2016 Presidential Election [Archive] - Page 9

Mantra

04-21-2016, 12:30 AM

Good article in The Atlantic: The Socialist Case Against Bernie: Eugene Puryear explains why Sanders isn’t revolutionary enough (http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/05/the-socialist-case-against-bernie/476409/)

Man...

On the one hand, sure, I agree. Obviously Sanders isn't socialist on a Chavez level. He's not nationalizing shit, he's not doing wealth redistribution, he's not doing anything particularly radical.

But still...So much of the stuff in this article is just the same old in-fighting and nitpicking that's plagued the far left for decades. I used to go to these anarchist activist groups where the only people who showed up were the same four neckbeards every week. They could pat themselves on the back for keeping it real and mainting their integrity, but I could care less, cause it's like a tree falling in the woods. I was heavily involved in a housing rights organization for several years that got so much flak from these types because we dared to "sell out" by having meetings with our mayor. So much of the far left is plagued with all this "more militant than thou" posturing, and I'm just burned out on it after so many years of being drowned in that shit. It's one of the reasons that I have so much respect for BLM, because they actually know how to get shit done and build up a legitimate movement that's bigger than like half a dozen people.

Bernie ain't perfect, Finland ain't perfect, but fuck, who cares? They're offering a path forward that's like a hundred thousand times superior to our current system, so I'll gladly take it. Chances are, given how conservative our country is, that we will never live to see the day when the United States resembles one of those northern european-type countries. If by some miracle such a thing happened, I would be incredibly grateful, and yet these people would probably just whine that it wasn't good enough.

Christ, I almost sound like a moderate, what the hell is going on here?!?!?!

allegro

04-21-2016, 12:53 AM

Capitalism is a tough beast, though, and those Nordic countries are still capitalist and aren't NEARLY as populous as us and they aren't as ghettoized as us.

It's like comparing the really-great security at Israel's Ben-Gurion airport to our airport security, except our air traffic dwarfs theirs.

And, personally, G and I already pay a fucking buttload in taxes but we gladly pay it because taxes that go to the betterment of society are worthwhile ... BUT UNAUDITED BULLSHIT WASTE LIKE PENTAGON CRAP, WASTED GOVERNMENT SPENDING, ETC.? DON'T GET ME STARTED ugh

You and I know the basic Marxist principles of capitalism: what makes it all work (what makes Wall Street rich) is CONSUMERISM. Want to fuck Wall Street? Stop buying so much shit. Americans are the biggest consumers on the planet. Mostly on CREDIT. Buying shit like they're 3 class levels higher than they really are.

But the increase in popularity of these "Tiny House" TV shows and the "Tiny House Movement" and people choosing to downsize, get solar panels, go off the grid, make their kids do "unplug" times, etc. shows we might be moving in the right direction, away from the McMansions and consumerism. And Wall Street will shit its pants.

When we were kids, we went door-to-door in the winter asking people if we could shovel their snow for money. Now, kids are so fucking lazy there ain't enough money in the world, and they are glued to technology. Mexican visa workers are mowing the lawns instead of teenagers. McDonald's jobs used to be for high school kids and old people; now people are trying to make a career out of McDonald's jobs. Wtf is going on? We need to get people out of those shit teen jobs, not pay them more to stay in them with no chance for advancement or benefits but, instead, help them get real careers or start their own businesses. We need to bring REAL jobs back to this country. Fast food jobs aren't careers or even real jobs, they're shit jobs. Always were. In 1978, you made $3.25 per hour working at McDonald's. Yeah, that was shitty then, too. This is Marxist consumerism at its very worst.

Mantra

04-21-2016, 01:25 AM

^Yeah, but come on, we gotta take baby steps in the right direction!

Look, I don't care about overthrowing capitalism. I mean, of course I do, cause that's the root of it all, but I also know it ain't never gonna happen in our lifetime. I'll settle for single payer health care, free college, super chilled out foreign policy, etc. I'm all about the compromise! Plus I like things that are tangible, you know?

Pretty sure we could get cool stuff like that in the U.S. if we worked for it.

allegro

04-21-2016, 01:38 AM

With Big Capitalist Medical Insurance having the control that it does, and our government doing such a shit job handling Medicare payments with Baby Boomers' medical bills as it is, I just don't see expanded Medicare (single payer) happening. We don't have the money, the system is just too populated. But I DO see forced competitive bid systems working, kinda like car insurance.

Free college, I think we need to force the public colleges to do that (at least for 2 years of community college). I've seen studies that show that government funding is one big reason why college tuition has gone up; because colleges know that government money is guaranteed to come in, so it's like insured profit. Like you said, corporatization of education, and government funding is a guaranteed income source so raising tuition is a no-brainer. Kaching. With college presidents making over $500,000 per year, with bonuses to get the school on the "Best Colleges" list, it'd be pretty hard for them to shift from "more students and profit" to "free." The next step would be "school closed" unless they shift to a truly NFP model.

littlemonkey613

04-21-2016, 02:07 AM

Post the NY loss:

Im a massive Bernie supporter but I am not bummed at all that Hillary is going to be President. Given the make up of our Amurcan electorate I take a huge sigh of relief that we have these kinds of candidates at all.

Like holy shit it aint lesser of two evils when the contrast is that stark.

That being said I look forward to Bernie continuing to make Hillary copy him and forcing her to b more politically progressive. (We all know its not her style to do so of her own accord lol..) . But having a President that you could pressure is not this terrible thing. Idc if a progressive agenda is committed to in order to "pander" to me. Pls pander.

Anyways Hillary is thankfully intelligent and capable, but its not the same as being special like Sanders (obvs) and Obama (#blesshim/ fight me).

But yo there are moments I want to vote for her over Bernie.. moments.. Like I swear she is so good at debating and just knows so much raw ass information she make Sanders stumble when HE IS IN THE RIGHT. I turn on Trump-Cruz land and see utter nonsense, so whip smart is very appealing. Do other people get that sense when they debate? Like I am 100% on his side but when she displays her thorough understanding of every subject brought up (even when its really small) its a little arresting. He gets tongue tied sometimes. The way she lies comes off more as something she "should" be doing bc her argument is shed be better at the job. Idk...I can't just ignore the validity of this inherent/abstract argument. It's more akin to the pragmatic problematic (but defendable) Obama lie than the Trump 7/11 muslims on roofs.

This race has been truly the most wtf and intriguing of my short span but dayuummm. :D And the way CNN advertises it like its some Boxing match....fucking lol

Swykk

04-21-2016, 07:45 AM

What I like about Bernie is he is right about issues and has integrity. He's ALWAYS been this guy. Hillary's history is spotty at best, she has ties to the wrong places, and will chameleon to fool people when necessary. I don't really care about Bernie Bros, I liken them to shitty Tool and Radiohead fans, they're annoying but don't affect my appreciation for either band (or Bernie).

Again, my logical nature won't allow me to be #BernieOrBust. I will not allow my vote to go to any of these republicans.

I would like my previous question answered, though. What is it about Hillary, be it her policies or anything else, that makes you believe she is better than Bernie?

allegro

04-21-2016, 08:13 AM

Again, that isn't something I feel I want to answer since it's info mixed with opinion. Go to her web page (which I linked) and read her stances on the issues and get that info for yourself and make that determination on your own; pretend it's 1992 (pre-web). Anything one of us says can spawn a useless argument; what you read on your own on your own time may be a lot more enlightening in your own way. Also, consider her many years of experience as Secretary of State. Maybe not "better" but basically the same but with some additional things.

Shitty Bernie Bros: it's not the same as a band. The people supporting this candidate will expect things completely the opposite of what I expect. Bernie Bros complain that Sanders believes in the "wage gap myth." No, it's not a myth: that was one single flawed study. But many Bernie supporters won't stand behind closing a wage gap they don't believe exists while many of US DO. This isn't the same as Tool. I want the President to DO something about it: the Bros think it's a myth. This isn't the case in Hillary's camp, no confusion over there. Ditto for other issues that mean quite a lot to me.

Also, read the articles I linked about Bernie's LGBT record and how he has spun his pro-gay marriage stance to say that he has "always" been for it, which is simply not true. And he was only against DOMA due to state's rights and not personal liberty. All politicians are full of shit on some level.

I do like Bernie's stance on Israel better than Hillary's but I think it's because Bernie has BEEN to Gaza and understands the plight of the Palestinians (he lived in Israel, Jews have to go back at some point) whereas Hillary only sees Hamas. But I think Hillary's stance can evolve.

littlemonkey613, Hillary's biggest strength is indeed her awesome debate skills (as is Barack's). She is awesome at debate. I did debate in school, and she never ceases to amaze me. Whereas Trump says he's never done it before, and it shows.

Swykk

04-21-2016, 08:25 AM

I have read up on her. I was looking for actual people to speak on it. I've made it clear both who I'm backing and why. I don't need to argue about it. It's more sociological (I studied Sociology when I was in college. Loved it) than anything else. You're not going to get facepalmed.
@allegro (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=76) You did say her experience as Secretary of State. Thank you, as that is the kind of thing I was looking for. And your edited in comments about the wage gap are also appreciated.

Mantra

04-21-2016, 10:19 AM

Is there honestly a large contingent of Bernie supporters who don't believe in the wage gap? I know wolfkiller made that comment a while back, but I've never seen anyone else in the Bernie crowd saying that.

allegro

04-21-2016, 10:20 AM

Swykk

04-21-2016, 10:22 AM

I am not one of them. A simple stats check proves the wage gap exists.

implanted_microchip

04-21-2016, 11:35 AM

So a bunch of representatives from the South (including Allison Tant from here in FL) wrote an open letter to Bernie over his extremely dismissive attitudes towards this region:

http://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000154-352c-def9-a557-ffbfbacd0000

Swykk

04-21-2016, 11:42 AM

Jinsai

04-21-2016, 11:45 AM

@Sarah K (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=3236) I find that a lot of Sanders' fans are doing the job of Fox News now.

Funny... that's what Clinton fans seem like to me. It's a lot of angry Sanders bashing, condescending to his supporters, and acting like he should GTFO and stop besmirching the good Clinton name so that it doesn't hurt her in the long run since she's obviously going to be the candidate.

Swykk

04-21-2016, 11:56 AM

Sarah K

04-21-2016, 12:03 PM

It's very interesting to hear different perspectives. As a 31 year old, extremely left learning person, I never see anything pro-Clinton on my social media. I'm literally the only one that I can think of. Haha.

I've not seen anyone bash Sanders, but the people who supposedly support him, while behaving in a manner that is anything but in line with what Sanders actually believes and stands for.

Jinsai

04-21-2016, 12:08 PM

I've not seen anyone bash Sanders, but the people who supposedly support him, while behaving in a manner that is anything but in line with what Sanders actually believes and stands for.

In this very thread we're seeing insinuations that he's responsible for ugliness that his supporters throw out, that he runs a campaign surreptitiously encouraging it, that he's all talk about being all about integrity but is actually a vicious mean spirited politician when he needs to be, that his record on gay-rights and equality is a sham... If you're not reading the anti-Sanders rhetoric from Clinton supporters, you need to skim through this thread again.

Sarah K

04-21-2016, 12:17 PM

Not gonna engage if you're just going to be condescending. Carry on!

Jinsai

04-21-2016, 12:35 PM

Not gonna engage if you're just going to be condescending. Carry on!

I'm not being condescending. Everything I'm talking about there IS happening in this very thread, and it's not isolated to this forum. The anti-Sanders stuff around these parts is nothing compared to the flare up I've seen recently on social media. You can't say that the attacks on Clinton are "doing Fox's work for them" without acknowledging the same is happening with attacks on Sanders. If anything, the claim that attacking Clinton in favor of Sanders is somehow a service to the GOP is ludicrous double-standard spin.

Sarah K

04-21-2016, 12:43 PM

I don't personally believe that either one of them should be attacked. Neither one of them are bad people. They historically have agreed on the vast, vast majority of topics. So this whole infighting thing is really strange to me, and is something I won't participate in. It's very disappointing to see many of my friends engaging in the attacks, though. I will say that. Like if you can't back up your stance of supporting someone without hurling attacks at their opponent, then I won't take you seriously.

(this is all a general "you", not YOU you)

I usually love the political process, and I'm excited for election years. This is the very first time I can remember where I can't fucking wait for it to be over. The left has devolved into behaving like the right, and it makes me exhausted.

Swykk

04-21-2016, 01:04 PM

While I don't agree with everything you said, Sarah, I do agree I can't wait for it to be over.

It felt like the primary build up and election politicking in general started a full year too early. At least. Maybe that isn't the exact timeline but it's felt like 18 months of this.

Dryalex12

04-21-2016, 01:08 PM

7/11 was a part time job.........

allegro

04-21-2016, 01:08 PM

She does get super defensive when confronted with things she's actually done (or not done).

I don't think ALL Clinton supporters are like that but it's happened and she certainly has reacted poorly to criticism but they kind of all do. I get way more annoyed when Hillary does it because, again, see the Tool/Radiohead crappy fans example.

Talking about how Clinton reacts and how Clinton SUPPORTERS react are two different animals. I mostly see Clinton supporters on social media just being "yah, go Hillary, we love you!" while the Bernie fans are just mercilessly bashing the Clinton supporters (and some are calling her a "cunt"). And this is when somebody like WaPo posts a picture of a Hillary fan and then a picture of a Bernie fan; the Hillary fan pic will get a shitload of Bernie supporters saying "WAPO OBVIOUSLY SUPPORTS CLINTON!" when they JUST POSTED A PHOTO OF A BERNIE FAN! I just don't get it. I don't understand why people can't be civil. But, I don't see that comparing this to band fans is any good because that's just silly to me (and not obviously sexist). Admittedly, I do see some Trump supporters in the comments section calling Bernie a communist. But that's not Hillary's fault.

Jinsai, a few of us Clinton supporters only recently came out on here as Clinton supporters and you're already accusing us of Bernie bashing. No, we aren't bashing Bernie. He's great. A lot of his supporters are misogynist pigs. You just don't see it because you seem to be only hanging out in an echo chamber among your like-minded friends on Facebook. Go follow Hillary on Instagram. And read the comments, but take a sedative first. You had mentioned why you don't "see or hear about" many Clinton fans. It's because they are sick of the bashing shit, sick of the arguments, sick of having to defend their stance.

I was pro-Bernie 5 years ago when people were pushing him to run for president. Somewhere along the way, he lost his plans. I'm a realist, I do financial and legal stuff a living, and none of his alleged "plans" make any realistic sense to me. I saw the mortgage meltdown on its way in 2005, because I'm in that business. But none of what he proposes would avoid it happening again. None of what he proposes re college would happen because the Executive Branch doesn't singularly have that authority and colleges are currently for-profit organizations with college presidents earning over $500,000. The single-payer healthcare plan he wants won't happen because our country can't afford it and people couldn't afford the high premiums it would require, and the Executive Branch doesn't singularly have that authority. It's the same hopey-changey stuff that got Obama into office. But people want that feel-good revolution hope kinda stuff right now, even if it is all total bullshit.

That being said, look, they're both running on the Democratic ticket; they're WAY THE FUCK on the opposite scale of Trump, Cruz and Kasich. And anybody who says otherwise is totally full of shit.

Jinsai

04-21-2016, 01:13 PM

I always abhor the wind up to the presidential elections. It's disgusting. This time though, if it's Trump vs Clinton... oh my god. I might just have to hibernate until November.

I'm also disgusted by the misogynistic bullshit from a lot of Bernie supporters, but thankfully none of them are showing up on my personal radar. I will say that I've seen some really cheap shots taken at Sanders (and his supporters), but it's all anecdotal at that point.

Sarah K

04-21-2016, 01:16 PM

I'll get more excited again when the primaries are over.

Clinton will be giving Trump a masterclass on debating. It shall be glorious.

Jinsai

04-21-2016, 01:19 PM

I'll get more excited again when the primaries are over.

Clinton will be giving Trump a masterclass on debating. It shall be glorious.

But are you ready for some HARDCORE misogyny to come flaring out of the floorboards? The ugly sexist bullshit is going to come stampeding out, and Trump will smirk while stoking the fires.

If you guys think Sanders supporters are shockingly misogynistic, just wait for the true horror.

Sarah K

04-21-2016, 01:20 PM

It's already been here from our side. So I'll be better adjusted. Haha.

implanted_microchip

04-21-2016, 01:21 PM

But are you ready for some HARDCORE misogyny to come flaring out of the floorboards? The ugly sexist bullshit is going to come stampeding out, and Trump will smirk while stoking the fires.

I like knowing that that'll only make it easier for Hillary to win and it will call a ton of attention to the issues of misogyny in America that people keep pretending don't exist. I like my racists and my sexists loud and flaring so we can all know who to point to, personally. A problem is addressed much easier when you can diagnose it.

Jinsai

04-21-2016, 01:24 PM

I like your optimism @kleiner352 (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=4417)

I'm not sure I share it though. You'd think the racist bullshit that greeted Obama would have been a moment for us to address those issues and heal racial divisions. It's instead become a passive-aggressive way of attacking his presidency, a way for racists to go nuts railing about how much they hate the president, when the word "president" is really just a euphemism for "black people."

Swykk

04-21-2016, 01:27 PM

Sure, but Trump gets murdered in debates now and then tantrums afterward. What's truly disgusting is it doesn't faze his numbers. That's why it'll still be a chore to watch no matter if it's Clinton or Bernie. In the republican side of things, THOSE selfish/hillbilly/Tea Party/racist/sexist/homophobe/Police Can Do Whatever etc assholes DO bother me. I'm disgusted that these people still exist in 2016. Hillary or Bernie will smoke Trump with knowledge but his base doesn't deal in knowledge or facts. That's what is truly scary to me. That Sarah Palin isn't shamed and laughed off when she says she wants to "debate" Bill Nye. That's a massacre to anyone with a brain....but roughly 47% of this country doesn't deal in facts. Some don't because it keeps their pockets lined and while it's disgusting, it at least makes sense. The other portion doesn't because they're hateful uneducated morons, and that isn't so acceptable to me.

implanted_microchip

04-21-2016, 01:53 PM

but roughly 47% of this country doesn't deal in facts.

