evidence and thinks that pyramids were built by the biblical Joseph to store grain. That is a fundamental disconnect from reality and I'm sort of a fan of a person with critical thinking skills being the leader of the United States. It's very early so those two will probably not be the nominee, but it says a lot about the party right now. This is the cycle that will change the Republican party as we know it, imo.

The Democrat side isn't much better. We have an old Democratic Socialist, bless him but he has no real chance unless he varies from his stump speech every so often, and a completely untrustworthy and corporation bought Clinton. But hey she has a _uterus_ and somethingsomethingsomething 9/11!!! O'Malley really doesn't count. He's running for VP at this point and he knows it.

Social issues aside, I want someone who will work for _us_. The little guys. The normal people who work for a living and whose bootstraps have been pulled as tight as they can go. Yeah, it's wonderful that gay marriage is a thing; I was ecstatic when that passed! And it's fantastic that there is more awareness of racial bias. But good feelings and hope won't pay my rent, send my children to college, or buy...a ton of guitars and amps. There are only (for some f4cking stupid reason) two parties and one of them is committed to 1.) advancing economic policies and legislation that have been proven time and time again to be an absolute farce and 2.) establishing something resembling a theocratic state. I cannot and will not support that and there's only one side of the aisle who will at least pretend to do it.


----------



## celticelk

Captain Butterscotch said:


> There are only (for some f4cking stupid reason) two parties



An explanation:


----------



## flint757

Captain Butterscotch said:


> My favorite thing about the current Republican front runners is that they are Our Bronze Father and a guy that disregards hundreds of years of research and evidence and thinks that pyramids were built by the biblical Joseph to store grain. That is a fundamental disconnect from reality and I'm sort of a fan of a person with critical thinking skills being the leader of the United States. It's very early so those two will probably not be the nominee, but it says a lot about the party right now. This is the cycle that will change the Republican party as we know it, imo.
> 
> The Democrat side isn't much better. We have an old Democratic Socialist, bless him but he has no real chance unless he varies from his stump speech every so often, and a completely untrustworthy and corporation bought Clinton. But hey she has a _uterus_ and somethingsomethingsomething 9/11!!! O'Malley really doesn't count. He's running for VP at this point and he knows it.
> 
> Social issues aside, I want someone who will work for _us_. The little guys. The normal people who work for a living and whose bootstraps have been pulled as tight as they can go. Yeah, it's wonderful that gay marriage is a thing; I was ecstatic when that passed! And it's fantastic that there is more awareness of racial bias. But good feelings and hope won't pay my rent, send my children to college, or buy...a ton of guitars and amps. There are only (for some f4cking stupid reason) two parties and one of them is committed to 1.) advancing economic policies and legislation that have been proven time and time again to be an absolute farce and 2.) establishing something resembling a theocratic state. I cannot and will not support that and there's only one side of the aisle who will at least pretend to do it.



We need a labor party in the US.


----------



## flint757

I thought these videos explained our system really well and I think the Alternative Voting System is something we could actually quite easily acclimate to with little fuss (compared to literally sharing seats by party, which would probably be a nightmare to implement currently until we have a more diversified legislature).


----------



## celticelk

flint757 said:


> I think the Alternative Voting System is something we could actually quite easily acclimate to with little fuss (compared to literally sharing seats by party, which would probably be a nightmare to implement currently until we have a more diversified legislature).



Except for the fact that we'd have to amend the Constitution to get rid of the Electoral College and start electing presidents directly by popular vote. If the EC still works by first-past-the-post voting, then we still have a FPTP system - the relevant "voters" in this case are states, not individuals, but the dynamic still applies. (I suppose you could go to an EC ATV system where the votes cast by each state are ranked by the percentage of the popular vote received by each candidate in that state; I don't know if that would require an amendment or not.)


----------



## flint757

The electoral college is completely pointless in modern society anyhow. Technically it's always been manipulative and subversive considering the original intent was to basically ignore illiterate farmer votes to give more weight to the wealthy and educated individuals of the time, as I understand it. It really needs to go, but that definitely does put up a roadblock that I didn't really consider.

[EDIT]

It appears on some level we do use it in some local/state elections and in other organizations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting_in_the_United_States

...reading through that wiki I even come to find out that Sanders has long been a supporter of the ATV system.

The larger hurdle seems to be that it is apparently a state rights issue, so it'd have to be implemented in every single state one-by-one. Which also means my state will never have the luxury. Too much to lose for the Republican party in my state. People might actually go out and vote, which would end badly for them.


----------



## kromeasdf

asher said:


> I would have thought that 2000, and then 2004, would have shown everyone that there is indeed a *very* good reason to hold your nose and vote for "lesser evil", even if that's actually true (hint: It's usually complete crap).



Well, being Russian, I could say that we once voted for what seemed to be lesser evil. Now we are stuck with what we have (and most probably will have for a long long time). 
So be careful in defining lesser evil or it might play a low-down trick


----------



## asher

kromeasdf said:


> Well, being Russian, I could say that we once voted for what seemed to be lesser evil. Now we are stuck with what we have (and most probably will have for a long long time).
> So be careful in defining lesser evil or it might play a low-down trick



...except here (I cannot speak for Russian politics) it's painfully obvious. And has been for a long time.


----------



## canuck brian

TRENCHLORD said:


> The Democratic debate was a disgrace. They want to continue to completely ignore all important issues and concentrate on far-left ideological social "issues".
> Any of the Republican canidates would be a vast improvement over what the Dems have to offer, which is just nothing more than the same failed "social justice" programs and attitudes.
> 
> The current crop of Democrats are a total disgrace to our nation and it's founding principals.



As opposed to the Republican ones completely ignoring it and making it up as they go along? Come on man, your team isn't a table full of white knights facing off against evil monsters in the Democratic part.



> VS what? Race hustling, isolationism, and the "war on women" narrative .



You're seriously putting these terms into the same level as racism and war and the fact that Republicans have had a concerted effort to annihilate the personal rights of women and their choices about their own bodies nationwide? Brb, investing. I have a feeling the prices are going up.

http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/foil


----------



## crg123

Sort of O.T.

My girlfriend made me the best valentines day card










A wild sanders appears and uses trust buster


----------



## JRMyntz

A vote for Sander's is a vote for the VP... he won't live to see the end of the first term.


----------



## vilk

^I just wanted to point out that old people who are healthy often times outlive younger people who are less healthy.

Doctors say Bernie is a healthy man. He may be old, but he's probably less likely to die at any moment of cardiac arrest than Chris Christie


----------



## flint757

Well, even if that were true, which would be kind of stupid for whomever did so since they'd make him one hell of a martyr, if he makes Warren or someone like Nina Turner his VP I wouldn't care. They share his vision for the most part and have some pull within the community. The reason people were able to pull off other assassinations, like JFK and Martin Luther King Jr., is because they changed the narrative of what they were actually trying to achieve. They made their history completely about race and race relations, and more specifically desegregation, but king wasn't assassinated until he started talking about the sort of stuff Sanders is trying to achieve. The difference between Kings situation and Sanders however, is that we know this is what Sanders stood for and it would catapult his movement forward; whereas with King they buried the narrative under a catch phrase essentially and turned his entire life's work into a single issue. I don't think they could get away with that with Sanders. Unless you're just talking about his age, but he's only 74. It's not unfathomable that he'll live to see 78.


----------



## flint757

The best thing possible may just be happening this coming election. Trump may be running as an independent, which will wonderfully split the vote, making it that much easier for the actual progressive to go the whole way with little resistance at all (no guarantee, but it's a pleasant thought either way). It'd be a huge waste for Hillary to get the nomination if that ends up occurring. That'd also mean Cruz likely got the nomination and that blows my mind. He's been a crazy nutter in most peoples eye since his first year in office. The fact that he's gotten this far is both sad and confounding.

What's particularly interesting in his candidacy is that his behavior has surprisingly come together to form a full picture. He's been an annoying man child all this time to bring the spotlight on himself for this exact moment. I just never thought America was that stupid to fall for someone who's so slimy, but people seem to be okay with overlooking dishonesty when someone is lying in their favor I suppose.


----------



## Andromalia

hairychris said:


> That seems to be true.
> 
> TBH I think that the problems started when Obama won in 2008. There's a very vocal lunatic minority who seem to have come out of the woodwork as they think that a black *gasp* president is the start of the apocalypse.
> 
> And then they really lost their .... when he won again in 2012.
> 
> It's a race to the bottom as far as I can see from here!



They were wrong: it really is a woman president.
I think a good way for the democrats to instantly win the election is to nominate a black woman. All the Reps would have dementia attacks.*


*Not that you would see a difference, in some cases


----------



## celticelk

flint757 said:


> The best thing possible may just be happening this coming election. Trump may be running as an independent, which will wonderfully split the vote, making it that much easier for the actual progressive to go the whole way with little resistance at all (no guarantee, but it's a pleasant thought either way). It'd be a huge waste for Hillary to get the nomination if that ends up occurring.



Even if Trump runs 3rd party, I wouldn't bank on Americans actually electing a self-described socialist. A Sanders nomination would likely send (more?) working-class Democrats into Trump's camp - possibly enough to swing a close three-way race. And even if Sanders were to get elected, I have no faith that he could get his policy proposals past Congress, and little faith that they would actually work as advertised if he could. If you don't want a Republican in the White House, a Clinton nomination still seems like the best way to go.


----------



## flint757

Personally, I'm much more concerned in the long term with election reform and I think 3rd party candidates, whomever they be, making major headway in a major election is important. I'm an independent who tends to vote Democrat out of perceived necessity, but my views don't align all that much with the DNC for me to care. That's the usual remarks I hear from most Hillary supporters who have been on the fence this election though. It's actually quite sad how resigned most of them are with it all. Many like Sanders, but are deliberately choosing essentially the lesser of two evils and who they consider a more 'winnable' candidate. It's the same argument that causes 3rd party candidates to lose year after year. It goes to show how truly demoralizing a first to pass the post voting system really is.

