PDA

View Full Version : 2016 Presidential Election



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

thevoid99
05-05-2016, 04:50 PM
Also, did you guys see Ted Cruz accidentally punch, then elbow, his wife in the face at his concession speech? This is fucking PRICELESS.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02JF7UnPeRk

i bet she ripped his ass on the way home! :p

I hope she did. What a dick.

allegro
05-05-2016, 05:35 PM
My husband played the below video for me numerous times, "LOOK AT THIS, FEE-YOR-ina (he massacres her name) FELL OFF THE STAGE AND CRUZ AND HIS WIFE IGNORED IT! TRUMP SAID CHRIPE, I WOULDA HELPED HER UP OFF THE GROUND!!"


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvppFZB0v2c

DigitalChaos
05-05-2016, 06:05 PM
Does his make me politically active?

http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160505/152e23f48aab54f0dc8444c6ed9e1c4c.jpg

implanted_microchip
05-05-2016, 07:01 PM
Well, the only two former Republican presidents alive have both come out and said they won't be endorsing this election.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/05/politics/mitt-romney-skips-republican-convention/

Republican Speaker of the House Paul Ryan has said he is not endorsing Donald Trump:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/05/politics/paul-ryan-donald-trump-gop-nominee/

The only former Republican nominee that has said they will attend the convention is Bob Dole, who has said he won't commit to voting for the nominee.

I'd love for anybody to tell me how Trump is going to "destroy" a woman who is infinitely more qualified than him, who had an approval of 66% five years ago (which is a more accurate reflection of general opinions on her compared to during campaigning times), has higher favorables in every demographic that has decided the most recent elections and has the entire backing of her party with numerous former presidents prepared to stump for her as well as high-rankers like Elizabeth Warren at her disposal when the time comes.

We're basically getting to watch the modern Republican party implode and it's messy as all Hell. Just think: this is just the first week of any hope of a Trump alternative dying off. You are not going to see Republicans consolidate around this guy the way that he's been pretending they will, and definitely from more "important" members of the party. And, sure, he got the nomination without that support -- but a nomination and a general election are different animals and I can guarantee Hillary is going to (if she knows what's good for her) hit him and hit him hard on his lack of qualifications or inside knowledge of what he's doing. I desperately hope we get to hear her say "While Senator John McCain was being tortured in an internment camp that he refused to leave so that his brothers in arms would not be abandoned, you were dogging the draft and bragging about your comfortable lifestyle." I just desperately want to watch her rip him apart.

allegro
05-05-2016, 07:58 PM
Republican Speaker of the House Paul Ryan has said he is not endorsing Donald Trump:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/05/politics/paul-ryan-donald-trump-gop-nominee/

Go listen to him again. Ryan said "he's not there right now" but he hopes to and he wants to. He's not yet ready to endorse Trump, YET. Trump hasn't even gotten to the fucking convention, yet.

McCain is up for re-election this year so he said he was skipping the convention last month (http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-gop-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/04/john-mccain-convention-arizona-senate-222159) (that's the safest route). GHW Bush is on death's door. GW Bush skipped the last convention, too (http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/07/george-w-bush-skipping-republican-national-convention-129622). CNN is the political equivalent of the National Enquirer.

implanted_microchip
05-05-2016, 08:00 PM
Go read that again. Ryan said "he's not there right now" but he hopes to and he wants to. He's not yet ready to endorse Trump, YET. Trump hasn't even gotten to the fucking convention, yet.

He's absolutely hedging his bets and if opinion sways, he'll do it, but it still is extremely unusual and bizarre and says a lot about where things are. Anyone with eyes can see that Ryan's a clear frontrunner for a 2020/24 campaign and nomination and he's definitely doing whatever it takes to maintain and build a strong image, but regardless -- considering the blind partisanship people expect, this is a far cry from it.

allegro
05-05-2016, 08:09 PM
He's absolutely hedging his bets and if opinion sways, he'll do it, but it still is extremely unusual and bizarre and says a lot about where things are. Anyone with eyes can see that Ryan's a clear frontrunner for a 2020/24 campaign and nomination and he's definitely doing whatever it takes to maintain and build a strong image, but regardless -- considering the blind partisanship people expect, this is a far cry from it.
I disagree. Ryan has made a strong showing as a unifier. And Ryan's statement just shows, again, that he is a unifier, and he hopes that Trump will come to the table as a unifier. Which Trump will absolutely be counseled to do. Ryan wants to work with Trump if Trump wins. Starting off on the wrong foot = bad idea if you're Speaker of the House. And Trump absolutely wants to work with Ryan, same thing.

The other Republicans are making a BIG mistake in whining and crying right now, because they are handing the win to Clinton. What Ryan is saying is unify, gather and focus on winning.

Look, Tea Party Republicans are still pissed at Ryan for bowing down and making concessions to Democrats. But Ryan knows that unification among the majority of Republicans (and Tea Party Republicans in the House are a MINORITY) is much more important to the American people, which is part of the unification process; Boehner bowed down to the Tea Party for far too long, which is how the Republicans got into this Trump mess in the first place ("not getting things done"). Ryan was installed as Speaker, assumedly to not back down but he's a deal-maker and a unifier more than Boehner; he doesn't take any shit from his own people. He's a leader. I'm not a Ryan fan in any form, but I at least respect that he's not agreeing to shutting down the fucking government or a sequester.

Ultimately, the math still shows that there aren't enough angry white people to vote in Trump. The only reason that GW Bush won in 2000 was because Gore was such a wimpy candidate who couldn't even manage to win in his OWN FUCKING STATE. Trump would have to win over a decent amount of women and minorities to win the election. Romney had 58% white vote and he still lost.

implanted_microchip
05-05-2016, 08:21 PM
@allegro (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=76) regardless my post was about a whole lot more than Paul Ryan and it's still more or less unheard of for all of a party's former presidential nominees and winners to completely abandon the new one.

And Ben Sasse, a Republican senator from Nebraska has now published an open letter to Americans demanding a third party candidate:

https://www.facebook.com/sassefornebraska/posts/593031420862025

Seriously how anyone can act like so much of the GOP completely unifying against their own nominee isn't a big deal is beyond me. And people can say that this won't change voter's minds, but it absolutely changes his fundraising capabilities -- and he's already said he'd be needing money from outside sources for a general election campaign (he'd likely spend 20% of his own networth if he tried to self-fund it, and he's not that stupid).

The Koch brothers, one of the GOP's biggest fundraising allies already said they'll sit this one out. It's going to have an impact when one candidate has their party's massive majority of support with two of the most popular presidents in modern times campaigning for them, with all the fundraising they could possibly need while the other struggles get any major support from his party and will struggle to hold his own financially.

allegro
05-05-2016, 08:25 PM
allegro regardless my post was about a whole lot more than Paul Ryan and it's still more or less unheard of for all of a party's former presidential nominees and winners to completely abandon the new one.
Go read my prior post. Old Man Bush is on Death's Door. GW didn't go to the '12 Convention, EITHER. So this isn't a statement about Trump, they just don't go to the Conventions.

Wait until the Convention. This week has been crazy, all of this just happened, but calm down and wait until this settles down and watch them change their tunes. They're still pissed off that their chosen one, JEB!, didn't win after they sunk all that money into his campaign.

The Koch brothers are libertarians so it doesn't really matter what they do. SEE THIS (http://rare.us/story/when-the-koch-brothers-gave-the-aclu-20-million-to-fight-the-patriot-act/). SEE ALSO THIS (http://www.politico.com/story/2012/08/koch-breaks-from-gop-on-gay-unions-080483). HERE IS SOME REALLY SCARY (NOT) SHIT RE THE KOCH BROTHERS OMG (clutches pearls) (http://reason.com/blog/2011/02/24/evil-koch-bros-support).

implanted_microchip
05-05-2016, 09:44 PM
For those that haven't seen it, Trump's trying to get to the Hispanic vote via proclaiming that the best taco bowls are made in New York

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/728297587418247168

allegro
05-05-2016, 09:49 PM
Happy Cinco de Mayo then he pimps the Trump Tower LOL awesome.

thevoid99
05-05-2016, 10:07 PM
For those that haven't seen it, Trump's trying to get to the Hispanic vote via proclaiming that the best taco bowls are made in New York

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/728297587418247168

What a pendejo.

tony.parente
05-06-2016, 03:09 AM
Fucking king of social media, I can't wait till the debates.

EDIT: Holy shit
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ChuYxomVEAE1MHe.jpg

implanted_microchip
05-06-2016, 06:07 AM
Also if we want to get to talking about the candidates contradicting themselves, here's a sweet start for good old Donnie (and a ton of these are just from the past year):


http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/05/donald-trump-2016-contradictions-213869

Also after insisting all last year that the minimum wage shouldn't be increased, now he's implying otherwise:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-im-open-to-doing-something-on-minimum-wage/

GulDukat
05-06-2016, 06:23 AM
For those that haven't seen it, Trump's trying to get to the Hispanic vote via proclaiming that the best taco bowls are made in New York

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/728297587418247168

This article argues that it was not aimed for potential Hispanic voters.

http://m.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/05/everyone-getting-todays-trump-tweet-totally-wrong

r_k_f
05-06-2016, 10:06 AM
Not sure if this has been posted in here at all but.....

http://crooksandliars.com/2016/05/watch-donald-trump-based-campaign-season-2

DigitalChaos
05-06-2016, 11:48 AM
PolitiFact covers: Bernie Sanders says minimum wage hike to $15 would reduce federal assistance by $7.6 billion a year
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/may/05/bernie-s/bernie-sanders-says-minimum-wage-hike-15-would-red/

"economists say there’s good reason to believe that jobs lost from a wage hike that large could be significant. It might even be big enough to increase the cost of government assistance, not lower it."

allegro
05-06-2016, 04:01 PM
PolitiFact covers: Bernie Sanders says minimum wage hike to $15 would reduce federal assistance by $7.6 billion a year
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/may/05/bernie-s/bernie-sanders-says-minimum-wage-hike-15-would-red/

"economists say there’s good reason to believe that jobs lost from a wage hike that large could be significant. It might even be big enough to increase the cost of government assistance, not lower it."

Indexed to inflation, it should be $12.

tony.parente
05-07-2016, 07:36 AM
Aahahaha looks like good ole Hillary is going for the Hispanic vote in LA.


https://i.sli.mg/ysNRip.jpg

Deepvoid
05-07-2016, 10:23 AM
Trump already re-positioning himself on several issues.

-Campaign no longer self-funded. (http://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trump-wont-self-fund-general-election-campaign-1462399502)
-Named Steven Mnnuchin (ex-Goldman Sachs, Democratic donor, Soros employee) as National Finance Chairman. (http://freebeacon.com/politics/trump-taps-clinton-donor-national-finance-chair/)
-Agree to raise minimum wage (http://money.cnn.com/2016/05/05/news/economy/candidates-minimum-wage/)

We've talked about Trump moving more to the center once the nomination would be secured.
Conservatives are gonna hate his position on the minimum wage.

theimage13
05-08-2016, 06:30 AM
Indexed to inflation, it should be $12.

$12 right here right now, or $12 in 2021 or whenever it is they're trying to actually reach the new minimum?

allegro
05-08-2016, 07:58 AM
$12 right here right now, or $12 in 2021 or whenever it is they're trying to actually reach the new minimum?
Gradual to 2021 with exemptions, can't do something that drastic overnight.

theimage13
05-08-2016, 08:05 AM
Has there ever been a clear consensus on what the original intent of minimum wage was? It's an issue I go back and forth on all the time (or rather, have never fully made up my mind on) and one thing I keep trying to consider is whether it was established as something that would provide for at least the basics (food, shelter, clothing) for someone who worked a full time job, or if it was conceived with the notion that it would simply prevent people from basically being slaves.

allegro
05-08-2016, 08:07 AM
Has there ever been a clear consensus on what the original intent of minimum wage was? It's an issue I go back and forth on all the time (or rather, have never fully made up my mind on) and one thing I keep trying to consider is whether it was established as something that would provide for at least the basics (food, shelter, clothing) for someone who worked a full time job, or if it was conceived with the notion that it would simply prevent people from basically being slaves.

The latter, really. It was never designed to be a "living wage." Here, see this (http://bebusinessed.com/history/history-of-minimum-wage/).

The problem is that a lot of good-paying blue collar jobs have left the country (manufacturing, etc.) leaving jobs that are either unskilled-labor shit-pay jobs or jobs that require a degree. So how can someone get a degree while working at a shit-pay job and supporting a family?

The better solution probably isn't to raise the pay on the shit-pay job but to bring back the better-pay no-college jobs.

Look at the auto industry, for instance. Cars cost a LOT of money. Full-time auto workers (blue collar) make decent pay. But the auto industry's latest profit-greed trick is to hire a shitload of part-time temps at $9 per hour, no benefits. Now those temps are joining the UAW and saying Fuck You. Then Ford opens a plant in Mexico.

Henry Ford said that his goal was to manufacture a product that his workers could afford. He's spinning in his grave.

And why skilled trained labor like EMT workers are making $9 per hour is just ridiculous. THEY SAVE LIVES. THEY SHOULD NOT MAKE THE SAME AS A CASHIER AT TARGET.

Minimum is a "starting" wage for "starter" jobs. It's SAD that people are making CAREERS out of "cashier at McDonald's." That's not a fucking career, was never intended to be one. But all other possible jobs are gone.

Mantra
05-08-2016, 10:46 AM
one thing I keep trying to consider is whether it was established as something that would provide for at least the basics (food, shelter, clothing) for someone who worked a full time job, or if it was conceived with the notion that it would simply prevent people from basically being slaves.

Well, I personally feel that there's no meaningful difference between the two things you're describing. If companies are paying a worker such a lousy wage that they cannot pay for food, shelter, clothing, etc, that is already approaching a slave-like conditions.

In the US, the federal minimum wage was first established when congress passed the Fair Labor Standards Act in 1938, which established a lot of our basic labor standards: minimum wage, forty hour work week, time and a half for overtime, banning child labor, etc. The law was meant to end "labor conditions detrimental to the maintenance of the minimum standard of living necessary for health, efficiency, and general wellbeing of workers." http://www.legisworks.org/congress/75/publaw-718.pdf

Roosevelt claimed that it was one of the most important components of The New Deal. He also said this: "In my Inaugural I laid down the simple proposition that nobody is going to starve in this country. It seems to me to be equally plain that no business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country. By "business" I mean the whole of commerce as well as the whole of industry; by workers I mean all workers, the white collar class as well as the men in overalls; and by living wages I mean more than a bare subsistence level-I mean the wages of decent living."

So I would argue that, yes, the minimum wage was absolutely created with the intent to provide a good living wage to all people, no matter how shitty the job is. That's the entire point of the law.

What constitutes a "living wage" is somewhat up for debate, and it varies widely from county to county.

MIT has created a fairly detailed "living wage calculator" that's pretty cool: http://livingwage.mit.edu/

Here's what it looks like where I live: http://livingwage.mit.edu/counties/27053

allegro
05-08-2016, 11:43 AM
Yes, but FDR said that referencing the New Deal, not the minimum wage, itself; he did not intend for the minimum wage, itself, to represent the living wage. He intended that to be the minimum, starting point, or an entry-level point for new workers. The FLSA was to protect women and younger workers and grew from there, particularly to prevent conditions like the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire (http://www.aflcio.org/About/Our-History/Key-Events-in-Labor-History/Triangle-Shirtwaist-Fire), and also covered mandatory overtime and paid holidays and outlawed child labor, etc. As linked above, the first minimum wage in 1938 was 25 cents per hour, which would be about $4.15 per hour in 2014 dollars. Which of course was not a living wage, then or now.

See this (http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/07/23/5-facts-about-the-minimum-wage/):


Adjusted for inflation, the federal minimum wage peaked in 1968 at $8.54 (in 2014 dollars). Since it was last raised in 2009, to the current $7.25 per hour, the federal minimum has lost about 8.1% of its purchasing power to inflation. The Economist recently estimated that, given how rich the U.S. is and the pattern among other advanced economies in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, “one would expect America…to pay a minimum wage around $12 an hour.”

The problem with raising the minimum (entry-level unskilled) wage to an arbitrary $15 is that employers would then have to raise everybody else's wage; if a skilled worker's wage was already $15 per hour (far above nationally required minimum), the employer should naturally raise all other hourly employees rates proportionately above the minimum. Which could be catastrophic. ESPECIALLY for small business.