I feel like you're being really conservative with that statistic

Mantra

04-21-2016, 05:58 PM

It's in Bernie social media comments all the god damned time.

HUGE number of comments on Facebook (https://www.reddit.com/r/enoughsandersspam/comments/4eii1o/bernie_posts_graphic_to_facebook_about_the_gender/).

Read the comments here (https://twitter.com/berniesanders/status/692103222987608064).

"They leave work to have babies, then there is a pay gap when they come back. It's their fault." What? Who the fuck quits to have a baby these days? Seriously? What is this, the FIFTIES? Most of the women I know come back to work when the baby is barely shot out of the womb. You have to be pretty rich to use no-pay FMLA after a baby.

Well that's fucking depressing.

I don't know, I rent a room in a big house with four of my friends, all four of whom are women and all of whom are hardcore Bernie supporters. So maybe I just have a skewed perception of things? I guess so. Most of the people I hang with are Bernie fans, and I don't really do a lot of social media shit, so I've never encountered that aspect of his supporters and am genuinely kind of shocked. I fucking hate it when when idiots are on my side. I realize that when you're a big candidate with millions of followers, it's basically just a statistical guarantee that someone somewhere is gonna say some bullshit, no matter who you are, but that doesn't make it any easier to see. Still, I only went to one Bernie rally, and everyone there seemed like good decent people. I wonder if part of this is just that the internet and social media brings out the worst in people.

And yeah, Hillary's a woman, and given the state of our shitty culture, I knew it was bound to happen that a contest this close would bring this shit to the surface.

At the same time, how much is this stuff is supposed to factor into my decision about who to vote for? Seriously, I really don't know the answer to that question myself.

I would argue that a decent amount of the comments leveled at Sarah Palin were pretty misogynistic, like the overall depiction of her as some airheaded housewife-y fool. Certain statements made toward her didn't sit well with me at all, but like, I'm not gonna turn around and support her just to take a stand against that, you know? Not that you're saying anyone should do this, of course. I'm just saying that, to me, these are separate issues. Lord knows Clarence Thomas has endured some racist bullshit in his time, and yet I still find his politics to be horrible. And what about Thatcher? My gut reaction tells me that identity politics shouldn't matter at all, and yet I'd be lying if I said I didn't still think it was awesome that we successfully elected the first black president. So...I don't know.

I think any sexism directed towards Hillary is totally unacceptable, but that fact in and of itself does not transform her politics into something that I suddenly believe in.

I don't know. I'm still trying to process all this shit and I'm basically just rambling, and also drunk and incredibly depressed that Prince died. Ignore me, I'm a mess right now!

orestes

04-21-2016, 06:07 PM

Newsflash: even people who recognize themselves as Democrats/liberals/progressives can be trash human beings.

DigitalChaos

04-21-2016, 07:34 PM

These people today are coming to terms with that fact that this country is not filled with people just like them.
http://i.imgur.com/w73QlLJ.jpg

... and then they contemplate how to achieve their goals when they realize they can't utilize the government to force everyone into their beliefs. For that fleeting moment they contemplate the idea of maximized individual freedom... but then it vanishes when they realize how much individual responsibility that entails :P

DigitalChaos

04-21-2016, 07:41 PM

Interesting, even Biden is hitting on the same thing I was, roughly, on the Bernie vs Hillary ideals and settling for "pragmatic" and short term goals.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-dem-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/04/joe-biden-clinton-criticism-bernie-sanders-222264

“I like the idea of saying, ‘We can do much more,’ because we can. I don’t think any Democrat’s ever won saying, ‘We can’t think that big — we ought to really downsize here because it’s not realistic.’ C’mon man, this is the Democratic Party! I’m not part of the party that says, ‘Well, we can’t do it.’”

“Everything I’ve ever cared about takes time."

Gee... someone should tell the Dems who can't see past the current election and are willing to settle for a giant pile of shit to "win" the short term.

onthewall2983

04-22-2016, 10:53 PM

http://static2.politico.com/dims4/default/2336ae7/2147483647/resize/1160x%3E/quality/90/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.politico.com%2F71%2F39%2F aa520ec54cf984f5c55c6ab5a455%2F1-kal-the-baltimore-sun.jpg

Deepvoid

04-25-2016, 06:34 AM

Mantra

04-25-2016, 09:53 AM

Cruz & Kasich joining forces. (http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/277463-cruz-kasich-unveil-coordinated-strategy-to-split-states)

Cruz will pull out of New Mexico and Oregon while Kasich will withdraw from Indiana.
Is that an unprecedented move?
From what I've been able to gather, if Trump wins Indiana with Kasich in the race, he would most likely end up with the required delegates to win the nomination.

Kinda weird that they think their voter bases are gonna be 100% cool with this. I know some will be happy to do whatever it takes to stop Trump, but not everyone.

For example, I saw this comment on the NYT article from a Republican:

"So let me get this straight, if i live in Indiana and support Kasich from adjacent Ohio because he's fair minded, coherent, logical and middle of the roadish on things like imigration , I am now supposed to switch and vote for a shrill, evangelical nut-job from Texas named Cruz. Really? Think I'll be staying home. Or maybe even vote for that other nut-job, who is atleast his own man."

implanted_microchip

04-25-2016, 10:00 AM

Cruz & Kasich joining forces. (http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/277463-cruz-kasich-unveil-coordinated-strategy-to-split-states)

Cruz will pull out of New Mexico and Oregon while Kasich will withdraw from Indiana.
Is that an unprecedented move?
From what I've been able to gather, if Trump wins Indiana with Kasich in the race, he would most likely end up with the required delegates to win the nomination.

Red or blue, left or right, moderate or extremist, we can all say whatever we want about this election but goddamn if it isn't the most Shakespearean, bizarre, layered pile of insanity we've gotten to wade through in some time. If this were a TV series everyone would be complaining that it keeps getting too ridiculous and unbelievable. Every week I think "Nothing can surprise me anymore" and lo and behold, here we go.

Cruz and Kasich teaming up like this is so dirty and disrespectful to the concept of voting and democracy but holy hell does it really just sum up the entire GOP's state right now. It's pretty amazing, in a highway overpass semi wreck kind of way.

Mantra

04-25-2016, 10:06 AM

If this were a TV series everyone would be complaining that it keeps getting too ridiculous and unbelievable.

Yeah, I saw someone recently talking about the new House of Cards season and they were like "Yeah, it's pretty good I guess. The biggest problem is that it's nowhere near as fucked up as the actual election. Honestly, why watch this show when you can just flip on the news?" lol

Deepvoid

04-25-2016, 10:28 AM

Kinda weird that they think their voter bases are gonna be 100% cool with this. I know some will be happy to do whatever it takes to stop Trump, but not everyone.

For example, I saw this comment on the NYT article from a Republican:

"So let me get this straight, if i live in Indiana and support Kasich from adjacent Ohio because he's fair minded, coherent, logical and middle of the roadish on things like imigration , I am now supposed to switch and vote for a shrill, evangelical nut-job from Texas named Cruz. Really? Think I'll be staying home. Or maybe even vote for that other nut-job, who is atleast his own man."

Kasich is a moderate Republican who just made a deal with far-right Republican. Makes no sense.
I agree that his voter base won't likely support Cruz.
What a circus!

DigitalChaos

04-25-2016, 07:40 PM

http://i.imgur.com/xThgTgh.jpg

implanted_microchip

04-26-2016, 12:58 PM

So it's Ultra Tuesday, what's everyone expect to see happen?

I'll be shocked if anything different happens on the Democrat side beyond Hillary sweeping all but Rhode Island. Bernie fans that are still around at this point will probably act like he still has a chance somehow using odd comparisons to Obama in 08 and saying that it's the delegate system failing despite Hillary having the majority of the popular vote, will probably continue to treat Hillary supporters like we're supporting Honorable Chairman Mao and nothing much will change.

I also expect Trump to crush it on the Republican side of things and Cruz will continue to ignore his own statements about the math mattering and will focus on Indiana. Much like the Dems at this point, we'll see nothing change and people will continue to dig themselves deeper into whichever hole they've chosen.

elevenism

04-26-2016, 02:05 PM

This republican primary is the fucking election of a lifetime.
it's by far the most entertaining and engaging i've seen in my 35 years.
candidates forming alliances smacks of CHEATING, for fuck's sake. I can't get enough of it.

allegro

04-26-2016, 02:13 PM

this is a big one tonight but G and I are seeing Martin Barre (https://www.facebook.com/events/1577326219259169/). and G will be constantly checking his smartphone for results during the show, LOL.

Deepvoid

04-26-2016, 06:58 PM

You guys are 6 months away from a potential Trump presidency. How is exciting is that? ;)

implanted_microchip

04-26-2016, 07:09 PM

You guys are 6 months away from a potential Trump presidency. How is exciting is that? ;)
It's like the political equivalent to a nightlong molly and coke binge while facing the cruel unflattering rays of dawn's early and mounting light without any sunglasses

Deepvoid

04-26-2016, 07:13 PM

It's like the political equivalent to a nightlong molly and coke binge while facing the cruel unflattering rays of dawn's early and mounting light without any sunglasses

Lol

Funny they just announced Trump wins in Maryland, CT and PA.
Clinton takes Maryland as well.

Mantra

04-26-2016, 07:19 PM

You guys are 6 months away from a potential Trump presidency. How is exciting is that? ;)

Sometimes I find myself thinking, "You know what, fuck it, let's just do it. Let's have 8 years of Trump. I want to see what this shit actually looks like."

It's like a scary movie, where you want to look at something horrible.

I don't actually want him, obviously. There's just a side of me that has a certain morbid curiosity. I wish I could see it happen in an alternate reality or something.

implanted_microchip

04-26-2016, 07:27 PM

So Jeff Weaver is now saying that Hillary uses language "reserved for traitors" in a new Bernie email and Jane Sanders got asked about it on MSNBC and acted lik she had zero idea about it. How the hell Sanders' campaign's people are so all over the place is beyond me. It's like there is zero coordination inside it.

Also them refusing to release back taxes until Hillary releases her Wall Street transcripts is just baffling at best and the way they act like those transcripts are just endlessly incriminating makes them a very bad thing to equate their taxes to. Considering it's literally standard practice to release their taxes it's just fucking weird and a questionably dumb decision at best. When your whole campaign is running on transparency and accusing your oponent of hiding too much, it's not a good idea to not share something every other candidate does and then say "we'll share it when they share something we act like will be campaign-ending for them." Just a series of strange decisions.

implanted_microchip

04-26-2016, 07:46 PM

Double post but holy fuck The Guardian's live results are so extremely weird

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2016/apr/26/acela-primary-live-results-election-democrats-republicans-maryland-connecticut-pennsylvania-delaware-rhode-island

Deepvoid

04-26-2016, 07:50 PM

Is Bernie dropping after tonight?
Does he have path?

GulDukat

04-26-2016, 07:58 PM

Is Bernie dropping after tonight?
Does he have path?
No and no.

Sweep for Trump, winning Conn, Del, Md, PA and RI.

Clinton has won Del and MD and is likely to win PA.
Sanders is leading in Conn and RI.
http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results

implanted_microchip

04-26-2016, 07:59 PM

Is Bernie dropping after tonight?
Does he have path?

"No" is likely the answer to both of these questions. If he was going to drop when it stopped being realistic he would have dropped a month ago. And I'm not sure what he's doing at this point -- he's not doing much for down ticket Dems, he's not really doing anything now besides taking money from poor people to ramble about the evils of free trade and Hillary Clinton and to continue delivering the exact. same. stump. speech. Nothing about his campaign makes sense to me at this point.

Also:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-gop-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/04/kasich-misses-oregon-deadline-222470

Bahahahahahahahahaha

This guy's supposed to be the competent conservative in the race. Either he's some mad genius doing insane shit or he's the goofiest of them all. He's in fourth place in a three man race with Rubio leading him in delegates for fuck's sake. I'm convinced his goal is to get his name out and run in 2020 as an "I told ya so" candidate after Trump loses fabulously.

GulDukat

04-26-2016, 08:08 PM

I think Sanders has every right to stay in until California, but he needs to lay off the attacks and asking people for donations. It's over, he lost.

Deepvoid

04-26-2016, 08:14 PM

He might have the right but there's just no point. Dems could get a head start on the presidential race by focusing all their energy on their one candidate.
On the other hand, GOP will continue self-destructing until the convention.

theimage13

04-26-2016, 08:26 PM

You guys are 6 months away from a potential Trump presidency. How is exciting is that? ;)

Like I want to move away before watching a biblical flood wipe the country off the map and let nature start over with the land.

GulDukat

04-26-2016, 08:31 PM

Clinton could lose the rest of the states and still win the nomination.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/clinton-could-lose-every-remaining-contest-and-still-win-the-nomination/

bobbie solo

04-26-2016, 08:35 PM

He will stay in until the end. And he should. And hopefully he will continue to raise awareness (and perhaps money) for true progressives in the gov't, not bought & sold establishment Dems. Let's hope that Hillary somehow gets indicted before the convention...that's all I got for him at this point in terms of a "path".

I'm pretty confident he would have won the nomination if he started building a nat'l profile years ago. People just don't know him and didn't have enough time to know him as opposed to Hillary that we've known for 25 years. I hope he stays relevant and pushes hard for progressivism in general, and Elizabeth Warren specifically in 2020/2024.

implanted_microchip

04-26-2016, 08:57 PM

GulDukat

04-26-2016, 08:59 PM

You have to watch this video, "Bernie math."
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NHS-K7OuLAc

elevenism

04-26-2016, 09:26 PM

He will stay in until the end. And he should. And hopefully he will continue to raise awareness (and perhaps money) for true progressives in the gov't, not bought & sold establishment Dems.

sure enough, and i don't think his sticking around is going "divide the party" by any means. Sanders supporters damn sure aren't going to flock to Trump.

and @kleiner352 (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=4417) , if he was gonna drop when it "stopped being realistic..." - it was NEVER realistic, imo. He's a protest candidate who surprisingly found that SOME of us who are "tired of the establishment" are LEFTISTS. He picked up a surprising amount of support, but i don't think he was ever viable, nor do i think HE thought he would be viable.

I think there was a point where he thought "oh shit we might win this," but that point is passed.

sick among the pure

04-26-2016, 09:31 PM

You guys are 6 months away from a potential Trump presidency. How is exciting is that? ;)

If Hillary gets the nomination, then we ARE 6 months away from that, no need to use the modifier "potential".

As for me, I've lived just over an hour south of Canada my whole life, and love the country. I may have to pay them an extended visit if either Republican wins, what with the not being a straight white christian male and all.

bobbie solo

04-26-2016, 09:47 PM

I actually think lack of recognition helped him. His favorables are what they are because no one's scrutinized him at a highly public level. The dude said bread lines in Soviet Russia were a good thing. Actual sentence he spoke on camera. Imagine Fox running that all day and him being asked about it in debates and attack ads plastering it everywhere. He'd be fucked with anyone over 30 (not that he already isn't). In general a candidate like Bernie couldn't win yet and all you have to do is look at his demographic dats this primary to see it. Romney was a lesson to the GOP that you can't win in America anymore by just courting white men and Bernie is exactly that, but even more niche due to age groups.

And he's so far done extremely little support progressive candidates running for Congress. Like, at all. Meanwhile Hillary supports, endorses and raises millions for down ticket Dems. If he shifted to doing that I'd be all for it but it's not what he is doing and he continues to pride himself in taking money from poor people to flush it down the toilet for a campaign with no real actual goal at this rate, because while they say they're aiming for the nomination, it's the one thing they certainly won't get at this point. The guy could do so much actual shit with the influence he has. So far, he hasn't. It's a major letdown to me. His campaign has proven so much of his common critics right -- sure, you have big ideas, but how are you gonna realize them? What are your specific goals? He's continued to be vague as all hell and it's only cost him more and more. It's a real shame because with better specifics and better communication and a better campaign he could have accomplished something meaningful.

Actually, alot of the money Hillary is raising for the down ticket players is being laundered by them & the DNC back up to her campaign. How things like this aren't illegal, or rather, aren't being looked into, is disgusting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycXwULveEnI

I have no problem with him not taking time out to raise money for the progressives down ticket. First of all, there are barely any of those. Second, he would have plenty of time to do that later if he actually won the nomination. Third, he really has needed to be laser focused on his own campaign, considering he had an insurmountable lead to overcome (and look, he wasn't even able to do that).

As far as him not being specific, this is pretty damn specific I think:

http://i259.photobucket.com/albums/hh317/BeeboBrink/ForumComments/How-Bernie-Pays-For-It_zpsdfjl4j8c.jpg

Furthermore, it's not really about him getting pretty much ANY of these ideas passed as he envisions them now in April 2016. No one with a brain think that if Bernie wins the presidency that he will automatically get free college and single payer healthcare for all. Come on now. It's about having a true progressive negotiating with the Republican House & Senate on all these various things from the far left, as opposed to negotiating from the center like Obama & Hillary.

We've gotten breadcrumbs out of Obama b/c he starts his negotiations from a compromised start. Bernie would fight tooth & nail for his principled liberal positions, so then when things shake out at the end, we get alot more than we would with a different president. And then think about his cabinet positions, judge appointees, Supreme Court appointees, executive orders, Commander in Chief responsibilities, etc.

GulDukat

04-26-2016, 10:10 PM

If Hillary gets the nomination, then we ARE 6 months away from that, no need to use the modifier "potential".

As for me, I've lived just over an hour south of Canada my whole life, and love the country. I may have to pay them an extended visit if either Republican wins, what with the not being a straight white christian male and all.
There is no reason to think Trump will beat Clinton.

sick among the pure

04-26-2016, 10:11 PM

It's about having a true progressive negotiating with the Republican House & Senate on all these various things

Not to mention he is literally known as the guy who is awesome at negotiating with Republicans to get progressive things done.

sick among the pure

04-26-2016, 10:15 PM

There is no reason to think Trump will beat Clinton.