In any case, the Republican party is fragile at the moment and quite unstable. If they happened to go all the way it's only a matter of time before the entire party implodes. In the long, long run I consider that generally more helpful than the status quo candidates both major parties have offered to the masses winning. The DNC has had nothing, but scandal after scandal each election year, usually surrounding Debbie Schultz, and until she's gone I have little sympathy for what happens to the Democrat party. They have the same 'step-in-line' mentality that the Republicans have and it doesn't jive with me at all. Not every single party platform they take I agree with and I appreciate the notion that a politician can largely agree with a group while still having individual ideas about a subject. Right now the DNC is taking the 'if you disagree with us, you're against us' angle and Hillary has been running a largely negative campaign, of which I detest on all levels. It turned me off of her in 2008 as well.

Whatever happens happens as far as I'm concerned. If Sanders gets the nomination I'll be voting for Sanders and whatever other candidates I agree with, party aside. If he loses I'll be voting for Jill Stein to potentially increase their funding in coming years. My vote in my state will be going to the Republican candidate regardless thanks to the lack of popular voting llaws so it doesn't really matter. I personally wish he'd lock the vote on all sides by both Trump and Sanders running as 3rd party. It might just be the sort of shake up our system needs. JMO


----------



## asher

We're deeply, deeply entrenched in a two party system. Is it ideal? No, probably not. But that's not changing without very significant fundamental change... of the massive social upheaval kind. It sucks but it's how it is.

Trump running third party means both he and the other GOP candidate lose in a landslide.

Bernie losing the primary and then deciding to run third party would not only be a giant asshole move, but would be guaranteed to hand the election to Republicans. Not that he's actually going to do it, because he is vastly more similar to Hillary than he is different. And he's also not an asshole.

By all means work at changing the system but _for the love of god_ don't try to do it in a large election. The reality is that A) potential for real change is very small on its own, but even smaller in our current state of hyper-polarization, and B) because of the nature of our two party system, voting protest in the general is in fact a vote for the greater evil. And this has *real consequences*. If you want third party people like Stein to "potentially" have more funding down the road... just fvcking give them money!

Remember, your claim that everyone is equally awful requires Gore to ignore the very real intel we had about 9/11 ("You've covered your ass" is the actual Bush quote upon being handed one of these binders), then to still decide to invade Afghanistan, and then to also drum up lies for a war of whim in Iraq, and then further to prosecute it with such utter incompetence. While having a completely different set of advisors, not including actually-evil Cheney and Rumsfeld - I say this not to invoke them as boogeymen, but because we have large amounts of evidence as to the roles they played in this process.

Also to pass a huge regressive upper class tax cut, equally mismanage Katrina, etc etc...


----------



## asher

Like, if this were a Parliamentary election, *protest vote your fvcking heart out, I'd probably be right there with you*.

Protest voting in the American general election has no upsides and very, very real downsides.


----------



## Captain Butterscotch

asher said:


> Protest voting in the American general election has no upsides and very, very real downsides.



+65454646546540615036254


----------



## Eliguy666

America REALLY needs preferential voting and instant-runoffs, like the Australian system.

Also: popular sovereignty, a ban on corporate campaign donations, bans on discriminatory promises, and a multi-party system like Canada or Finland (fun fact: there are more MPs from the Swedish party of Finland than the Christian party of Finland in parliament).


----------



## JPhoenix19

JRMyntz said:


> A vote for Sander's is a vote for the VP... he won't live to see the end of the first term.




That's just... a dumb statement


----------



## flint757

asher said:


> Like, if this were a Parliamentary election, *protest vote your fvcking heart out, I'd probably be right there with you*.
> 
> Protest voting in the American general election has no upsides and very, very real downsides.



I live in Texas. I could vote for Leprechauns and the Republican front-runner is still going to when my electoral vote because Texas, much like New York and California, is a state where the voting pattern never changes. So actually, voting for third party is infinitely more beneficial and useful as it brings their national popular vote total up which increases their funding by the federal government for future elections. Currently, only the Democrat and Republican party get tax money to run elections (or at least almost all of it, if not all of it). Even my vote for Sanders would largely only be symbolic in my state, but considering Hillary won't win the Texas electorate I can show my disdain for her by not voting for her with a guilt-free conscience. 

Sanders getting the nomination actually might bring some apathetic voters back into politics IMO. If Hillary gets the nomination I can almost guarantee many millennials won't even show up to the polls in the same numbers. People who are tired of the system aren't going to show up to vote for it, however misguided that may be (I always vote either way, but not a lot of people are like me ). I know a lot of people, sadly, who never vote because they feel like it's pointless. Those people won't show up with status quo candidates on the table. I can almost guarantee that.

I can vote for whomever I want because the system is rigged. I don't live in a swing state. Anyone who thinks their vote matters outside of swing states or a states that have popular voting laws is deluding themselves.


----------



## JPhoenix19

celticelk said:


> Even if Trump runs 3rd party, I wouldn't bank on Americans actually electing a self-described socialist. A Sanders nomination would likely send (more?) working-class Democrats into Trump's camp - possibly enough to swing a close three-way race. And even if Sanders were to get elected, I have no faith that he could get his policy proposals past Congress, and little faith that they would actually work as advertised if he could. If you don't want a Republican in the White House, a Clinton nomination still seems like the best way to go.



A) Sanders is a self-described *democratic* socialist. Words mean things.

B) I do not think a Sanders nomination would send working-class dems into Trump's camp. I can't think of a single Dem I know who speaks of Trump in terms of a viable presidential candidate. That said, I am willing to admit my bias and limited scope (I don't "know" all dems in the country), so I could be wrong here.

C) Getting all Sanders' ideas legislated is not the point of his campaign, believe it or not. The issue giving him the most steam is his position on big money in politics, specifically overturning Citizen's United and wanting to more heavily regulate/tax Wall Street.

D) Saying that a Clinton nomination is best for our country simply because it will block the republicans is, in one statement, everything wrong with our current political system.



flint757 said:


> Sanders getting the nomination actually might bring some apathetic voters back into politics IMO.



This


----------



## crg123

Sorry had to put this here haha


----------



## celticelk

JPhoenix19 said:


> A) Sanders is a self-described *democratic* socialist. Words mean things.
> 
> B) I do not think a Sanders nomination would send working-class dems into Trump's camp. I can't think of a single Dem I know who speaks of Trump in terms of a viable presidential candidate. That said, I am willing to admit my bias and limited scope (I don't "know" all dems in the country), so I could be wrong here.
> 
> C) Getting all Sanders' ideas legislated is not the point of his campaign, believe it or not. The issue giving him the most steam is his position on big money in politics, specifically overturning Citizen's United and wanting to more heavily regulate/tax Wall Street.
> 
> D) Saying that a Clinton nomination is best for our country simply because it will block the republicans is, in one statement, everything wrong with our current political system.



A) Yes they do. Unfortunately, the American public is not good with that level of nuance, so they're going to tune out any "Yes, but..." response after the word "Yes." Sanders is a socialist (democratic socialists are still socialists!); the American public as a whole does not trust socialists; the Republicans are perfectly willing to exploit that.

B) I doubt that either of us has more-than-anecdotal information on this point, and my hypothetical was based on a three-way race with Trump running as an independent, rather than a two-way race with him as the GOP candidate, which might change the tribal-party reflex for a significant number of voters.

C) I've yet to see any good explanation for (a) why Clinton would not be an equally viable option for that particular objective (based on her voting record in the Senate rather than knee-jerk accusations that she's a corporate shill) or (b) why Sanders would be any more successful getting progressive jurists past a hostile Senate than he would be at getting progressive legislation past them.

D) You go to war with the political system you have, not the political system you'd like to have.


----------



## flint757

If you get the Democrats/independents out to the polls to vote, whom normally wouldn't, you can change the entire makeup of the Senate/House (energized voter base). Hillary is actually going to set the Democrats back for this very reason. Voter apathy has always played into the Republicans hand and Hillary and the establishment have a knack for creating apathetic voters.

The accusation that she is a corporate shill is hardly reactionary. Her work outside of the senate and the bills where they differed are quite telling to her loyalties. Many of the policies and bills she has promoted or signed paint a less than ideal image, but for people who have resigned themselves to fighting with the devil they know seem perfectly content to overlook it all. She's always been good about supporting the lobbies/donors in her camp and her voting record always seems to magically align with what has the most appeal in the moment for reelection. Why people think she's all of a sudden not like this when the last time she ran she wasn't running the sort of campaign she is now is beyond me (Bernie's campaign with her stamp on it).

With a Republican/Conservative congress neither of them have a chance at passing what they want entirely. That's a complete tie. Conservatives hate 'socialists' about as much as they hate Clinton and I'd actually argue they hate Clinton more. If you get a more enthusiastic voter base back into politics we might actually be able to swing congress into a new direction and weed out the incumbents. Good luck doing that with Hillary because apathetic voters don't like her anymore than they did in 2008.

I fail to see how doing what the political system wants you to do qualifies as 'war' (DNC and Wall Street WANT Hillary to win; Corporations don't tend to put massive amounts of money against their interests). I'd actually argue Bernie is firing the first shots here whereas Hillary is content to stay in line, which both of their records largely confirm. There is no 'war' if Hillary wins and many Hillary voters whom would never even consider Sanders, unless forced to choose between him and the Republicans, don't even want that kind of change (like the accusations that 'Sanders isn't even a Democrat'; Yeah, and? Got to tow that party line I guess.). Most of them think Obama's track is the right way to go entirely, which has never been anti-establishment. Of course most of them tout specifically social policies related to LGBT and Women's rights when making this statement so it is a tad bit misguided. Pretty much all liberal independents and Democrats, at least nowadays, support pro women and LGBT policies. Even libertarians support pro civil right policies.