"A lousy wage" for skilled labor is different than a job at McDonald's that deserves at or around minimum wage. This isn't a cut-and-dry thing. I saw a woman on the local news saying that she works full time at McDonald's and she can't afford to pay her bills and take care of her child. So the "solution" is to raise her pay to $15 per hour at McDonald's? That's weird, because when I grew up, none of us said "wow, someday when I grow up, I want to work at McDonald's where I can never be promoted, or ever get a raise, get shit benefits, zero retirement ..." That's not a career, it's a JOB. It's where high school kids and old people are supposed to work. But, when the manufacturing jobs went to other countries, and then the well-paying service jobs were sucked up, now a "career" is McDonald's? With no upward advancement and where you can be fired in a heartbeat? Nope. That's not the direction we should be going. That's not part of FDR's "New Deal." That would be the equivalent of being a paperboy for the rest of your life in FDR's day.

That's not saying that employers should not pay more money for skilled labor and stop being so fucking greedy. But this isn't necessarily done through government legislation. It can be done through tax incentives, etc. Look, this greedy shit has been happening since the Reagan administration in the 80s, even with white collar jobs and skilled labor. After big layoffs in the 80s and when corporate greedy management discovered, "hey, wow, we have half of our staff but we're getting along just fine, these people are working 60 hours instead of 40 hours, and at the same pay! Wtf, why should we hire more people? More money for us! Let's drink!" nothing changed, this whole new fucking "plan" never went away, and once they figured that whole "temp and no bennies" model, and how they could shift a bunch of labor to other countries, the whole "low cost, high profit" model just keep shifting more profit to the top, and government mandates will just cause more layoffs, these companies don't give a fuck unless it means more profit or less taxes. It's been that way for over 30 years, that's Capitalism for you. Forcing small businesses to pay more is going to fuck small businesses because of corporate greed, and nobody is going to win.

But, obviously, the biggest problem, here, is SUPPLY AND DEMAND of jobs. When there are so few jobs that people are making careers out of McDonald's, and needing to make that a living wage, which shifts the entire wage structure upward, which shifts the entire cost structure downward to us, this is some fucked-up shit. We need more supply of jobs so people can have higher-paying job choices and we need competition among employers where they pay more to get better people, etc. Also, automation is a cool thing but it ain't helping when it comes to jobs. And you wanna see where greed and desperation is in full action mode? Look no further than Amazon. Nothing but temps in a sweat shop. Minimum wage doesn't matter when you're part-time and a temp. Make the minimum wage THIRTY per hour. Amazon will double their temp load, decrease the hours, and triple the quota. No problem. Don't like it? You're fired. Won't affect Amazon one lick. FDR never foresaw that shit.

See this (http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2015/08/04/the-7-most-dangerous-myths-about-a-15-minimum-wage/#2bc87e502c57). Be sure to read the COMMENTS. I particularly agree with that of "e.levine":


Full disclosure, I don’t read Salon and I’m not someone who is generally in favor of a flat minimum wage to be applied nationally and for all businesses. I will, however, point out that without government intervention on behalf of workers, the market leads to wealth and, consequently power, being concentrated in the hands of a small group of individuals at the expense of democratic (small d) institutions and societal functions. I will also point out that this centralization of wealth and power in the hands of a few people is not unlike the system that was in place under the Soviet Union (whom I presume you’re not a fan of) and is more likely one of the more substantial root causes of how the Soviet Union collapsed (in addition to prioritizing the Cold War aggressions with the West rather than prioritizing the building of their own economy and nation from the ground up).

With those things in mind (and they are more empirically grounded than your economic theories), I will say that I support proportional payroll sharing mandated by legislation and enforced through the executive power of the law (assuming that you do, indeed, recognize the need for the executive power of law in any given human society). Proportional pay means that a certain percentage of a payroll has to be distributed to the general rank and file workers rather than given all to the executives and top management. This allows executives and top managers to continue to have incentives to grow, while linking their growth explicitly to the general working population who does most of the real work that makes the wealth even possible in the first place. This way, small businesses are not penalized because they’re not having to allocate more money than they can afford to payroll while ensuring that there is an incentive for everyone to do the best work that is possible because they directly share in the benefits of the work that it produce. It also ensures that wealth does not all go to the top executives and managers, thus enabling governments to collect revenue from a broader tax base in society while enabling private individuals to prosper yet not be simply greedy.

So, while the $15 dollar flat, national minimum wage is likely not the best idea, we also will not last long as a nation that enables and abets the generation of neo-feudalism and a return to a centralized aristocracy. This is before we get to the pending problem of how to deal with the automation of labor and AI. However, the principle that the government should and ought to be “seen and not heard” in the economy and the society itself is proving itself to be no more than enabling the rise of a new dictatorship and serfdom dynamic. Hayek was right to be wary of the public sector taking too much and, effectively, centralizing wealth and power in the hands of a few. But he also failed to recognize that by letting the market go under laissez-faire policies, that it will simply revert to serfdom and feudalism again anyway, just through the actions of private individuals rather than public ones. Societies need institutions and people that are not driven solely through financial incentives or by the logic of pure financial profiteering solidly in command of them. Human welfare, physically and psychologically, is not linked entirely to money. That is what government needs to do, but which our Capitalist political ideology and, more specifically, neoclassical economics misses in terms of its assumptions about human behavior (which have consistently been proven incorrect with actual evidence from real people in real experiments) and the courses of actions we need to take in the structuring of our legal and social institutions (which have been proven to be a net detriment to the well-being of the general population and an excessive boom to those who are already on top).

To wrap up, the odds of becoming noveau-riche were never really all that great to begin with. Why sacrifice what we always needed as humans for the chance at maybe, probably not, achieving only what we want in the present moment?

GulDukat
05-08-2016, 11:53 AM
Good article on Trump's economic plans.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/05/donald-trumps-economy/481743/

tony.parente
05-08-2016, 12:01 PM
Well, I personally feel that there's no meaningful difference between the two things you're describing. If companies are paying a worker such a lousy wage that they cannot pay for food, shelter, clothing, etc, that is already approaching a slave-like conditions.


Except that's not how slavery works, and all employment in the US is voluntary.

allegro
05-08-2016, 12:08 PM
Good article on Trump's economic plans.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/05/donald-trumps-economy/481743/

Shame on you, Atlantic. Trump has already changed his stance on 90% of the assertions in that article, and he actually wants to increase taxes on the rich (not decrease). He's already stated how he would pay for Social Security and Medicare (https://www.gwu.edu/~action/trumptax.html)

blake
05-08-2016, 12:10 PM
They're still pissed off that their chosen one, JEB!, didn't win after they sunk all that money into his campaign.

http://i1084.photobucket.com/albums/j402/carterblake1997/Jeb%20and%20%20Barbara_zpsgrhkekt3.jpg (http://s1084.photobucket.com/user/carterblake1997/media/Jeb%20and%20%20Barbara_zpsgrhkekt3.jpg.html)

GulDukat
05-08-2016, 01:40 PM
Shame on you, Atlantic. Trump has already changed his stance on 90% of the assertions in that article, and he actually wants to increase taxes on the rich (not decrease). He's already stated how he would pay for Social Security and Medicare (https://www.gwu.edu/~action/trumptax.html)
He's all over the place, so who can blame them? What does it say about a candidate if they pull a 180 on everything they have said and consistency contradict themselves? That article you posted is from 1999!

allegro
05-08-2016, 01:56 PM
He's all over the place, so who can blame them? What does it say about a candidate if they pull a 180 on everything they have said and consistency contradict themselves? That article you posted is from 1999!
Yes but he has re-stated it in debates. He's a centrist and the Atlantic knows it. They just use this Chicken Little fear to drum up clicks and hits. They know he can do nothing without Congress. The media is doing the same shit to Hillary (zomg, she changes her mind so much). Yup. Who cares? It means she's flexible, and she's not Ted Cruz.

GulDukat
05-08-2016, 01:57 PM
He seems to make it up as he goes along.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-elections/in-policy-zigzag-donald-trump-says-ok-to-raise-taxes-on-the-rich-increase-minimum-wage-a7019446.html

GulDukat
05-08-2016, 02:03 PM
Without naming names, Obama addresses the 2016 race.

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/5/7/1524279/-Obama-s-Critique-of-Sanders?detail=facebook

allegro
05-08-2016, 02:03 PM
He seems to make it up as he goes along.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-elections/in-policy-zigzag-donald-trump-says-ok-to-raise-taxes-on-the-rich-increase-minimum-wage-a7019446.html

That's what the business world does, yup.

Mantra
05-08-2016, 03:27 PM
Yes, but FDR said that referencing the New Deal, not the minimum wage, itself; he did not intend for the minimum wage, itself, to represent the living wage. He intended that to be the minimum, starting point, or an entry-level point for new workers. The FLSA was to protect women and younger workers and grew from there, particularly to prevent conditions like the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire (http://www.aflcio.org/About/Our-History/Key-Events-in-Labor-History/Triangle-Shirtwaist-Fire), and also covered mandatory overtime and paid holidays and outlawed child labor, etc. As linked above, the first minimum wage in 1938 was 25 cents per hour, which would be about $4.15 per hour in 2014 dollars. Which of course was not a living wage, then or now.

Well I respectfully disagree, and I kind of feel like you're taking some speculative liberties about FDR's intentions that seem unsupported to me. I know it was $4.10 in today's dollars, and he and others knew it was an insufficient wage at the time. But just like the ACA, this was about taking steps in the right direction, even if wasn't 100% "there" yet. The FLSA was just one component of an entire system that was meant to improve over time, which it did, especially with the addition of Johnson's War on Poverty programs. And an essential part of the ideology behind the New Deal was this notion of safe-guarding individuals against the brutal volatility of the market, lessons they had learned the hard way after the 30s. And all of this was grounded in the belief that we should have basic standards in America, that no one should be living below a certain level. He specifically says: "no business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country"

And yeah, Reagan, bane of our fucking existence, did a lot to destroy all the good progress that we had made.


The problem with raising the minimum (entry-level unskilled) wage to an arbitrary $15 is that employers would then have to raise everybody else's wage; if a skilled worker's wage was already $15 per hour (far above nationally required minimum), the employer should naturally raise all other hourly employees rates proportionately above the minimum. Which could be catastrophic. ESPECIALLY for small business.

Well, it wouldn't be remotely catastrophic for our corporations, which are currently experiencing a golden age of success at the public's expense. As for small businesses, (truly mall businesses, not companies with 400 employees that still technically fall within the "small business" label for no justifiable reason), I believe they should be given an extended timeframe to increase their wages. Minimum wage bumps often work as an economic stimulus, btw, so businesses stand to benefit from the increase in the long run.

Also, you might like this Cambridge dude's thing on why the minimum wage/inflation connection is a myth, and why businesses continue on just fine after wage increases. https://benjaminstudebaker.com/2015/07/23/misconceptions-raising-the-minimum-wage-does-not-automatically-lead-to-inflation/


"A lousy wage" for skilled labor is different than a job at McDonald's that deserves at or around minimum wage. This isn't a cut-and-dry thing. I saw a woman on the local news saying that she works full time at McDonald's and she can't afford to pay her bills and take care of her child. So the "solution" is to raise her pay to $15 per hour at McDonald's? That's weird, because when I grew up, none of us said "wow, someday when I grow up, I want to work at McDonald's where I can never be promoted, or ever get a raise, get shit benefits, zero retirement ..." That's not a career, it's a JOB. It's where high school kids and old people are supposed to work. But, when the manufacturing jobs went to other countries, and then the well-paying service jobs were sucked up, now a "career" is McDonald's? With no upward advancement and where you can be fired in a heartbeat? Nope. That's not the direction we should be going. That's not part of FDR's "New Deal." That would be the equivalent of being a paperboy for the rest of your life in FDR's day.

That's not saying that employers should not pay more money for skilled labor and stop being so fucking greedy. But this isn't necessarily done through government legislation. It can be done through tax incentives, etc. Look, this greedy shit has been happening since the Reagan administration in the 80s, even with white collar jobs and skilled labor. After big layoffs in the 80s and when corporate greedy management discovered, "hey, wow, we have half of our staff but we're getting along just fine, these people are working 60 hours instead of 40 hours, and at the same pay! Wtf, why should we hire more people? More money for us! Let's drink!" nothing changed, this whole new fucking "plan" never went away, and once they figured that whole "temp and no bennies" model, and how they could shift a bunch of labor to other countries, the whole "low cost, high profit" model just keep shifting more profit to the top, and government mandates will just cause more layoffs, these companies don't give a fuck unless it means more profit or less taxes. It's been that way for over 30 years, that's Capitalism for you. Forcing small businesses to pay more is going to fuck small businesses because of corporate greed, and nobody is going to win.

But, obviously, the biggest problem, here, is SUPPLY AND DEMAND of jobs. When there are so few jobs that people are making careers out of McDonald's, and needing to make that a living wage, which shifts the entire wage structure upward, which shifts the entire cost structure downward to us, this is some fucked-up shit. We need more supply of jobs so people can have higher-paying job choices and we need competition among employers where they pay more to get better people, etc. Also, automation is a cool thing but it ain't helping when it comes to jobs. And you wanna see where greed and desperation is in full action mode? Look no further than Amazon. Nothing but temps in a sweat shop. Minimum wage doesn't matter when you're part-time and a temp. Make the minimum wage THIRTY per hour. Amazon will double their temp load, decrease the hours, and triple the quota. No problem. Don't like it? You're fired. Won't affect Amazon one lick. FDR never foresaw that shit.

Well, you know I'm going to agree with most of this, of course, because I'm a fucking pinko who strongly believes in regulating the shit out our economy, but, as the results of this democratic primary have shown, people like me are in the minority here. A lot of Americans --and more importantly, a lot of politicians and corporations-- are fundamentally opposed to the kind of regulations you're describing. You want to regulate a company's ability to pull this temp-work bullshit as a means of dodging benefits? Great, I agree a thousand times over. You want to abolish these catastrophic free-trade agreements that have been decimating our job market for decades? Sign me the fuck up. But you'll never get that kind of legislature passed in this country, not right now anyway. When it comes to labor regulations, the US is in the fucking stone age. We'd have to have a way more progressive senate (and society) to get anything that cool. As it is, we gotta go through an epic battle just to get a perfectly reasonable minimum wage bump or some measly little public health care options. You're describing brand new regulatory policy that doesn't actually exist yet and that is far more advanced (and politically controversial) than anything we currently have. On the other hand, the minimum wage law already exists. So using that law to try and help people get through the coming years seems like a more practical and realistic proposal. I don't advocate raising the minimum wage because it's the most ideal setup for our economy...I advocate it because, for the moment, there are no better, practical alternatives.


See this (http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2015/08/04/the-7-most-dangerous-myths-about-a-15-minimum-wage/#2bc87e502c57). Be sure to read the COMMENTS. I particularly agree with that of "e.levine":

Wow, amazing. Funny thing is, I read this article last night, but to be honest, I thought this writer fucking sucked. "$4.20 is a livable wage"? Uh...sure thing dude. And since I didn't like it, I never actually got around to reading the comments. But yes, that "e.levine" comment is fucking spot on, and I could not agree more. I also read that exact same pew research article yesterday, lol, we must be reading a lot the same stuff.

tony.parente
05-08-2016, 03:32 PM
He's all over the place, so who can blame them? What does it say about a candidate if they pull a 180 on everything they have said and consistency contradict themselves? That article you posted is from 1999!

It would make them the -insert party here- frontrunner lol

Mantra
05-08-2016, 03:41 PM
Except that's not how slavery works, and all employment in the US is voluntary.

Well, of course.

I suppose I should have been more literal in my phrasing. I guess I kind of assumed that most people would automatically understand that I didn't mean actual slavery.

DigitalChaos
05-09-2016, 12:23 PM
The latter, really. It was never designed to be a "living wage." Here, see this (http://bebusinessed.com/history/history-of-minimum-wage/).

The problem is that a lot of good-paying blue collar jobs have left the country (manufacturing, etc.) leaving jobs that are either unskilled-labor shit-pay jobs or jobs that require a degree. So how can someone get a degree while working at a shit-pay job and supporting a family?

The better solution probably isn't to raise the pay on the shit-pay job but to bring back the better-pay no-college jobs.

Look at the auto industry, for instance. Cars cost a LOT of money. Full-time auto workers (blue collar) make decent pay. But the auto industry's latest profit-greed trick is to hire a shitload of part-time temps at $9 per hour, no benefits. Now those temps are joining the UAW and saying Fuck You. Then Ford opens a plant in Mexico.

Henry Ford said that his goal was to manufacture a product that his workers could afford. He's spinning in his grave.