National polls for the last few months straight tend to disagree. I think people underestimate how much Hillary is despised, and has been, for years, by people across the political spectrum. I personally know a few dozen people who are registered but have never felt the need to vote in the general election before that are planning on voting for whoever the republican nominee is because they hate Hillary. They are more terrified of Hillary being the president than I have ever seen the most blue-blooded liberal fear Trump. Pretty much any gun owner in America will vote against her, and there are a lot of hunters out there.

Would you rather bet on the person pulling single digits or losing to Trump, or the person getting a steady 11-20% win over him?

Mantra

04-26-2016, 10:33 PM

National polls for the last few months straight tend to disagree.

They do? In every single poll I've encountered, Clinton is always beating Trump, usually by a decent margin. In fact, I've yet to see even one poll where Trump wins.

Real clear politics (which has often had a slight conservative bias at times) shows this: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html#polls

That said, it is true that polls have always shown Sanders winning by a much wider margin than Clinton. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_sanders-5565.html#polls

implanted_microchip

04-26-2016, 10:37 PM

Yes he'd get so much done with his lack of any major allies from the Democrats in Congress where progressives such as Barney Frank even have shittalked him over the years as someone hard to work with who refuses to listen to reason unless it suits him. I'm sure we'd see him pass so much when the party whose support he'd automatically need largely isn't big on him.

We've seen small progress with Obama because our entire system of government was founded on the idea of making it hard to get anything major done quickly and he had a gridlocked opposing Congress for the majority of his two terms. I get that most everyone here is a hardcore Bernie supporter but Jesus fucking God facepalming every post I make that doesn't just cater to your view is so unecessary and condescending. I'm tired of talking about the same shit with the same people who's goals keep seeming less and less clear. It's gone from "Of course Bernie will win you idiot" to just flat-out moral condescension and sore losing. Have fun in November being stubborn and unhappy.

onthewall2983

04-26-2016, 10:38 PM

Just happy Cruz got pounded tonight. I really hope he fails miserably in Indiana next week too.

sick among the pure

04-26-2016, 10:38 PM

They do? In every single poll I've encountered, Clinton is always beating Trump, usually by a decent margin. In fact, I've yet to see even one poll where Trump wins.

Real clear politics (which has often had a slight conservative bias at times) shows this: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html#polls

That said, it is true that polls have always shown Sanders winning by a much wider margin that Clinton.

http://www.baynews9.com/content/dam/news/images/2015/11/1/fl-decides-poll-nov-15-q-3.jpg
A local news poll, I'll admit, but it's not the only poll that has showed Hillary losing to Trump.

I don't know how far back I've been watching a dozen or so national polls, but Sanders has always had a double-digit lead over Trump, and Hillary has always had single-digit numbers (I think in one or two polls she's lost by like 3% or so). I wouldn't consider 3-7% a decent margin.

sick among the pure

04-26-2016, 10:41 PM

Yes he'd get so much done with his lack of any major allies from the Democrats in Congress where progressives such as Barney Frank even have shittalked him over the years as someone hard to work with who refuses to listen to reason unless it suits him.

Oh, so that's why he's known as the amendment kind and championed as someone who has been able to negotiate with Republicans for decades to get things passed? Ok, good to know. :rolleyes:

Have fun in November being stubborn and unhappy.

Have fun in right now being stubborn and unhappy.

implanted_microchip

04-26-2016, 11:25 PM

He's had three bills pass and two were to rename post offices. What an amazing progressive history of legislation. He and Hillary's voting records are 95% identical but clearly one is Socialist Jesus and the other is just Hitler 2.0.

God I loathe young white male libertarian culture.

And I'm chronically unhappy but politically I am very happy as a Hillary supporter except for when I'm in this thread with people who think pictures of the word "cuck" are quality posts and looking at facebook comments of idiots who don't understand delegate math.

Mantra

04-26-2016, 11:30 PM

A local news poll, I'll admit, but it's not the only poll that has showed Hillary losing to Trump.

I don't know how far back I've been watching a dozen or so national polls, but Sanders has always had a double-digit lead over Trump, and Hillary has always had single-digit numbers (I think in one or two polls she's lost by like 3% or so). I wouldn't consider 3-7% a decent margin.

Okay, but in the name of accuracy, this is a far cry from your statement that "National polls for the last few months straight tend to disagree" and your earlier statement that if Clinton gets the nomination it's over and Trump has already won. So far this year, Clinton has only lost one national poll against Trump. The low end of the spectrum shows her beating him by a few percentage points, and the high end is in the double digits. The current average of ALL polls has Clinton winning by an 8.5% margin over Trump, while Sanders' average margin over Trump is 15.2%. So the claim that Sanders would defeat Trump by a much wider margin than Clinton is absolutely correct, but the claim that Trump would somehow beat Clinton is definitely not. At least, not according to all the polls.

sick among the pure

04-26-2016, 11:42 PM

God I loathe young white male libertarian culture.

Hi, I'm not young, I'm not white, and I'm a transexual. But thanks for assuming Bernie supporters are stupid young white boys.

sick among the pure

04-26-2016, 11:47 PM

The low end of the spectrum shows her beating him by a few percentage points, and the high end is in the double digits. The current average of ALL polls has Clinton winning by an 8.5% margin over Trump, while Sanders' average margin over Trump is 15.2%. So the claim that Sanders would defeat Trump by a much wider margin than Clinton is absolutely correct, but the claim that Trump would somehow beat Clinton is definitely not. At least, not according to all the polls.

I've yet to see a single one of those "high end double digit" polls you mentioned. Mind linking me?
Also, I've seen her low end with her losing.
"Trump Best: H-254 T-284 Trump by 30 EV"

Mantra

04-27-2016, 12:05 AM

I've yet to see a single one of those "high end double digit" polls you mentioned. Mind linking me?

Well, on the highest end of the spectrum, this one shows her at 18 points over Trump: http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-03-23/republicans-in-bloomberg-poll-not-sold-on-plan-to-stop-trump-im5c37sf

Most polls aren't nearly that high though. Not sure why that one is so far up there. There are some others that are around 11 and 13 points over Trump. But again, her average is 8.5% over Trump.

GulDukat

04-27-2016, 03:40 AM

National polls for the last few months straight tend to disagree. I think people underestimate how much Hillary is despised, and has been, for years, by people across the political spectrum. I personally know a few dozen people who are registered but have never felt the need to vote in the general election before that are planning on voting for whoever the republican nominee is because they hate Hillary. They are more terrified of Hillary being the president than I have ever seen the most blue-blooded liberal fear Trump. Pretty much any gun owner in America will vote against her, and there are a lot of hunters out there.

Would you rather bet on the person pulling single digits or losing to Trump, or the person getting a steady 11-20% win over him?
There have been no polls showing Trump beating Clinton, either nationaly or in key swing states. The fact that you know "dozens" of people who are "terrified" of the prospect of a Clinton presidency is anecdotal and irrelevant.

Clinton's approval ratings are under water, but Trump's numbers are even worse.
http://heavy.com/news/2016/04/hillary-clinton-vs-donald-trump-general-election-match-up-polls-favorability-ratings/

implanted_microchip

04-27-2016, 10:43 AM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHS-K7OuLAc

This is solid gold

Deepvoid

04-27-2016, 11:21 AM

I looked at the remaining primaries and I believe Trump will be clinch the nomination when he wins California.
He's missing less than 300 delegates. No way there's an open convention. Cruz & Kasich are delusional if they think Trump doesn't have a path.

allegro

04-27-2016, 11:35 AM

This is solid gold
Yeah, RhettButler linked that on the previous page (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/threads/3669-2016-Presidential-Election?p=299479#post299479) :p

Cruz & Kasich are delusional
period.

implanted_microchip

04-27-2016, 11:40 AM

Yeah, @RhettButler (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=3921) linked that on the previous page (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/threads/3669-2016-Presidential-Election?p=299479#post299479) :p

I did not see that because despite my regular claims otherwise I am not omniscient

However nobody's linked this great analysis of Trump's chances of winning Indiana that predictive god Nate Silver published today; pretty great shit:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/its-trumps-nomination-to-lose/

allegro

04-27-2016, 11:41 AM

I did not see that because despite my regular claims otherwise I am not omniscient
yeah it was kinda hard to see because he didn't embed it as video ...

Trump is spending a ton of money on ads in Indiana (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/donald-trump-ted-cruz-indiana-222513).

Swykk

04-27-2016, 12:13 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHS-K7OuLAc

This is solid gold

Remember the condescending/spiteful stuff @Jinsai (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=272) mentioned was happening in this thread a couple pages back? You just keep doing it, though. It's why the facepalms keep coming.

I also asked a valid question about why people here would choose to vote for Hillary. You didn't answer it but @allegro (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=76) did and @sarah (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=1154)_K kind of did. Let's try that kind of discussion rather than continually swiping at Bernie and his supporters.

allegro

04-27-2016, 12:37 PM

John Kass' column in today's Chicago Tribune (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/kass/ct-cruz-kasich-kass-met-20160426-column.html)compares the Cruz and Kasich alliance to Thelma and Louise driving their car off a cliff at the end of a the movie; he makes some pretty great commentary, here.

Oh, and the Koch brothers aren't really going to back Hillary (http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/koch-for-clinton-not-a-chance) (contrary to the current social media meme).

implanted_microchip

04-27-2016, 12:44 PM

@Swykk (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=285) I went into a lot of detail a while ago about why I support Hillary and pretty much the only interaction I got at all was from allegro and elevenism. It very clearly did not matter to anyone. Relatively short overview version of why I pick her over Bernie: She's extremely qualified, has a long history of supporting a lot of progressive legislation, is extremely capable, has a ton of important allies in the Democratic party and would have a lot of support from Dems when it would come time to try and pass legislation and probably knows more about what the presidency requires than any other non-president alive. She supports a lot of the same things that I do and the things that I disagree with her on are not dealbreakers and I don't expect to agree with anyone 100% of the time on anything. The major differences between she and Bernie are more symbolic than most things and I don't believe for a minute that Bernie would get half of the things done that he's constantly talking about. He simply does not offer enough for me beyond nice-sounding large ideas that generally are sketchy at best when held under scrutiny.

He's shown an extreme lack of preparedness in debates and interviews, regularly dodges questions asking for the ins and outs of his policies and many major economists have routinely critiqued and tore his proposed economic policies apart and yet he refuses to acknowledge any of it. Meanwhile Hillary has regularly and constantly shown that she's at her best when asked about specific policy and can go into great depth about how to achieve her goals. I like Obama, a lot, and think that his administration did a lot of good; Bernie actively tried to get Dems to nominate a challenger against him in 2012 and does not seem to have almost any real respect for his presidency or his accomplishments. I know that Hillary would build off of Obama's achievements and try to preserve his legacy; I don't think Bernie would do the same at all.

I also do not believe for a minute that he'd actually be such a solidly electable candidate come time for November. Every general election prediction during the primary season means very little and when I see these polls with these big numbers of how badly Bernie would beat the GOP I just see a candidate who's not been hit very hard yet with any criticism. Hillary has held back immensely because she's not really needed to attack him all that much. The GOP has openly said they would prefer him as a candidate and numerous Republicans suggest it. Why is that? Because they want to lose so badly? Bullshit. It's because they can run wall to wall ads with him saying bread lines were a good thing, saying that people loved Castro and all of the other questionable at best garbage he's let slip out of his mouth over the decades. America really isn't ready for a socialist, believe it or not. Trying to talk to many of my older family members about him who were actually progressive people six months ago was like pulling teeth because they remembered what the Soviet Union looked like and grew up in the era where communism = Russia. Whether that's accurate or not is an entirely separate debate because my whole point is that's what many Americans think of when they see that label.

Do you think any of the GOP would pull punches about that, at all? Not to mention his utter lack of foreign policy experience or knowledge and the fact that his answer to everything is "WATCH THAT VIDEO OF ME SAYING IRAQ WOULD BE BAD ON MY WEBSITE!" Meanwhile Hillary was the goddamned Sec. of State. Rubio himself said in a debate that if we made this election into a resume contest, Hillary Clinton would beat every single candidate in the field -- and for good reason, because nobody else has a longer history of high-ranking positions and getting things done. Whether you or I think it's a big deal or not, his utter lack of any real talk of how to handle ISIS would be a huge blow in general election debates. Imagine him going up against someone like Trump who has an extremely rabid way of discussing it in a country where sixty percent of people advocate torture of terrorists when Bernie will just be giving half-answers about how we need to get Muslim countries to form a coalition and not really offering anything that would emotionally satisfy anyone. Like it or not, that's what wins elections -- attitudes, feelings and perceptions. People may not like Hillary all the time but that's because she's been a high-ranking woman in politics for decades and statistically has had high approval during periods of not pursuing higher office. Whenever she tries to advance, people hate her, but while in a position she's generally liked quite a lot.

And this is not to mention at all the utter insanity of Sanders' campaign and the piss-poor coordination, the lack of inner communication and his seeming lack of control over any of his campaign officials or surrogates. He's shown an enormous lack of discernment in his picks of people to surround himself with and that doesn't inspire much confidence in me when it comes to his ability to choose an effective cabinet should the time come. I don't think he knows what he's doing and I don't think he ever expected to get this far at all. I think he's been running an increasingly desperate and increasingly hypocritical campaign meanwhile Hillary has been extremely consistent in how she's operated along the campaign trail this election and has shown an incredible control of her message and her general way of doing things. She looks like a professional, Bernie looks extremely amateur to me. The fact that people like Barney godddamned Frank couldn't stand him in Congress and he's only ever gotten three bills passed, two of which were to rename post offices only cements that opinion for me.

But almost any time I try to discuss any of this almost every hardcore Bernie supporter here ignores me or outright says shit like "the wage gap is a myth" or "she'd better get indicted" or "it's all a fraud" or "she'd be Bush 2.0" or any other absurd Fox News-level comment that Bill O'Reilly would give a big emphatic thumbs up to, so it gets pretty hard to bother when the echo chamber is so loud. If I'm not having enough substantial discussion it's because absolutely no one here besides a select few actually encourage it. All I get are extremely morally condescending appeals and get treated like I'm some colossal idiot for not thinking that Bernie Sanders is fucking perfect or that Hillary Clinton is just the absolute worst person ever and will make this country worse than Trump ever would. Watching people who call themselves progressives adopt the same rhetoric as Sean Hannity is just more than a little disconcerting.

And if you can't find good satire funny then that's not my problem, Bernie fans I know enjoyed that video even. If you've not seen the kind of people that it's parodying then I don't know where you've been. I also love that the broservative insult "cuck" is considered a fine and dandy post around here now but me linking a video that's an actually decent parody of the thought-patterns you can find in every facebook and reddit thread on Earth right now is me being spiteful and condescending. Got it.

Swykk

04-27-2016, 12:58 PM

Thanks for that. I appreciate it. I don't agree with all of it, but I understand your perspective better now.

As for the video? It's just one of a series of posts where you bash Bernie and his supporters, who are not all "Bernie Bros." It isn't necessary. Not here.

allegro

04-27-2016, 01:01 PM

Swykk

This is a great article re why Hillary is extremely qualified (http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/09/carly-fiorina-debate-hillary-clintons-greatest-accomplishment-213157).

Page 2 of the above article (http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/09/carly-fiorina-debate-hillary-clintons-greatest-accomplishment-213157?o=1).

See also her famous 1995 China women's right speech:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xXM4E23Efvk

See also this re How Hillary Move Trans Rights Forward (How Hillary Clinton Moved Trans Rights Forward).

In 2010, Clinton approved a passport policy that allows transgender people to change their status using a doctor’s note. Six years later, it’s still quietly paying dividends.

[...]

The Clinton campaign mentions the passport policy change on her website, of course, but with much of the country hung up on whether or not transgender people should be allowed to urinate in peace, that selling point may seem boring and bureaucratic to outsiders.

But for transgender people like the anonymous Illinois construction worker, the effects have been palpable. Over the last six years, the State Department’s change in passport policy has quietly influenced laws around government identification for transgender people—laws that directly affect employment, housing, and public accommodations.

Swykk

04-27-2016, 01:13 PM

It's the deep Wall Street ties and the war mongering. I've had enough of that shit.

As I said before, if she's the nominee, I will vote for her to stop Trump...but that's pretty much the only reason.

I wish Elizabeth Warren had thrown her hat in. I'd vote for her gladly.

allegro

04-27-2016, 01:15 PM

Trump doesn't have any Wall Street ties, and he's not a war monger. Go read that above John Kass piece. Very interesting. The media (backed by Wall Street money) is so afraid of Trump (and losing their money in politics) they'll spin anything to stop him.

This country's entire history, Republican and Democrat, is based on imperialistic war-mongering and big money in control, attempting to control other countries like puppets and placing military bases like Risk pieces on a board. Our founding fathers were all wealthy, and it's still that way. You can insert Jimmy Carter, Bernie Sanders, etc. but that doesn't change anything, really. Our history and military policies and financial dealings with the wrong people still make us a target which, in turn, leads us to retaliation.