----------



## celticelk

flint757 said:


> If you get the Democrats/independents out to the polls to vote, whom normally wouldn't, you can change the entire makeup of the Senate/House (energized voter base). Hillary is actually going to set the Democrats back for this very reason. Voter apathy has always played into the Republicans hand and Hillary and the establishment have a knack for creating apathetic voters.



There's a lot of "if" coming off that plan. First, it assumes that one or both of these conditions holds:

-You can energize untapped voters who will vote *for* your candidate without also energizing ideologically-opposed untapped voters who will turn up to vote *against* your candidate. I know that I keep harping on the "socialist!" point, but pretending that this isn't potentially a huge negative factor in the American electorate's perception of Sanders is not doing your camp any favors. It's even worse in a two-man race against Trump, who seems to be very good at motivating turnout on the other side, and who may well pull otherwise-Democratic votes from working-class Dems who are willing to vote for protectionism and xenophobia (which is basically all Trump has to offer) in the hope of better economic outcomes for themselves.

-The untapped electorate skews more Democratic/independent than the current voting population. That's not impossible, but there's no _a priori_ reason to assume that it's so. If you have data sources on this point, I'd appreciate a link.

Second, you *might* be able to change the leadership of the Senate in the next cycle with a massive Dem turnout, but that doesn't mean that you're going to have the votes to enact a Sanders agenda. Remember that the Democratic coalition is broad, and quite a few of those new senators are going to come from more conservative electorates who will not be on-board with those progressive ideals. Given the likelihood of a still-substantial Republican caucus in the Senate, it only takes a few of those Blue Dogs to get to the 40 votes needed to prevent cloture.

TL;DR: Don't expect to change the makeup of Congress just because Sanders is on the ticket, and even if you do, don't expect to magically enact a progressive agenda.


----------



## ferret

You can affect the senate through voter turn out, but I'm much less optimistic about changing the house. Gerrymandering of districts is in play there.


----------



## asher

ferret said:


> You can affect the senate through voter turn out, but I'm much less optimistic about changing the house. Gerrymandering of districts is in play there.



Yeah.

I'm actually not horribly fussed about the "socialist" label. Partially because...

the independent swing voter these days is... almost totally a myth. Yay extreme polarization!

It's about turning out people who, if forced, are going to vote for you anyway.

It's absolutely possible to flip the Senate back this cycle. A lot of the seats are purple seats that we lost in the 2010 wave... but it's pretty early still to be calling how easy or hard those races are going to be. We don't even know a lot of the candidates yet.

The House is, basically, locked out until 2020, or more likely 2024. It's _that_ rigged that we need a census recount and mass redistricting. Hopefully we'll get some more district challenge victories trickling through the courts, too, we've seen a little progress there.


----------



## Randy

Chiming in late, and I apologize if I'm leap-frogging any of the discussion currently going on, but a Hillary Clinton nomination via superdelegates (read: Congressmen and Senators) makes me very wary on what those same people are going to accomplish even if they did end up with a majority in either house.


----------



## asher

Why is that?

Ed: do you mean in a scenario where Bernie walks away from the primaries with more delegates somehow?


----------



## Randy

There's a number of stats and buzz saying Hillary is already a lock because of her 200+ superdelegates. In NYS here, it's well known and stated that every prominent Democrat is all in for her.

Considering serious concerns about how compromised Hillary is (between her contributors and the Wall Street speaking engagements), the willingness for prominent Democrats to double down on her so early in primary season leads me to question their motives and trustworthiness.


----------



## Randy

To circle back on how that effects policy... I've been a big Bernie fan for a long time and one of the things he (and other notable progressives) had always stated is that the top heaviness of monied influence in politics has the most resounding, negative effect on policy.

It's actually the very definition of corruption which, in turn, is the very definition of failed governance.

The Democrats can use all the rhetoric they want. There are always policies that you can cast a skeptical eye on (IE: passing the ACA but leaving for profit insurance companies intact, which [whether you agree on the overarching program] has been a windfall for them), but the Dems get the benefit of the doubt because they always point to the utility of compromise. 

When you find out those same people are frequently collecting hefty checks from those same people they bemoan... a healthy level of skepticism is to be expected. When somebody like Bernie (whos foundation is about chasing money out of politics) runs, does respectably in the popular vote but gets absolutely savaged by superdelegates ("the machine")... That's enough to make a guy wanna stay home on election day.


----------



## celticelk

Randy said:


> There's a number of stats and buzz saying Hillary is already a lock because of her 200+ superdelegates. In NYS here, it's well known and stated that every prominent Democrat is all in for her.
> 
> Considering serious concerns about how compromised Hillary is (between her contributors and the Wall Street speaking engagements), the willingness for prominent Democrats to double down on her so early in primary season leads me to question their motives and trustworthiness.



Superdelegates were overwhelmingly for Clinton in 2008 as well - until they weren't. Remember that they're largely if not entirely elected officeholders, and that means that they're politically responsible to their constituencies, and would (presumably) like to keep their jobs. When the elected delegate count shifted towards Obama in 2008, the superdelegates read the wind and swung their sails. If Sanders does the same (unlikely, IMO, but not impossible), they'll do it again.


----------



## celticelk

Randy said:


> There are always policies that you can cast a skeptical eye on (IE: passing the ACA but leaving for profit insurance companies intact, which [whether you agree on the overarching program] has been a windfall for them)



This is getting OT, but what health care reform plan would have *not* left the insurance companies intact, would have passed Congress, and would not have had a massively negative effect on an American economy still struggling to recover from the Great Recession? (Vox's recent article recapping Vermont's failed attempt to enact a single-payer system is instructive: What Bernie Sanders can learn about single-payer from his home state of Vermont - Vox)


----------



## dr_game0ver

We can give you François Hollande if you want...


----------



## Randy

celticelk said:


> Superdelegates were overwhelmingly for Clinton in 2008 as well - until they weren't. Remember that they're largely if not entirely elected officeholders, and that means that they're politically responsible to their constituencies, and would (presumably) like to keep their jobs. When the elected delegate count shifted towards Obama in 2008, the superdelegates read the wind and swung their sails. If Sanders does the same (unlikely, IMO, but not impossible), they'll do it again.



I don't disagree with you, but why (meaning, why flip for Obama and not Bernie)? Is it because Obama's numbers were that much better or is it because they figured out they could (with a little work) get what they wanted out of Obama; and they don't think they can get it from Bernie?



celticelk said:


> This is getting OT, but what health care reform plan would have *not* left the insurance companies intact, would have passed Congress, and would not have had a massively negative effect on an American economy still struggling to recover from the Great Recession? (Vox's recent article recapping Vermont's failed attempt to enact a single-payer system is instructive: What Bernie Sanders can learn about single-payer from his home state of Vermont - Vox)



I don't entirely disagree with you here either, but you know I'm obviously not going to be able to fire off a line-for-line, deficit neutral healthcare plan on command.

The one compromise in the ACA was that it limited the amount of profits insurance companies were able to make (to help limit their ability to use the mandate to drive up premium for bigger bonuses), yet somehow premiums for people with existing plans have gone up all across the board, as have deductibles and co-pays. 

We were told that we could "make it work" leaving the insurance companies intact and that the goal was to get "everybody covered" which would drive down costs, and while there's been an increase in the number of people insured, there's still millions that aren't, the cost of healthcare is the same or worse and (debateably) so is the quality of that care.

The elimination of the preexisting condition stipulations (especially for kids) is one net, inarguable, plus for the consumers. Outside of that, I don't see where the people the ACA was supposedly drafted to help are gaining the benefits of it to he same extent the insurance companies have been. Again, I said this is all in the context of casting a skeptical eye... If that's true (the healthcare industry benefitted from that legislation more than he consumers) I think it's fair to ask whether or not that was by accident or by design; which in turn, draws into question the individuals who engineered it.

Yes, it's partially off-topic but the discussion (where it seemed to leave off, and where I chimed in) was about how the upcoming election effects the Congress, and I don't think it's unreasonable to bring up overarching questions about who this Congress is/'will be' and whether unilaterally assuming Democratic gains will fix any of the issues we should be concerned about.


----------



## celticelk

Randy said:


> I don't disagree with you, but why (meaning, why flip for Obama and not Bernie)? Is it because Obama's numbers were that much better or is it because they figured out they could (with a little work) get what they wanted out of Obama; and they don't think they can get it from Bernie?



The chronological narrative sure makes it look like they switched because Obama was taking the lead over Clinton in terms of delegates won through state-level voting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2008. I should also correct my earlier statement: about 2/3 of the Democratic superdelegates are DNC members, which is to say, they're not elected officials. But they're not overwhelmingly in the tank for Clinton yet, despite the perception of her as the "DNC candidate" - as of right now, about half of the DNC superdelegates haven't pledged their support for anyone (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016).