And why skilled trained labor like EMT workers are making $9 per hour is just ridiculous. THEY SAVE LIVES. THEY SHOULD NOT MAKE THE SAME AS A CASHIER AT TARGET.

Minimum is a "starting" wage for "starter" jobs. It's SAD that people are making CAREERS out of "cashier at McDonald's." That's not a fucking career, was never intended to be one. But all other possible jobs are gone.

This is all very good stuff that way too many people are becoming ignorant of these days. Everything is just some magic and incredibly simple "fix" away from a living in utopia! That fix is always something someone else needs to implement, of course.

However, there is one important bit missing here. There are millions of skilled trade jobs available and this hole continues to widen. These are decent paying jobs that don't even require a diploma. http://mikerowe.com/2016/02/stopignoringskillsgap/

So the people saying there are no more blue collar jobs are full of shit. The people who go to college and rack up tons of debt for a useless degree and then protest about TheRich being the cause of their unemployability are foolish.

Deepvoid
05-09-2016, 12:31 PM
So now Trump calls for the elimination of the federal minimum wage. (http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/may/08/federal-minimum-wage-trump)

elevenism
05-09-2016, 02:14 PM
So now Trump calls for the elimination of the federal minimum wage. (http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/may/08/federal-minimum-wage-trump)
Jesus Wept

allegro
05-09-2016, 02:20 PM
However, there is one important bit missing here. There are millions of skilled trade jobs available and this hole continues to widen. These are decent paying jobs that don't even require a diploma. http://mikerowe.com/2016/02/stopignoringskillsgap/
This is REALLY true, REALLY REALLY true. We know a guy who owns a forklift company here in the Chicago area and he was telling us that he really really needed to hire a bunch of people at his company but he always had ONE HELL OF A TIME finding skilled workers. I think one big problem is the gap between the jobs and the workers, getting the info from the job to the worker, and getting the workers enough training and skills to get them the jobs so that they're not working at fast food shitholes or retail hell. Sure, working in a factory isn't a desk job but you get paid a LOT more and you get a lot better benefits and even retirement bennies plus the opportunity for promotion. You don't get that shit in fast food crap jobs.

Another thing is something my electrician from my local electrician company told me; I asked him if he was union and he said, hell, if they only hired union employees he'd be out of a job. So most of these local licensed electric and plumbing companies ARE NOT closed shops so they can keep the costs down to customers. He was telling me how he went to trade school many years ago, and has been employed and fed his family and has loved it ever since. No traditional "college."

Ditto for the HVAC guys who service my furnace and AC unit 2x per year; great guys from a great company, skilled trade, they get great benefits, they work for a great local company, no traditional college, skilled tradespeople. The guys who service our boat engine, same thing, they went to marine tech school and got certification and have a great future and bennies in that industry. G's nephew went to some automotive college in Ohio to get certifications in engine repair.

Hey, MY HUSBAND is basically a skilled trade worker, AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLER.

See also this (http://www.businessinsider.com/high-paying-jobs-dont-require-bachelors-degree-2015-10).

sick among the pure
05-09-2016, 02:21 PM
Re: minimum wage jobs, my $0.02 is as follows. In the society we live in today, we need people to work unskilled jobs. We need people to work jobs that pay minimum wage. We need people who make us food and mop the bathroom floor and stock our shelves. And these people need to feed themselves (and their families if they have one), pay their bills, live in more than a cardboard box, and have health insurance so they can be healthy enough to continue working their jobs. This is why we need to pay every working person in this country enough money to sustain their lives. We need to make sure they can afford to take medicine or fix their broken leg so they can keep doing their job. And the way shit is right now, we can't do that. We can't make sure our own people can LIVE. And that's fucked up. Place the blame on people with "useless degrees" all you want. As a photographer, I hear that all the time from idiots who don't understand that without photographers, you wouldn't have a lot of shit that you don't even realize you would lose. Did you know that photography is the reason we have federal/state parks still in this country?

allegro
05-09-2016, 02:43 PM
Yes, we do need all of that. Absolutely. But we don't need to pay them $15.00 per hour everywhere. In a place like Kenosha, WI, that's like making $50,000 per year for working at McDonald's. The minimum needs to be adjusted to the cost of living at the time and per the area, and it has to be based on the number of employees at that business. A small retail business with 3 employees has a very very low profit margin and is probably not hiring people who are using that job a primary source of living.

When I was born, my dad owned his own photographic studio, but my mom was the primary source of income as a secretary at General Motors Photographic (https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015071315876;view=1up;seq=5).

Photography is not unskilled labor. Custodial work is not necessarily unskilled labor, that is generally contract work and can actually bring fairly decent pay (my brother owned a custodial company; maids at hotels make tips, btw). Retail work was always "secondary" work, for "housewives" or college students or high school students; it was never intended to be a source of primary income, otherwise our goods wouldn't be this cheap, unless you're in management. "Fast food" - I kinda wish it would just go away completely, but eventually it will be completely automated with robots and kiosks so this will be a non-issue as those jobs will be gone.

Bottom line: Minimum wage was never intended to be a permanent wage, it's a "starting" wage. Even at McDonald's, you may start at minimum but with more skills, you get small incremental wage increases. But McDonald's is not intended to be a job where you raise a family. It's where teens and college students work part-time while in school. It's where seniors work to supplement Social Security. There are far too many other opportunities out there for careers than working at McDonald's. The disconnect, as mentioned above, comes between the employer and the employee, the job and the opportunity. That's where we are failing. We have made it far too easy for people to just heed that Help Wanted sign at Mickey D's and assume that's the only way to go.

Even Karl Marx did not recommend taking a shit job and paying more to fix things; he suggested better jobs, instead. He didn't have "fast food workers" or "The Gap" or "Walmart," either. But, I imagine he did have younger workers who shouldn't be working 8 hours, or old people who needed to supplement their income. They need those jobs.

G and I were somewhere, recently, can't remember where, where the Help Wanted sign specifically indicated the age of "16-17 years of age." In other words, this ain't a career.

DigitalChaos
05-09-2016, 02:47 PM
@allegro (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=76) - Definitely. Thing is, its going to get worse. Everyone knows our infrastructure is starting to fall apart and needs to be repaired or rebuilt. Most the people who know how to do that are on their way into retirement. So the workers are fading away and the demand is going to start skyrocketing. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that a lot of the employers are happy to front the cost of training and give the workers paid time off to do the training. Simply knowing about the jobs (hard to do in the politicized world of "min wage" and "job creation"), being close to a job or being able to move to one, and simply wanting to do a more demanding job .... those are about the only blocking factors anymore.

@sick among the pure (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=266) Dude, I grew up in family that would have to recycle cans to afford the occasional McDonalds meal. The no-skill jobs you are referring to are intended for no-skill people who aren't in a position to start career building (highschool/college kids, etc). The *value* in the work is not on par with what it takes to support a family. By forcing employers to pay such is to eliminate the option for those people to work those jobs. Automation will replace plenty. People with more value to add (via education, etc) will also start replacing the low-value workers.

My wife also went to art school (photo heavy degree). If you are going to jump into a saturated industry, then be really fucking good at what you do! Expecting to automatically get a job because you paid for college is such a ridiculous thing that people believe in these days. If you didn't research the job opportunities and the future of the job market you are putting yourself in debt for, you are an idiot.

DigitalChaos
05-09-2016, 02:54 PM
Custodial work is not necessarily unskilled labor, that is generally contract work and can actually bring fairly decent pay (my brother owned a custodial company; maids at hotels make tips, btw). Retail work was always "secondary" work, for "housewives" or college students or high school students; it was never intended to be a source of primary income, otherwise our goods wouldn't be this cheap, unless you're in management. "Fast food" - I kinda wish it would just go away completely, but eventually it will be completely automated with robots and kiosks so this will be a non-issue as those jobs will be gone.

good point. I assume sick among the pure was referring to fast food work and having to mop up at closing. Legit janitorial work is way more than "mopping the floor" and the profession actually makes decent money in a lot of situations, certainly more than min wage.

implanted_microchip
05-09-2016, 03:03 PM
Holy shit

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN0Y01TZ

allegro
05-09-2016, 03:05 PM
good point. I assume sick among the pure was referring to fast food work and having to mop up at closing. Legit janitorial work is way more than "mopping the floor" and the profession actually makes decent money in a lot of situations, certainly more than min wage.
Yup.

Often, the school janitors get the same retirement and pension as the teachers! And they're in a union!

hell, those cashiers at big supermarkets are in a union, and make pretty decent pay!

My best friend's husband has a degree in photography. He's been in upper-management in Supply Chain Management for the last 15 years, making pretty good money (like $130,000). Before that, he designed trade show booths.

elevenism
05-09-2016, 03:25 PM
Holy shit

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN0Y01TZ
thoughts? ramifications? motive?

sick among the pure
05-09-2016, 05:46 PM
I keep hearing "but those are jobs for kids starting out!" That's likely what they were intended for, but that's not who is filling those positions. There are more adults stuck working minimum-wage "starter" jobs in order to try to pay the bills than teenagers or even 20-somethings. You can get a job at Walmart and hope to work your way up, but at the end of the day, you can work a minimum-wage job and be lucky to make anything you can live off of after 10 years with the company. Many places will not promote from within, and rather hire friends of friends and family members to be managers than their own workers. Many times workers will not get raises because their managers want to keep that extra money for themselves. Many times these positions have a cap on their max raises, so after x about of years, you don't get any more raises, no matter how good of a worker you are. I have seen all of these things happen time and again, whether it's in my small city home, or the 7 years I spent in Philadelphia, it doesn't matter where you live, this is the reality for millions of working poor.

allegro
05-09-2016, 08:24 PM
I keep hearing "but those are jobs for kids starting out!" That's likely what they were intended for, but that's not who is filling those positions. There are more adults stuck working minimum-wage "starter" jobs in order to try to pay the bills than teenagers or even 20-somethings. You can get a job at Walmart and hope to work your way up, but at the end of the day, you can work a minimum-wage job and be lucky to make anything you can live off of after 10 years with the company. Many places will not promote from within, and rather hire friends of friends and family members to be managers than their own workers. Many times workers will not get raises because their managers want to keep that extra money for themselves. Many times these positions have a cap on their max raises, so after x about of years, you don't get any more raises, no matter how good of a worker you are. I have seen all of these things happen time and again, whether it's in my small city home, or the 7 years I spent in Philadelphia, it doesn't matter where you live, this is the reality for millions of working poor.
Yes, but we just posted links to articles where there are literally millions of unfilled well-paying blue collar positions where people are looking for labor but workers don't know about the positions; it's a problem of workers not knowing the right places to look for work, and employers not being able to find these people who want jobs; now we just need to put them together. The newspapers don't work, Monster isn't worth a shit, Indeed isn't working; we have to come up with better ways to put these people together with employers who need these workers instead of these workers ending up in minimum wage jobs and believing these are the only jobs available.

Like I said, we know lots of employers in this area desperate for well-paid blue collar workers but can't find them, they can't find people, yet here's Mickey D's with lots of shit-pay workers. We need to change that.

Maybe we need to develop a "Facebook of Employment."

As far as raises and management, hon, that's been happening in Corporate since the Reagan administration. That happened to me in 1984 and I was in management, but the management above me kept the remaining employment budget to themselves. That happens among government workers, the private sector, university professors (HERE, SEE THIS (http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-adjunct-professors-0414-biz-20150415-story.html)). That's the problem we're talking about, here. It doesn't only affect minimum wage workers; it affects everyone, even lawyers (the partners keep everything). Everything is shifting to the top.

See also this, though (http://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/minimum-wage/archive/characteristics-of-minimum-wage-workers-2014.pdf):


In 2014, 77.2 million workers age 16 and older in the United States were paid at hourly rates, representing 58.7 percent of all wage and salary workers. Among those paid by the hour, 1.3 million earned exactly the prevailing federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour. About 1.7 million had wages below the federal minimum. Together, these 3.0 million workers with wages at or below the federal minimum made up 3.9 percent of all hourly paid workers. The percentage of hourly paid workers earning the prevailing federal minimum wage or less declined from 4.3 percent in 2013 to 3.9 percent in 2014. This remains well below the figure of 13.4 percent in 1979, when data were first collected on a regular basis.

Age. Minimum wage workers tend to be young. Although workers under age 25 represented only about one-fifth of hourly paid workers, they made up nearly half of those paid the federal minimum wage or less. Among employed teenagers (ages 16 to 19) paid by the hour, about 15 percent earned the minimum wage or less, compared with about 3 percent of workers age 25 and older.

Gender. Among workers who were paid hourly rates in 2014, about 5 percent of women had wages at or below the prevailing federal minimum, compared with about 3 percent of men.

Race and Hispanic or Latino ethnicity. The percentage of hourly paid workers with wages at or below the federal minimum wage was little different among the major race and ethnicity groups. About 4 percent of White workers and Black workers earned the federal minimum wage or less. Among Hispanic or Latino workers and Asian workers, the percentage was about 3 percent for each group.

Education. Among hourly paid workers age 16 and older, about 7 percent of those without a high school diploma earned the federal minimum wage or less, compared with about 4 percent of those who had a high school diploma (with no college), 4 percent of those with some college or an associate degree, and about 2 percent of college graduates.

Marital status. Of those paid an hourly wage, nevermarried workers, who tend to be young, were more likely (7 percent) than married workers (2 percent) to earn the federal minimum wage or less.

Full- and part-time status. About 10 percent of part-time workers (people who usually work fewer than 35 hours per week) were paid the federal minimum wage or less, compared with about 2 percent of full-time workers.

Occupation. Among major occupational groups, the highest percentage of hourly paid workers earning at or below the federal minimum wage was in service occupations, at about 10 percent. Almost two-thirds of workers earning the minimum wage or less in 2014 were employed in service occupations, mostly in food preparation and serving-related jobs.

Industry. The industry with the highest percentage of workers earning hourly wages at or below the federal minimum wage was leisure and hospitality (18 percent). Over half of all workers paid at or below the federal minimum wage were employed in this industry, the vast majority in restaurants and other food services. For many of these workers, tips may supplement the hourly wages received.

State of residence. The states with the highest percentages of hourly paid workers earning at or below the federal minimum wage were Arkansas, Indiana, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Tennessee (all between 6 percent and 7 percent). The states with the lowest percentages of hourly paid workers earning at or below the federal minimum wage were Alaska, California, Oregon, and Washington (all between 1 percent and 2 percent). It should be noted that some states have minimum wage laws establishing standards that exceed the federal minimum wage.

See also this (http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/what-do-mcdonalds-workers-really-make-per-hour/) (keep in mind, again, that the current Federal Minimum Wage is $7.25 per hour)

elevenism
05-09-2016, 09:06 PM
allegro , it's funny that you say that fast food jobs should just die. i worked at braums for like 5 years when i was younger, and oddly enough, it was actually one of my favorite jobs that i've ever had. The polish immigrant store manager was grooming me to take over and wondered why i was bothering with college.
I was considering it too, and i ultimately dropped out of community college 5 times.
I made one fatal mistake though. I accidentally shortchanged an actual crackhead with crack smoke coming out of his car window. the motherfucker nearly tore ME out of the drivethrough window, even though i IMMEDIATELY gave him the proper change. He called the regional manager who couldn't see past my long hair and piercings, and that was fucking that-i was banned forever. You CAN make a career of fast food, believe it or not, by climbing the fast food ladder. i was a shift manager when i got jumblefucked, and on my way to $40,000 a year.

As far as raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour, even though i am a left wing commie pinko socialist liberal democrat, my wife and i both fear that raising the minimum wage too high would only cause inflation, and $15 an hour would be the new $7.25 with the quickness. however, i do wonder what the fuck we should do about this. (http://www.citylab.com/work/2015/09/mapping-the-difference-between-minimum-wage-and-cost-of-living/404644/)
i had a better map that showed what a livable wage would be state by state, but i lost it.

allegro
05-09-2016, 09:11 PM
allegro , it's funny that you say that fast food jobs should just die
dude, fast food is really bad for everybody; obesity is the number one cause of unnecessary deaths in the country. Get rid of that shit and Mountain Dew and VOILA, problem solved. Plus, that fast food shit is expensive. People should be eating less expensive healthy home-cooked food, not that crap made of tortured animals, bleh.