Swykk

04-27-2016, 01:26 PM

Deepvoid

04-27-2016, 01:31 PM

Cruz will announce that Fiorina will be his VP pick. (http://www.redstate.com/brandon_morse/2016/04/27/looks-like-cruz-fiorina-ticket-go/)

implanted_microchip

04-27-2016, 01:40 PM

Cruz will announce that Fiorina will be his VP pick. (http://www.redstate.com/brandon_morse/2016/04/27/looks-like-cruz-fiorina-ticket-go/)

This is hilarious since a whole two days ago he was criticizing Kasich for talking about choosing VP picks this early

allegro

04-27-2016, 01:54 PM

Yes, while Trump has none of those Wall Street connections, his racism will place us in conflicts for sure. He's also a misogynistic moron and has terrible financial history (how many times has that asshole filed for bankruptcy?).
I'm not a huge Trump fan but I think a few of his off-the-cuff Archie Bunker comments have been spun as "racism" by the pro-Wall Street media when he's not really racist, he's just not always politically correct in a politically correct world (he's 70, even Nicole Wallace likens him more to a real-life non-PC Archie Bunker than a true racist). I don't think he's misogynistic for one second, and I'm a life-long feminist. Again, he just shoots from the lip and he is learning to think before he speaks. A narcissist who lashes out at people who piss him off? Absolutely. But saying a few bad things about specific women who piss him off does not make him a misogynist, nor does his saying bad things about males who piss him off makes him a misandrist; females want to be treated equally, not specially with kid gloves. Omarosa Manigault, a black female, is the Vice Chairman of his Diversity Coalition (http://ndctrump.com/who-we-are/). Trump's daughter Ivanka Trump is currently Executive Vice President of Development & Acquisitions at the Trump Organization. He employs and promotes far too many females to be considered a misogynist. As far as BKs, I was in that area of law for a long long time and he did not file personal BKs; they were business re-org BKs, Chapter 11s, to reorganize debts, which is far more common in the business world than people realize, especially after a huge downturn in the economy or in certain industries; Chapter 11 re-orgs are designed to save a business, not liquidate it, after a downturn in the economy or in that particular industry. That's not a "terrible" financial history in the business world; Chrysler has bounced back twice from Chapter 11 BKs. Fifty Cent did it as a strategy to not have a pay out a big settlement. (http://mashable.com/2015/07/14/50-cent-chapter-11-bankruptcy/#IlAkE.YDikqk) On the other hand, Bernie is anti-capitalism and pro-socialism and in my younger days I would have loved to have seen a complete revolution with socialism taking over capitalism but now that I've reached the age of reason (and have been in law for nearly 28 years working with banks and big business) I know that will happen when the Sun goes red giant.

Mantra

04-27-2016, 05:09 PM

But almost any time I try to discuss any of this almost every hardcore Bernie supporter here ignores me or outright says shit like "the wage gap is a myth" or "she'd better get indicted" or "it's all a fraud" or "she'd be Bush 2.0" or any other absurd Fox News-level comment that Bill O'Reilly would give a big emphatic thumbs up to, so it gets pretty hard to bother when the echo chamber is so loud. If I'm not having enough substantial discussion it's because absolutely no one here besides a select few actually encourage it. All I get are extremely morally condescending appeals and get treated like I'm some colossal idiot for not thinking that Bernie Sanders is fucking perfect or that Hillary Clinton is just the absolute worst person ever and will make this country worse than Trump ever would. Watching people who call themselves progressives adopt the same rhetoric as Sean Hannity is just more than a little disconcerting.

Kleiner, I always like reading your take on things, but I kinda feel like you're overstating things just a bit. You make it sound like you're really embattled here, like it's you against the hordes of dumb/hateful Bernie Bros, and I honestly don't think this is a fair assessment of things. To me, this thread has a pretty healthy mixture of perspectives. Some of the most active posters in this thread are Hillary supporters: you, allegro, rhet. There are other Hillary supporters who contribute here and there as well. There have been moments when all the posts on a page seem overwhelmingly pro-Hillary, and then on the next page or so it'll change to being more pro-Bernie. The balance kind of fluctuates from moment to moment, which I appreciate.

Regarding why you may get "ignored"...I can't speak for others, but at this point, I personally feel like it's kinda tough to discuss the Democratic side of the primary with you because your posts seem to get pretty angry and intense (at least that's how they come across to me; maybe I'm just interpreting the tone wrong). I've always liked you and would rather not get into a big fight with you, so I feel like it's easier just to avoid the topic altogether. I love discussing things with people that I disagree with, just as long as we can be respectful and chill about it. For someone who once claimed to be the "can't we all just get along" dude, I think you make a lot of really inflammatory statements against Bernie supporters, and I find this a little ironic, given that you're so critical of the exact same behavior when it comes from the Bernie crowd (and justifiably so). To me, a lot of your posts are filled with these straw man descriptions of Bernie supporters that do not speak for me and the things that I believe in, nor do they seem like sincere representations of all the Bernie supporters in my life, and it's just hard not to feel a little insulted by some of that stuff. I mean, you say that you hate it when people make these exaggerated statements about Hillary being worse than Bush, but at the same time you regularly compare Bernie supporters to Fox News pundits, which seems just as ridiculous. Do you honestly not see that the tone in your posts is kind of aggressive at times? It's just not conducive to conversation. I personally don't want to get into a big conflict, so I've just decided to avoid this whole area of discussion. I figure that this crazy primary is going to be over soon enough, and to me it's just not worth it to create conflict with people that I like and respect.

I don't know, I think this is just a briefly awkward moment for the board (and for the left as a whole, I guess), because most of us who hang out here are somewhere on the left-ish side of things and we're used to generally getting along and mostly agreeing about U.S. politics. But right now the democratic primary has caused a lot of conflict, and people have strong feelings about it all. I guess this stuff was guaranteed to happen. Just gotta weather the storm!

implanted_microchip

04-27-2016, 05:59 PM

I likely do the negative thing that a lot of people do which is that when I enter a conversation with people who have an extremely negative view of Hillary, I bring in the baggage of all my past conversations on the subject be they in person, on various websites or on social media. It hits a certain point where you get naturally defensive after having people say insane and negative shit to you for so long that you approach every situation with that defensiveness in tow out of habit, whether it's warranted or not, which I do apologize for.

At the same time if you saw half the shit I've had said to me by people simply for speaking remotely positively about Hillary you'd definitely get why. Even when I considered myself pro-Bernie, I had no ill will towards Hillary and found myself being mocked, derided and even accused of being a "shill" for not saying she's a war criminal closet conservative who belongs in prison instead of a lifelong advocate for women's rights and an effective incrimental progressive who has delivered more than disappointed. I've had people in real life who don't even vote actually yell at me over saying I like her and quoting facebook memes and hashtags at me as arguments. I've seen all sorts of sexist bullshit and been accused of "just trying to get along with girls" for supporting her. It gets very old and you get very walled off inside because of it. The incredible amount of people who call themselves progressives yet really seem to just support Bernie because he isn't a woman is nauseating. I know people who say they'll go Trump over her yet say they like Bernie. There are real progressives who like him and there are childish anti-establishment tools who just like whoever they think will "tear down the system" out of some misplaced sense of perceived injustice.

I just hate the toxic environment Bernie's campaign has led to and the air in the Democratic party. I hate that Bernie isn't a Democrat and has run as one and is now attracting people that want to hijack a party and disrespect it entirely instead of forming their own. I hate that I'm seeing so many people ignoring that we have a system designed for change to be incrimental and want to risk jeapordizing ages of work towards progressive endgoals in an attempt to get there immediately and ignore just how conservative a lot of America still is. It's like they see Cruz and Trump and don't recognize that they're not looking at people, they're looking at representatives of a mass ideology and millions of their peers. It's very frustrating to watch and see people implying they'd risk a GOP presidency just because they don't agree with a lady all the time.

sick among the pure

04-27-2016, 06:53 PM

I just hate the toxic environment Bernie's campaign has led to

I think that might be your problem. Bernie's campaign didn't create the toxic environment we're seeing in the democratic party right now. The democrats don't feel like the DNC cares about the voting irregularities and problems where people who have been life-long members of the party are being turned away at the polls and told their votes will not be counted. If they actually spoke up about all of the problems we've been having in multiple states, that would be a different story.

orestes

04-27-2016, 07:53 PM

A-fucking-men, sick.

allegro

04-27-2016, 08:27 PM

The democrats don't feel like the DNC cares about the voting irregularities and problems where people who have been life-long members of the party are being turned away at the polls and told their votes will not be counted. If they actually spoke up about all of the problems we've been having in multiple states, that would be a different story.
But the DNC isn't causing that problem; registered Democrat voters being turned away affects Clinton AND Sanders voters; they don't look at your completed ballot (they can't) and say "oh, Sanders, eh? Ok, then in THAT case your vote doesn't count." And the DNC has filed a lawsuit in Arizona (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/arizona-primary-voter-problems-dnc-lawsuit-221957).

DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz said the lawsuit is “absolutely necessary” because what the state did is “absolutely wrong” but will continue unless action is taken.

“Republicans are using every tool, every legal loophole and every fear tactic they can think of to take aim at voting rights wherever they can,” Wasserman Schultz said in a statement. “And what they’re aiming at is clear — they want nothing less than to disenfranchise voting groups who are inconvenient to them on Election Day.”

Here's an update on the NY situation. (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/hundreds-ny-voters-file-lawsuit-alleged-voter-fraud-article-1.2603876)

Numerous voters involved in the suit claim they looked up their voter registrations after the deadline passed to find that their party affiliation had changed from Democratic or Republican to “Not affiliated” or “Independent,” a switch that will bar them from voting in either primary.

DigitalChaos

04-27-2016, 08:52 PM

Jill Stein pens open letter to Bernie: Green Party presidential candidate invites Sanders to “cooperate on political revolution”

http://www.salon.com/2016/04/25/jill_stein_pens_open_letter_to_bernie_sanders_gree n_party_presidential_candidate_invites_sanders_to_ cooperate_on_political_revolution/

DigitalChaos

04-27-2016, 08:53 PM

man, Greens would get a lot more people if they dumped their wacky medical views and their ancient hippy perspective that makes them hate nuclear energy.

allegro

04-27-2016, 09:14 PM

man, Greens would get a lot more people if they dumped their wacky medical views and their ancient hippy perspective that makes them hate nuclear energy.

Yeah that's part of my problem with the Green party, too. We don't have the same storage system as friggin' Three Mile Island, things have greatly improved.

implanted_microchip

04-27-2016, 10:04 PM

man, Greens would get a lot more people if they dumped their ... ancient hippy perspective that makes them hate nuclear energy.

I guess you could say the same about Bernie then since he too is anti-nuclear

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/12/07/bernie_sanders_climate_plan_calls_for_end_to_nucle ar_energy.html

Jinsai

04-27-2016, 11:03 PM

Trump... is not a war monger.

He's only not a war monger because he's a real estate tycoon trust fund baby at present. I know he oscillates all over the place with where he stands on things, but it does sound like he wants to increase military spending, bomb the shit out of people, and kill the family members of suspected terrorists.... so that all sounds very war-mongerly to me.

Wolfkiller

04-27-2016, 11:11 PM

If you don't get why progressives have such a distaste for Hillary, you're likely uninformed and/or you're an idiot that's bought into the narrative that people hate her because she's a woman. Call Trump a dick and no one cares, but if Hillary gets called a cunt OH MY GOD SEXISM BERNIE BROS TOXIC PROBLEMATIC etc.

allegro

04-27-2016, 11:33 PM

He's only not a war monger because he's a real estate tycoon trust fund baby at present. I know he oscillates all over the place with where he stands on things, but it does sound like he wants to increase military spending, bomb the shit out of people, and kill the family members of suspected terrorists.... so that all sounds very war-mongerly to me.
He has repeatedly stated that we shouldn't have entered the war in Iraq. He wants to increase military spending to help the current vets and increase the standing military so we aren't sending people on 6 tours in current conflicts. He's said we would quickly put an end to ISIS if we bombed the shit out of their oil supplies, thereby drying up their financial source. He's said stupid shit about questioning ISIS terrorists to find more terrorists (btw Israel actually used those tactics he mentions in the past, particularly after the Munich Olympics). This doesn't make him bellicose.

If you don't get why progressives have such a distaste for Hillary, you're likely uninformed and/or you're an idiot that's bought into the narrative that people hate her because she's a woman. Call Trump a dick and no one cares, but if Hillary gets called a cunt OH MY GOD SEXISM BERNIE BROS TOXIC PROBLEMATIC etc.
But those aren't really the same things, they don't carry the same weight. And I don't see people calling Trump a "dick," although that whole small hands thing was a dick reference but the candidates themselves were saying it. "Cunt" is akin to "Nigger." Not the same as "dick." No, not all people who dislike Hillary are sexist; nobody here implied that, as that is faulty logic. I don't know too many people over age 30 who "hate" Hillary Clinton, that's an awfully strong term. But I think there is definitely an age gap, there, in Hillary followers. Liberals like her. Leftists, maybe not. But I guarantee you that if Hillary wins the nomination, Bernie will back her.

All of these politicians, even Bernie Sanders, don't have real jobs; they're politicians. Anybody who's ever lived in or even been to D.C. gets that it's not the real world they live in. We should all try to keep that in mind.

Jinsai

04-27-2016, 11:53 PM

I hate to be that guy, but the whole thing with the "C word" is a little dependent on location. That said, I wouldn't let it slide in a conversation about Hillary. It's kind of case dependent.

And just to say it, I've heard Trump called both a dick and a cunt.

implanted_microchip

04-27-2016, 11:55 PM

I keep seeing Sanders supporters implying all progressives don't like Hillary yet she has literally more votes than any candidate running and has almost all of the top endorsements from leading Democrats and liberals. It's a minority on the left that hates her so passionately and I don't get why people can't accept that when all the actual numbers prove it.

Her only weak demographic really is mainly amount young white guys, she beats Bernie in most others and almost any polling data and analysis will show you that, but then again allegro linked great facts of why the empty claim of Hillary rigging voter errors is ridiculous sensationalist bullshit and that seemed thoroughly ignored too. It's so weird seeing people on the far left who are in their own extreme acting like everyone else on the left doesn't count or doesn't exist. The parallels between it and the "true Conservative" idelogical purity tests of the Tea Party smongst Republicans are staggering and incredibly unencouraging to see.

allegro

04-27-2016, 11:56 PM

And just to say it, I've heard Trump called both a dick and a cunt.
You are spending WAY too much time online, dude, LOL.

Jinsai

04-28-2016, 12:03 AM

You are spending WAY too much time online, dude, LOL.

I think everyone does, but actually this is "overheard irl" stuff. Friends from the UK tend to use the word "cunt" a lot more freely than I see it from Americans.

allegro

04-28-2016, 12:12 AM

I think everyone does, but actually this is "overheard irl" stuff. Friends from the UK tend to use the word "cunt" a lot more freely than I see it from Americans.

That is true. And they call men and women cunts. It's not the same as here.

(We call both men and women dicks here, though.)

I get into pretty much zero political discussions irl.

onthewall2983

04-28-2016, 12:32 AM

I heard that it's actually a term of endearment in Australia.

Mantra

04-28-2016, 12:39 AM

I likely do the negative thing that a lot of people do which is that when I enter a conversation with people who have an extremely negative view of Hillary, I bring in the baggage of all my past conversations on the subject be they in person, on various websites or on social media. It hits a certain point where you get naturally defensive after having people say insane and negative shit to you for so long that you approach every situation with that defensiveness in tow out of habit, whether it's warranted or not, which I do apologize for.

Yeah, I can relate to this, because I do this all the time too. In some ways it actually makes sense, because after all, this board (and every other place) doesn't exist in a vacuum. This is one piece of a much larger conversation, and it makes sense to talk acknowledge what's going on in the larger context.

I just hate the toxic environment Bernie's campaign has led to and the air in the Democratic party. I hate that Bernie isn't a Democrat and has run as one and is now attracting people that want to hijack a party and disrespect it entirely instead of forming their own. I hate that I'm seeing so many people ignoring that we have a system designed for change to be incrimental and want to risk jeapordizing ages of work towards progressive endgoals in an attempt to get there immediately and ignore just how conservative a lot of America still is. It's like they see Cruz and Trump and don't recognize that they're not looking at people, they're looking at representatives of a mass ideology and millions of their peers. It's very frustrating to watch and see people implying they'd risk a GOP presidency just because they don't agree with a lady all the time.

I would argue that Sanders' campaign itself is not the true source of this "toxic" air. It's not like everything was just fine and dandy with the party until Sanders came along and corrupted everyone's minds. This has been in the works for a while. After years of centrists dominating the party, this was bound to happen. If it wasn't Bernie, it would have been someone else. Just as Trump represents something larger, speaking to a unsatisfied segment of society that can't just be wished away, so does Bernie. There have already been flickers of this type of thing within the Democratic party before. It'll happen again.

I wonder what's going to happen with all these Bernie supporters down the road. I'm curious to see if they grow up and veer to the center (which wouldn't surprise me), or if this is the beginning of a big ideological shift within the party.

Mantra

04-28-2016, 01:04 AM

John Kass' column in today's Chicago Tribune (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/kass/ct-cruz-kasich-kass-met-20160426-column.html)compares the Cruz and Kasich alliance to Thelma and Louise driving their car off a cliff at the end of a the movie; he makes some pretty great commentary, here.

Really fun/interesting article!

And this line right here...

"The Republicans are in full panic now, but later the Democrats will have their turn."

...It simultaneously makes me feel excited and filled with anxiety.

emptydesk

04-28-2016, 01:50 AM

Wolfkiller

04-28-2016, 04:10 AM

You're really hung up on this "dudes are somehow downtrodden" thing.

Aww you're following me now? Adorable. Are you always unintentionally so funny, by the way? Keep projecting, kiddo.

Deepvoid

04-28-2016, 06:17 AM

As for ISIS, Trump vowed they will be gone “very, very quickly” if he wins the presidency.
“Their days are numbered. I won’t tell them where and I won’t tell them how,” he said, repeating a line he’s regularly used on the campaign trail. “But they are going to be gone, and soon.”

I am the only one who thinks Trump would use a tactical nuke in Syria?
How can you get rid of ISIS very very quickly? Unless this guy is gonna pull some David Copperfield shit, there's just no quick solution to ISIS.

emptydesk

04-28-2016, 07:52 AM

I think it's safe to say that Donald Trump will not use nuclear weapons on Syria.

What he is doing is called "bullshitting"

allegro

04-28-2016, 09:40 AM

I am the only one who thinks Trump would use a tactical nuke in Syria?
How can you get rid of ISIS very very quickly? Unless this guy is gonna pull some David Copperfield shit, there's just no quick solution to ISIS.
He has said in the past (and this isn't some brilliant idea, here, as other strategists have said the same thing) that the biggest reason that ISIS is so powerful is because that have amassed such a huge amount of assets (by stealing the oil supplies in areas they have taken over) that they use to pay money to members; if you get rid of their asset supply, poof, ISIS is gone.

And a lot of what emptydesk said.