Randy said:


> I don't entirely disagree with you here either, but you know I'm obviously not going to be able to fire off a line-for-line, deficit neutral healthcare plan on command.
> 
> The one compromise in the ACA was that it limited the amount of profits insurance companies were able to make (to help limit their ability to use the mandate to drive up premium for bigger bonuses), yet somehow premiums for people with existing plans have gone up all across the board, as have deductibles and co-pays.
> 
> We were told that we could "make it work" leaving the insurance companies intact and that the goal was to get "everybody covered" which would drive down costs, and while there's been an increase in the number of people insured, there's still millions that aren't, the cost of healthcare is the same or worse and (debateably) so is the quality of that care.
> 
> The elimination of the preexisting condition stipulations (especially for kids) is one net, inarguable, plus for the consumers. Outside of that, I don't see where the people the ACA was supposedly drafted to help are gaining the benefits of it to he same extent the insurance companies have been. Again, I said this is all in the context of casting a skeptical eye... If that's true (the healthcare industry benefitted from that legislation more than he consumers) I think it's fair to ask whether or not that was by accident or by design; which in turn, draws into question the individuals who engineered it.
> 
> Yes, it's partially off-topic but the discussion (where it seemed to leave off, and where I chimed in) was about how the upcoming election effects the Congress, and I don't think it's unreasonable to bring up overarching questions about who this Congress is/'will be' and whether unilaterally assuming Democratic gains will fix any of the issues we should be concerned about.



Fair enough. Bear in mind that costs of insurance and co-pays were going up *without* the ACA as well, so a better question would be: did they go up more under the ACA, broadly speaking, than we would have expected had the legislation not been passed? I don't know the answer to that either. In terms of coverage, here's some useful statistics: Key Facts about the Uninsured Population | The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. I agree that we still have work to do in expanding coverage (and Clinton seems to agree, since she's called for expanding Obamacare), but overall I think that a 33% drop in the number of uninsured nonelderly people in the US (from 16.2% of the nonelderly at the end of 2013 to 10.7% at the beginning of 2015, shown on the page above) is a [email protected] good outcome. Bear in mind also that a lot of the remaining uninsured live in states that refused the Medicare expansion, generally under the "leadership" of Republican governors: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...snt-have-health-insurance-obamacare.html?_r=0.


----------



## asher

Tl;dr my thoughts on the ACA: it is far from perfect, but was absolutely the best that was EVER going to get passed. So I'm all for it. To do it right we would need to completely rebuild our system from the ground up.

As far as super delegates.. as Celtic shows I'd be very surprised if they actually "overturned" primary voting results. They're not stupid, they know how much damage that would do.

But that said, this is one of the areas where we actually see Bernie at a proper disadvantage from having gone independent most of his political career. Many of these are people that Hillary has working relationships or extensive experience with...

I guess if you view any kind of connections as hopelessly insider, that's a flaw, but A) Bernies been in Congress since 91, he's not that outside  B) you work with the system you have, not the system you want, and this is how .... gets done.


----------



## celticelk

asher said:


> Tl;dr my thoughts on the ACA: it is far from perfect, but was absolutely the best that was EVER going to get passed. So I'm all for it. To do it right we would need to completely rebuild our system from the ground up.



This is a point that gets overlooked far too often in the debate about healthcare on the left. Many people say "well, all of those European countries have done it, so why can't we?" All of those European countries built single-payer healthcare systems decades ago, before they had what we would characterize as a modern industrial healthcare system. None of them had to tear down and rebuild an industry that represented a sixth of their country's annual GDP. Add to that the general differences in the political preferences of the populations - there's a reason that so many of the early-twentieth-century labor organizers were recent immigrants from Europe! - and you start to realize that on a practical political level, we simply can't get there from here.

As a matter of policy, I would vastly prefer a single-payer system. If the best I can get is incremental improvements that extend coverage to millions of people who didn't previously have it, I'm willing to take that. Anything more progressive is going to require either decades of shifting the Overton window of American politics, or an actual blood-in-the-streets revolution.


----------



## Randy

asher said:


> As far as super delegates.. as Celtic shows I'd be very surprised if they actually "overturned" primary voting results. They're not stupid, they know how much damage that would do.
> 
> But that said, this is one of the areas where we actually see Bernie at a proper disadvantage from having gone independent most of his political career. Many of these are people that Hillary has working relationships or extensive experience with...



They don't necessarily need to overturn the popular vote, but don't underestimate the value of riding "the inevitable express" full speed into the convention. 

If you look at a state like South Carolina, it hasn't happened yet, so you can say it's still up in the air but the reporting has been "Bernie already expects to lose it", which will have an effect on turnout among those in his favor. There are shades of grey there, but typically reporting that "we're going to have a tough fight" bring out the troops in full force and reports that "we're heavily outnumbered and not expecting to win" keep supporters at home.

Considering how widespread the reporting has been about Hillary's number of superdelegates, do I think there's enough apathy being spread to effect the popular vote? In my experience and from my observation, it's a strong possibility. YMMV

As far as Hillary building a report with the Democrats because she's a registered D, that may be so, but don't forget that even as in Independent, Bernie's been caucusing with the same people his entire career. As such, he's had a lot more "face time" with those people (including the fact he's still in that position today, and she's not), so either they're voting solely on who's carried the 'D' next to their name longest, they simply like Hillary better or there's some shenanigans afoot. As I've said throughout, I won't cry foul completely but I think there's enough potential truth to all those positions that a healthy dose of skepticism is acceptable.

I've been disappointed by candidates enough that I'm not totally in the bag for anyone (actually, I'm much more in favor of Hillary's approach to gun control than Bernie and a number of other things), so don't consider this some kind of 'Bernie Bro' soapboxing. People who've known me on this site long enough know that I bring up these kinds of questions whether I agree with someone or not because turning a blind eye to somebody's actions just because you agree with some of what they do does NOT best serve all parties involved and it's absolutely the genesis of corruption.

So with all that in mind, the bulk of my concerns about Hillary originate based on things like the Goldman Sachs speaking engagements and the Wall Street and energy industry money. Those things are completely factual, none of which she denies. 

I was listening to an interview with one of the more senior Congressman in my state (Paul Tonko). He voiced his support for Hillary Clinton, and the interviewer asked what about the contributions from those 'less savory' organizations; he also went onto say (paraphrasing) that Tonko, Cuomo and a slew of top Democrats in NYS all have taken money from those same groups. Tonko laughed and parroted the same thing Hillary's said (in fairness, Obama said similar during his run) that "just because they're willing to contribute to their campaign doesn't mean they're getting anything in return."

Don't any of you find an issue with that? I mean, the majority of what I've said in this thread is simply posing questions, but is taking somebody's word on that a little naive, considering the LONG (and even recent) history of 'revolving door' politics and pay-to-play? And you're entitled to your opinion on that... But if that answer leaves a bad taste in your mouth, doesn't the fact that people who espouse democratic and Democratic principals (public funding of elections, muzzling the power of lobbyists, etc.) almost unilaterally endorsing the person hiding behind that smokescreen leave you a _little_ skeptical?


----------



## celticelk

No, I don't find the massive endorsements for Clinton strange at all. Let me lay out the logic from a different perspective:

Hillary Clinton is one of the best-known, best-liked, and most influential active politicians of her generation. She's got a killer resume, excellent fundraising experience, and an unmatched stump surrogate in the form of her husband, who is the most popular living former president. Add to that the history-making fact that she'd be the first female president. Why wouldn't you think that she'd be an excellent candidate for the Democrats?

By comparison, who else had expressed a serious interest in seeking the nomination by the end of May 2015? A few relative unknowns running to Clinton's right, and a septuagenarian career senator from Vermont who's a self-identified socialist and isn't even a member of the Party. There would have been absolutely no reason to think that any of those guys would garner more than a couple of percentage points in the primaries, if they made it that far. Sanders could conceivably have been this year's Dennis Kucinich. As a consequence, the endorsements came strong out of the gate for Clinton - a number of Democratic politicians announced their support for her *before* her official entry into the race. A good number of the undecideds declared for her in the fall, when Joe Biden made it clear that he wasn't going to run. True, she had an unprecedented level of early support compared to other contests in recent memory, but most of those others had at least two or three on-paper contenders. At this point, Clinton's doing about as well in the endorsement race as Gore was after the first few primaries in 2000, and not as well as Bush was in that same year. And she's still the heavy favorite to win the nomination. If you'd already make a public declaration of support for her, you might well let it stand even if you were having second thoughts about her viability - you could well be wrong, after all, and "flip-flop" is still a bad word in American politics. If you hadn't declared for anyone yet, you might wait a little while and see how Super Tuesday shakes out, on the same principle.


----------



## celticelk

For those inclined toward policy wonkery, liberal economists Christy and David Romer have published a detailed critique of Gerald Friedman's (overly-)optimistic projections of the economic impact of Sanders' policy proposals. The Romers were signatories to the open letter criticizing Friedman's analysis, which has been getting some news coverage over the past week; this is, to the best of my knowledge, the first detailed explication of the flaws in that analysis. Read it here: https://evaluationoffriedman.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/romer-and-romer-evaluation-of-friedman1.pdf

(h/t Paul Krugman)


----------



## CrazyDean

Woo! Can't stump the Trump!


----------



## asher

celticelk said:


> For those inclined toward policy wonkery, liberal economists Christy and David Romer have published a detailed critique of Gerald Friedman's (overly-)optimistic projections of the economic impact of Sanders' policy proposals. The Romers were signatories to the open letter criticizing Friedman's analysis, which has been getting some news coverage over the past week; this is, to the best of my knowledge, the first detailed explication of the flaws in that analysis. Read it here: https://evaluationoffriedman.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/romer-and-romer-evaluation-of-friedman1.pdf
> 
> (h/t Paul Krugman)



I need to get back to regularly reading K-thug.

Totally O/T: I went to lower and middle school with the Romers' older son 

Anyone have thoughts on the breakdown of the SC results?


----------



## celticelk

asher said:


> Anyone have thoughts on the breakdown of the SC results?



Mostly that if the other Southern states vote similarly, Sanders is going to have an *extremely* tough time winning the nomination. (That said, I think the path is more plausible for him than for Rubio or Cruz, since the Democrats have many more states that assign primary delegates proportionally rather than winner-take-all.) The next eight days are critical for his campaign; if he falls below 70-75% of his cumulative target after 3/8, the writing's probably on the wall.