We have already posted links with livable wage calculators, and other solutions other than across-the-country/board minimum wage increase, read through the thread, it's all here. :)

True confession, though: when I was just out of high school (actually, I might have still been IN high school), I worked at Elias Brothers' Big Boy for several months, as a hostess but I filled in at the take-out counter making malts to-go and sometimes helping out waiting tables and stuff. It was some of my funniest teenaged memories. The Cook, Joe, used to put a Hefty bag over his head and put the nitrous hose under there from the whipped cream canister and get fucked up, then he'd make me and him a shitload of deep-fried shrimp for free when we weren't supposed to have stuff like that, but Joe kinda liked me, LOL. And I'd give him leftover chocolate malts. I will NEVER forget the smell of that dish room. One time, a carnival came to the parking lot, and the carnies would come in to eat and, swear to God, at least three waitresses got some kind of weird rash and they all blamed the carnies, hahahahahahahaaaaaa. The worst part? These friggin' uniforms hahahahahaha ugh. Polyester hell (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUZP3bl3okA). The crazy thing? When I go back to Detroit, I go to a Big Boy! (They wear black t-shirts now) That's not "fast food," though. And one of my friends raised three kids working at Big Boy.

sick among the pure
05-09-2016, 09:48 PM
that fast food shit is expensive. People should be eating less expensive healthy home-cooked food

Fast food is often the least expensive option people have available to them. I lived off $3 a day because of fast food. Drink some water for breakfast, get 3 value menu chicken sandwiches from Wendy's on my lunch break and eat 2, save one for when I get out of work. Repeat. The idea that fast food is more expensive than other food is one we could have a whole topic discussing.

allegro
05-10-2016, 12:10 AM
Fast food is often the least expensive option people have available to them. I lived off $3 a day because of fast food. Drink some water for breakfast, get 3 value menu chicken sandwiches from Wendy's on my lunch break and eat 2, save one for when I get out of work. Repeat. The idea that fast food is more expensive than other food is one we could have a whole topic discussing.

Yeah sorry, but I can teach you to shop and cook. I can make a delicious and filling dinner for two for 5 bucks and have leftovers for 2 days.

Here see this (http://www.100daysofrealfood.com/2015/04/14/home-cooked-meals-cheaper-than-mcdonalds/).

When I was making $16,000 per year and living alone in an apartment in a ghetto and working 12-hour days, I'd make homemade soup or I'd make pasta with homemade marinara sauce. The makings for marinara still costs less than 2 bucks and lasts for days. A box of spaghetti pasta is 2 bucks and makes at least 4 servings. And that with marinara is a lot healthier than that processed chicken sandwich. Hell, a 12-pack of ramen is $2.38; although that has a lot of sodium that is less than 20 cents per serving.

See Mark Bittman's famous piece in the NY Times (http://mobile.nytimes.com/2011/09/25/opinion/sunday/is-junk-food-really-cheaper.html?referer=).

GulDukat
05-10-2016, 06:51 AM
This is really scary.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/trump-clinton-florida-ohio-pennsylvania-222994

I just can't believe babyman Trump is doing so well in the polls against Clinton. This is madness.

elevenism
05-10-2016, 02:25 PM
This is really scary.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/trump-clinton-florida-ohio-pennsylvania-222994

I just can't believe babyman Trump is doing so well in the polls against Clinton. This is madness.
Whooooaaaaa, jesus.

thevoid99
05-10-2016, 03:57 PM
Oh shit. Jon Stewart is right, Trump is a man-baby.

sick among the pure
05-10-2016, 05:24 PM
Yeah sorry, but I can teach you to shop and cook.

I know how to shop and I love to cook. But if you don't recognize that SHOPPING FOR INGREDIENTS AND HAVING THE TIME/SPACE/EQUIPMENT FOR COOKING IS NOT SOMETHING EVERYONE IS ABLE TO DO BASED ON LOCATION, TRANSPORTATION, AND LIVING SITUATION then there's no point in trying to discuss any of this. Which, again, isn't the place to be discussing it anyway.

Man, I wish I had made $16,000 last year...

sick among the pure
05-10-2016, 05:25 PM
This is really scary.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/trump-clinton-florida-ohio-pennsylvania-222994

I just can't believe babyman Trump is doing so well in the polls against Clinton. This is madness.

Not surprised about Ohio or PA at all...

allegro
05-10-2016, 05:43 PM
I know how to shop and I love to cook. But if you don't recognize that SHOPPING FOR INGREDIENTS AND HAVING THE TIME/SPACE/EQUIPMENT FOR COOKING IS NOT SOMETHING EVERYONE IS ABLE TO DO BASED ON LOCATION, TRANSPORTATION, AND LIVING SITUATION then there's no point in trying to discuss any of this. Which, again, isn't the place to be discussing it anyway.
But this is all important stuff in this election. There are people who live in a halfway house near me who shop at the market near my house and then wait for nearly 30 minutes for a Pace bus to pick them up and take them back to the halfway house with their bags of groceries. I was raised by a single mother who worked full-time with no child support and didn't have a driver's license and took the bus everywhere. I have friends in the city who don't have cars at all. There are food banks in neighborhoods everywhere, churches, all over the place, that give out free food since food stamp programs have been cut to the bone. Several of the senior citizens in my mom's building who are living on next to nothing on Social Security but don't qualify for food stamps have to go to food banks to get assistance from local churches, etc. And none of the food that are at food banks are "junk" food, it's not allowed. Just like you can't use food stamps for fast food. My city has a considerable population of latino immigrants who are living at or below the poverty line and the teachers bring these kids food to school, and the parents at my market have WIC coupons which includes free fruit for the kids at checkout. Food stamps don't include diapers or formula for babies, etc. Many of these parents are working two jobs and still qualify for food stamps.

And these points are EXACTLY what these Presidential candidates are discussing. It's what the voters are discussing with the candidates, it's what's important. The cost-of-living, why Republicans are trying to cut Social Security when many seniors can barely afford to live and are having to choose between their medication and food. Some are eating cat food for dinner, that's not a myth. Most seniors can't drive anymore, talk about no transportation. This isn't just an issue about minimum wage, it's about jobs, it's about good jobs, it's about cost-of-living, it's about better-paying jobs, it's about INCREASING Social Security, it's about putting more and better food markets in urban and rural areas, it's about educating people about the slow food movement, it's about preventative healthcare, etc. etc. etc.

HERE, SEE THIS (http://foodtank.com/news/2015/11/tell-presidential-candidates-to-devise-a-national-food-policy).


Every American should have access to healthy and affordable food, and every farmer should be able to protect the environment while providing economic security for their families. The majority of voters are concerned with food affordability in their communities, and 14 percent of Americans were food insecure in 2014. To ensure that no child goes to bed hungry, and that every American has access to and can afford safe, healthy, and culturally appropriate food, the nation needs a comprehensive approach to food systems.

Food Policy Action is an organization that holds legislators accountable for votes on food and farming issues. “The truth is, our current food system is out of balance. It prioritizes corporate profits at the expense of our health, the environment and working families,” says Tom Colicchio, Food Policy Action co-founder and board member. “The next President needs to take bold steps to reform our food system to ensure all Americans have equal access to healthy, affordable food.”

sick among the pure
05-10-2016, 07:04 PM
There are people who live in a halfway house near me who shop at the market near my house
Half a sentence in and you prove my point. They are close enough to a place to purchase food. This isn't a scene from Deadpool, we aren't arguing over who had it worse. It's a simple fact that not everybody is able to get to a food market, buy ingredients, go home, and cook food. It's not a matter of not knowing how to cook, or being too lazy.

allegro
05-10-2016, 07:22 PM
Half a sentence in and you prove my point. They are close enough to a place to purchase food. This isn't a scene from Deadpool, we aren't arguing over who had it worse. It's a simple fact that not everybody is able to get to a food market, buy ingredients, go home, and cook food. It's not a matter of not knowing how to cook, or being too lazy.
But they take a BUS to get there. If you can get to a fast food restaurant, you can get to a market (maybe it's a gas station market but it's a market). Look, fast food restaurants weren't intended to exist for people who can't get to anywhere except fast food restaurants. The solution isn't for people to keep giving money to fast food restaurants; it's for cities to give incentives for markets to build in areas where markets don't exist. The fact is that this is not why fast food exists; it shouldn't be why fast food exists, that's not a solution. Instead, we need to get people better jobs and into housing where they can buy ingredients they can afford and cook food, and to build more markets, not buy fast food and participate in an industry that is greatly contributing to climate change. That's not a "solution."

When I made $16,000 per year, I was still fucking broke because I had to use it to pay rent (I lived alone in literally a ghetto where people were held up at gunpoint around me in Detroit), a car payment (I had to drive 45 miles each way to my job), utilities, my phone bill (cell phones did not yet exist), my car insurance, gas to and from work, books and expenses for college while I was in night school while also working full-time, and after all that I was lucky to any left to eat. I wish you made your money than you did, but a job didn't exactly drop into my fucking lap and I had to work 12-hour days and drive an hour each way to my fucking job then spend every penny of the money I earned with nothing left. That's not exactly living fucking large. And it was such a bad neighborhood, I had to drive 35 minutes to a market that wasn't in a bad neighborhood.

We have to work toward demanding improvement, more markets, better food, more choices, less corporate farming, less industrial agriculture, less Monsanto, more food stamps and food assistance for the needy, more Social Security and Medicare, real change.

Hazekiah
05-10-2016, 07:57 PM
This is all very personal to me right now.

I've been crashing with a pal in NYC for almost three months and haven't had a day of work the whole time. Of course, I haven't really been actively seeking any either. So times are lean but mostly by choice. I've gotten by on a dollar a day more often than not but I'm in NYC with my best friend I've barely seen in years so it's w/e, awesome, let's fucking DO this, y'know?

Speaking of which, it AMAZES me that anyone can stay in shape in NYC when there's $.99 pizza slices as far as the eye can see in every goddamned direction...but making it my only meal of the day helps. Pop a multivitamin and slather that one slice of cheese pizza in all the vegetables and nutritional yeast you can find and it gets you pretty straight. And there's a cute little Korean joint next door with $2.50 peanut noodles and 4 dumplings for a buck where they've gotten to know me QUITE well, lol.

And, yeah, bored with my plain brown rice and feeding my pal's cats stuff that smelled WAY better, I went ahead and cooked up some catfood with my rice and it was excellent. We ate dogfood at summer camp in the Boy Scouts, too. Who gives a fuck if you're hungry enough? Always hated that scene in "The Walking Dead," refusing to eat dogfood in their situation was some of the dumbest fucking shit I've ever seen. WTF. Carl is my boy, though. We tight.

But I digress!

I've never used food stamps (even when I probably should have) but it makes me IMMENSELY appreciative to know they're there for anyone who truly needs them. Same goes for food pantries and just kindhearted and generous people in general. The fact that people anywhere are starving for any reason in this day and age is an abysmal affront to humanity and truly shameful.

Anyway, I don't really have a point to make in here beyond that. I just saw you guys were talking about eating catfood and I had to chime in since I can still taste it in my mouth, lol.

allegro
05-10-2016, 08:24 PM
I've never used food stamps (even when I probably should have) but it makes me IMMENSELY appreciative to know they're there for anyone who truly needs them. Same goes for food pantries and just kindhearted and generous people in general. The fact that people anywhere are starving for any reason in this day and age is an abysmal affront to humanity and truly shameful
The status of food stamps (states are in charge of it and many are too broke and have greatly reduced food stamp programs) is abysmal. My Dad was in Michigan, made $900 per month in Social Security and that was "too much money" to qualify for food stamps. Seriously WHAT THE FUCK. After they deduct Medicare, mandatory supplemental medical insurance, rent, utilities, car insurance (which is REALLY EXPENSIVE in Michigan) and everything else, he made TOO FUCKING MUCH for food stamps? My brother helped support him. Same thing with my Mom's next-door-neighbor in her building here in Illinois, the guy is 71, he makes about $1,000 per month in Social Security, but his rent is $700 per month, he's lived there for 24 years, a studio apartment, the rent kept going up, he has nowhere else to go that he knows of, he makes "too much" for food stamps, he has no car, and neighbors in the building take him to a local food pantry for food. He had two heart attacks from eating CRAP at the 7-11, had bypass surgery, and the doctors said if you don't want to be in this hospital again with us cranking your chest open with a buzz saw, stop eating that shit. Now a niece stepped in and his trying to show him how to eat on the cheap and is taking him to Walmart for food deals, and bought him a slow cooker.

Anyway, I hope your situation gets better, dude. :( Keep eating that Korean food, it's good for you!

sick among the pure
05-10-2016, 09:27 PM
But they take a BUS to get there. If you can get to a fast food restaurant, you can get to a market.

Funny, because I worked around the corner from 3 fast food places, passed a dozen on my way to and from work, and had one I could take a 20-min bus ride to from my apartment complex. You want to know how far I had to go from my apartment, opposite direction from where I worked, to get to a market of any sort? An hour bus ride to a Walmart. After a half hour walk to the bus stop and 45-60 min wait between busses that ran mostly during my work hours. And that's because I was lucky enough to live someplace with public transportation. You want to guess what happens when you live in a small town that doesn't have public transportation, you can't afford a car, and it isn't feasible to walk to a market?

I would love to work toward demanding improvement, more markets, better food, more choices, less corporate farming, less industrial agriculture, more food stamps and food assistance for the needy, more Social Security and Medicare, real change. THOSE ARE ALL THINGS I WANT IN THIS COUNTRY. Not once did I say the fucking solution is to give money to fast food places, not once did I say we shouldn't try to change the problem at hand, not once did I argue any of the points you seem to be arguing against. THE ONLY THING I EVER TOLD YOU IS THAT SOMETIMES WHEN YOU'RE FUCK OUT OF LUCK POOR, THE DOLLAR MENU IS YOUR ONLY HOPE OF EATING A MEAL EVERY DAY. If you can't fucking comprehend that THIS IS A VERY REAL PROBLEM THAT PEOPLE FACE and just because ~you~ lived somewhere that allowed for buying ingredients and coming home to cook doesn't mean that people who literally can not do that are somehow not important enough to consider.
Seriously, all I ever asked you to do is CONSIDER THAT SOME PEOPLE have the choice of "I can spend my $2 in change in my desk on 2 sandwiches that I can count as my full day's meal, or... nothing."

"you need to find a job that makes a lot more money"
Wow. You know what, I never fucking thought of that. Man, you're so smart. Can you teach me how to get a job and cook and stay alive? Because honestly without your monumental success in the face of certain doom, I just wouldn't know what to do.

Guess what, I lived in a literal ghetto too, the vacant lot next to my building (which is where all the mice and roaches who got into the apartment complex came from) had broken razor wire fences around it. I was mugged, also. Ironically, while I was at the bus stop on my way to Walmart after a full 12 hour day to try to get some food to cook later that week. I didn't have a car to pay for, because I couldn't afford a car. You wanna keep swapping sad stories about who had it worse, or you want to discuss WHAT we can do to help people who live like this, without snubbing people who don't have the options you had?

allegro
05-10-2016, 09:43 PM
Funny, because I worked around the corner from 3 fast food places, passed a dozen on my way to and from work, and had one I could take a 20-min bus ride to from my apartment complex. You want to know how far I had to go from my apartment, opposite direction from where I worked, to get to a market of any sort? An hour bus ride to a Walmart. After a half hour walk to the bus stop and 45-60 min wait between busses that ran mostly during my work hours. And that's because I was lucky enough to live someplace with public transportation. You want to guess what happens when you live in a small town that doesn't have public transportation, you can't afford a car, and it isn't feasible to walk to a market?

I would love to work toward demanding improvement, more markets, better food, more choices, less corporate farming, less industrial agriculture, more food stamps and food assistance for the needy, more Social Security and Medicare, real change. THOSE ARE ALL THINGS I WANT IN THIS COUNTRY. Not once did I say the fucking solution is to give money to fast food places, not once did I say we shouldn't try to change the problem at hand, not once did I argue any of the points you seem to be arguing against. THE ONLY THING I EVER TOLD YOU IS THAT SOMETIMES WHEN YOU'RE FUCK OUT OF LUCK POOR, THE DOLLAR MENU IS YOUR ONLY HOPE OF EATING A MEAL EVERY DAY. If you can't fucking comprehend that THIS IS A VERY REAL PROBLEM THAT PEOPLE FACE and just because ~you~ lived somewhere that allowed for buying ingredients and coming home to cook doesn't mean that people who literally can not do that are somehow not important enough to consider.
Seriously, all I ever asked you to do is CONSIDER THAT SOME PEOPLE have the choice of "I can spend my $2 in change in my desk on 2 sandwiches that I can count as my full day's meal, or... nothing."