GulDukat

04-28-2016, 09:57 AM

Slightly off topic, but this might be helpful to some. We hear the words socialism, communism, capitalism and facism used a lot in this election cycle, but how many people could try to explain what they mean? Here is a good write-up.

https://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/engl_258/Lecture%20Notes/capitalism%20etc%20defined.htm

allegro

04-28-2016, 10:27 AM

Slightly off topic, but this might be helpful to some. We hear the words socialism, communism, capitalism and facism used a lot in this election cycle, but how many people could try to explain what they mean?
they didn't explain the difference between Socialism, Marxism and Communism very well. This one does (https://www.quora.com/Whats-the-difference-between-Socialism-Marxism-and-Communism).

Noam Chomsky explains that USSR was not a socialist country and explains what socialism really means:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4Tq4VE8eHQ&feature=youtu.be

GulDukat

04-28-2016, 11:03 AM

I kind of like the one I posted, kind of like "Political theories for dummies."

Anyone see Fiorina sing? Weird.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5By5FNb4ldA

allegro

04-28-2016, 11:05 AM

Anyone see Fiorina sing? Weird.
That's fucking creepy.

GulDukat

04-28-2016, 11:08 AM

That's fucking creepy.
It's the stuff of nightmares. Her and Cruz, what a duo.

allegro

04-28-2016, 11:14 AM

"Political theories for dummies."
That actually does exist (http://www.survivalplus.com/forward/page0006.htm)!

GulDukat

04-28-2016, 11:15 AM

Remember the condescending/spiteful stuff @Jinsai (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=272) mentioned was happening in this thread a couple pages back? You just keep doing it, though. It's why the facepalms keep coming.

I also asked a valid question about why people here would choose to vote for Hillary. You didn't answer it but @allegro (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=76) did and @sarah (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=1154)_K kind of did. Let's try that kind of discussion rather than continually swiping at Bernie and his supporters.
In a nutshell, she's pragmatic and has far more experience. I like Sanders, but his ideas are not realistic. Break up the big banks? Free public college? Universal health care? All good ideas, but you think Paul Ryan and his ilk will at all cooperate? I think Sanders is a decent, principled man, but principled to a fault. He comes across as an idealogue, while Clinton could actually get good shit done.

GulDukat

04-28-2016, 11:21 AM

He has repeatedly stated that we shouldn't have entered the war in Iraq. He wants to increase military spending to help the current vets and increase the standing military so we aren't sending people on 6 tours in current conflicts. He's said we would quickly put an end to ISIS if we bombed the shit out of their oil supplies, thereby drying up their financial source. He's said stupid shit about questioning ISIS terrorists to find more terrorists (btw Israel actually used those tactics he mentions in the past, particularly after the Munich Olympics). This doesn't make him bellicose.

But those aren't really the same things, they don't carry the same weight. And I don't see people calling Trump a "dick," although that whole small hands thing was a dick reference but the candidates themselves were saying it. "Cunt" is akin to "Nigger." Not the same as "dick." No, not all people who dislike Hillary are sexist; nobody here implied that, as that is faulty logic. I don't know too many people over age 30 who "hate" Hillary Clinton, that's an awfully strong term. But I think there is definitely an age gap, there, in Hillary followers. Liberals like her. Leftists, maybe not. But I guarantee you that if Hillary wins the nomination, Bernie will back her.

All of these politicians, even Bernie Sanders, don't have real jobs; they're politicians. Anybody who's ever lived in or even been to D.C. gets that it's not the real world they live in. We should all try to keep that in mind.
Trump has also said you shouldn't just kill terrorists, but their families too. He is advocating a war crime. He is also all for waterboarding, another war crime.

allegro

04-28-2016, 11:37 AM

Trump has also said you shouldn't just kill terrorists, but their families too. He is advocating a war crime.
As I said in another post, this isn't some brilliant strategy he made up in his head. Israel does it all the time, they did it after the Palestinian terrorist attack at the Munich Olympics and they've been doing it ever since, so do the Palestinians via Hamas. This doesn't make it "right" (Trump has since backed down on that assertion and has said he would do whatever his advisors think is best just like all Presidents do) but he is just mimicking strategies already employed. The U.S. commits war crimes every fucking day, btw. This isn't some new and novel approach. Blowing up a Doctors without Borders hospital because Taliban terrorists were in there, and then later going "Whoops, sorry, we had our trajectory targets wrong on our computers" is just too big of a fucking "whoopsie" to be a real mistake. Ditto for killing all of the family members of a terrorist via a drone at the terrorist's funeral. But NATO isn't going after us for a war crime, just like nobody went after us for Abu Ghraib, or for the literally hundreds of other war crimes we have committed, that we know about and that are hidden (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_war_crimes).

GulDukat

04-28-2016, 11:47 AM

What happened to Doctors without Boarders is horrible, that doesn't make what Trump said right, don't care if he's backpedaling now. He still made those comments. The fact that Isreal does something similar is irrelevant. The man doesn't know anything about foreign policy or history, and has no business running for president. The man and his campaign are one big, fat, bad joke. He's some asshole who inherited his money. If he had just invested it, he'd be a lot richer than he is now. So he's not a great businessman either. This man has no business running for president.

ETA, you made good points on collateral damage. But I don't see that as relating to Trump's canidacy. Both are bad.

allegro

04-28-2016, 11:53 AM

What happened to Doctors without Boarders is horrible, that doesn't make what Trump said right
I think a lot of what you say is judgmental because he is wealthy and inherited his money, etc. Look, these war crimes happen under Democrat and Republican Presidents. They happened under Clinton. We have to do something about ISIS; you know, the people cutting people's heads off in videos? Executing people in concert halls and restaurants? And family members are harboring them? What Trump implied is that the mere threat of family members being killed is often enough for family members to alert the authorities instead of harboring or helping a criminal killer.

Reagan didn't know shit about foreign policy, either, and yet he was President for 8 years. Hell, Bill Clinton was the Governor of fucking ARKANSAS and yet we elected him President.

The only one of these candidates who has foreign policy experience is Hillary Clinton. But she is probably more bellicose, in comparison, to any of the other candidates. She has publicly stated that she would gladly go to war with Iran. She fucking HATES Hamas so she has zero sympathy for the Palestinians. She wants a no-fly zone above Syria, and she CLEARLY DOES NOT UNDERSTAND the situation between Shia and the Sunni (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-sachs/hillary-clinton-and-the-s_b_9231190.html).

Meanwhile, here is an interesting article for you to read (http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2015/06/iraq-war-crime-army-cunningham-hatley-trial).

What we call "collateral damage" is often what the rest of the world calls "war crimes," e.g. killing the family members of a terrorist at the terrorist's funeral via a drone. Which happens, gee, all the fucking time (https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2012/02/04/obama-terror-drones-cia-tactics-in-pakistan-include-targeting-rescuers-and-funerals/). Never mind shit like Abu Ghraib. Or the above story.

GulDukat

04-28-2016, 12:13 PM

I think a lot of what you say is judgmental because he is wealthy and inherited his money, etc. Look, these war crimes happen under Democrat and Republican Presidents. They happened under Clinton. We have to do something about ISIS; you know, the people cutting people's heads off in videos? Executing people in concert halls and restaurants? And family members are harboring them? What Trump implied is that the mere threat of family members being killed is often enough for family members to alert the authorities instead of harboring or helping a criminal killer.

Reagan didn't know shit about foreign policy, either, and yet he was President for 8 years. Hell, Bill Clinton was the Governor of fucking ARKANSAS and yet we elected him President.

The only one of these candidates who has foreign policy experience is Hillary Clinton. But she is probably more bellicose, in comparison, to any of the other candidates. She has publicly stated that she would gladly go to war with Iran. She fucking HATES Hamas so she has zero sympathy for the Palestinians. She wants a no-fly zone above Syria, and she CLEARLY DOES NOT UNDERSTAND the situation between Shia and the Sunni (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-sachs/hillary-clinton-and-the-s_b_9231190.html).
Reagan and Bill Clinton were both governors. Clinton still had executive experience, even if it was AK. As for being biased because Trump is wealthy, I don't fault him for his wealth, I fault him for being an idiot. FDR, my personal hero, was born rich. He was also a governor of NY and cared deeply about Americans living in poverty. Trump is a reality TV star. He has absolutely no qualifications to run for president. You might as well have Axl Rose or Adam Sandler run for president, it would make as much sense.

Threatening to kill family members is still very, very wrong. And who's to say he won't actually fall through with it? Why threaten if you don't mean it, or there isn't a chance you won't act?

Clinton is too halkish for me, but things are complicated and she knows how the world works, unlike that clown.

allegro

04-28-2016, 12:21 PM

FDR, my personal hero, was born rich. He was also a governor of NY and cared deeply about Americans living in poverty. Trump is a reality TV star.
I am not going to change your mind, here, so this is a futile argument, but Trump was in real estate development wayyyyyy before he was a reality star. The only failings he had in business was when he delved outside of his comfort zone of real estate and into areas like casinos and a university or golf courses. But George W Bush was also a businessman who hired advisors to do everything and used his "gut" for absolutely nothing, probably because he didn't have one. Trump is still very very very rich, the wealthiest of all of the current candidates. He hadn't had any failures that made him insolvent. GWB used cronyism to a fault, hiring a ton of his dad's buddies from the old days and his old college buddies, all of whom were a friggin' disaster. Up until a few weeks ago, Trump was running the entire campaign and making all of the decisions and had a staff of about 8 people in a small empty room in Trump Tower. His platform includes all kinds of concerns for the poor, including bolstering Medicaid and Social Security and vastly improving the insurance programs so that poor people won't have to pay anything, and then he has that whole tax idea that anybody making under $25K will send a sheet of paper to the IRS that says only "I WIN." I think a lot of your ideas about Trump are based on little soundbytes and not about any of his actual ideas. Trump has executive experience, running successful multi-million dollar companies that employ thousands of people, the same thing that Governors do except even bigger.

Look, I'm not voting for Trump but my information about all of these candidates are based on information from their web sites, based on their actual stances and policy ideas and positions and from all of the debates and not what some talking head on CNN has posited.

Why won't Trump actually kill family members of terrorists? Because a President can't actually do that. A President has a Cabinet of people he appoints when he / she takes office and that includes a Military cabinet of advisors. If a President says "go kill some family members of terrorists," that President would be advised that this is a War Crime that violates the Geneva Convention blah blah blah; the President is not King or Queen with Absolute Power. The military is under no obligation to follow an illegal order (although they do it all the fucking time.)

Mantra

04-28-2016, 12:27 PM

GulDukat

04-28-2016, 12:32 PM

I am not going to change your mind, here, so this is a futile argument, but Trump was in real estate development wayyyyyy before he was a reality star. The only failings he had in business was when he delved outside of his comfort zone of real estate and into areas like casinos and a university or golf courses. But George W Bush was also a businessman who hired advisors to do everything and used his "gut" for absolutely nothing, probably because he didn't have one. Trump is still very very very rich, the wealthiest of all of the current candidates. He hadn't had any failures that made him insolvent. GWB used cronyism to a fault, hiring a ton of his dad's buddies from the old days and his old college buddies, all of whom were a friggin' disaster. Up until a few weeks ago, Trump was running the entire campaign and making all of the decisions and had a staff of about 8 people in a small empty room in Trump Tower. His platform includes all kinds of concerns for the poor, including bolstering Medicaid and Social Security and vastly improving the insurance programs so that poor people won't have to pay anything, and then he has that whole tax idea that anybody making under $25K will send a sheet of paper to the IRS that says only "I WIN." I think a lot of your ideas about Trump are based on little soundbytes and not about any of his actual ideas.

Look, I'm not voting for Trump but my information about all of these candidates are based on information from their web sites, based on their actual stances and policy ideas and positions and not what some talking head on CNN has posited.

I actually visited Trump's website a while back and there was nothing there. No dry, detailed outlines for anything. And yes, Bush was awful, but that doesn't make Trump look good by comparison. Real estate mogul doesn't make Trump qualified, and besides, his daddy gave him that too. And like I said, if he was so good with money and as smart as he claims he is, he would have a lot more money.

http://fortune.com/2015/08/20/donald-trump-index-funds/

And you are right, I am having a hard time looking at Trump's ideas and taking him seriously, because I think he is a fucking joke. A bad joke. His campaign and popularity are just plain depressing.

allegro

04-28-2016, 12:36 PM

And you are right, I am having a hard time looking at Trump's ideas and taking him seriously, because I think he is a fucking joke. A bad joke. His campaign and popularity are just plain depressing.
I'm kinda with Mantra, here. He's enough of a joke that I'm almost willing to give it a go as an experiment, because all of the other politicians in the last fucking 75 years have been a joke, too. So he can't be any WORSE. He's so outside the "system" he is a total and complete "fuck you" reboot to the "system." So much that the "system" is fucking TERRIFIED of him. Which makes me squeal with glee for some sadistic reason.

DigitalChaos

04-28-2016, 12:36 PM

Speaking of all THAT ^^^^

....are all Sanders supports going to pretend that he didn't just support the secret kill lists, drone bombings (where 90% of deaths are bystanders), and US troops in Syria?

The complete imbalance in news sites who are covering that are... telling: https://www.google.com/webhp?ie=UTF-8#tbm=nws&q=sanders+kill+list+drone

GulDukat

04-28-2016, 12:39 PM

I'm kinda with @Mantra (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=925), here. He's enough of a joke that I'm almost willing to give it a go as an experiment, because all of the other politicians in the last fucking 75 years have been a joke, too. So he can't be any WORSE. He's so outside the "system" he is a total and complete "fuck you" reboot to the "system."
The future of Social Security
The future of Medicare
Affordable Health Care
Appointments to the Supreme Court

Enough reasons not to vote for Tump, or any R.

allegro

04-28-2016, 12:49 PM

The future of Social Security
The future of Medicare
Affordable Health Care

Here's Trump's positions:

As Republicans, if you think you are going to change very substantially for the worse Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security in any substantial way, and at the same time you think you are going to win elections, it just really is not going to happen. What we have to do and the way we solve our problems it to build a great economy.

Social Security faces a problem: 77 million baby boomers set to retire. Now I know there are some Republicans who would be just fine with allowing these programs to wither and die on the vine. The way they see it, Social Security and Medicare are wasteful "entitlement programs." But people who think this way need to rethink their position. It's not unreasonable for people who paid into a system for decades to expect to get their money's worth--that's not an "entitlement," that's honoring a deal. We as a society must also make an ironclad commitment to providing a safety net for those who can't make one for themselves. Social Security is here to stay. To be sure, we must reform it, root out the fraud, make it more efficient, and ensure that the program is solvent. Same goes for Medicare. Again, people have lived up to their end of the bargain and paid into the program in good faith. Of course they believe they're "entitled" to receive the benefits they paid for--they are!

I would impose a one-time, 14.25% tax on individuals and trusts with a net worth over $10 million. That would raise $5.7 trillion in new revenue, which we would use to pay off the entire national debt. We would save $200 billion in interest payments, which would allow us to cut taxes on middle-class working families by $100 billion a year or $1 trillion over ten years. We could use the rest of the savings--$100 billion-to bolster the Social Security Trust Fund. By 2030, we [will have] put $3 trillion into the trust Fund, which would make it solvent into the next century. In addition to shoring up Social Security for the long term, I say it’s high time to separate Social Security from the general treasury. It is time to lock-box it and throw away the key. The rich will scream. Only the top 1% of people-those with a net worth of $10 million or more-would be affected by my plan. The other 99% would get deep reductions in their federal income taxes.

The solution to the Great Social Security crisis couldn’t be more obvious: Allow every American to dedicate some portion of their payroll taxes to a personal Social Security account that they could own and invest in stocks and bonds. Federal guidelines would make sure that your money is diversified, that it is invested in sound mutual funds or bond funds, and not in emu ranches. The national savings rate would soar and billions of dollars would be cycled from savings, to productive assets, to retirement money. And unlike the previous system, the assets in this retirement account could be left to one’s heirs, used to start a business, or anything else one desires. Privatization would be good for all of us. Directing Social Security funds into personal accounts invested in real assets would swell national savings, pumping hundreds of billions of dollars into jobs and the economy. These investments would boost national investment, productivity, wages, and future economic growth. I would never support what has to be the craziest ideas in the history of U.S. politics: allowing the government to invest Social Security retirement funds in the stock market. Not only would a market downturn spell disaster for millions of retirees, but the process by which government would choose stocks would also be entirely political, making lobbyists and other political hacks the new masters of the universe.

The Supreme Court of the United States has already decided through their most recent Opinion re the ACA that the President cannot overturn the ACA; only Congress (not the President) can AMEND the ACA but cannot completely reverse the ACA, since Congress created the ACA, and repealing the ACA would cause a "death spiral" of the insurance industry. But, in the meantime, here is his position on healthcare reform (https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/healthcare-reform).

Re SCOTUS, yes, that is my one concern but Trump is a Centrist disguising himself as a Conservative so he can win.

GulDukat

04-28-2016, 12:57 PM

implanted_microchip

04-28-2016, 12:57 PM

Pretty hilarious to read Boehner describing Cruz as "Lucipher in the flesh" and a "miserable song of a bitch." http://www.stanforddaily.com/2016/04/28/john-boehner-talks-election-time-in-office/

Kind of a fun reminder that establishment Republicans mostly despise Cruz too.

Honestly I was terrified for a few months that people were going to see Cruz favorably simply because it was so trendy to literally compare Trump to Hitler. People kept talking like Trump was the worst guy on the field but Cruz is far more dangerous and far more capable as a politician. Even the rest of the GOP can't stand him and yet he's able to get things done. I don't think Trump would be able to achieve much at all and we'd see four totally not good years that would be repaired relatively simply and little long-term consequences, but Cruz could really get some shit done and fuck things up disastrously.

Thankfully it seems like he's got little to no shot whatsoever at taking the nomination. I've been really hoping Trump would be the nominee just because I believe he'd be the easiest for a Democrat to beat and the least-damaging GOP candidate in that he wouldn't really do much of anything. He talks a lot, but that's all he's really good for, is talking a whole lot about what he "wants" to do. He attacks politicians of being "all talk, no action" but the only reason we can't accuse him of the same is he has no public office record. I can guarantee that while he'd be terrible, especially image-wise, he wouldn't actually do much of anything major and he'd be gone pretty quickly.