To that end, 538 has a great new tool for tracking progress on the primaries: http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/delegate-targets/democrats/ (there's a Republican version as well; you can switch back and forth from that page).


----------



## jeremyb

Speaking as someone who lives outside of the US, Sanders is exactly what your country needs, there is so much inequality and injustice in America, and I'm talking about even for white working and middle class people, he could REALLY make America great if he was allowed to take his policies to the whitehouse


----------



## celticelk

jeremyb said:


> Speaking as someone who lives outside of the US, Sanders is exactly what your country needs, there is so much inequality and injustice in America, and I'm talking about even for white working and middle class people, he could REALLY make America great if he was allowed to take his policies to the whitehouse



Getting his policies to the White House doesn't get them past Congress. There's only so much a US president can do unilaterally, and most of it doesn't address the economic structural issues you're talking about.


----------



## asher

celticelk said:


> Getting his policies to the White House doesn't get them past Congress. There's only so much a US president can do unilaterally, and most of it doesn't address the economic structural issues you're talking about.



It's prompted some interesting discussions about the efficacy of the entire US federal structure, as a system with a very high number of veto points that allows an opposition party to more or less break things if they decide to jettison norms and refuse to participate.


----------



## Randy

celticelk said:


> Getting his policies to the White House doesn't get them past Congress. There's only so much a US president can do unilaterally, and most of it doesn't address the economic structural issues you're talking about.



Maybe not, but it might make for an effective negotiating point. I don't necessarily buy into the idea of "dickered politicking" (I start high, you start low, we meet in the middle), but starting from a populist or even utopian ideal and walking it back into reality isn't totally crazy.

One thing that I personally gathered from the Obama tenure is that "moderate" style policy negotiations look more like "I start in the middle, you start low and we end up low" (inaction on common sense gun control, impasse on common sense immigration reform, repeated attempts to repeal common sense healtcare reform, etc).

As I said, I'm not a 'Bernie Bro' but I'm not convinced Hillary's style of negotiating from a "reasonable" starting point is effective. And I've grown skeptical enough with time that I'm not necessarily convinced it's genuine either.


----------



## leftyguitarjoe

As a Sanders supporter, yet a realist (i.e. pessiment) I think Trump may very well win this election. He is dominating in the primaries. In a Trump vs Clinton ticket, I can see Trump winning.

The DNC has shown that its clearly nowhere near neutral. They are doing everything they can to sabotage Sanders and are going to succeed because thats how the world works. The half of the democratic voters that support Sanders are going to be very upset and say fvck it like young liberals always do. Republicans are seeing record turnouts and they love Trump.

We're all screwed. Our system is broken at every level and its our own fault.


----------



## celticelk

leftyguitarjoe said:


> The DNC has shown that its clearly nowhere near neutral. They are doing everything they can to sabotage Sanders and are going to succeed because thats how the world works.



Citation needed. Seriously, the way that Sanders has risen from a "who?" candidate in May 2015 to being a credible, if still somewhat long-shot, threat to Hillary Clinton for the nomination in Feb 2016 suggests that if the DNC is actually trying to sabotage him, they've amazingly failed. Is it so impossible that a majority of the party electorate actually prefers Clinton?


----------



## jeremyb

The interesting thing about the nominations is they have to be a republican party member and they seem incredibly right winged as a general rule, so you have to appeal to the nutters to get the nomination, but then they'll need to reign in the madness a LOT to get back to a point where the average voter will vote for them.... a world with Trump in control of the US military, madness, I would expect a coup.


----------



## Randy

celticelk said:


> Citation needed. Seriously, the way that Sanders has risen from a "who?" candidate in May 2015 to being a credible, if still somewhat long-shot, threat to Hillary Clinton for the nomination in Feb 2016 suggests that if the DNC is actually trying to sabotage him, they've amazingly failed. Is it so impossible that a majority of the party electorate actually prefers Clinton?



You don't think the public outing and banning of Sanders from the DNC mailing list just before the first debate was a wee bit of shenanigans?


----------



## Captain Butterscotch

Even higher ups in the DNC weren't saying very good things about DWS' obvious bias and the debate scheduling.


----------



## flint757

https://news.vice.com/article/the-final-1700-hillary-clinton-emails-were-just-released-and-one-was-not?utm_source=vicenewsfb



> But Kirby said 261 other emails released Monday were marked Secret and "confidential," bringing the total to about 2,100 emails that contain classified information.



I'm not personally a huge fan of the email scandal (I've mentioned that in the past) mostly because on the surface it seems so insignificant, but working in the tech industry appearances and reality rarely coincide. Just because it doesn't seem like a big deal doesn't make it so.

This guy made a fair point about the difference between your average american and an elite committing this sort of crime (and whether you agree about it's significance it absolutely was a crime):



> "Shes under investigation for violating (unintentionally, one would presume), the Espionage Act, as well as for mishandling secure information and failure to follow federal laws pertaining to proper information storage and transfer. As someone who works in the defense industry, had I done what Secretary Clinton did, I would already be sitting in a federal prison. This is hardly "make believe" and is in fact, very very serious.
> 
> Also, Hillarys emails were not "retroactively classified". The emails contained information at the time of their writing which was already classified, thereby making the emails themselves classified. Hillary and her staff failed to follow proper procedure at the time the emails were created and sent by classifying the documents themselves. The IG of the State Department thus had to apply the proper classification labels and document control tags to bring the emails in mine with government standards. In other words, nothing was made classified after the fact, already classified documents were retroactively labeled as such. Huuuuge difference." -Article Commenter



It honestly rings very true about both Wall Street and our politicians. Couple that with her overall lack of transparency, and inconsistencies, over the decades and I really don't see what people see in her. She may be better than a Republican, but she's a piss poor candidate. I fail to see how overlooking her failings makes her the better candidate simply because y'all consider Bernie an idealist. I personally agree with Randy on that anyhow. The further left we start the discussion the further left the result ends up being. When Democrats start at a moderate position we end up with Republican policy or incredibly washed down legislation.

I also resent Hillary's PR/followers attempt at branding people who dislike her and choose Bernie as essentially misogynists with this 'Bernie Bro' BS (The last time I checked we are allowed to decide who we support in this country ). I'd gladly support a woman candidate if one I felt I could back were running. If Elizabeth Warren, Nina Turner or Jill Stein were running in her place I'd vote for them in a heartbeat. It's got nothing to do with gender and everything to do with integrity. That's about as gross as the assertion that women are voting for Hillary strictly because of their gender. It's likely true for some people (and vice versa), but it's also likely not true for her base at large. Of course, one of her endorsers insinuating that women who don't vote for Hillary are betraying their gender and just going where the boys are doesn't exactly help that particular situation. I'm all for landmark changes, but not for the sake of making a landmark change alone. I don't participate in race/gender politics.

[EDIT]

The scandal also brings out some hard truths for some people as well about just how two-faced she really is as far as public promises and actual intention:



> During her 2008 presidential run, Clinton said she opposed the deal because &#8220;I am very concerned about the history of violence against trade unionists in Colombia.&#8221; She later declared, &#8220;I oppose the deal. I have spoken out against the deal, I will vote against the deal, and I will do everything I can to urge the Congress to reject the Colombia Free Trade Agreement.&#8221;
> 
> But newly released emails show that as secretary of state, Clinton was personally lobbying Democratic members of Congress to support the deal, even promising one senior lawmaker that the deal would extend labor protections to Colombian workers that would be as good or better than those enjoyed by many workers in the United States.



Hillary Clinton Pushes Colombia Free Trade Agreement In Latest Email Dump

Her word means so little...


----------



## flint757

If you're state primary election is today get out and vote folks, whomever you support. Lets show these politicians at least for the time being that we as a nation are watching and taking notice. The primary for both parties will really set the tone for the general election and is probably more significant than even the general as it currently stands.

Shouldn't take anyone very long since primaries have a pretty low turnout most of the time. I walked in and out at my voting station.


----------



## celticelk

flint757 said:


> This guy made a fair point about the difference between your average american and an elite committing this sort of crime (and whether you agree about it's significance it absolutely was a crime):



Source? It wasn't in the comments on the article you linked.




flint757 said:


> The scandal also brings out some hard truths for some people as well about just how two-faced she really is as far as public promises and actual intention:
> 
> 
> 
> Hillary Clinton Pushes Colombia Free Trade Agreement In Latest Email Dump
> 
> Her word means so little...



I doubt that the free trade agreement that the Bush administration was pushing on Congress in 2008 included this: https://ustr.gov/uscolombiatpa/labor. If the terms of the deal changed to provide better protections for Colombian labor, then I don't think it's inconsistent for Clinton to support it.


----------



## celticelk

Randy said:


> You don't think the public outing and banning of Sanders from the DNC mailing list just before the first debate was a wee bit of shenanigans?



Show of hands: how many people remembered that this event had happened before Randy brought it up? And didn't *both* candidates gloss over the whole affair at that same debate?


----------



## Alex Kenivel




----------



## leftyguitarjoe

celticelk said:


> Citation needed. Seriously, the way that Sanders has risen from a "who?" candidate in May 2015 to being a credible, if still somewhat long-shot, threat to Hillary Clinton for the nomination in Feb 2016 suggests that if the DNC is actually trying to sabotage him, they've amazingly failed. Is it so impossible that a majority of the party electorate actually prefers Clinton?



The head of the DNC worked on Hilary's last campaign, the debate debacle, and now the DNC's #2 quitting to endorse Bernie.


----------



## celticelk

leftyguitarjoe said:


> The head of the DNC worked on Hilary's last campaign, the debate debacle, and now the DNC's #2 quitting to endorse Bernie.