"you need to find a job that makes a lot more money"
Wow. You know what, I never fucking thought of that. Man, you're so smart. Can you teach me how to get a job and cook and stay alive? Because honestly without your monumental success in the face of certain doom, I just wouldn't know what to do.

Guess what, I lived in a literal ghetto too, the vacant lot next to my building (which is where all the mice and roaches who got into the apartment complex came from) had broken razor wire fences around it. I was mugged, also. Ironically, while I was at the bus stop on my way to Walmart after a full 12 hour day to try to get some food to cook later that week. I didn't have a car to pay for, because I couldn't afford a car. You wanna keep swapping sad stories about who had it worse, or you want to discuss WHAT we can do to help people who live like this, without snubbing people who don't have the options you had?
Look, when you first defended eating fast food, you only said it was because it was cheap to eat 3 dollar-menu chicken sandwiches from Wendy's, not because you live in a very rural area with literally no grocery stores anywhere and the only place you have to eat within 150 miles without a car is fast food. And I'm only trading stories because you seemed to treat me like I don't know what it's like to be totally broke and I wanted to set you straight about that, that some days all I ate was a can of soup and the dollar menu did not exist. Your argument should have been, in the first place, that we need more markets, etc, not that fast food is useful; in my mind, fast food is opportunistically evil because it knows what it is doing, taking advantage of an empty space where markets should be, when it should instead be building markets. I know that people use fast food for that reason, I said that there are food deserts (at least 3 times) and said that we need more markets and less fast foods; look, there are areas IN THE MIDDLE OF THE CITY OF CHICAGO WHERE THERE ISN'T ONE FUCKING SUPERMARKET, YOU HAVE TO SHOP AT A FUCKING GAS STATION IF YOU WANT TO GO TO A MARKET. Hell, when we lived in D.C. we had to get groceries from the fucking CVS if we didn't want to take 2 trains to a real grocery store. HERE SEE THIS (http://newsone.com/1540235/americas-worst-9-urban-food-deserts/). We're on the same side, here, ultimately. Fast food is not the answer; it's unhealthy, it contributes to climate change, etc. The answer isn't "we need fast food because there aren't enough markets," but instead "we need more fucking markets." elevenism lives in the panhandle of Texas where it takes him fucking NINETY MINUTES to get to a GOOD DOCTOR OR A HOSPITAL. That kind of shit needs to change, too. We need to demand that this shit change. Look, anybody who's in the arts kinda expects to starve. But if you want to be more successful, maybe you have to get out of where you are now? Seriously, that totally sucks, I hope you can get out of where you live now and move out of the sticks to an area where you can make more money and have a better shot at a better career and not be poor forever. :( In the meantime, SEE THIS (http://www.letsmove.gov/healthy-communities) and the FOOD DESERT LOCATOR MAP (http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/food-access-research-atlas/go-to-the-atlas.aspx) which is kinda cool.


Anyway, I don't really have a point to make in here beyond that. I just saw you guys were talking about eating catfood and I had to chime in since I can still taste it in my mouth, lol.
I have four cats and I've always been kinda curious ... some of the cat food smells kinda good.

DigitalChaos
05-10-2016, 11:35 PM
allegro also knows how to budget money. Thats another thing a lot of poor people are horrible at, for many reasons.
TEACH people where the jobs are.
Teach people how to keep a budget.
Teach people how to cook food.
Teach people how to stretch money.
Teach people how to save money.

Bumping min wage isn't going to fix any of that. You might as well just make their min wage jobs disappear, it would be as helpful to the people who need better.

DigitalChaos
05-10-2016, 11:36 PM
If you wanted a presidential candidate who is anti-establishment, a successful business man, has no shame, and is just a general circus... you could have chosen McAfee instead of Trump.

Just imagine this guy instead of Trump... do it.





https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEQmeJNU8s0

allegro
05-10-2016, 11:49 PM
If you wanted a presidential candidate who is anti-establishment, a successful business man, has no shame, and is just a general circus... you could have chosen McAfee instead of Trump.

Just imagine this guy instead of Trump... do it.





https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEQmeJNU8s0


I fucking love this guy. Seriously.

Jinsai
05-11-2016, 12:13 AM
Trump will be the Republican nominee. At this point, that is just what is going to happen. There is no option which negates that, should he live through the election without choking on a taco-bowl or something that he has no experience eating. The republicans have to realize they have lost control of their party, and they need to do more than an "autopsy" to get it back. It is entirely their fault.

So Trump must lose, and he must lose as hard as it is possible to lose. I want to see the entire nation go blue like it went red for Reagan... and I think Trump might be the only candidate who can mobilize that sort of rejection. I remain optimistic that whomever the opposition candidate is will absolutely destroy him... to the degree where I'm not even that concerned about it anymore. I'm resigned that Hilary will likely be the democratic candidate, but I'm confident she can obliterate Trump.

Jinsai
05-11-2016, 01:02 AM
also, holy fuck, John McAfee is my fucking hero

onthewall2983
05-11-2016, 01:15 AM
I feel like what's going to happen is, is that Trump's over-exposure is going to catch up with him. People who are so dyed-to-the-wool Trump supporters will be sick of seeing his face by the time November rolls around, especially if he keeps flip-flopping as he's done. Add to which, every "minority" group he's ever upset will come out in droves to vote against him.

GulDukat
05-11-2016, 06:24 AM
If you wanted a presidential candidate who is anti-establishment, a successful business man, has no shame, and is just a general circus... you could have chosen McAfee instead of Trump.

Just imagine this guy instead of Trump... do it.






https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEQmeJNU8s0

The guy seems like a nut. "Everyone in America should carry a pistol." Yeah, ok...

theimage13
05-11-2016, 07:14 AM
I feel like what's going to happen is, is that Trump's over-exposure is going to catch up with him. People who are so dyed-to-the-wool Trump supporters will be sick of seeing his face by the time November rolls around, especially if he keeps flip-flopping as he's done.

I don't think that's going to happen at all. A lot of these supporters can be likened to fangirls fawning over some boy band. Overexposure? There's no such thing. Fuck, the more they hear, the more they want it. Couple that with the fact that a lot of people support Trump specifically because he's not Hilary (or a woman in general), and you've got a voter base that will not budge.

The only hope is that all of the groups he has blatantly spoke out against (literally everyone who isn't a white male) will come vote in record numbers. Unfortunately, seniors are still the ones turning out in the highest numbers, and surprise surprise, there are an awful lot of seniors who still hold the racist views that were prevalent when they were kids and will have no issue voting for Ronald McDonald.

Mantra
05-11-2016, 11:29 AM
The way I see it, all these fast food companies are nothing more than job machines. There's basically nothing else they offer the world that has any real value. Their food is pure trash, and we'd be off without it. Their one and only redeeming value is the income they provide their workers. The less they pay their people, the less they have any reason to continuing existing, as far as I'm concerned.

DigitalChaos
05-11-2016, 11:57 AM
The guy seems like a nut. "Everyone in America should carry a pistol." Yeah, ok...
he's a nut but he's not "build a wall around mexico" crazy. I'd also trust him way more than Hillary. But as a purely "entertainment candidate" ... he wins quite easily.


I just want to seem him debating on stage as part of the general election. There are a few things in motion that might make that a reality.

allegro
05-11-2016, 12:35 PM
he's a nut but he's not "build a wall around mexico" crazy. I'd also trust him way more than Hillary. But as a purely "entertainment candidate" ... he wins quite easily.


I just want to seem him debating on stage as part of the general election. There are a few things in motion that might make that a reality.

Is he going to win the Libertarian nomination?

DigitalChaos
05-11-2016, 12:41 PM
Is he going to win the Libertarian nomination?
Hard to figure out who will. Each candidate has their own advantages. Petersen has professional looking stage presence, Johnson has political experience, McAfee is just... hardcore. The big bit of magic will be getting a Libertarian on the stage with the GOP and Dem candidates.

I need to pay more attention to it though. There are gems like this:

http://i.imgur.com/8z3BMTr.jpg


McAfee outdoes Trump on the "did he just say....?" things but McAfee does it while being largely agreeable, as opposed to Trump's offensiveness.

Sallos
05-11-2016, 04:17 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LnPrxbYARJg

implanted_microchip
05-11-2016, 05:41 PM
he's a nut but he's not "build a wall around mexico" crazy.

Yeah just "get accused of murdering your neighbor, buy your own police force and disguise yourself to spy on authorities investigating you for possibly murdering your neighbor while posting blog updates about it" crazy.

Mantra
05-11-2016, 05:48 PM
Yeah just "get accused of murdering your neighbor, buy your own police force and disguise yourself to spy on authorities investigating you for possibly murdering your neighbor while posting blog updates about it" crazy.

Sounds like he'll be right at home in this batshit crazy election.

thevoid99
05-11-2016, 09:31 PM
also, holy fuck, John McAfee is my fucking hero

I wanna vote for this man.

allegro
05-11-2016, 10:38 PM
I wanna vote for this man.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBEISf-KBiI

Jinsai
05-11-2016, 10:54 PM
having McAfee run the libertarian party ticket would probably do more damage to the brand than good, despite how entertaining I think it would be, and how I sincerely would prefer him to Hillary or Trump actually... and I say this knowing that my opinions on libertarianism aren't exactly enthusiastic. It's odd for me to take into consideration what's "best" for that movement, but McAfee would startle and freak people out, and his cartoonish sincerity would become something that libertarianism is identified with.

Sarah K
05-11-2016, 11:37 PM
Serious question... Why are the BBs so obsessed with Clinton speeches? Just because she was paid a lot for them? I don't understand why they bring this up, regardless of what the discussion is actually about. What is to be gained from them being released? What do they think happened during them?

GulDukat
05-12-2016, 02:22 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBEISf-KBiI
He's like the real life Dale from King of the Hill.

Wolfkiller
05-12-2016, 06:27 AM
Serious question... Why are the BBs so obsessed with Clinton speeches? Just because she was paid a lot for them? I don't understand why they bring this up, regardless of what the discussion is actually about. What is to be gained from them being released? What do they think happened during them?

You HCHs are embarrassing.
http://www.businessinsider.com/hillary-clinton-speeches-on-wall-street-2016-2

Swykk
05-12-2016, 07:14 AM
Serious question... Why are the BBs so obsessed with Clinton speeches? Just because she was paid a lot for them? I don't understand why they bring this up, regardless of what the discussion is actually about. What is to be gained from them being released? What do they think happened during them?

First of all, again, not everyone who supports Bernie is a fucking Bernie Bro. I wish people would stop doing that dismissive nonsense. Second, and more importantly, I agree to the extent that everyone whether they do or don't support Hillary should already be well aware of her deep Wall Street ties. So no real reason to NEED the actual speeches. I guess if the speeches got released that would just bring clearer details to accentuate that point?

Wolfkiller
05-12-2016, 07:57 AM
First of all, again, not everyone who supports Bernie is a fucking Bernie Bro. I wish people would stop doing that dismissive nonsense. Second, and more importantly, I agree to the extent that everyone whether they do or don't support Hillary should already be well aware of her deep Wall Street ties. So no real reason to NEED the actual speeches. I guess if the speeches got released that would just bring clearer details to accentuate that point?

Careful, you'll be labeled a BB next if you keep talking facts.
https://theintercept.com/2016/01/31/the-bernie-bros-narrative-a-cheap-false-campaign-tactic-masquerading-as-journalism-and-social-activism/

Sarah K
05-12-2016, 08:11 AM
Yeah. I very specifically used that term in that instance. The portion of people who seem obsessed with this topic very much seem to fit into that category.

Like, no matter what the topic is, they bring it up. I just didn't know what people think that they contain for there to be such an obsession with it.

Swykk
05-12-2016, 08:14 AM
I'm not obsessed with it but have said all along it's one of two big reasons I won't (and didn't) support her in the primary (her pro Wall Street stuff; the speeches are just icing on the cake).

allegro
05-12-2016, 10:57 AM
I'm not obsessed with it but have said all along it's one of two big reasons I won't (and didn't) support her in the primary (her pro Wall Street stuff; the speeches are just icing on the cake).

This is a really important article regarding all of that (http://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/hillary-clinton-gets-bernie-sanders-doesnt-wall-street).

allegro
05-12-2016, 10:59 AM
He's like the real life Dale from King of the Hill.
McAfee is totally unelectable, but he's really entertaining.

Swykk
05-12-2016, 11:27 AM
This is a really important article regarding all of that (http://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/hillary-clinton-gets-bernie-sanders-doesnt-wall-street).

Well written. I do notice two big problems:

01. The person who wrote this admits he works in Wall Street. Would I trust a biased party to tell me the entire truth? No. The best lies contain some truth.

02. To that point, do I trust Hillary, who I know has received money from Wall Street, to follow through on ANY restrictive plans, more clearly written out or not? No. I do not.

Plus, and this is just me, I think Bernie has his reasons for keeping his cards close and not revealing everything.

elevenism
05-12-2016, 11:34 AM
i'm scared. my mother pulled a 4.0 in nursing school but she is still kind of goofy. like i always think she doesn't have a clue about the world.
at any rate, when donald trump announced his election bid, she was horrified and told us he would certainly be the republican candidate, we laughed at her.
when it came time for the first debate, i bet her my LIFE that the phenomenon would be halted that very night.
Now she is telling me that trump is absolutely going to win the election, no matter what the polls say.

allegro
05-12-2016, 12:34 PM
Well written. I do notice two big problems:

01. The person who wrote this admits he works in Wall Street. Would I trust a biased party to tell me the entire truth? No. The best lies contain some truth.

02. To that point, do I trust Hillary, who I know has received money from Wall Street, to follow through on ANY restrictive plans, more clearly written out or not? No. I do not.

Plus, and this is just me, I think Bernie has his reasons for keeping his cards close and not revealing everything.

But, see, the TRUTH is that most people don't even understand what "Wall Street" is, other than it's some big bad Boogeyman trying to steal their money. And that's simply not true. Wall Street has become synonymous with this big bag of everything that is "financial," even the things that are beneficial to us like our 401K or our retirement IRA. Yes, it's true that about 4 Big Banks ate up pretty much every other bank, but that's NOT what caused the financial crisis of 2008, and neither did "Wall Street." It's all a lot more complicated than that, and that's what that guy ^^ is trying to explain, but people go "whoa, wait, he's from (dun dun dun) Wall Street, he's A Bad Guy" and everybody assumes everybody on Wall Street is bad, even though this country would to cease to prosper if it weren't for Wall Street. Wall Street is the heart and soul of Capitalism, and Capitalism is what makes this country what it is, it's a Free Market country and Wall Street is what makes it that way. The speeches that Hillary did were related to Tech and they were reportedly REALLY boring, about the Tech industry in this country, supposedly Tesla was there promoting going to Green energy and shit like that, so it wasn't like some fucking Nuremberg rally, but when people hear 'Wall Street" that's what they are assuming, because it's become the Boogeyman. And the blame of greed at the bottom of the mortgage crisis, with fraud of BUYERS, is ignored, and banks and lenders and underwriters (having NOTHING to do with "Wall Street") are ignored, and Bernie (who has not had a job outside of politics in his entire life) is totally unaware of this but his drumbeat is Wall Street and that's working because the majority of his audience have not one clue what happens on Wall Street. And Hillary knows a lot more about what really happened during the mortgage crisis, and who was to blame, and how to avoid it happening again, whereas Bernie does not; he just keeps saying "break up the big banks" which isn't even why the mortgage crisis happened.

As you know, I have been in real estate law for nearly 28 years. THIS is a great article and sums up the whole financial crisis of 2008 (http://spectator.org/42211_true-origins-financial-crisis/).


PREVENTING A RECURRENCE of the financial crisis we face today does not require new regulation of the financial system. What is required instead is an appreciation of the fact–as much as lawmakers would like to avoid it–that U.S. housing policies are the root cause of the current financial crisis. Other players–greedy investment bankers; incompetent rating agencies; irresponsible housing speculators; shortsighted homeowners; and predatory mortgage brokers, lenders, and borrowers–all played a part, but they were only following the economic incentives that government policy laid out for them. If we are really serious about preventing a recurrence of this crisis, rather than increasing the power of the government over the economy, our first order of business should be to correct the destructive housing policies of the U.S. government.

implanted_microchip
05-12-2016, 12:45 PM
i'm scared. my mother pulled a 4.0 in nursing school but she is still kind of goofy. like i always think she doesn't have a clue about the world.
at any rate, when donald trump announced his election bid, she was horrified and told us he would certainly be the republican candidate, we laughed at her.
when it came time for the first debate, i bet her my LIFE that the phenomenon would be halted that very night.
Now she is telling me that trump is absolutely going to win the election, no matter what the polls say.