Granted I consider having any Republican in office to be like willingly injecting poison into my heart and I in no way whatsoever support anyone like Trump, but I think that most of his entire thing is a facade, a hollow game with nothing inside and we'd realize that very quickly in terms of actual policy and tangible actions. He's the empty suit he accuses every other politician of being and he has no real inside knowledge of how to work Washington and no real actual experience as a politician. He'd be bumbling at best. Someone like Ted Cruz really could get some heinous shit done.

allegro

04-28-2016, 01:11 PM

He seems to break Republican orthodoxy. Interesting comments. I know has vowed to replace the ACA, and maybe he can, with congress. But he hasn't been specific about what he would replace it with, just that it would be "great."

That link I posted points out the details of his ACA replacement (https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/healthcare-reform). Yes, he breaks Republican orthodoxy, that's why the Republican establishment hates (and fears) him and calls him a fake Republican and is trying to stop him.

Like, he said this at one of the debates:

Taking care of poor sick people isn't single-payer

Q: If Obamacare is repealed & there's no mandate for everybody to have insurance, why would insurance companies insure somebody who has a pre-existing condition?
TRUMP: Well, I like the [pre-existing] mandate. I don't want people dying on the streets. The Republican people, they don't want people dying on the streets, but sometimes they'll say "Donald Trump wants single payer."

Q: Will people with pre-existing conditions be able to get insurance?
TRUMP: Yes. Now, the new plan is good. It's going to be inexpensive. It's going to be much better for the people at the bottom, people that don't have any money. We're going to take care of them through maybe concepts of Medicare. Now, some people would say, "that's not a very Republican thing to say." That's not single payer, by the way. That's called heart. We gotta take care of people that can't take care of themselves.

GulDukat

04-28-2016, 01:20 PM

"Concepts of Medicare," but not a single payer plan? Doesn't sound too well thought out. How would he be able to do any of this with a Republican congress, even if he is head of the party?

implanted_microchip

04-28-2016, 01:26 PM

How would he be able to do any of this with a Republican congress, even if he is head of the party?

Simple answer: he wouldn't.

The dude has released pretty much no genuinely viable plans when it comes to these things and is all over the map in what he says. You can find him in interviews shouting about lowering taxes and then him saying that the wealthy need to pay higher taxes and you can find these quotes from since he started running. I have no idea what his ultimate goal with all of this shit is but he's been planning it for ages and it just continues to baffle me in terms of what he actually wants to achieve.

I will say I think he's been the most remarkable charlatan of the the decade and seeing intelligent people believe that he means it when he talks about shit like making Mexico pay for a wall amazes me. I've never believed for a minute that he actually thinks of any of this will ever happen, he just knows it appeals to a base of conservatives that love to be catered to and want unrealistic things. I expected those people to be fooled by it but a ton of smart intelligentsia type folks keep taking these things seriously and it amazes me. As allegro keeps pointing out none of this actual more concrete or better-documented specific views line up with the caricature he continues to play. Trump is not a person, it's a brand, and he knows it. Watching him make everyone get so outraged over imaginary bullshit has been both really entertaining and really disappointing because it's just shown how people really are easily swayed emotionally in one direction or another no matter what.

allegro

04-28-2016, 01:26 PM

"Concepts of Medicare," but not a single payer plan? Doesn't sound too well thought out. How would he be able to do any of this with a Republican congress, even if he is head of the party?
How can ANY President get what he/she wants without Congress? How can Bernie Sanders get single-payer without Congress? That's the magic question. (Answer: They can't. This is all just wish-list election speak. Presidents don't legislate; Congress does.)

You can find him in interviews shouting about lowering taxes and then him saying that the wealthy need to pay higher taxes
Those are actually two separate things.

Corporate taxes are known as "double taxation" because the corporation, itself, is taxed as an entity, and then the individual shareholders are also taxed (dividends). With other entities, this isn't the case. Corporations are taxed fairly high in this country so they resort to these legal but shifty tax shelters and loopholes which result in the corporate entities paying single-digit taxes, lower than what you or I pay. Or, they are moving the corporation to another country that provides a lower corporate tax structure. What most Republicans (and many Democrats) propose is lowering corporate taxes and REMOVING ALL LOOPHOLES or Cruz is proposing a flat tax and removing all tax write-offs for everyone. So Trump does want to raise taxes on individuals and lower taxes on corporations but REMOVE the loopholes and tax shelters and tax havens like the Cayman Islands for corporations. (I would also propose removing tax immunity status for churches. This would force the "church" of Scientology to pay taxes.)

GulDukat

04-28-2016, 01:35 PM

How can ANY President get what he/she wants without Congress? How can Bernie Sanders get single-payer without Congress? That's the magic question. (Answer: They can't. This is all just wish-list election speak. Presidents don't legislate; Congress does.)
I never thought Sanders would be able to. And kleiner352 is right, Trump is all over the place.

implanted_microchip

04-28-2016, 02:39 PM

allegro thanks for clarifying that, I completely missed that and it's a good point. A better example of what I'm saying would likely be his "women should be punished for abortion" which he then immediately walked back and his "we'll torture the shit out of them" rhetoric which he then also walked back (to a lesser extent).

The abortion comment confirmed all I ever assumed about Donald: he is $100% pandering, and pandering hard to what he thinks grassroots Republicans want to hear. It was exactly the logic someone who isn't actually pro-life thinks pro-lifers would support, because, objectively, if you think that abortion is murder and that a woman chooses to murder her baby then wouldn't you punish them like anyone else who commits murder? Of course, pro-life advocates would quickly clarify that they see women as much victims as the babies and that it's the fault of the doctors and society that encourages it (I'm pro-choice and disagree with none of this, just to clarify). But someone who doesn't actually understand their point of view doesn't know this and would just assume that end-game that Trump proposed.

His stances on most of these things are fabricated and formulated and him just saying what he thinks these people want to hear. All that time he spent on Fox & Friends from 2011 on was him doing his homework, feeling out what these people like to hear, building more brand recognition and then trying to cash in on it now.

Personally if I had to guess I'd say that what Donald Trump truly cares about is legacy. He cares about the brand. Listen to how he talks about Ivanka and his other kids. He regularly speaks of grooming them to control parts of his empire. Anyone here see Game of Thrones? Remember that first scene with Tywin Lannister where he's lecturing Jaimie about legacy and how all that matters is the name, not the man? That the Lannister moniker will outlive all of them and to stop thinking in such momentary, selfish terms and think of that banner being flown on battlefields generations from now? That, to me, is exactly how Trump thinks. The Trump brand is his life. It's his pride. It's his legacy. He knows that nothing would cement it like being president and nothing would set his legacy up for a continued future than that. I strongly believe that that's really his goal, and while he knows Democrats wouldn't ever go for the cartoonish tycoon that he is, that's exactly who Republicans look up to and respect -- so he tailored some views, changed some opinions, said some insane shit that they wanted to hear and now look how close it's gotten him. At least, that's my impression of it.

Democrats have severely underestimated the man and not given him the credit he genuinely deserves as a salesman, because he tells us outright that that is what he is: a businessman, not a politician. He talks constantly about tricking people in deals and manipulating people to get the better outcome. He literally tells us all the time exactly what he's doing to the voting base and they don't realize it and those of us on the Left seem to not realize it. I've been so surprised at how much Democrats have played right into his hand, but, then again, never underestimate the stupidity of the majority, right?

thevoid99

04-28-2016, 02:47 PM

allegro

04-28-2016, 02:53 PM

allegro thanks for clarifying that, I completely missed that and it's a good point. A better example of what I'm saying would likely be his "women should be punished for abortion" which he then immediately walked back and his "we'll torture the shit out of them" rhetoric which he then also walked back (to a lesser extent).

The abortion comment confirmed all I ever assumed about Donald: he is $100% pandering, and pandering hard to what he thinks grassroots Republicans want to hear. It was exactly the logic someone who isn't actually pro-life thinks pro-lifers would support, because, objectively, if you think that abortion is murder and that a woman chooses to murder her baby then wouldn't you punish them like anyone else who commits murder? Of course, pro-life advocates would quickly clarify that they see women as much victims as the babies and that it's the fault of the doctors and society that encourages it (I'm pro-choice and disagree with none of this, just to clarify). But someone who doesn't actually understand their point of view doesn't know this and would just assume that end-game that Trump proposed.
Well, that's true, he was saying what he thought pro-life people wanted to hear (because he's probably NOT pro-life, himself) and he doesn't know anything about the current pro-life policies which actually believe in going after the DOCTORS and never the women; vs. PRE-Roe v. Wade, women actually WERE arrested because abortion actually WAS a criminal act, so that's probably what he was thinking, because the guy flies without any flight plans and that has been his biggest mistake, he does everything extemporaneously because, for him, he believes that's his biggest asset, in using his adrenaline and his intelligence (and he actually is a pretty smart guy) to get things done. But in politics, you really need to study up on these issues and be PREPARED in advance if you are going to fake it (which most of them are actually doing). These media people catch him off guard and he's not prepared. But with his new seasoned staff on board, I don't think that's going to happen as much.

Business is an art form, and a game, and manipulation is a big part of that art form, absolutely. It's a big part of law, too. We don't view it as "trickery," though. Since both sides are obligated to perform due diligence. And usually the greedy are the biggest alleged "victims" of so-called "trickery." And he tells of this game because he has been playing it with greedy politicians who demand money for favors, which has pissed him off.

I don't believe he is trying to further his legacy, I've been in real estate for nearly 30 years, I've been in Trump's business circles for that many years (ha, I've closed condos in his Tower, LOL), and he's been saying, for over 30 years, that he has considered running for President because he is a concerned about the country and this is because it affects his businesses but also because he's a nationalist. He's a flag-waiving, national-anthem-singing patriotic nationalist, through and through. He's right when he says he could make a shitload more money by not stepping down from his businesses for all this time to make hardly any money doing this. This won't do much for his "legacy." It could actually hurt it. He's doing it to serve his country, and I believe he really means it.

implanted_microchip

04-28-2016, 02:56 PM

I have to say. That is an awesome diss towards Cruz. I'm starting to like Boehner even more. I think his time with the Pope broke the man and he wanted to redeem himself.

I'm not some major fan of Boehner but he was extremely willing to try and broker deals between moderates and Tea Party conservatives and regularly tried to make Tea Party Republicans understand that they could not just stomp their feet to get their way. He fought pretty hard against a lot of the obstructionist politics that has plagued the GOP the past six years and, while I disagree with him on tons of things, actually seemed like he had some dignity and belief in the system and tried to act like a goddamned adult which is more than anyone could ever say of someone like Ted Cruz. he also actually showed respect for people whose views didn't line up with his. So, you know, an extremely rare breed of politician known as "reasonably level-headed."

In general he seemed less about self-advancement and more about doing what government is supposed to be about, which is trying to help advance society in the way he felt was best, and whether I agree with his ideals or not, I respect that the dude seemed actually genuine in his desires to just better things for people rather than constantly being all about getting to the next level of the political ladder (which is all Ted Cruz is to me along with an insanely large dose of hardline conservatism).

allegro

04-28-2016, 03:16 PM

Ha, cut to 15:50 :)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmNN2MCJ-7U

Sallos

04-29-2016, 01:52 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7OBEQSlaPA

implanted_microchip

04-29-2016, 02:17 PM

Sallos if we're going down the Super Deluxe Vic Berger video rabbit hole then we've gotta go back to the classic:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7juO2fIPfw

Sallos

04-29-2016, 02:42 PM

dude don't even get me started, i've spent the whole day on his channel, absolutely hilarious.

implanted_microchip

04-29-2016, 04:28 PM

onthewall2983

04-30-2016, 05:21 AM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WsX9bG5f0F4

Frozen Beach

04-30-2016, 08:41 AM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4JWw8cTEN14
"peaceful" protesters. Crap like this is just gonna make Trump support stronger.

DigitalChaos

04-30-2016, 08:44 PM

What's everyone make of the violence at the Trump rally where protesters trashed a police car? There's pictures of Trump supporters covered in blood, protesters tossing shit at people and swearing at police officers.

Personally I've said this in the past when these protests have happened but I think all that's happening is we're seeing idiots who want to feel self-righteous acting destructively instead of constructively and giving Trump fans more reason to support him. The easiest way to make someone dig in on their beliefs is to treat them like shit because of them. All of these people could be peaceful or could be supporting someone they like or doing anything else that would actually be positive but are instead stirring the pot further and pissing lighter fluid on the fire as far as I'm concerned.

This helps no one but Trump whose supporters will talk about how "brave" he is to continue doing what he does when these people are surrounding his rallies. He was actually walking down a strip of highway today with escorts to get to a speech because of protesters. I know that if I saw Hillary or Bernie doing that because of protesters, I'd like them more than I already do, and this has the same effect for Republicans.

This is where I live. The "wealth inequality" topic has reached insane levels due to the local economy (middle class and below can no longer afford to live here and are being displaced). This is where you can find some of the strongest groups of progressives, and you can also find lots of progressive policies in action (aka failure). They definitely have no idea what they are doing with any of their protests. It's reflective of a LOT of entitlement masked in "social justice." These people are much more intolerant of others than any conservative town I have been to.

Wealth and racial inequality? Better block the subways for multiple hours to get attention... never mind the fact that the subway is disproportionately used by the very people you are claiming to "help" .. and now they can't get to their families or to their jobs that are much less tolerant of being late. Now the riders hate you and your cause! All those horrible rich people you hate dont take the fucking subway!

You think all those "rich techies invading the city" are causing your rents to skyrocket and displace poor people who used to live there? Better block the shuttle busses that none of the execs ride... and then vomit on the shuttle (http://recode.net/2014/04/02/splashy-tactics-tech-shuttle-protestor-vomits-on-yahoo-bus/). And be sure to vote down all sorts of new housing projects "because those are for rich people." Econ 101... fail.

I can go on and on with examples of the stupidity. But the story is the same.

DigitalChaos

04-30-2016, 09:24 PM

implanted_microchip

04-30-2016, 10:38 PM

And I am not saying these protestors represent other progressive groups across the country. However, a sizable portion of Trump supporters believe that the country is being taken over by extreme leftists who will silence anyone who doesn't fit their rules of political correctness. Bay Area California just showed all of those Trump supporters that these boogymen are very real. The republican news is going to blow this up. I have already heard of quite a few of the local independents, undecideds, or even the apathetic sit-outs talk about how they now want to hate-vote for Trump because of this. I can only assume that is going to spread across areas of the country who don't live around this kind of things and are getting new exposure.

And fuck, what's the point of these protests? CA isn't going to vote a fucking GOP...

Yeah, that's exactly the kind of thing I fear these things doing. It's so directionless and with zero real end-game. Most big protest movements on the Left in the past decade have seemed utterly directionless with no actual end-game. Something like Occupy Wall Street should've been impacting, but what was the actual agenda? You got thousands of angry people informed and riled up, now what? Or BLM. Is someone like Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton really the politician who's rally you should be bombing, really? What's the actual goal? What are they constructively trying to do?

I just hate that I see a lot of liberals taking step 1 and then thinking that's the finish line. Someone like MLK didn't just hold rallies, he met with politicians and major figures, he helped push important legislation and encourage the agenda of progress, he tried to build bridges instead of burning them down, and yet I see the exact opposite happening with a lot of these people. It's like they all think shouting at a dude in a MAGA hat makes them some warrior for progress or something. Not really, it just makes them a great propaganda piece for some windbag like Alex Jones to use against your supposed values.

I don't know, I get that there are tons of people that are angry, but they seem to throw out all common sense in their anger and it's disheartening. There's a lot of these people that might be able to channel those passions into lasting, meaningful change but instead they're just doing nothing constructive at all. Say what you will about conservatives, but those fuckers organize, and when they do they do it hard. They actually vote. They get shit done. Statistically there's less of them than there are people like me and yet they've been able to hold a majority in Congress and in turn actually have control and you know why? Because their people know how to actually organize with an agenda and so many of those of us on the Left don't.

It's part of why the whole "political revolution" thing falls on deaf ears when it reaches mine -- because I don't see the actual numbers proving that at all. I see lots of shouting kids coming out to rallies and being obnoxious ass all fuck on the internet but when it's time to cast a ballot, they just don't do it. They have a million excuses for it. I know a lot of young people here in Florida where you get weeks on end to vote in the primary and they all supported Bernie. Guess how many of them were registered to vote? A whole "none." And if I asked them why, and why they weren't voting, they had nothing but massively empty excuses. That's the cliche that so many Republicans believe in and they're only giving those beliefs validity. It's infuriating to me as somebody who actually wants to see constructive movements on the Left gain traction. I just see lots of people wanting to get the feeling of doing something meaningful without actually doing something meaningful. Real progress is secondary to their feelings.

elevenism

04-30-2016, 10:44 PM

It's true kleiner352

So many of these protests seem to begin and end with self expression. I have pondered this as well.

GulDukat

05-01-2016, 06:34 AM

Looks like Trump may have found a running-mate.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=W4QNXnNftWk

DigitalChaos

05-01-2016, 01:57 PM

@kleiner352 (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=4417) - you took the words out of my mouth. Exactly. It is quite a commentary on the validity of their politics too. If you can't leverage basic change in the political system you are trying to use, maybe you really have no idea wtf is actually good and viable. This is a place where "liberal" and "progressive" are becoming heavily split. There are some serious implications in that.