The first shows only that American politics draws from a limited pool of top-tier talent, the same as other industries. I don't assume that something nefarious is happening if I see that a prominent associate-dean-level librarian has taken a dean-of-the-library position at a different university. Second: what "debacle" are you referring to? Third: Tulsi Gabbard *said herself* that DNC politics didn't have anything to do with her resignation to support Sanders. Don't believe me? Tulsi Gabbard: DNC politics did not factor into Bernie Sanders endorsement - POLITICO


----------



## asher

Randy said:


> Maybe not, but it might make for an effective negotiating point. I don't necessarily buy into the idea of "dickered politicking" (I start high, you start low, we meet in the middle), but starting from a populist or even utopian ideal and walking it back into reality isn't totally crazy.
> 
> One thing that I personally gathered from the Obama tenure is that "moderate" style policy negotiations look more like "I start in the middle, you start low and we end up low" (inaction on common sense gun control, impasse on common sense immigration reform, repeated attempts to repeal common sense healtcare reform, etc).
> 
> As I said, I'm not a 'Bernie Bro' but I'm not convinced Hillary's style of negotiating from a "reasonable" starting point is effective. And I've grown skeptical enough with time that I'm not necessarily convinced it's genuine either.



No more effective than the GOP staring from "BURN IT TO THE GROUND" on... literally every single thing relating to a D getting something it looks like it wants.

Bernie could actually be the prodigy scion Ur-Socialist genetic experiment with genes from Marx and Trotsky themselves, and he'd be facing exactly the same level of opposition from Day 1 that Hillary would. And that O'Malley would... because they're (D).

I really, really wish this weren't the case. They might more personally hate Hillary but I don't think the effective levels of scorched-earth obstruction change one bit.


----------



## Randy

I don't disagree with you, but I still think there's a difference (when working with extremists) between starting negotiations from your ideal position and starting negotiations from the middle.


----------



## asher

Randy said:


> I don't disagree with you, but I still think there's a difference (when working with extremists) between starting negotiations from your ideal position and starting negotiations from the middle.



Fair enough 

ed: also, FOR SHAME, ME. Never got my voting changed to be here in VA, I'm still absentee CA. My vote would be a lot better served trying to keep ....heads out of State stuff here 

ed2: I think we actually agree about where we want to start and how we want it to go, I just realistically don't think it matters here at all.


----------



## leftyguitarjoe

celticelk said:


> The first shows only that American politics draws from a limited pool of top-tier talent, the same as other industries. I don't assume that something nefarious is happening if I see that a prominent associate-dean-level librarian has taken a dean-of-the-library position at a different university. Second: what "debacle" are you referring to? Third: Tulsi Gabbard *said herself* that DNC politics didn't have anything to do with her resignation to support Sanders. Don't believe me? Tulsi Gabbard: DNC politics did not factor into Bernie Sanders endorsement - POLITICO



I think Tulsi has to keep her slate clean for her own persidential run. I like her alot.


----------



## celticelk

Randy said:


> I don't disagree with you, but I still think there's a difference (when working with extremists) between starting negotiations from your ideal position and starting negotiations from the middle.



That actually begs the question of whether legislative negotiations would begin at Sanders' ideal position: since the president can't propose legislation directly, it's a matter of what he could convince Congresscritters to sponsor as bills or amendments. I have no idea how much willingness there is in the Congressional Democratic caucus to support Sanders' policy positions, either now or following whatever downticket effects might occur as a result of a Sanders victory in the general, but that's a substantial limit on what ideas get introduced into legislation in the first place. President Sanders could always, of course, threaten to veto any legislation that doesn't meet his minimum progressive standard, but if he doesn't have Congressional support among Democrats for those policy positions, that's going to be very easily spun by Republicans as "obstructionism!" (And they should know from obstructionism, amirite?)


----------



## asher

If Bernie is POTUS I really don't see him having much Democratic support problems, TBH. Except maybe for something pie-in-the-sky about health care, because insurance companies have their fingers everywhere.


----------



## celticelk

leftyguitarjoe said:


> I think Tulsi has to keep her slate clean for her own persidential run. I like her alot.



You understand that you've basically just said that you think she's lying on a major media outlet to protect her political future, and that you're OK with that.


----------



## celticelk

asher said:


> If Bernie is POTUS I really don't see him having much Democratic support problems, TBH. Except maybe for something pie-in-the-sky about health care, because insurance companies have their fingers everywhere.



I do. A lot of those Dem Congresscritters come from relatively conservative districts - either closely split between R/D, or where the overall D population leans more conservative, or both - and they're going to be concerned about what their constituents will think about policies that might, for example, raise their taxes. (I say this as someone who would be perfectly willing to pay higher taxes for better government services, even if they're mostly going to people who are not me.)


----------



## Randy

celticelk said:


> You understand that you've basically just said that you think she's lying on a major media outlet to protect her political future, and that you're OK with that.



So when he (or other people) say Hillary or her establishment supporters do something that's potentially questionable, the interpretation can be massaged around several different ways, but if he implies somebody he supports might potentially be bending the truth, it's gospel and he's being willfully ignorant?


----------



## celticelk

Randy said:


> So when he (or other people) say Hillary or her establishment supporters do something that's potentially questionable, the interpretation can be massaged around several different ways, but if he implies somebody he supports might potentially be bending the truth, it's gospel and he's being willfully ignorant?



I engage with you (collectively) about your issues with Clinton in order to point out other potential interpretations where they exist. There's always the possibility that I'm going to see a piece of evidence that one of you has provided and decide that you're actually right. With respect to lefyguitarjoe's comment about Tulsi, there's not really any room for nuance: he's said that he thinks that her televised explicit statement that DNC politics is her trying to provide cover for her future political career. That's a statement that she's lied - on international television - purely in service of her own interests. He then immediately said that he "likes her alot;" I haven't seen her alot, so I can't comment on that aspect, but that sure sounds like a statement that he's OK with the notion that she's making false statements in public for the sake of her career. I have exactly zero information at this point about whether or not Tulsi's telling the truth, but I'm inclined to take her at her word until proven otherwise.


----------



## Randy

celticelk said:


> There's always the possibility that I'm going to see a piece of evidence that one of you has provided and decide that you're actually right.



What you may be missing is that, for every point that you counter, you're both refuting the claim of those you're engaging and actively asserting your own. That's to say, for every claim you rebut, there's an alternative "truth" which you establish. So even though the bulk of the last several exchanges have been people making statements (most which you've engaged were calling into question Hillary or the DNC) and you countering those statements, the sum total of your replies actually _do_ paint a picture (based on points you choose to bring up, ones you choose not to bring up).

The facts here is that there is little undeniable evidence. Without being there in the room with the people making these decisions, this is all nothing but scattering a bunch of facts on the table and reading tea leaves.

Speaking for myself (and approximating, based on the statements of others in this thread), we're simply sharing our interpretations of the facts as they've been presented so far. I personally don't marry my positions, so I'm willing and open to the idea that the way I assemble those facts into a hypothesis/conclusion could be partially or entirely wrong. That has yet to be seen, but in the interim, I (and others) have seen fit to ask those questions and put those interpretations out there.

So, saying something like the statement I have quoted, you're hamfistedly saying that everyone who you've countered has offered information you deem "not up to your standards" and therefore, you're defaulting to whatever your preexisting position is on that matter.

That's all fine and well, and you're entitled to that... but pay mind to the fact that the selective repudiations _have_ established an easily interpreted bias from reading your posts. There are truths that you choose to cling to that I find no more absolute and that aren't founded on hard facts any more than the ones you're shooting down. 

And that's normal in a debate but you absolutely cannot claim the intellectual high ground when you base your positions on equally flimsy/debatable points.


----------



## flint757

celticelk said:


> Source? It wasn't in the comments on the article you linked.
> .



It was on the Facebook post that it was originally linked to on my end. There are several military personnel, past and present, on this forum that I'm sure can attest to something similar though (Grand Moff Tim I believe and perhaps USMarine75). Not following protocol with intelligence is grounds for being severely reprimanded in the military, especially to the degree Clinton has done so, accident or not. Of course she will get a free pass I'm sure because that's just how it works when you have enough money and/or clout. 



celticelk said:


> I engage with you (collectively) about your issues with Clinton in order to point out other potential interpretations where they exist. There's always the possibility that I'm going to see a piece of evidence that one of you has provided and decide that you're actually right. With respect to lefyguitarjoe's comment about Tulsi, there's not really any room for nuance: he's said that he thinks that her televised explicit statement that DNC politics is her trying to provide cover for her future political career. That's a statement that she's lied - on international television - purely in service of her own interests. He then immediately said that he "likes her alot;" I haven't seen her alot, so I can't comment on that aspect, but that sure sounds like a statement that he's OK with the notion that she's making false statements in public for the sake of her career. I have exactly zero information at this point about whether or not Tulsi's telling the truth, but I'm inclined to take her at her word until proven otherwise.



http://www.politifact.com/personalities/hillary-clinton/

Bernie Sanders's file | PolitiFact

Clinton has changed on NAFTA | PolitiFact

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/24/clinton-misspoke-about-bosnia-trip-campaign-says/

Democratic Debate: Why Can&rsquo;t Hillary Get It Right the First Time? - POLITICO Magazine



Mrs Clinton Campaign Speech SuperPredators | User Clip | C-SPAN.org

Clinton's 1993 NAFTA Meeting - ABC News

Old Scandal Resurfacing for Hillary Clinton - The Worst News Possible for Her Presidential Campaign (VIDEO) - The Political Insider

Hillary Clinton Emails: Secret Negotiations With New York Times, Trade Bill Lobbying Revealed In Latest State Department Release

Hillary Clinton flip-flops from 2008 positions in bid for liberal voters' support - Washington Times

All False statements involving Hillary Clinton | PolitiFact

Essay - Blizzard of Lies - NYTimes.com





---

You may think Bernie is an idealist who won't get anything done (and your content supporting the group that is half the reason that'd be the case if you happened to be right, although I don't personally think you are), but there is no arguing that Clinton lacks honest, integrity, and transparency over her entire career. Her experience comes with controversy and scandal since pretty much the beginning of her political career. It's amusing, however, that no one seemed to mind supporting Obama over Hillary even though he had zero experience, yet somehow all of a sudden it's extremely valuable. Even still it isn't like Bernie doesn't have a wealth of experience as well and his tracks to being both more honest and consistent across the board. 