All my brighter friends mocked me for saying he had a shot at being the nominee the minute his numbers shot up after his "some, I assume, are good people" moment and continued to condescend to me all the way up until this very past month and I don't think he's going to win, for what it's worth, though I do think he's a serious contender and Dems need to not get overconfident and complacent about it, because that's exactly how he could win. And the Sanders movement and all of his supporters that say shit like "Bernie or bust!!!!!" and "Hillary for prison, I hope she's indicted!!!" are doing nothing but aiding the Trump campaign.

This is the election where if Democrats could all unify they could win by record numbers but I don't think we'll see that happen, just another typical hair's width win (even with his now-legendary campaign in 08, Obama still didn't win by some mind-blowing amount). If done right I sincerely believe Hillary could win with numbers we've not seen since Nixon but between idealist purists and extremists and overconfident condescending "no one is that stupid to vote for Trump" Democrats, I don't see that big win happening.

aggroculture
05-13-2016, 02:10 PM
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/donald-trump-alter-ego-barron/2016/05/12/02ac99ec-16fe-11e6-aa55-670cabef46e0_story.html?asdfk

I guess stuff like this is going to keep coming out all the way to November.

Deepvoid
05-13-2016, 02:25 PM
I bet there's so much stuff to dig on this guy. Problem is that it's all coming from the MSM and right now, the people hate the MSM.
Trump will go on the record saying he's being treated unfairly, riling up his base and some undecided in the process.

You know what, I'm not even sure Hilary can beat Trump anymore. I wouldn't bet the farm on Hillary that's for sure.

Mantra
05-13-2016, 05:09 PM
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/donald-trump-alter-ego-barron/2016/05/12/02ac99ec-16fe-11e6-aa55-670cabef46e0_story.html?asdfk

I guess stuff like this is going to keep coming out all the way to November.
hahahaha

why would he do this? He has the money to hire his own PR people to brag for him. I don't really get it, but it's fucking hilarious.

It sort of reminds of this scam company I encountered years ago that was supposed to help people who were interested in working in music studios find an internship. They claimed to have "contacts" all over the country, but it was really just one person pretending to be all these different people. I called the number and this guy who answered was like "Let me tell you what bro, I'm gonna have you call my buddy Mike down in L.A. He'll help you out. Peace out bro! " So I call this Mike person and it's literally the exact same guy, same accent, same speech mannerisms and everything, and he's like "Yo, I'll tell you what bro, I'm gonna have you call my buddy Steve over in New York. He'll hook you up man. Peace out!" On and on this went, through like half a dozen different names, all of them with identical voices and identical ways of talking, each one just passing me on to the next. All I could picture was this crazy maniac in an office somewhere with all these cellphones laid out across his desk, answering calls all day long and pretending to be eighty different people at once.

DigitalChaos
05-14-2016, 06:28 PM
Yeah just "get accused of murdering your neighbor, buy your own police force and disguise yourself to spy on authorities investigating you for possibly murdering your neighbor while posting blog updates about it" crazy.
He has actually addressed it in ways that even other candidates find so acceptable that they walk over to him, during a debate, and pat his back or hug him.
In short, your quote can be rephrased as "he resisted corruption of a 3rd world government that repeatedly tried to extort him and endanger his life." That's wet dream material for a lot of the libertarian crowd :P For the general public, it's only an issue if you ignore who is making the allegations and the fact that they have gone years without evidence.

DigitalChaos
05-14-2016, 06:45 PM
...and I say this knowing that my opinions on libertarianism aren't exactly enthusiastic. It's odd for me to take into consideration what's "best" for that movement, but...
examining strategy options for opposing objectives is immensely helpful and educational. It allows a deeper grasp of the system you want to leverage. Too few people do it!





McAfee would startle and freak people out, and his cartoonish sincerity would become something that libertarianism is identified with.

McAfee is totally unelectable, but he's really entertaining.

This is exactly where I started out when I first heard about McAfee running... and I am still of this view. But after watching the clown show of Trump succeed, I am becoming a whole lot less firm on that opinion. Granted, that's just the electability topic.

There is a whole other topic on "how much chance a libertarian has" and its really interesting right now... While the answer is still "basically no chance," there has also never been such a good time for libertarians to gain more traction:
- We have record low approval ratings for the Dem and GOP offerings.
- Libertarians are on the ballot in every state.
- We have the Koch brother's deep pockets who hate Trump and would dump tons of money toward a libertarian candidate who would interfere with him.
- We have Hillary with a decent chance of being indicted by the FBI investigation after she wins the Dem primary.

There is a lot of crazy shit going on. A lot of unpredictable stuff could unfold. I am just hoping for a libertarian on the national debate stage with the other 2 candidate to create an extremely healthy situation for all of us.

implanted_microchip
05-15-2016, 12:05 AM
Realistically if Libertarians or any third party take the White House in the near future, it will still be several elections down the line. We'll not see some massive sudden upset where a third party candidate wins an election suddenly and out of nowhere, we'll see several elections in a row where a third party takes ten, then twenty, then thirty percent of the general vote, etc. This kind of thing is a gradual system and anyone who thinks a Lib. has a real valid chance at winning this year is letting the love for their own ideology get in the way of reality.

Also if a third party really does rise up can it please be the Green Party or, really, anything other than the Libertarian party? Thanks

DigitalChaos
05-15-2016, 02:30 AM
We'll not see some massive sudden upset where a third party candidate wins an election suddenly and out of nowhere, we'll see several elections in a row where a third party takes ten, then twenty, then thirty percent of the general vote, etc. This kind of thing is a gradual system
based on what? You currently have an career independent who is giving Hillary a lot of competition. He changed his affiliation only for the election. His name is Bernie Sanders. His support wasn't a slow gradual thing. It was a huge populist surge that was very much based on the current state of things. This kind of pattern is much more common than a very gradual shift.

implanted_microchip
05-15-2016, 07:08 AM
based on what? You currently have an career independent who is giving Hillary a lot of competition. He changed his affiliation only for the election. His name is Bernie Sanders. His support wasn't a slow gradual thing. It was a huge populist surge that was very much based on the current state of things. This kind of pattern is much more common than a very gradual shift.

Based on the way our political system has functioned historically for ages and that the overwhelming majority of voters still register as one of the two major parties, Libertarianism is some real not the popular ideology and oir entire news media is built around the two-party system. It takes time for a third party to become significant in reach, funding and viability. We've seen the Democrats and Republicans shift entirely ideologically throughout history yet retain the same names rather than just branch off into new parties. Republicans are even basically two under one umbrella now because even that is easier to pull off than to go third party.

Sanders would have never gotten where he did before his campaign died had he not registered as a Democrat, and there was little shocking about a far left candidate appealing to the young, college-educated white and liberal crowd, the only demographics he ever consistently won over and the demographics that traditionally prefer the further-left candidates in the first place. The only thing surprising is how long he lasted. He benefitted the most from open primaries and caucuses and did his best amongst young white people. Not exactly the way you win an election, let alone a nomination (when you're relying on people who aren't even members of a party to nominate you for a party you're probably fucking up). It wasn't just "overnight" either, anyone who knew any white 20-something dudes from last September on hears fucking plenty about him constantly. Hell, if you browsed the front page of reddit you'd still think he was somehow winning as if no one else even existed. Within his crowd, he's had appeal. It's just not a viable election-winning crowd and is the exact opposite end of the spectrum of the criticism against many Republicans that they only appeal to old people -- well, at least old people reliably turn out to vote.

Please go ahead and quote me and rub it in in November when bath salt-loving, teenage prostitute-fucking fugitive John McAffee wins in a landslide and I'm proven wrong. Until then there's zero real reason to imagine something like that realistically occurring.

Mantra
05-15-2016, 10:06 AM
We have the Koch brother's deep pockets

oh, well that's comforting

theimage13
05-15-2016, 10:26 AM
There is a lot of crazy shit going on. A lot of unpredictable stuff could unfold. I am just hoping for a libertarian on the national debate stage with the other 2 candidate to create an extremely healthy situation for all of us.

There's no healthy situation there. Put a libertarian on the debate stage with two other candidates and you basically hand the White House to the republican party on a silver platter.

implanted_microchip
05-15-2016, 06:33 PM
oh, well that's comforting
I really love how people are so against campaign contributions and large donors until they're funding the person they support. It's just like how Trump criticized Rubio for getting money from Sheldon Adelson and now Sheldon Adelson has promised to give more to Trump than any other campaign he's donated to, and suddenly Donald is just "very grateful" about the whole thing. It's just the classic political hypocrisy of "it's only okay if my side does it."

DigitalChaos
05-16-2016, 09:41 AM
There's no healthy situation there. Put a libertarian on the debate stage with two other candidates and you basically hand the White House to the republican party on a silver platter.

How so? Are mere ideas really so damaging to democrat candidates?

Mantra
05-16-2016, 10:33 AM
Put a libertarian on the debate stage with two other candidates and you basically hand the White House to the republican party on a silver platter.This kinda doesn't make sense to me.

Libertarians don't neatly fit into either side of our country's left/right binary. They have a some left-leaning tendencies (i.e: their opposition to the war on drugs, social liberalism, etc). But still, their enthrallment with guns and unregulated capitalism means that they'll probably siphon off more Republican voters than Democrats. Democrats mostly stand to benefit from Libertarians being on the ticket because that might split the conservative vote somewhat. Put Hillary on the stage with Trump and whichever Libertarian candidate, and it means that Trump and the other dude will have to compete with each other.

DigitalChaos
05-16-2016, 12:32 PM
This kinda doesn't make sense to me.

Libertarians don't neatly fit into either side of our country's left/right binary. They have a some left-leaning tendencies (i.e: their opposition to the war on drugs, social liberalism, etc). But still, their enthrallment with guns and unregulated capitalism means that they'll probably siphon off more Republican voters than Democrats. Democrats mostly stand to benefit from Libertarians being on the ticket because that might split the conservative vote somewhat. Put Hillary on the stage with Trump and whichever Libertarian candidate, and it means that Trump and the other dude will have to compete with each other.

If it's Hillary v Trump, there is a lot of overlap between the two that a libertarian will push them left on the same way Sanders has been (kinda). NSA spying, the Global War Machine, Drug War, and even some socially liberal topics that Hillary sucks on.

For the record, I specifically said the debate stage being healthy... I dont give a shit about the ticket in this context.

implanted_microchip
05-17-2016, 05:23 AM
So Sanders supporters in Nevada basically behaved exactly how they've been accused of being and no one is really discussing it and the Nevada Democratic Party have filed an official complaint to the DNC against Sanders' campaign.

https://www.ralstonreports.com/blog/nv-democrats-file-complaint-against-sanders-campaign-dnc

Including actual death threats:

https://www.ralstonreports.com/blog/sample-voicemails-left-state-democratic-chairwoman-roberta-lange

This shit's crazy and these people don't know the childish and directionless damage they're doing

Deepvoid
05-17-2016, 06:08 AM
So after laughing at the GOP's implosion as a result of Trump getting the nomination, it appears the Dems are going in the same direction.
Two parties in disarray. This isn't boding well for November.

implanted_microchip
05-17-2016, 07:15 AM
For months now the Sanders campaign has been inspiring fucking ridiculous behavior and significant amounts of his supporters have been advocating just totally bad behavior in the name of some weird sense of righteous ideological purity and we're just finally seeing it hitting the levels I and a lot of people have said it probably would for a bit now.

If these people were genuine progressives who didn't want Donald Trump to be president and wanted to prevent Republicans from taking the White House they would have acted like fucking adults, accepted their preferred candidate wasn't the majority's favorite and gracefully accepted that fact, and supported the nominee months ago but instead it's been this utter shitshow and just, ugh, it really frustrates me.

Watching these "true progressives" that condescend to other Democrats constantly actually doing things that arguably just help conservatives more is beyond irritating. These people seriously act like they care about progressing as a country but say things like "I'm voting for Trump if it's Hillary." Really? Really? The mental gymnastics are just astounding. He has attracted over time a ton of basically arrogant and extremist children who see Mr. Robot and Fight Club and think "What a good idea."

These people want to feel like they're helping "take down the system" when the whole idea of progressiveness is building up the system into a better thing. It's like a ton of fifteen year old nihilists. The protesting of CNN over a "Bernie blackout" they think exists. The insane hatred spewed at Hillary Clinton on levels Fox News would be amazed by. The Trump rally protests. These people have severely damaged the image of Sanders' campaign and he's done fuck-all to combat it, fuck-all to speak against it, had tons of opportunities and instead goes and says shit like "she's not qualified" and these people defend it.

He has failed consistently to actually do anything about these people and constantly throws his hands up and says "Hey I didn't do it" yet basically advocates so much of this by never discouraging it, either. His surrogates go and call Hillary Clinton a murderer and he doesn't do shit about it and his campaign just goes "we don't control what they say." Why has every other political campaign been able to have a consistent rhetoric then while theirs is just a ton of "well we don't control what they say" over and over and bouncing between "we are all about supporting the Democratic nominee" to "Hillary Clinton isn't qualified and I'm going to criticize her on things I said a year ago no one should criticize her for"? Just, it's fucking insane. When people are shouting hateful shit and you just go with it you're not exactly discouraging bad behavior. These people imagine some secret Illuminati-esque conspiracy theory reality where Wall Street is like this single person who issues commands to kill poor people and lower their internet speeds and talks to Hillary Clinton in her Death Star chamber via hologram. It's insane. It's just insane. It's not progressive. It's not progressive at all. I've spent months now just losing more and more respect for a politician who I really admired for a long time and it's not exactly been a great experience.

And because Bernie fans here give me shit a lot for it despite my constant statements otherwise let me just clarify that I am not saying everyone who likes him is like this, I am saying the people do things like the linked article are and if you really want to argue that go ahead but don't dismiss my criticisms of this shit as "not all of us are like that." I know that. I'm not an idiot.

Swykk
05-17-2016, 07:51 AM
You don't see anything wrong with locking out folks on one side and declaring the other candidate the winner after many shenanigans in between? Something is definitely wrong in Nevada but keep your blinders on. It wouldn't be a post by you in this thread if you weren't belittling Sanders supporters, who in this situation (and many others) are quite justifiably pissed. Death threats are dumb for sure, so I'll give you that...but not much else.

Swykk
05-17-2016, 07:55 AM
http://www.salon.com/2016/05/16/what_the_hell_just_happened_in_nevada_sanders_supp orters_are_fed_up_and_rightfully_so/

Things That Make You Go Hmmmm

implanted_microchip
05-17-2016, 08:03 AM
It wouldn't be a post by you in this thread if you weren't belittling Sanders supporters


... aside from every single discussion I've had about Trump, Republicans, the GOP and times where I've talked positively about things Sanders has done and plenty of, you know, other posts. And I even specified at the end for people like you that I was not talking about all Sanders supporters, yet you're behaving as if I did when I'm talking about people who outright left death threats on a woman's voicemail. Those are all the people my post was about along with people who have behaved similarly and the toxic environment they've fostered. But hey, in your own words, "keep your blinders on" and keep adoring the facepalm button with me instead of just discussing things and respecting that we do not agree.

Hillary won by 52% yet these specific Sanders supporters are angry that they didn't get more delegates. They then posted a woman's phone number and home address and have left tons of violent, profane, horrible messages that you can read. That is what they have done in reaction to this.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/05/15/heres-what-happened-at-saturdays-dramatic-nevada-democratic-convention/

Everyone here is acting like animals and this is not at all the image that Democrats pretend they have (and even I believed we had it for a while). "WHAT KIND OF DEMOCRACY IS THIS????!!!!!!" and chanting for recounts. Fights breaking out. Mass booing at people reading results. This is apparently fucking fine and dandy and the way you should do things. Nothing about this makes anyone look good. At all. In any way. Meanwhile Bernie calls it "respectful" and "constructive" apparently.

Swykk
05-17-2016, 08:08 AM
I discussed it plenty. Granted, I didn't write a novel but you're choosing not to respond to those portions.

To not acknowledge that there is some bullshit going on in Nevada (and Arizona)? The blinders comment fits.

Here's how you'll spin it--"Bernie supporters are totes being sore losers, you guys." Annnnnd, you edited that right into your last post.

http://theworldstyle.com/corroborating-evidence-shows-clinton-camp-tampering-delegate-count-nevada/

Except, what you said isn't exactly how it went down.

allegro
05-17-2016, 08:13 AM
Arizona was due to Republicans and the VRA and affected Clinton and Sanders voters. Clinton won 52% in Nevada and it was a caucus, and caucuses are like that (which Sanders fans don't seem to get).

implanted_microchip
05-17-2016, 08:16 AM
I discussed it plenty. Granted, I didn't write a novel but you're choosing not to respond to those portions.