@elevenism (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=2475) - Honestly, there isn't much depth to ponder. This is the same category who feels they are entitled to whatever they can demand, who feels emoting something is sufficient justification, who has quickly embraced outright fascism. I have a strong feeling that this is the direction a lot of the other progressive areas of this country are moving. It's becoming increasingly hard to downplay the conservatives who believe the extreme left is trying to silence everyone who doesn't match a very specific mold.

aggroculture

05-02-2016, 08:49 PM

http://theslot.jezebel.com/ted-cruz-with-food-1774299090

Also: today went to protest Cruz appearing at some shitty restaurant in my town, saw him from afar. Lots of people chanting Lucifer at him, yelling at him to check their genitals. Fun times.

onthewall2983

05-02-2016, 09:06 PM

Looking forward to getting tomorrow over with. And watch Cruz finally go down in flames. In the home state of yours truly and aggroculture no less.

allegro

05-02-2016, 10:00 PM

Looking forward to getting tomorrow over with. And watch Cruz finally go down in flames. In the home state of yours truly and aggroculture no less.
Yay, kill his candicacy, Indiana!! Kill it!!! Stab it with a crucifix!!! ;-)

Edit: although that fucking Pence endorsement didn't help the cause.

GulDukat

05-03-2016, 06:06 AM

Anyone catch this? Cruz confronts protesters at a rally.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=aCZwhIgCtD0

elevenism

05-03-2016, 08:58 AM

i wanted an open convention, damnit.

It will, however, be nice to see Ted "not really from texas" Cruz get shut down

allegro

05-03-2016, 09:29 AM

Ted "not really from texas" Cruz
To be fair, he was born in Calgary in 1970 but moved to Houston in 1974 so he's been a Texan longer than you.

elevenism

05-03-2016, 09:47 AM

To be fair, he was born in Calgary in 1970 but moved to Houston in 1974 so he's been a Texan longer than you.

:( ............
ouch. that's a painful fact.
i'll shut up now :p

elevenism

05-03-2016, 09:54 AM

Sorry for double post, but did anyone catch what Obama said at the beginning of his final White House Correspondent's Dinner?

He said that this may be the last WHCD ever, and that the "end of the republic never looked so good."

This was not funny, and quite frankly, made the hair on the back of my neck stand up, especially since he insinuated that Hillary would be the next POTUS. So he thinks Hillary will "end the republic?"

I didn't like this "joke" at all, and don't understand what's funny about it.

allegro

05-03-2016, 10:22 AM

allegate

05-03-2016, 10:42 AM

GulDukat

05-03-2016, 10:55 AM

Anyone see Cruz's press conference just now? Tell us what you really think!

elevenism

05-03-2016, 12:18 PM

I believe he was referring to his own 8 years as President, sarcism.

i knew it would bring out the nutjobs.
considering the precipitous times in which we are living in terms of politics and the zeitgeist of a VIOLENTLY polarized public, however, i found the joke to be in very poor taste. allegro , as i've turned it over in my mind, i have come to the conclusion that he was jokingly stating that the country would fall apart without his leadership.
again, it was inappropriate, IMHO

allegro

05-03-2016, 12:58 PM

You misunderstood. It's a comedy dinner every year, it's NEVER serious. It was poking fun at all the conspiracy theory dingdongs (hint: there is not going to be an end to this republic, not with a negro or a woman), and I thought it was friggin' hilarious. I really loved this part:

"If this material goes well, I'm going to use it at Goldman Sachs next year. Earn me some serious Tubmans."

Didn't you see that year when he poked fun at the birthers by showing a clip of "his birth video" -- a clip from "The Lion King?" Bwaaahahaha!!!

Edit: Here it is:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=2bqEn8AXzJ4&app=desktop

implanted_microchip

05-03-2016, 01:16 PM

Taking anything seriously about an event where Stephen Colbert once, in character, spent half an hour roasting the entire Bush administration with Bush in attendance is pretty recommended against. It's not serious at all and of all things to get worked up about, this isn't one of them. Not everything is some grand conspiratorial event. These people really aren't that coordinated.

DigitalChaos

05-03-2016, 02:37 PM

i found the joke to be in very poor taste
dude, welcome to every one of these dinners recently. It's a bunch of rich powerful people in a room laughing at everyone who's not there, while also taking stabs at each other to make it seem "fair."

Drone bombing? LOLOLOLOL
Never closing Gitmo? LOLOLOLOL
Killing people? LOLOLOL
Have I told you guys I used to do illegal drugs? Oh man that's so funny because of all the people's lives my administration is ruining with those laws!!! LOLOLOLOLOL

Of course, they will claim it is "self deprecating" ... because people loss of life, liberty, and due process is allll about them! narcissistic fucks...

implanted_microchip

05-03-2016, 04:55 PM

God you guys come across as so bitter and read into everything as some class-structural power system trying to fuck you down and reducing everything to as simple and as evil a system as possible instead of recognizing it as a complex mess where no one person is in firm control. For fuck's sake.

Obama's tried to get Gitmo closed. He's supported lots of legalisation efforts of marijuana. The drone stuff sucks but what did we have before that, two major boots-on-the-ground conflicts? It'd be great if "no violence at all" was an option, but Jesus Christ on the cross, it is not that binary. Almost nothing is and that's a huge problem with our fucked up political climate and our dumb as fuck electorate: everyone thinks everything is black or white, a or b, binary as all hell, and it just does not work that way. Few things ever do. People really cling to their idealism and behave as if everything can be so simple and straightforward but it isn't. It's a lot more fun to be pissy and angry and upset and go "JUST DO THIS THING THOUGH IT'LL MAKE IT ALL GREAT I ACCEPT NO REASONS WHY THAT THING ISN'T DONE BRUHRURURURURUH" than to accept that it's a big, tangled mess. The system we have is like a pair of earbuds that have been carried in your pocket, then put through the wash sixteen times, but everyone behaves as if it's some perfect Rubik's Cube that can be simply and easily turned to make all of one side blue and all of one side green so easily, if you'd just look at their packaged instructional guide.

The presidency is only as powerful as the support it has in Congress and the Obama administration has had very slim amounts at best over the last six years, and the two where it did have support was mired in a clusterfuck of a time, desperately trying to fix the colossal mess it inherited as quickly as possible. I get that there's a lot of the libertarian/"my civil liberties" activists on here, but good fucking hell, calm the shit down for once. All you're gonna accomplish is getting yourself worked up and angry over something pretty harmless and innocuous. Not every single minute has to be spent in grave seriousness all the time acting like your asshole is clenched tighter than a prize-fighter's fist.

I swear to god there are people so hell-bent on criticizing every single thing whoever is president does no matter who it is. No one has anyone but themselves to blame for being let down when their expectations are so ridiculously high.

allegro

05-03-2016, 05:20 PM

Really, this shit is hilarious:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6NfRMv-4OY

Deepvoid

05-03-2016, 05:25 PM

allegro Funny you posted that clip just now. We all watched it this PM at work. Hilarious indeed.

DigitalChaos

05-03-2016, 05:32 PM

a complex mess where no one person is in firm control
How does this change the fact that the jokes are tasteless and at the expense of people who are being victimized?

If a CEO promised holiday bonuses, and then the economy fucking tanked and instead they had to cancel the bonuses to avoid laying people of.... and then at the company party the CEO is all "so how about those bonuses, am i right? lololol" ... do you think that would be acceptable to anyone?

It's really disturbing how people give passes to this kind of shit to political figures they feel aligned with.

DigitalChaos

05-03-2016, 05:40 PM

Chief of LAPD at the police ball says "How does the LAPD play poker?" ... pause... "Four clubs beat a King!!!" "ok ok one more... How do you say Rodney King in Spanish?" ... "Pinata! HAHAHA"

@kleiner352 (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=4417) says "bro, chill. The Chief is doing what he can to stop that kind of thing from happening. This shit is funny!"

implanted_microchip

05-03-2016, 05:53 PM

Oh that is such reductive bullshit and you know it. You're taking a complicated situation and treating it like it's an extremely simple one to a point where I can't have any sort of discussion around it.

If you really think the president has as much control over the entirety of all three branches of federal government as well as state as a police chief has over their department, then you just really, really need a better education, but I know that you don't because you're an intelligent person so what are you trying to achieve with that other than being uselessly facetious? For fuck's sake.

And it's not "passes." I could care less about light one-liners told at a dinner riffing on the political climate. I don't care. I really, really, truly do not and I think it's incredibly petty and stupid that towns in this country don't have clean water but people like you are complaining that you don't like a joke the president told at what is more or less a traditional roasting session where nothing is held sacred. How this is the thing of all things to be so upset about is beyond me.

On another note, none of this really has anything to do with this thread anymore, so to be more on topic:

Indiana results are now coming in:

http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results

Anyone could have guessed it but I'm totally expecting a Trump/Clinton win as per the usual in a state where it counts, then afterward anyone who doesn't like one of them in their respective parties will list a dozen reasons why it doesn't count or is somehow suspect and we'll continue on towards the pretty much guaranteed path which is a Trump v. Clinton match-up this general election.

Deepvoid

05-03-2016, 06:03 PM

Trump wins Indiana. Currently at 54%.

allegro

05-03-2016, 06:22 PM

Trump wins Indiana. Currently at 54%.

Totally expected, but fun nonetheless. Nothing makes me happier than watching Cruz crash and burn.

The "never Trump" folks are bitching. They're actually pro-Cruz religious nutjobs.

Deepvoid

05-03-2016, 06:54 PM

Totally expected, but fun nonetheless. Nothing makes me happier than watching Cruz crash and burn.

The "never Trump" folks are bitching. They're actually pro-Cruz religious nutjobs.

The GOP implosion is complete.
I know the Dems have a good chance to take back the senate but I keep reading that it'll be near impossible to take the House as well. Is that true?

allegro

05-03-2016, 06:57 PM

The GOP implosion is complete.
I know the Dems have a good chance to take back the senate but I keep reading that it'll be near impossible to take the House as well. Is that true?
The House isn't up for re-election right now, only the Senate. In two years, it may be possible with all this crazy shit going on. It used to be allegedly impossible due to gerrymandering and the SCOTUS gutting the Voters Rights Act, but who knows what the fuck can happen after all this shit. The Dems are next up for implosion according to many predictions.

Deepvoid

05-03-2016, 07:12 PM

The House isn't up for re-election right now, only the Senate. In two years, it may be possible with all this crazy shit going on. It used to be allegedly impossible due to gerrymandering and the SCOTUS gutting the Voters Rights Act, but who knows what the fuck can happen after all this shit. The Dems are next up for implosion according to many predictions.

I'm not that familiar with U.S. history but do you consider the current election cycle as an historical one in terms of all the stuff that is happening. Were there, in the past several decades, elections that had more turmoil?

allegro

05-03-2016, 07:18 PM

I'm not that familiar with U.S. history but do you consider the current election cycle as an historical one in terms of all the stuff that is happening. Were there, in the past several decades, elections that had more turmoil?
Well, 1968 was pretty nuts, where the clear Democratic nominee, Robert F. Kennedy, was murdered on the eve of the DNC. There was George Wallace, Eugene McCarthy, Hubert Humphrey, there was the DNC in Chicago with riots and cops beating protesters. Here, see this (http://www.pbs.org/johngardner/chapters/5a.html). See also this (http://www.ushistory.org/us/56f.asp).

edit: I've provided a second, better link.

allegro

05-03-2016, 07:35 PM

Oh holy crap is this Jesus Cruz's concession speech?????

PRAISE THE BORG!!!!!

Deepvoid

05-03-2016, 07:35 PM

Just announced. Ted Cruz dropping out.

allegro

05-03-2016, 07:38 PM

Indiana, YOU ROCK!! YOU KILLED TED!!!!

GulDukat

05-03-2016, 07:43 PM

And Cruz drops out.

marodi

05-03-2016, 07:47 PM

Indiana, YOU ROCK!! YOU KILLED TED!!!!

So long, Lucifer?

allegro

05-03-2016, 07:49 PM

So long, Lucifer?

He's still in the House being a total asshole.

implanted_microchip

05-03-2016, 08:11 PM

I feel like I just watched one dark wizard destroy another dark wizard, this election is beautiful and disgusting

Swykk

05-03-2016, 08:21 PM

Indiana, YOU ROCK!! YOU KILLED TED!!!!

On behalf of Indiana, I'd like to say, "You're welcome and it's about time Indiana did something that mattered "

I am more happy about Bernie winning than the death of Raphael.

Deepvoid

05-03-2016, 08:25 PM

Donald Trump: "We are going to win again and we are going to win bigly" https://t.co/qViiOsUosK

As someone said.. go bigly or go home.

implanted_microchip

05-03-2016, 08:34 PM

@Deepvoid (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=676) bigly just sounds like the name for a farm piglet.

Also props to Sanders' campaign, a win's a win. I'm still pretty confused as to why Hillary held back pumping any money into Indiana, it was a weird decision on her campaign's part and absolutely cost them the state.

allegro

05-03-2016, 08:46 PM

I'm still pretty confused as to why Hillary held back pumping any money into Indiana, it was a weird decision on her campaign's part and absolutely cost them the state.
MSNBC is saying that Indiana didn't matter a whole lot to Clinton at this point.

implanted_microchip

05-03-2016, 08:51 PM

MSNBC is saying that Indiana didn't matter a whole lot to Clinton at this point.

Oh, I'm well aware -- she could theoretically lose every primary and still get the nomination since Dems don't do winner-take-all and her need for delegates is far, far smaller than Sanders. Sanders is the one who needs to win every single one, and by wide margins. Also, open primaries favor him (kinda funny that a guy pursuing a Democratic nomination doesn't do well amongst Democrats, huh). I expect to see a lot of this being over-inflated as a victory by his fans when it still leaves them needing a whole lot more, which is extremely unlikely for them to get.

Regardless I still have no intentions of dismissing it as not a win, credit where it's due and all that jazz.

Exocet

05-03-2016, 09:21 PM

Is this election simillar to the Reagen Carter election of 1980?

In 1980 you had a hollywood movie star saying how much of a pussy the current president is..the Soviets had invaded Afghanistan.

DigitalChaos

05-03-2016, 09:59 PM

There is a long history of weird electoral situations. Hell, people were afraid Andrew Jackson was going to shoot up the place after he lost during a certain cycle.

CNN recently released a "Race for the White House" mini series that explores this kind of thing. I've seen portions of a few of the episodes (i think most are on youtube now) and they seemed decent.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/donald-liebenson/race-for-the-white-houses_b_9366176.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_for_the_White_House
JFK v Nixon
Lincoln v Douglas
GW Bush v Dukakis
Truman v Dewey
Andrew Jacson vs John Quincy Adams
Clinton v Bush

theimage13

05-03-2016, 10:01 PM

Well, 1968 was pretty nuts, where the clear Democratic nominee, Robert F. Kennedy, was murdered on the eve of the DNC. There was George Wallace, Eugene McCarthy, Hubert Humphrey, there was the DNC in Chicago with riots and cops beating protesters. Here, see this (http://www.pbs.org/johngardner/chapters/5a.html). See also this (http://www.ushistory.org/us/56f.asp).

edit: I've provided a second, better link.

This reminds me of something I've wondered about for a long time (long before the current election cycle). If a nominee were to die (be it assassination, accident, natural causes - whatever) extremely close to the general election - say, a day or two before - what would happen? Does the VP on the ticket simply become the new nominee and everything continues as it normally would? Is there any change in the time frame of the election? Sorry, not specific to this thread, but I figured someone in here might know enough about the process to answer that.

implanted_microchip

05-03-2016, 10:04 PM

Is this election simillar to the Reagen Carter election of 1980?

In 1980 you had a hollywood movie star saying how much of a pussy the current president is..the Soviets had invaded Afghanistan.

I don't think so since Trump isn't up against an incumbent and Reagan (as far as I'm aware) was not some highly controversial figure in the Republican party at the time. He's also regularly seen as "that actor who then became president" but that's reductive and skips over a really important step, which was being governor of California for, like, eight or so years (I'm going from memory here). Trump on the other hand is a complete political outsider with zero public office experience.

allegro

05-03-2016, 10:15 PM

This reminds me of something I've wondered about for a long time (long before the current election cycle). If a nominee were to die (be it assassination, accident, natural causes - whatever) extremely close to the general election - say, a day or two before - what would happen? Does the VP on the ticket simply become the new nominee and everything continues as it normally would? Is there any change in the time frame of the election? Sorry, not specific to this thread, but I figured someone in here might know enough about the process to answer that.
It happened with RFK in '68 when he was assassinated just before the Democratic National Convention and the Dems chose the next most popular guy, the one with the next most delegates (Humphrey, who lost to Nixon).

allegro

05-03-2016, 10:21 PM

Regardless I still have no intentions of dismissing it as not a win, credit where it's due and all that jazz.
You said:

"I'm still pretty confused as to why Hillary held back pumping any money into Indiana, it was a weird decision on her campaign's part and absolutely cost them the state."

And I answered:

"MSNBC is saying that Indiana didn't matter a whole lot to Clinton at this point."

In other words, her campaign didn't feel it was necessary to waste money in Indiana.

implanted_microchip

05-03-2016, 10:43 PM

You said:

"I'm still pretty confused as to why Hillary held back pumping any money into Indiana, it was a weird decision on her campaign's part and absolutely cost them the state."

And I answered:

"MSNBC is saying that Indiana didn't matter a whole lot to Clinton at this point."

In other words, her campaign didn't feel it was necessary to waste money in Indiana.

Yeah sorry that I chose odd wording and then didn't think about it in my follow-up reply. Not in the clearest or best of moods tonight due to other unrelated shit.

I do think it would've been a smart idea to win it just because I feel like they underestimate how much bullshit's being caused due to the Sanders campaign and how every perceived big win for them perpetuates a lot of splintering that's taking place, but then again I doubt they care that much since it's a done deal all but in writing and they're counting on that.

Still, I think that's a bad approach -- they shouldn't count on anything even if they know they can because of the image it projects. Bernie is seriously calling for a fucking contested convention. Because that's good for a party's chances, as we all know. I just feel like they should be working to cut that shit down as soon as possible rather than letting it take it's course, ride high on large victories in primaries towards the convention and then be able to say to Trump in the general "Unlike you, I wasn't rabidly fought by multiple candidates up until the bitter end." It'd look good and won't happen now. But whatever I guess. Not the biggest thing in the scheme of things.

elevenism

05-04-2016, 05:34 AM

i go bigly 'n a motherfucker.
i wanted a contested convention, gawdamnit, but only for my personal entertainment.
Trump has a 0% chance of beating Hilary in the general, and that's good. But i wanted the republican primary race to continue because it's more entertaining than any of my favorite tv shows.