You are offering her a lot of latitude that is arguably undeserved. It's fine that you like her, but to argue that she's a better candidate and someone who will follow through is not the least bit as reliable as you are implying. To top it off going through a scandal just before the general elections that involves both the FBI and State Department, which is headed by someone you would assume is her ally, not only makes her less attractive for the position, but does actually cast a lot more credibility to the issue than even I was giving it when it first arose. If a normal serviceman did what she did they'd be serving time in Leavenworth of that I have no doubt. 

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles...nt-hillary-the-hammer-for-mishandling-secrets

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2014/06/19/sailor-pleads-guilty-to-mishandling-documents.html

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/798

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-37


The DNC pushing Clinton so hard only proves that the DNC doesn't like Sanders because he thinks for himself and won't toe the party line if it disagrees with his values. The fact that they are hitching their ride so adamantly to Clinton is purely about brand recognition and a complete lack of any other viable candidates to choose from.


----------



## flint757

I'm also mildly amused by the persistent claim that no one is trying to fix this race, yet every time we see numbers about official delegate counts her numbers ALWAYS includes the super delegate votes (on all the results I've seen at least). They may very well change, and they would indeed be dumb not to if he gets the popular vote by a wide enough margin by the end, but this is a classic manipulation technique to encourage votes for Hillary and discourage votes for Bernie or discourage people from voting at all in his camp (the more likely goal since many are relatively new voters). It's the same reason they refused to publish the popular vote count for the Iowa Caucus. This is being consistently done by the DNC and most media outlets at the moment. If the DNC is doing this it isn't hard to assume that they might actually not change their vote if not changing it means Hillary wins.

To not notice this is to be deliberately ignorant. I genuinely hope I'm dead wrong, but all evidence at this point points to it being likely true.


----------



## tedtan

flint757 said:


> it isn't like Bernie doesn't have a wealth of experience



This is an important point. And he brings not only his extensive experience, he also brings the political capital that comes along therewith. So in the unlikely event that Sanders were to ultimately win the office, I don't see him being any less effective than Obama in accomplishing his goals. And since he would be starting from further left than Clinton (as Randy points out), the end results of his efforts may well be more progressive than Clinton's end results.


----------



## flint757




----------



## crg123

https://vine.co/v/igH3wW1Khe9 I hate just posting .... like this when there are so many valid points in this thread... But this is gold Jerry! Gold!


----------



## flint757

-(great watch)

He mentions a great deal of problems/scandals during Clinton's run for president the first time and then her run for Secretary of State for anyone claiming she is not only 'qualified', but not tarnished. The only reason her record lacks tarnish is because so many choose to literally ignore the problems in her past. Why, I couldn't tell you. It's bizarre that people consider someone in her shoes to be more electable because of the OPPOSING parties position. 

You cannot have great change through complacency and without strife. Change requires effort. Change requires discomfort. Malcolm X knew this, Martin Luther King knew this, JFK knew this, Abraham Lincoln knew this and they all have one thing in common. They were murdered by those who wanted the status quo to remain the same. Malcolm X and MLK were both deeply involved with race relations, but they weren't targeted until they started embracing socialist ideals. People in charge fear the people they are supposed to serve being truly free. Freedom of opportunity, freedom from debt, freedom of choice. 

Forgive me, I was just watching some rather wonderful critiques of the time period and the movements of Malcolm X and MLK; What people think they know and what the truth is lies a monumental gap for certain and the sort of policy Bernie wants is what they were advocating for when they were murdered. They were killed for having progressive ideals and being able to actually do something about it through the power of leadership. Hell, during the McCarthy era we literally threw out, without warning, a great progressive advocate, Charlie Chaplin. All of this leads me to the conclusion that playing the long con, waiting for people to wise up, waiting for change to happen without anyone actually, truly trying to change is fool hardy. If we want this sort of change sitting on the sidelines and playing the lesser of two evils gets us nowhere near our goals as a society at large. It's a race to the bottom, hence the Democrats becoming far more conservative over the last decade, when you exclude social rights from the equation (It's important and warrants addressing, but ultimately plays a far smaller role in what our government is responsible for on a daily basis [economy, regulation, public services, international relations, war, etc.]). Economically, they have shifted further and further right every single year and Corporate Democrats are to blame for this shift. Truly progressive and truly liberal politicians exist, and they exist in the Democrat party and independent parties, but people seem to be in denial that there are some people who wave the Democrat banner while lobbying/passing/attempting to pass economic/foreign policy that looks far from socially responsible or progressive. Much like religion, simply having a group identity doesn't by default mean you are honest or transparent or that you are someone who might even have integrity. There are some truly awful Democrats in higher leadership roles and they are like tumors that can't seem to be removed, despite even screwing the party itself the last several elections. We cannot solve this problem through complacency, apathy or apologetic politics. Activism, shockingly , requires being active.

---



DNC Chair Joins GOP Attack On Elizabeth Warren's Agency

Debbie Wasserman Schultz Just Joined Republicans to Declare War on Elizabeth Warren

In other news, if you want to help get rid of this waste of space, Debbie Schultz, feel free to support and/or contribute to her competitor:

https://secure.actblue.com/contribute/page/timcanova2016

She's sponsoring a bill, along with a small hand full of Democrats and the Republicans, to essentially remove the teeth from Warrens agency and render it almost useless in addressing a great deal of problems.

Also:







---

Bill Clinton Just Violated Election Laws at Polling Locations Across Massachusetts



(Above the law seems to be a favorable look on the Clinton's)

---

Martin O'Malley accuses DNC of 'rigging' primary process in Clinton's favour | US news | The Guardian

And another fine example of the dubious nature of the current DNC leadership.

-----

Please tell me how the Democrats have it together. That they are our best hope. That they are vastly different than Republicans. I'll agree that many of their members truly are and that some championed policies are as well, but ignore the weeds growing in your garden at your own peril or soon there will be no garden left and just a patch of weeds. 

We need to get Corporate Democrats out of congress. Simply championing positive social policy isn't enough and largely just feels like lip service when done by a great deal of politicians. The Democrats played an equal part in many of the events/policies that created the environments that lead to the recession and that is undeniable. Being better than Republicans is called setting your bar low if you're a progressive.

---

As for the election, to bring it back on topic, I find it amusing that so far she has only overwhelming won the vote in states she will never win come general election. Bernie did better IMO where it counted and pretty much tied in Massachusetts. I personally think the reason why all the polls always include the un-cast votes of the super delegates is, not only to dissuade voters, but to also make it far less controversial when they don't give them to Bernie, even if he wins the populace vote. You have to dig deep to get numbers that are representative of the actual votes cast. Most of the news is 'How many delegates did each get' with no mention of the number from the populace vote. Either way, I look forward to the implosion of the DNC at this point and only hope that something better grows from it.

[EDIT]

Someone I know said it best:

The more you learn about Sanders the more you like him, or at the very least respect him (if you don't agree with his platform). The more you learn about Hillary the harder it becomes to like her, much less respect her.

I was a Hillary fan for a long time, genuinely, and a big advocate of the Clinton's, but the more research I did the nastier they began to appear and it became a lot harder for me to trust anything they said or did or will do (I would think actually being able to change one's position based on new evidence would be something to applaud, but based on some responses it would appear not). I was a fan because I only knew what little information I was fed via television and news blurbs. I was also playing the whole lesser of two evils angle back then, like many others are still, and if we compare Obama and the Clinton's to the Bush's or Ronald Reagan they are indeed better choices for liberals. That is not supporting a candidate, however, that's voting against an opponent. Nothing happens, or horrible unnoticed things happen, when you don't vote for a candidate, but against a candidate/party. This is exactly how Ted Cruz won his primary for the Texas senate and is a big part of Trumps campaign at the moment.


----------



## flint757

(Skip to ~22min15sec for reference)

He talks about her negative impact on the healthcare industry as things progressed through the 90's leaving us with horrible insurance coverage in its wake.

The whole video is an excellent watch as well, but it's roughly just a 2 minute segments after ~22min that I'm referring to. I could listen to Hitchens talk all day though. 

At the ~36min mark he talks about some of the scandals that Bill was dealing with and evidence he uncovered about, for instance, the missile launch that hit the wrong target due to negligence (remember guys, the Clinton's were the era of 'peace' ). I definitely believe Democrats give other Democrats far more leeway on past discrepancies than they would ever do for their counterpart (and vice versa), but the saddest part is many aren't aware they are doing so in the first place IME. We get busy and put our trust into a hand full of peoples trust, opinions, and research then go on about our day as if it is just factually the case, often without attempting to uncover the whole truth because we've grown far too busy as a society to actually keep that deeply informed. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruise_missile_strikes_on_Afghanistan_and_Sudan_(August_1998)
(I believe this is the incident he is referring to)

He also goes on about the campaign finance scandal and the broken electoral process they clearly have been taking advantage of and continue to do so to this day. Many things he's said over the years about the Clinton's and the general future of where things were going ended up being right as best I can tell.


----------



## monkeysuncle

Vermin Supreme or GTFO


----------



## bostjan

I miss the days when the amount of potential damage a candidate could do as president was small enough that I could afford to vote for a third party without guilt.