To not acknowledge that there is some bullshit going on in Nevada (and Arizona)? The blinders comment fits.

Here's how you'll spin it--"Bernie supporters are totes being sore losers, you guys."

Read that Washington Post article then. You come at me with such a combative tone in this thread constantly and it's just tiring, dude. All you do is quote me and talk shit to me for not thinking that things should be the way you do and act like I'm some blind fool for not thinking like you do. People chanting "BULLSHIT" and not recognizing that an event has ended and then acting like they're being somehow abused when they're forced to leave after hanging around after they're supposed to is not a way to deal with anything.

If these people think something wrong happened, then they should deal with it in a way that makes someone take them seriously and view them as grownups discussing real problems. That crowd did nothing to create an image of anything other than screaming children and you go ahead and watch that footage and tell me otherwise. That article did a pretty good job at breaking events down without bias and without saying one side was right or wrong, explained the math and the way the votes broke down and linked footage of the event. You know what I got from it? "Bernie fans were petulantly angry that they didn't win as many delegates in the vote and threw a fit about it like they were at a Trump rally." None of it made me think "$hillary cheated! Let's act like the righteous defenders of freedom! This isn't democracyyyyyyyyyyyy"

There's ways you go about it and there's ways you don't. These are all ways you don't and it's a great way to make it to where if any of these claims end up being worth anything, no one will listen anyway because the mouths they've come from have spouted this shit in the most absurd of ways. "Fraud" has become a boy cried wolf situation with the Sanders campaign and losing in states this election. Every time they lose I see some group spring up claiming it was somehow not a valid win for Hillary and so far there's yet to be any smoking gun moment proving that.

Swykk
05-17-2016, 08:23 AM
If it feels like I'm being combative, it's because you're CONSTANTLY bashing Bernie and his supporters and then get very upset when it happens to you and Hillary. I am not the only person who has said as much to you in this thread. You're ignoring a lot and it's frustrating to say the least. If you note, I discuss things differently with @allegro (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=76), @sarah (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=1154)K (one day I will learn how to @ someone with a space in their name), and others because they aren't dismissive like you are. Change your approach and you'll get different results.
That said, I still like you. We've gotten along great until this thread.

allegro
05-17-2016, 08:25 AM
People are too passionate. Ultimately, it's a President, it won't matter as much as you hope or want.

Pay a lot more attention to who's running for Senator in this election.

implanted_microchip
05-17-2016, 10:01 AM
If it feels like I'm being combative, it's because you're CONSTANTLY bashing Bernie and his supporters

All I was saying was that a ton of people sending death threats to a woman on her phone that they got the number for because other people spread it because they were unhappy with the fact that their chosen candidate didn't win something and acted like lunatics at a convention over the outcome and that Bernie Sanders keeps refusing to come out and disown this kind of behavior is wrong and creates a toxic environment that isn't conductive to anything resembling progress. There have been constant and regular extremely loud moments like this in the past months with his campaign and groups of his supporters and so I've talked about it because it's serious shit and when you have something like what you can see in all of those videos going on I think it's worth saying something about it. When Rosario Dawson calls Hillary Clinton a murderer and someone calls her a whore and Bernie just "aw shucks" shrugs at it, what is remotely wrong with saying "that's not cool"? At all?

I've never tried to suggest that Bernie is some grand evil schemer who is the worst person ever and will try and tear democracy apart at the seams and destroy all liberty but boy oh boy do people talk about Hillary like that. I try to not be hyperbolic about him and I don't think I really have been. I almost always discuss specific events that are worth mentioning. You talk as if I'm just daily saying "Bernie is the worst and is evil" and all I'm ever saying is how dysfunctional his campaign has been, how large portions of his supporters have become increasingly radical and how he's not done enough to curb the kind of toxicity you can see widely and broadly and all around the place if you do something as simple as look at social media for five minutes and check out what a ton of people who love him say regularly.

A woman is dealing with death threats because a ton of his supporters can't deal with their frustration in a healthy normal constructive way and I don't see other candidates having that issue with their constituents and certainly not at this level. It's extremely disappointing and to act like it isn't an issue is just willingly ignoring the way that a lot of these people have continued to behave. People in Bernie t-shirts hitting Trump supporters outside of rallies and girls walking around with Bernie stickers covering their tits is not exactly a good image and it's one that a ton of people see.

I would expect someone like Bernie to do a whole hell of a lot to speak out against this kind of behavior and to create a campaign full of people that wouldn't support it yet people like Jeff Weaver and people like Tad Devine say the most questionable shit and often spin these events as "impassioned youth" and romanticize something that is totally uncalled for and not helping anyone. You mistake disappointment as bashing a ton and maybe I don't communicate it clearly which would be funny since often I'm considered pretty good at communicating around here, but then again I rarely talk about shit that gets me that emotionally involved so who knows, we're all human. If I thought Bernie was some piece of shit I wouldn't ever be remotely frustrated by this kind of shit because I'd not expect anything better out of him. I see people that support Trump behave like that and Trump never argue against it and I don't bash it because I expect nothing better from him.

I expect Bernie Sanders to be the kind of person to disown and distance himself from that kind of extremely negative energy and am constantly let down that he and his direct campaign leaders just let it happen, barely ever address it and give thin at best comments on it. I remember him at one point being adamantly opposed to the "Bernie Bros" type people and saying "We don't want you with us" in very direct, clear wording and I really admired that extremely so. Somewhere along the way that stopped happening and I don't know, I try to not assume and I try to not project and I try to not claim that I know your feelings but I just never see you acknowledging this stuff. Any time it's brought up you seem to brush it away as "Well, I like Bernie and I'm not like that," when no one is saying that. At all. I've never said it. You cannot say all of those people do not exist. Story after story, photo after photo, video after video, post after post those people appear in the media frequently and vocally and I really don't see how you could look at it and not see it as a real issue and damaging. It makes Sanders' campaign look really, really bad. Which, in turn for people, makes him look bad. When people think of Bernie and think "that annoying asshole on my Facebook who posts all the time about people being dumb for voting for Hillary and not Bernie" it's not a good thing and I know tons of people who experienced something of a "Bernout" because of those exact types of supporters and the campaign's general refusal to acknowledge it much and disown it.

I don't like that a candidate who has represented the most progressive platform in modern American presidential politics has a climate about him lately that does not make people feel good about it. Almost everyone I know in person feels this way at this point and I see a ton of that sentiment expressed. It's damaging to the entire platform because it risks people associating things like what he supports with that attitude and sentiment and I do not want that to happen. I miss the days of "We are running a positive campaign." I miss the days of "I'm sick and tired of hearing about ya damn e-mails." I miss when there was nothing but a really positive air of pushing for change and recognizing Democrats as allies and refusing to attack and be petty about things. I loved that Bernie Sanders and I loved the campaign environment that created where it was more "lots of young people feeling positive and involved about politics" instead of the current "people being bitter and angry and acting like maniacs because people don't agree with them." That was all gold to me. Somewhere, that went away, and my support did with it.

Swykk
05-17-2016, 10:21 AM
You're not looking at the big picture. Again. Lange is catching hell because she conducted a vote before everyone was present and then bailed and called the cops. Does she deserve death threats? No. But something should be done about bullshit like this (and also voter suppression seen in Nevada and Arizona...that we KNOW OF). Anger is the correct response.

implanted_microchip
05-17-2016, 10:43 AM
Something running over an hour past the scheduled time and then being over and people staying for hours later and being told to leave is not "bailing and calling the cops" as far as I'm concerned, but to each their own.

Mantra
05-17-2016, 11:02 AM
I actually do think that Sanders' excuse of "Well, I didn't do it, I can't control those people" has a bit more validity than you might think. It's been a weird thing to observe, but Sanders' campaign seems to have become a vehicle for something much bigger and messier than simply getting the guy elected.

I remember back when McCain was running, and I saw this video of some dude at a townhall talking about how scared he was at the idea of raising kids in Obama's America. McCain was trying to dial things down a bit by saying some vaguely positive thing about Obama, and suddenly the whole crowd started booing him. In that moment McCain looked so weary and depressed, lol.

Edit: Here it is:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=llef8ZRTWQo

Haha, oh man...memories.

So anyway, Sanders could try to be like "hey everybody, chill out! Death threats are a big no-no! Also, the wage gap is a basic fact of reality, kinda like climate change and the sky being blue, sheesh." And he probably should do that, but I don't actually know if it'll change much at this point. All this "momentum" has taken on a life of it's own.

And I actually think that stuff happens all the time. Candidates become more like an icon or a mascot for whatever their voters project onto them, and I really do think that's a tough thing to control. And I think it cuts both ways: supporters aren't controlled by the candidates, and candidates aren't controlled by their supporters. Democratic elections are these weird cultural events where everyone gets all caught up in feeling like "Everyone! We're in this together! We're in a fucking movement! We are ONE!" and it's really just an illusion. I myself haven't been immune to this. I've always been kind of apathetic about presidential elections, just because I've never seen a candidate who even came close to representing my political beliefs. So this whole Sanders thing has been kind of a weird new experience for me, where I actually got caught up in a candidate's hype somewhat. But I have to admit that the movement illusion has started to fade. I and my fellow Sanders' supporters don't necessarily share a lot of the same beliefs, evidently, even if we all support the same candidate (i.e: feminism is a pretty fundamental part of my politics, along with non-violent activism). I still think that Sanders himself is a pretty solid dude at the end of the day, but the Sanders "movement" as a whole doesn't exactly feel like my home at this point. I have absolutely no problem with radicalism or "extremism," but I feel like the campaign is becoming too emotional and sloppy and desperate and ineffective. This just isn't my thing anymore, although that certainly doesn't mean I'm gonna throw my support behind centrist Democrats like Hillary, because I just fundamentally don't like her politics.

At this point I'm kind of emotionally checked out of the whole election, and am now simply observing the events in the same way I might study history or literature or whatever. It's been a fun ride though!

implanted_microchip
05-17-2016, 12:11 PM
The whole thing is that behavior is what we've come to expect out of Republicans and Democrats love to style themselves as the "civil, reasonable" people. And then shit like this happens and proves that, not really, right or left mob mentality insanity is always going to happen and there is no group "more grown up," just better at making you believe they are. At least, that's what this whole image gives.

Then again this whole mess I guess really sure does validate a lot of shit that the right says about what happens when a socialist calls for revolution. Way to break the stereotype. I don't know, it's like this whole election we've watched the left do everything the right claims they do and play right into their hand and an election that should be a total walk for the Democrats won't be because they couldn't get their shit together and actually be as smart as they act like they are. Watching Republicans play into Trump's media games and do what he wants them to has been one thing, but seeing Dems do what he wants them to as well is so disheartening. I really like to believe the left really is generally smarter and better than the right but this election has seemed desperate to prove otherwise no matter how much patience I try to have.

DigitalChaos
05-17-2016, 12:47 PM
Everyone here is acting like animals and this is not at all the image that Democrats pretend they have (and even I believed we had it for a while). "WHAT KIND OF DEMOCRACY IS THIS????!!!!!!" and chanting for recounts. Fights breaking out. Mass booing at people reading results. This is apparently fucking fine and dandy and the way you should do things. Nothing about this makes anyone look good. At all. In any way. Meanwhile Bernie calls it "respectful" and "constructive" apparently.

People think direct democracy is the perfect system, but it's this kind of shit that demonstrates how dumb the idea is. People freak the fuck out and act with zero integrity if they don't get what they want. They act with zero foresight. That's absolutely a problem in the younger Bernie supporters and quite a lot of his supporters that lean much harder to the left.

however....




If these people were genuine progressives who didn't want Donald Trump to be president and wanted to prevent Republicans from taking the White House they would have acted like fucking adults, accepted their preferred candidate wasn't the majority's favorite and gracefully accepted that fact, and supported the nominee months ago but instead it's been this utter shitshow and just, ugh, it really frustrates me.

No. They don't "want to prevent Trump" ... what they want is Bernie. What you are trying to impose upon them is more animalistic in mind and lacking foresight than a lot of the Bernie supporters are doing at these protests. Herd mentality bullshit.

DigitalChaos
05-17-2016, 12:55 PM
@kleiner352 (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=4417) says Sanders supporters are acting like idiots. This is true.
@Swykk (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=285) says Sanders supporters are doing this because something looks broken/corrupt. This is also true.

Both can be true at the same time. One does not negate the other. It would be great if both were not true. Focusing on just one of these things does not make the other disappear.

Sarah K
05-17-2016, 01:00 PM
Just a side note on that McCain video... He seems like a decent dude. I have quite a bit of respect for him. He's generally seems to be a pretty reasonable man. He has to be so heartbroken over what his party has devolved into over these last few years.

implanted_microchip
05-17-2016, 01:51 PM
Just a side note on that McCain video... He seems like a decent dude. I have quite a bit of respect for him. He's generally seems to be a pretty reasonable man. He has to be so heartbroken over what his party has devolved into over these last few years.

The only thing that's surprised me in the least of Trump's antics and his inability to be damaged by whatever he says was when he mocked McCain for being a war hero by any measure of the phrase, a man who endured torture and actually refused early release from imprisonment because it would have been due to preferential treatment because of who his father was and he felt that would've been unfair to those stuck with him that he'd have been leaving behind. The way that he has courted the veteran vote so hard (even broadcasting a veteran's fundraiser on CNN when he didn't appear at that one Fox News debate), I couldn't believe that didn't hurt him and it's the only thing he's said that truly shocked and upset me. I expect crazy random shitty things out of him and haven't emotionally reacted to any of them aside from that, it was just unbelievable.

Even worse was watching McCain try and stick to the party line when confronted about it by just saying "I'll support whoever the nominee is" while trying desperately to not say Trump (this was before it was decided). He just looked completely broken down and worn out and there's a good shot he'll be beaten by a Democrat this November, which considering how long he's held that seat and rarely been really challenged in his position is insane. I wouldn't have ever wanted him as president but he's to me what the "classic" Republican is and is a good politician all in all who is doing what they're supposed to, which is trying to do what they think is best and trying to look out for the direction of the country rather than just being completely up his own ass as an ideologue more obsessed with maintaining some extremist ideal than actually achieving things. Unfortunately those kinds of Republicans are a dying breed I guess.

implanted_microchip
05-17-2016, 01:59 PM
No. They don't "want to prevent Trump" ... what they want is Bernie. What you are trying to impose upon them is more animalistic in mind and lacking foresight than a lot of the Bernie supporters are doing at these protests. Herd mentality bullshit.

Bernie has said repeatedly over and over that a Democrat winning is vital and that Donald Trump can't be allowed to win, and that whoever the Democratic nominee is needs to be supported. So the guy they follow has said flat-out that that's the most important thing. If you're a progressive then a Republican winning should be overall your biggest worry and whether anyone wants to face it or not, Trump really could win (and it's not facing that fact that would allow him to do so, I think he's counting on Democrats taking a win for granted and so not really turning out).

And come the fuck on you know that saying that being a progressive means you don't want the guy who led the Birther movement and who says we should ban all Muslims from travelling in the country isn't "more animalistic in mind and lacking foresight than a lot of the Bernie supporters are doing at these protests." Yeah, in saying that someone who stands for progressive ideology wouldn't want someone who is endorsed by white supremacists to become president I just acted crazier than one of these people that have started fights, thrown shit, yelled at cops, chanted "bullshit" in a convention setting, leaked people's home addresses and phone numbers and left raving death threats for party officials. I'm sorry but I can't take things seriously when you equate what I just said to that kind of behavior and even go as far as to say it's somehow even worse.

Deepvoid
05-17-2016, 03:42 PM
Just saw the video regarding the voice vote in Neveda. That was ridiculous.

Cue at 2:00 and more at 10:15.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=435x0dQ5Lzg

Your Name Here
05-17-2016, 03:47 PM
.................

implanted_microchip
05-17-2016, 04:20 PM
I question why other top democrats didn't run for the nomination this primary season such as Elizabeth Warren or Joe Biden. It seems to me that Shultz has back roomed a deal with Clinton and that is why these top and very much loved democrats have sat this primary out

Joe Biden came out a week ago saying he intended to run and even approached Warren as a running mate but the death of his son, Beau, to cancer last summer kept him from feeling capable of running and that was pretty much known at the time that it halted all plans of a campaign and it's an extremely tragic and extremely respectful reason to not run. He's openly said he just knew anyone running for president needed to be able to focus 100% on it and that he was too filled with grief to dedicate himself to it and to being president but that he believed he could have been a great one.