As far as Obama's joke, i guess i finally got it. He was referring to all of the people who claimed that his presidency would be the end of the world, etc.
The fact that it took me a couple of days to realize it, however, means that i am either losing iq points, or it was a bad joke.

Deepvoid

05-04-2016, 06:09 AM

elevenism 6 months ago, most of us (if not all), were giving Trump 0% chance of getting the GOP nomination and yet, here we are.
I wouldn't rule the impossible out. By all means, I'm not saying he's gonna win but just don't jinx it man!

theimage13

05-04-2016, 06:26 AM

It happened with RFK in '68 when he was assassinated just before the Democratic National Convention and the Dems chose the next most popular guy, the one with the next most delegates (Humphrey, who lost to Nixon).

Right, but I'm talking about the general, not the primary. For example, say Sanders won the nomination but died of a heart attack on November 2. Would his running mate just become the nominee? Who would become the VP on the ticket? Would the election still happen as planned? Or would it go back to the next most popular nominee (i.e. Clinton in this case) instead of the ticket's VP becoming the candidate?

allegro

05-04-2016, 09:08 AM

Right, but I'm talking about the general, not the primary. For example, say Sanders won the nomination but died of a heart attack on November 2. Would his running mate just become the nominee? Who would become the VP on the ticket? Would the election still happen as planned? Or would it go back to the next most popular nominee (i.e. Clinton in this case) instead of the ticket's VP becoming the candidate?

I do NOT think the running mate would become president, that only happens after the nominee is sworn in. I believe they would go back to the party's national committee to come up with another nominee based on the delegates' decision.

ziltoid

05-04-2016, 12:46 PM

Wow Larry Wilmore is relentless.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NekE9di2KSo

Frozen Beach

05-04-2016, 01:06 PM

Just imagine, Donald Trump announcing Vince McMahon as his VP at his next rally, then Vince comes out strutting with No Chance In Hell blaring. It will be the most surreal moment ever.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JMp8aDH8d9M

implanted_microchip

05-04-2016, 01:44 PM

Frozen Beach that would be the most gloriously white trash thing to ever happen on such a federal scale before

"IT'S ME, HILLARY! IT'S ME! IT WAS ME, ALL ALOOOOOOOONG!"

onthewall2983

05-04-2016, 01:45 PM

Hypothetically speaking there's no chance in hell he'd accept. By most accounts he lives and breathes running WWE 24/7.

DigitalChaos

05-04-2016, 02:00 PM

gfy cruz supporters... unless you come to repent

http://i.imgur.com/It7YLjX.jpg

DigitalChaos

05-04-2016, 02:06 PM

Trump has a 0% chance of beating Hilary in the general

Dude. Hillary has an active FBI investigation. There are huge leaks happening every few weeks that massively damage powerful people. There are almost certainly people holding onto information until after Hillary has officially been chosen.

There are a lot of ways Trump could win things.

implanted_microchip

05-04-2016, 02:31 PM

I don't see it mentioned yet but all odds whatsoever of a contested Republican convention are now off; John Kasich has suspended his race for the Republican presidential nomination:

https://twitter.com/CNBC/status/727887892626980864

Also @elevenism (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=2475) that "there are no chances of Trump beating Hillary" mindset is exactly what could lead to him beating Hillary. None of the bullshit conspiracy theorists or the "oh boy just you wait for those pesky emails" people are right about why that is, but it's still a possibility that he could win. Never forget how dumb most voters are and how easily Democrats will go "Eh, it's such a done deal that I don't need to vote, no way he could ever win, my vote wouldn't even be that important," and that's how people win. I just don't think it's going to be as easy to beat him as anyone who isn't a Trumper thinks.

Whether we want to admit it or not, he's an extremely intelligent candidate who has effectively defeated what was considered one of the greatest fields of Republican candidates ever and kicked Marco Rubio, one of the most promising young Republicans being groomed as a future leader for years, out of politics entirely. And that all happened because no one took him seriously and he knew they wouldn't. If we don't, who the hell knows the shit that could happen. I don't think he'll win, I really truly do not, but I don't think that it's going to happen by a passive "Oh well it's a lock then" because that kind of attitude really comes around to bite people in the ass. That's the attitude Republicans had in the 2012 election and I'd be really worried to see Democrats do the same this time.

elevenism

05-04-2016, 03:10 PM

True, kleiner352 . We must get out and vote.
But i just saw a poll that says that Trump is the least favorable candidate in modern history, with over 2/3 of likely voters holding an unfavorable view, and half of those polled saying that they are SCARED of him.
So at least there's that.
I think that dems who don't usually vote will come out just to PREVENT a trump presidency. Meanwhile, i suppose Trumpers who don't usually vote will do the same.

I almost want to see a trump presidency just to see what it would look like. I wish i could split into two different timelines.

elevenism

05-04-2016, 03:40 PM

Totally expected, but fun nonetheless. Nothing makes me happier than watching Cruz crash and burn.

The "never Trump" folks are bitching. They're actually pro-Cruz religious nutjobs.
Were most of them pro-Cruz religious nutjobs, in your opinion?
I was under the impression that several of them were unhappy with Trump AND Cruz and were looking for a Paul Ryan or Johnny Boner to come through and save the Grand Ole' Day.

I'm bitching because the show is over :(
I don't think the general will be anywhere near as riveting as the republican primary was.

thevoid99

05-04-2016, 04:16 PM

I almost want to see a trump presidency just to see what it would look like. I wish i could split into two different timelines.

https://cdn.meme.am/instances/35551615.jpg

implanted_microchip

05-04-2016, 05:05 PM

I'm bitching because the show is over :(
I don't think the general will be anywhere near as riveting as the republican primary was.

Just wait until Trump calls Hillary a cunt on live TV

And we've already got some riveting drama going down:

http://time.com/4317643/republican-party-donald-trump-ted-cruz-hillary-clinton-indiana/

This is just the start. It's going to be a sad, sad time to be an American but a beautiful, beautiful time to be a political drama junkie. Suck it, Aaron Sorkin! You've got nothing on this.

Edit:

Here's even more quotes from Republicans saying insanely dramatic shit like "you can sign my name in blood" about never voting for Trump:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/05/us/politics/trump-gop.html?action=click&contentCollection=us&module=NextInCollection&region=Footer&pgtype=article&version=newsevent&rref=collection%2Fnews-event%2Felection-2016

onthewall2983

05-04-2016, 05:25 PM

I read somewhere that Trump has an 77% negative rating with Hispanics, the minority group that Republicans has depended on for quite awhile. That alone means he's in deep shit as far as winning, let alone the cold shoulder he gets from women and other minority groups as well.

allegro

05-04-2016, 06:13 PM

Wow Larry Wilmore is relentless.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NekE9di2KSo

HOLY crap, what the fuck. DUDE!

I don't think the general will be anywhere near as riveting as the republican primary was.
Ohhhhhhhhh, just you wait and see.

Hillary is a Class A Number One debater. I did lots of debate in school and she never ceases to amaze me. She's a shining example of debate (as was Obama). Trump has never done it until this election season (and it shows; half the time, he can't remember the question). This is gonna be primo entertainment. Like, pounds and pounds of popcorn. Nothing makes Hillary offended, nothing makes her flinch.

I don't see it mentioned yet but all odds whatsoever of a contested Republican convention are now off; John Kasich has suspended his race for the Republican presidential nomination:
wtf, FINALLY!!

Just wait until Trump calls Hillary a cunt on live TV
Oh just stop.

implanted_microchip

05-04-2016, 06:31 PM

Oh just stop.

Would it surprise you if he did that in the least, though?

allegro

05-04-2016, 06:38 PM

Would it surprise you if he did that in the least, though?
Yes, it would. I don't think he's like that, it's not smart.

implanted_microchip

05-04-2016, 07:06 PM

Yes, it would. I don't think he's like that, it's not smart.

I want to agree but this is the same guy who made fun of John McCain for being a POW while he courted the veteran vote non-stop and still took no real damage from it, I can't imagine him really having many limits. Maybe that'll change come general election time, but it's just hard to picture after the past ten months.

elevenism

05-04-2016, 07:11 PM

I want to agree but this is the same guy who made fun of John McCain for being a POW while he courted the veteran vote non-stop and still took no real damage from it, I can't imagine him really having many limits. Maybe that'll change come general election time, but it's just hard to picture after the past ten months.
yeah, but he will HAVE to tone it down a notch or two.
I think he will say some off the wall shit, but "cunt" is pushing it :P

implanted_microchip

05-04-2016, 08:05 PM

yeah, but he will HAVE to tone it down a notch or two.
I think he will say some off the wall shit, but "cunt" is pushing it :P

I was largely kidding/exaggerating but I expect some seriously nasty shit. He and his campaign have already gone on about having "women she silenced who were abused by Bill" on hold to use against her and other whacky shit like that. I can promise he's going to go after her and he's going to go after her hard based on gender -- that bullshit woman card tirade was just a start -- and I think whether it works for anyone or not, it's going to get really ugly to have to watch.

botley

05-04-2016, 08:10 PM

At least we don't have to hear Trump comparing his penis' size to that of his last remaining rival's.

implanted_microchip

05-04-2016, 08:20 PM

At least we don't have to hear Trump comparing his penis to that of his last remaining rival's.

Yeah, now he'll be able to say that it's infinitely larger than his competition!

elevenism

05-04-2016, 09:15 PM

whether it works for anyone or not, it's going to get really ugly to have to watch.
i can hardly wait :)

tony.parente

05-05-2016, 02:29 AM

GulDukat

05-05-2016, 06:07 AM

Hillary can't win against Trump, she's hated equally by bernie and trump supporters - they won't vote for her. I can't wait for the debates if Hillbot gets the nom, she will get destroyed by Trump and all her supporters will have egg on their faces when they realized they voted for the wrong Dem candidate once Trump takes office.
Hillary's numbers are bad, but Trump's are even worse. 70 percent of women have a negative opinion about him, plus he has alienated other groups of people with his racist comments. I think people underestimate Trump at their own peril, but Clinton is still favored to win, as current polls indicate.

Deepvoid

05-05-2016, 06:20 AM

The attack ads are gonna be amazing. It's too easy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XOocb-DId4

tony.parente

05-05-2016, 08:44 AM

The attack ads are gonna be amazing. It's too easy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XOocb-DId4
Oh my god Trump is going to have a field day with clinton. (Note I am not a republican and I loath Trump)

https://prod-static-ngop-pbl.s3.amazonaws.com/media/images/HVH-2_1447531589.png

allegro

05-05-2016, 09:04 AM

Oh my god Trump is going to have a field day with clinton.
Trump has flipped on nearly as many issues, it's why the GOP calls him a fake Republican.

Deepvoid

05-05-2016, 09:07 AM

Full list of Trump flip-flops. (http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/full-list-donald-trump-s-rapidly-changing-policy-positions-n547801)

aggroculture

05-05-2016, 09:57 AM

I am for Bernie*, and it would have been great if he'd won this - and become president. But the Bernie supporters calling for Hillary to drop out or talking contested convention? I don't understand where they think they're coming from. If she wins the popular vote of the primary, that's it, end of story, she's the nominee - and she is winning it. Even if, according to polls (which can be and are wrong - wasn't Hillary projected to win IN?) she will do worse up against Trump, she's the nominee.
That's how democracy works, same with Trump: he won, he's the nominee.

*as much as a non-citizen who can't vote can be for any one #notaxationwithoutrepresentation #beenpayingtaxesintheusfor10+years

implanted_microchip

05-05-2016, 10:48 AM

@aggroculture (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=318) yeah watching the hardcore extreme Sanders supporters lose their minds and act like infants has been ... it's been something, to say the least. Some of them leap on the Fox News bandwagon of her going to prison, some try to discredit democracy as much as possible and say she's rigged everything (which would be awfully impressive considering how they often also act like she's so bumbling and inept). It's like watching the stages of grief play out over someone who's still alive. But at the same time Bernie's own campaign has regularly encouraged this stuff be it through veiled comments or flat out calling her a "traitor" in their emails begging for more money when they have no shot at winning now. There's just this contingency of extremely loud and extremely ridiculous people that have been extremely vocal during his campaign and have been extremely toxic for months and every time I've ever tried to discuss it I just get hit with "SHUT UP I DON'T SEE THOSE PEOPLE ANYWHERE, THAT'S NOT REAL." Unfortunately it kinda sorta 100% is, and it's what a lot of people think of when they think of Bernie Sanders.

For months it was "Oooooooohe'llwinyousee!" and now those same extremist people are all "Oh just you watch she's going to lose it HAHAHAHAHAHA wouldn't it be so funny if we had Donald Trump?!" I'm halfway convinced these people are closet Trump supporters who just don't want to come out and say it directly that they like the guy. LIke that is the most infantile and childish attitude and so extremely privileged to be able to hold onto such a short and narrow worldview and ignore any of the consequences that would come from their petty little sense of "revenge" because the majority of Democrats weren't with them on something. People need to grow the fuck up and stop acting so entitled to their dream candidate 24/7 and demanding nothing less than perfection. It's stunning and embarrassing to watch.

Also everyone everywhere ought to realize that general election polling during the primary season is utterly awful, spotty and unreliable most of the time and Bernie's ultra-big approval and numbers is just the signed of someone who hasn't been battle tested. At no point has Hillary really come out and hit him and hit him hard. Pictures of him with a Soviet Flag behind him in his office sure would make great campaign flyers, huh? If they played that footage of him saying bread lines in Soviet Russia were "a good thing" as he put it on every attack ad spot nationally, or any of the other batshit and questionable-at-best things he used to say, I extremely doubt you'd see those pearly numbers. Republicans have been dying for him to win. Trump is quoting him and using his attacks on Hillary now. The GOP's mentioned wanting to see him be the nominee any time he's been brought up this election and spoken of Hillary in utter terror. If it's really such a black and white deal why the hell would they have been gunning for somebody they'd so certainly lose about, even before any belief that the Republican establishment sees this election as a lost cause?

It's just ridiculous and ultimately is proof of a larger cancer in America which is the massive belief that "democracy is great but only if it agrees with me." The moment the process doesn't cater to someone's views -- and this has happened on the right for years but goddamn is it happening on the left now -- all of a sudden it's "all bullshit anyway," they root for the opposition to win because they aren't really actually invested in or care about the real issues and state of the nation and world but instead are just playing sports teams and don't like the sense that theirs lost, and they will happily give you a million detailed reasons why every win was a lie for the person who "stole it" from somebody by democratically beating them fair and square. Not enough people take these things seriously and accept the nuances of it. It's the same kind of conspiracy-theory nutjob bullshit that Fox News is built on and it's nauseating at best to watch come out of people who are supposed to be "the smart ones with empathy" as the left loves to style itself. Instead I just see lots of angry little boys that voted for Fudgy the Whale when the other kids all wanted Cookiepuss.

Swykk

05-05-2016, 10:53 AM

Hillary can't win against Trump, she's hated equally by bernie and trump supporters - they won't vote for her. I can't wait for the debates if Hillbot gets the nom, she will get destroyed by Trump and all her supporters will have egg on their faces when they realized they voted for the wrong Dem candidate once Trump takes office.

I've stated multiple times I will vote for her to stop Trump. I can't be the only one. But you're right about them voting for the wrong Dem.

The longest of long shot (read also: FANTASY) best possible option would be for the FBI to charge her before the primary is over. I doubt this'll happen for many reasons (politics in waiting for her to be the nom would hurt Dems and are these allegations even legit? I am not sure). But it would be the best way to stop both Hillary and Trump.

allegro

05-05-2016, 11:24 AM

I've stated multiple times I will vote for her to stop Trump. I can't be the only one. But you're right about them voting for the wrong Dem.

The longest of long shot (read also: FANTASY) best possible option would be for the FBI to charge her before the primary is over. I doubt this'll happen for many reasons (politics in waiting for her to be the nom would hurt Dems and are these allegations even legit? I am not sure). But it would be the best way to stop both Hillary and Trump.
Charging her for what? Emails on her non-government server? When the FBI's own unencrypted server containing security-clearance data for over 20 million Federal employees, including fingerprints, was hacked and stolen by the Chinese (http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/09/opm-hack-fingerprints/406900/)? Subjecting millions of Federal employees and their family members to identity theft and blackmail? WHOOPS? You mean those safe Government servers?

Yeah, go ahead, FBI, we'll wait here.

p.s. My husband's AND MY data was included in that hack. The data hack included employee's spouses and children. I did a security freeze at all credit agencies for me. He got "free credit monitoring for 2 years" from the Government, yeah that's totally useless thanks stupid Government.

Oh, and again ... a teenager hacked the CIA Director's email (https://www.wired.com/2015/10/hacker-who-broke-into-cia-director-john-brennan-email-tells-how-he-did-it/).

Using information like the four digits of Brennan’s bank card, which Verizon easily relinquished, the hacker and his associates were able to reset the password on Brennan’s AOL account repeatedly as the spy chief fought to regain control of it.

News of the hack was first reported by the New York Post after the hacker contacted the newspaper last week. The hackers described how they were able to access sensitive government documents stored as attachments in Brennan’s personal account because the spy chief had forwarded them from his work email.

The documents they accessed included the sensitive 47-page SF-86 application that Brennan had filled out to obtain his top-secret government security clearance. Millions of SF86 applications were obtained recently by hackers who broke into networks belonging to the Office of Personnel Management. The applications, which are used by the government to conduct a background check, contain a wealth of sensitive data not only about workers seeking security clearance, but also about their friends, spouses and other family members. They also include criminal history, psychological records and information about past drug use as well as potentially sensitive information about the applicant’s interactions with foreign nationals—information that can be used against those nationals in their own country.

The hacker, who says he’s under 20 years old, told WIRED that he wasn’t working alone but that he and two other people worked on the breach. He says they first did a reverse lookup of Brennan’s mobile phone number to discover that he was a Verizon customer. Then one of them posed as a Verizon technician and called the company asking for details about Brennan’s account.