This cycle, when it ultimately comes down to Trump versus Clinton, I hope people have the guts to vote out a majority of the republicans and democrats alike, from congress, and remove the power the parties hold.

Remember that you vote for whomever you like best. Voting for a party gives too much power to an unnecessary political machine. If Clinton and Trump run as Democrat and Republican, and there is a third option of someone who is at least halfway honest and halfway level headed and with more intelligence than termite, NOT voting for the third option is giving into the boogey man. The trouble is that this boogey man is real as long as the majority of voters think he's real.


----------



## Randy

*sigh*

Where was Bernie? - Album on Imgur


----------



## cwhitey2

cwhitey2 said:


> I honestly don't think she Hillary will run but thats just my
> 
> That being said, I would vote for her in a heart beat. She's less of a nut job than 95% of the candidates so that's a plus in my book.
> 
> Her experience is pretty tough to beat.





I must have been stoned when I originally posted this.

I will most certainly not be voting for her. That's fact.


----------



## Captain Butterscotch

Randy said:


> *sigh*
> 
> Where was Bernie? - Album on Imgur



It's almost as if she doesn't realize that there is a magical place where we can find anything imaginable in the sum of human knowledge right at our fingertips. Goddammit, Hillary. /drunkpost


----------



## vilk

^people who would vote for Hillary are the kind of people who don't know how to use computers for that kind of thing.


----------



## JPhoenix19

Captain Butterscotch said:


> It's almost as if she doesn't realize that there is a magical place where we can find anything imaginable in the sum of human knowledge right at our fingertips. Goddammit, Hillary. /drunkpost



Sounds like sorcery to me.


----------



## bostjan

Randy said:


> *sigh*
> 
> Where was Bernie? - Album on Imgur



[satire]


Hilary said:


> I did not have political relations with that congressman, Mr. Sanders


[/satire]


----------



## celticelk

vilk said:


> ^people who would vote for Hillary are the kind of people who don't know how to use computers for that kind of thing.



Ahem. Standing right here.


----------



## vilk

I was trying to make an old people joke. Are you an old man?


----------



## Randy

celticelk said:


> Ahem. Standing right here.



Well, since you've chosen to make your presence and your preference known...



Randy said:


> *sigh*
> 
> Where was Bernie? - Album on Imgur



I don't mean this rhetorically... as a Hillary supporter, how do you resolve that?


----------



## JamesM

Hillary is the perfect politician in a pre-Internet age.


----------



## celticelk

vilk said:


> I was trying to make an old people joke. Are you an old man?



Depends on your definition. I'm a 41-year-old librarian. Finding things on the Internet is literally my day job. So, no, not all Clinton supporters are senior citizens who don't understand how the Internet works.


----------



## celticelk

Randy said:


> I don't mean this rhetorically... as a Hillary supporter, how do you resolve that?



You've never made a mistake speaking off the cuff? It's embarrassing, yeah. It was also twenty years ago, and I bet she signed a lot of those.


----------



## bostjan

celticelk said:


> You've never made a mistake speaking off the cuff? It's embarrassing, yeah. It was also twenty years ago, and I bet she signed a lot of those.



Off the cuff remarks are the media's favourite this time of year. I think the argument that the comment was spontaneous is not really a strong one, in my opinion.

Actually, this particular gaffe is more a comical thing than a serious thing to me. It's the combination of her remarks about dodging sniper fire in Bosnia, her record on supporting gay marriage, her emails back and forth with her husband (who claimed to have only used email a couple times), and this, as well as her decades-long track record of fibbing needlessly, as well as the corruption that's surrounded her, that makes her a terrible choice to elect as president.

Some other funny Hillary quotes:

"I was named after Sir Edmund Hillary" (who became famous when she was 6 years old)
"Chelsea decided it would be a great day for a morning jog and she jogged around the towers of the world trade center. She heard the airplane hit, she heard it she did. And she was saved because she had ducked into a coffee shop." (Chelsea was miles away)
"Who is going to find out? These women are trash. Nobodys going to believe them." (Regarding Paula Jones)
"He ran a gas station down in St. Louis... No, Mahatma Gandhi was a great leader of the 20th century"

Not sure what qualifies her as presidential material, but these gaffes adding up over the years give a strong impression that she is a pathological liar and also that she doesn't give two craps about regular people.


----------



## vilk

bostjan said:


> she is a pathological liar and also that she doesn't give two craps about regular people.



Which unfortunately is our status quo for elected officials, so people don't throw someone out just because of that. I can't believe people have such a difficult time fully wrapping their heads around the idea that politicians will say anything they think people want to hear, and they think about it as a job. It's their job to say anything they think people want to hear, at least in their minds. People may have become political leaders because of their convictions... but over the years... I find it very hard to believe that they continue to be political leaders because of their convictions.

I generally believe this to be true of all politicians. I was/am very surprised since 2015 that the more and more I read about Bernie Sanders I still don't really think that of him. I think he is still in it for his convictions, maybe because they've never been realized? 

I hope that if he gets the nomination that during general election campaigning I don't see my image of him destroyed. But I figure if that were going to happen it might have already? I mean his track record seems awesome compared to almost any politician I read about. And I've yet to hear him do the classic politician flip flop. Whereas Clinton ought to be walking around in flip flops. He's been ahead of his time for 30 something years so he doesn't need to flip flop.


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands

And it's over. He just dropped out.


----------



## Necris

Thank ....ing goodness.


----------



## tacotiklah

I love how the last few days of Ted Cruz's candidacy were of him blowing up at reporters when they finally did their job of holding his feet to the fire and asking him if he'd support Trump if Trump got the nomination. 

It's like he knew it was all over, and was venting his frustration at the media. To me, this whole election was a complete joke, but moments like that are the gems I'll treasure out of it.


----------



## flint757

I don't think I've received a single positive Clinton email from the DNC about this presidential election (but lots of emails). Every email thus far has been 'stop Trump' or 'stop GOP' or 'Vote Blue No Matter Who' (see the trend) and a few moments ago I got an email that they're starting a 'Stop Trump fund'. 

I guess even they realize most people are only going to vote Democrat this election because they hate the other guy more. It's both sad and hilarious really. Says a lot about Hillary's favorability rating. It's not 'she's so spectacular vote for her', it's 'he's so horrible, he has a slightly worse favorabilty rating'. The age old act of voting against candidates rather than for them. How far the Democrat party has fallen.

edit

Just double checked and yep almost every DNC affiliated email is a 'Stop Trump' and 'Give us your money' email.


----------



## MoonJelly

flint757 said:


> I don't think I've received a single positive Clinton email from the DNC about this presidential election (but lots of emails). Every email thus far has been 'stop Trump' or 'stop GOP' or 'Vote Blue No Matter Who' (see the trend) and a few moments ago I got an email that they're starting a 'Stop Trump fund'.
> 
> I guess even they realize most people are only going to vote Democrat this election because they hate the other guy more. It's both sad and hilarious really. Says a lot about Hillary's favorability rating. It's not 'she's so spectacular vote for her', it's 'he's so horrible, he has a slightly worse favorabilty rating'. The age old act of voting against candidates rather than for them. How far the Democrat party has fallen.
> 
> edit
> 
> Just double checked and yep almost every DNC affiliated email is a 'Stop Trump' and 'Give us your money' email.



Funny, the way you explain it, is exactly how I feel about it. We have these 2 candidates now, we're forced to ask ourselves, which of these 2 _really horrible _people is less _really horrible_?


----------



## celticelk

flint757 said:


> I don't think I've received a single positive Clinton email from the DNC about this presidential election (but lots of emails). Every email thus far has been 'stop Trump' or 'stop GOP' or 'Vote Blue No Matter Who' (see the trend) and a few moments ago I got an email that they're starting a 'Stop Trump fund'.
> 
> I guess even they realize most people are only going to vote Democrat this election because they hate the other guy more. It's both sad and hilarious really. Says a lot about Hillary's favorability rating. It's not 'she's so spectacular vote for her', it's 'he's so horrible, he has a slightly worse favorabilty rating'. The age old act of voting against candidates rather than for them. How far the Democrat party has fallen.
> 
> edit
> 
> Just double checked and yep almost every DNC affiliated email is a 'Stop Trump' and 'Give us your money' email.



I don't recall ever getting a Democratic fundraising campaign email that came across as positive. I think that has more to do with what motivates voters to give rather than anything about Clinton. (Anecdotes != data, of course.)


----------



## flint757

celticelk said:


> I don't recall ever getting a Democratic fundraising campaign email that came across as positive. I think that has more to do with what motivates voters to give rather than anything about Clinton. (Anecdotes != data, of course.)



Sadly you are probably correct. Which is an issue in and of itself, as clearly they've deemed it more effective than the alternative approach. This is damning for both the existing parties and the electorate at large, which is a bummer. I don't necessarily want a positive campaign, but I'd like campaigns to be less about defeating someone no matter who defeats them, and at what cost, and more about what a candidate has to offer. The negative approach clearly works though. It's how the moron Ted Cruz got elected here in Texas. Every ad was about how incompetent his competitor was and nothing else. While not many voted in that election those who did let him win in a landslide. I voted for his Democratic rival, but without proportional representation my vote doesn't matter much in my state. 

At this point in time Trump honestly shouldn't be their main concern [IMO of course]. I sincerely doubt any liberal/left wing individual would vote for Trump so it's a bit like beating a dead horse. If they really want to attract undecided and independent voters then they need to start convincing them now why they should bother voting for them, not why they should be concerned about their opposition. 

If in November I decide to vote 3rd party instead of Democrat telling me why Trump sucks isn't going to get me to change my vote. They need to improve their image rather than tarnishing their major opponents. If I decide to not vote Democrat in November it isn't the Republican candidate I'd be voting for.


----------