It's also worth noting that amongst Democrat voters in closed primaries, Hillary does very well and is popular while it's with open primaries that Bernie does better, and in my opinion the members of a party should be the ones electing their nominee. In several states even with open primaries, Republicans have crossed over to vote for him, which inspires little confidence in me.

I've legit said a Biden/Warren ticket would've been my dream and it makes me sad knowing it almost happened but it's completely wrong and baseless to say it had anything to do with some conspiracy theory deal. The guy's kid died. It's incredible to me that he was able to maintain such a composure just as VP and continue making strong appearances while going through that, I couldn't imagine that happening and then trying to run for POTUS.

Ultimately I think that if Dems lose it's Democrats faults for either A) being childish over the fact that who they wanted to win didn't so sitting it out because they're privileged enough to not be affected by it and have the luxury of apathy or B) Democrats being overconfident that it's a guaranteed win because who could ever vote Donald Trump (which is exactly how Dems acted in 2004 about Bush) resulting in low voter turnout which has been an issue in multiple recent elections as Republican turnouts have broken records consistently, while Republicans band together to try and stop Hillary Clinton, a woman they've demonized for three decades, or, by some bizarre conspiracy theory stroke of dark magic, the socialist Jew who wants to take all your money away to give lazy kids medical marijuana (and I say that because that's exactly what he'd be characterized as by the right if they needed to attack him).

I also love the irony that the GOP was terrified of Trump running third party so everyone signed a pledge promising to support the nominee and now the issue is getting the other candidates to support Donald Trump who has become the nominee. Rubio went on a twitter rant and basically mocked Republican voters for choosing Trump and as recent as this past week Romney's been trying to find somebody to run as a third party candidate for Republicans. It's easy to say that they're all backing Trump but there's a lot of the party elite trying very hard to find another option and I'm sure that their best case scenario is throwing this election, having Hillary for four years and running Paul Ryan in 2020 with someone like Kasich as a VP. That could be a real destroyer of a ticket and would give them two politicians who actually play by their rules and are proven loyal Republicans.

allegro
05-17-2016, 04:25 PM
I believe Bernie Sanders could beat Trump in the general
I don't think there is a whole lot of evidence to support that, other than a few select polls. There are far too many Democrats and Republicans who think that Sanders' "Democratic Socialism" means "Communism" (or, at least, "get the fuck out of my wallet, I don't want to share") and while that may be terribly misinformed it still translates to lack of a whole lot of lost votes.

Hillary "falls short" in polls against Trump in THREE STATES. And then that hits headlines and all of a sudden it's Chicken Little, the sky is falling, oh my God (clutches pearls). Trump hasn't even hit the convention, yet, but we're all controlled by these damned polls, a lot of which aren't even very scientific. And it will be "the death of this country" if Trump wins, yet we've "survived" far worse Presidents, for sure (as I said, I survived eight fucking years of Reagan, we survived eight fucking years of George W, and Trump can't be ANY worse than those two assholes). Four years ... with BALANCE OF POWER ... and suddenly it's "OH MY GOD, HE'S GONNA HIT THE NUCLEAR BUTTON AND KILL EVERYBODY INCLUDING HIS OWN FAMILY AND HIS OWN BUSINESSES, WE'D BETTER START MAKING BOMB SHELTERS."

This sure is entertaining, I'll say that much. I've never seen so many people interested in a Presidential election.

Now let's see how many of them actually get off their respective asses and vote. Let's take bets on how many of them know who their Senators are.

Your Name Here
05-17-2016, 04:31 PM
....................

allegro
05-17-2016, 04:35 PM
Biden isn't Jesus.

He pushed through Clarence Thomas' nomination.

I'll NEVER forgive him for that.

Warren doesn't want to be President, plain and simple. She feels she can do more good for her constituents as a Senator. And that's probably very true.

Your Name Here
05-17-2016, 04:44 PM
......................

allegro
05-17-2016, 04:51 PM
allegro even Reagan and the idiot son of an asshole Bush all had some political experience. Trump has ZERO experience, he is bumper sticker policy candidate which is to say he has no policies he tells the troglodytes and rubes exactly what they want to hear through hate speech and misogyny. His only policy is "we are going to make america great again". It is ridiculous that this country is buying into his schtick and that they absolutely think he going to bring change. He is a foreign policy and an economic nightmare for this country, he is an internet troll with a foreseeable path to the white house and it scares the Hell out of me.

Whatever. W had zero foreign policy experience, had SHIT failure business experience, had shitty government experience, and we might as well have nominated my dog, and then Americans RE-ELECTED THE SONOFABITCH. Look, any of those "policies" that you see during a campaign are just a bunch of SHIT. They aren't real, they're just "plans" that have to be written up by this thing called CONGRESS, anyway, so it's all just lip-service. Not that I'm sticking up for Trump but what I'm saying is that everybody seems to want to vote for their own Personal Savior but that ain't what the President is. It's all a bunch of shit. The only one that scared the hell out of me was Cruz but Indiana stuck a stake in his heart.

GulDukat
05-17-2016, 04:55 PM
500,000 more people voted for Gore. You can thank the Supreme Court for giving Florida and the election to Bush.

Bush was re-elected because in the immediate aftermath of 911 and at the height of the War on Terrorism, Bush played to people's fears.

allegro
05-17-2016, 04:57 PM
Bush was re-elected because in the immediate aftermath of 911 and at the height of the War on Terrorism, Bush played to people's fears.
No standing President has ever NOT been re-elected during "war time." I still can't figure out this "war on terror" shit but whatever. But, anyway, yeah, same reason why Obama was re-elected during "war time."

History is history.

Gore couldn't manage to win his own fucking STATE. If he'd won that, Florida wouldn't have mattered. If Gore had been a stronger candidate in the South, it wouldn't have been such a close election.

Your Name Here
05-17-2016, 04:59 PM
..................

allegro
05-17-2016, 05:03 PM
I am not by any means defending Reagan or either Bush, Bush the son is responsible for destabilizing the middle east and the fucking republicans need to take responsibility for that. What Bush the son did to this country is practically buried it, I'm saying if Trump gets in he will finish off the country. I agree with you about Clarence Thomas and this election cycle has been fun and scary all at the same time, but if Trump gets in we won't be laughing we will be crying and that includes the people that will vote for him.
Watch out for self-fulfilling prophesies.

Look, this country always seems to survive all kinds of shit. Trump will have advisors; he has literally BILLIONS of dollars in business interests in this country, and he's not going to fuck that up; not with bad foreign dealings, not with bad business decisions, not with stupid war decisions, etc. He's not going to risk his own billions by making dumb decisions by risking this country's standings, in any way. That makes ZERO sense. If anything, he only wants to be President to make himself MORE successful, not fuck himself and everybody else up. If he "finishes off" this country, he loses everything, literally BILLIONS of his own dollars. Why in the FUCK would he do that? <-- rhetorical question. That makes no sense. Zero.

Your Name Here
05-17-2016, 05:10 PM
..................

allegro
05-17-2016, 05:17 PM
He's been running businesses for over 30 years; that serves as "Executive Experience." He knows more about Real Estate Development than most people on the planet. He employs literally thousands of people. I don't think he is "reckless" at all, otherwise he wouldn't be a multi-billionaire. With two immigrant wives in his history (one current who would be an immigrant First Lady, who speaks four languages), I wouldn't call him a xenophobe, either.

It's like these conspiracy theorists I know who say "China wants to destroy us!" Oh yeah? And why, exactly? China has billions of dollars invested in this country. And if they "destroy" us, and their billions of dollars go bye-bye, that helps them how? And all those goods that they build for us? What's happens to that when we are "destroyed?" Wow, sounds like a great plan.

Some of the biggest problem is how P.C. we have become in the last 15 years, and Trump didn't get the memo. So non-P.C. becomes "xenophobe." His equal nasty treatment of everyone, including female and male, becomes "misogynist." His basically stealing security measures from Israel (in use today at Israeli airports) becomes "anti-Islam." Etc. etc. I think he's entertaining as all hell, and he's a pretty typical old man who hasn't gotten the Politician Memo. He shoots from the lip, doesn't rehearse, and he'd have to step up his game if he actually won (which I still don't think is likely but whatever). Bernie actually says some dumb Old Man shit, too, like "no still means no" which is kinda too '60s and Bernie didn't get the Affirmative Consent memo, and then "White People Don't live in Ghettos" when he was standing in Flint full of white people in a Ghetto, but he's an Old Man. It doesn't mean anything more than that, unless we make it mean more than that.

Your Name Here
05-17-2016, 05:36 PM
.................

allegro
05-17-2016, 05:43 PM
I don't buy into the theory that just because you are rich that you are intelligent. There are a lot of intellectually challenged wealthy people out there, and I don't see him as a successful businessman or he wouldn't have filed for bankruptcy four times and I would like to see a tax return to see what he is really worth. I don't buy into conspiracy theories either, because they are just that theories, it's a lot like religion, show me some actual proof and I will consider it, but until such time I will remain an atheist. allegro I don't mean any disrespect towards you, I disagree with you especially about Trump but that doesn't mean I am disrespecting you.
I have had political discussions a lot like this with people I work with because I am surrounded by republicans at work, these conversations for me are exhausting and they become tiresome for me and it ceases to be fun..
HE did not file for Bankruptcy four times. His COMPANIES filed for Chapter 11 which is a reorganization; it doesn't mean that the company goes completely under, it means that the company's finances are reorganized. IT HAPPENS ALL THE DAMNED TIME. CHRYSLER HAS DONE IT TWICE. It's a STRATEGIC move that is REALLY common. I've done Bankruptcies in law for a long time; very very smart businesspeople sometimes have to use Ch 11 during economic downturns, business shifts, etc. Two of Trump's companies Ch 11s were during the 2008 financial downturns, because of THE REAL ESTATE CRASH (he blamed Deutsche Bank). He isn't showing his tax return, yet, because he's being audited, because he is audited every freakin' year, and he says it pisses him off, too. But being audited doesn't mean people are GUILTY of anything, it just means they are being audited. And it could affect your tax return a lot. He is not even the official candidate, yet. Plenty of past candidates didn't release their returns until after November. Gerald Ford released a summary of his tax return. None of this is "smoking gun" shit. Really. I've been in real estate and Bk law for nearly 30 years, and I'd smell shit from a mile away. Only newbs think this is "important" stuff.

And I'm a RADICAL FEMINIST so I'm voting for Hillary Clinton.

Swykk
05-17-2016, 05:47 PM
Just saw the video regarding the voice vote in Neveda. That was ridiculous.

Cue at 2:00 and more at 10:15.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=435x0dQ5Lzg

Well, now we have video evidence of the shady nonsense in Nevada. Good. Great commentary too.

Please try to spin this. Try to paint Lange as a victim who was just trying to do her job. Please make me laugh. Or instead, accept the reality that in at least 2-3 states that we know of, some awful manipulation is going down.

Your Name Here
05-17-2016, 05:47 PM
................

allegro
05-17-2016, 05:51 PM
allegro I haven't been disrespectful towards you and calling me a "Newbs" is frankly not affording me the same courtesy.
I am saying that all people, everybody out there, who thinks that HE personally filed for bankruptcy, and/or that a business filing for Ch 11 is somehow indicative of a failure, have little-to-no dealings with business at all, e.g. a newb in business or business law or bankruptcies or business finance. That is not name-calling, it's fact. Operating a business in various economic downturns that are beyond that business' control is not indicative of failure, it's just part of running a business; and it's why Ch 11 exists, to re-organize a business' debts during an economic downturn or during a particular "crisis."

Sometimes it's strategic. For instance, if a company is hit with a large lawsuit settlement and can't handle it, it files for CH 11 in order to re-organize to avoid paying out the entire settlement. See Fifty Cent's Sex Tape Lawsuit and ensuing CH 11 filing as Exhibit A.

But citing a CH 11 as "failure" is not fair to all of those business owners out there who have filed CH 11 in order to survive a business financial crisis (and who came out on the other side successful), especially after the financial crash of 2008. I come from a family of entrepreneurs, on both sides, and running businesses is a bitch. More fail than survive.

Also, your tax returns reflect your income for that year; not your net worth. Your tax returns do not include the value of all real estate holdings, investments, etc. It only reflects income and capital gains and dividends and net losses, in order to determine your taxes. You don't pay taxes on your net worth. People mostly want to see Trump's tax return to see if he has offshore holdings.

Forbes puts Trump's net worth at $4.5 billion (http://www.forbes.com/forbes-400/gallery/donald-trump) but Trump argues that it's double that because his "brand" alone has value, although nobody can figure out how he is quantifying that additional $4.5 billion in value.

allegro
05-17-2016, 06:02 PM
Please try to spin this. Try to paint Lange as a victim who was just trying to do her job. Please make me laugh. Or instead, accept the reality that in at least 2-3 states that we know of, some awful manipulation is going down.
We can count OUT Arizona, since we already know that the smoking gun is the Tea Party Republicans and that the DNC has already filed a lawsuit. I've linked the stories 80 times but to no avail, because stories about the Voters Rights Act being overturned and Latinos and Blacks being fucked out of votes doesn't sound as good. Because, what's a Voters Rights Act?

Swykk
05-17-2016, 06:08 PM
I don't think it's something that should happen on either side. It doesn't make me feel better to know who is responsible but I would be happy to find out there were consequences for people responsible.

allegro
05-17-2016, 06:15 PM
I don't think it's something that should happen on either side. It doesn't make me feel better to know who is responsible but I would be happy to find out there were consequences for people responsible.
The U.S. Supreme Court basically GUTTING the Voters Rights Act was MONUMENTAL in preventing people from voting. HERE is when it happened (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/26/us/supreme-court-ruling.html).


The law had applied to nine states — Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia — and to scores of counties and municipalities in other states, including Brooklyn, Manhattan and the Bronx.

Read this article (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/04/republican-voting-rights-supreme-court-id).

See also this. (http://www.thenation.com/article/there-were-five-hour-lines-to-vote-in-arizona-because-the-supreme-court-gutted-the-voting-rights-act/)


Election officials said they reduced the number of polling sites to save money—an ill-conceived decision that severely inconvenienced hundreds of thousands of voters. Previously, Maricopa County would have needed to receive federal approval for reducing the number of polling sites, because Arizona was one of 16 states where jurisdictions with a long history of discrimination had to submit their voting changes under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. This type of change would very likely have been blocked since minorities make up 40 percent of Maricopa County’s population and reducing the number of polling places would have left minority voters worse off. Section 5 blocked 22 voting changes from taking effect in Arizona since the state was covered under the VRA in 1975 for discriminating against Hispanic and Native American voters.

But after the Supreme Court gutted the VRA in 2013, Arizona could make election changes without federal oversight. The long lines in Maricopa County last night were the latest example of the disastrous consequences of that decision.

Swykk
05-17-2016, 06:24 PM
I now recall reading about that when it happened but of course, forgot about it over time. So no consequences for anyone in Arizona, then. Lovely.

allegro
05-17-2016, 06:26 PM
I now recall reading about that when it happened but of course, forgot about it over time. So no consequences for anyone in Arizona, then. Lovely.
Nope. Or any of these states breaking the law that was formerly Section 5 of the VRA that controlled discrimination.

GulDukat
05-17-2016, 08:04 PM
No standing President has ever NOT been re-elected during "war time." I still can't figure out this "war on terror" shit but whatever. But, anyway, yeah, same reason why Obama was re-elected during "war time."

History is history.

Gore couldn't manage to win his own fucking STATE. If he'd won that, Florida wouldn't have mattered. If Gore had been a stronger candidate in the South, it wouldn't have been such a close election.

The fact that Gore lost Tennessee is irrelevant. He won the popular vote and likely Florida too. He should have been the 43rd President.

GulDukat
05-17-2016, 08:21 PM
Kentucky sure has ben crazy tonight. A real horse race.

allegro
05-17-2016, 08:45 PM
The fact that Gore lost Tennessee is irrelevant. He won the popular vote and likely Florida too. He should have been the 43rd President.
Not necessarily (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/04/29/what-if-the-supreme-court-had-declined-to-hear-bush-v-gore.html). See also (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/20/would-al-gore-have-won-in-2000-without-the-electoral-college/).

History and odds have shown that it is very rare for a candidate who can't manage to win his/her own state to also win the Presidency. Candidates don't win via the popular vote; they win via the Electoral College.

Deepvoid
05-17-2016, 08:49 PM
MSNBC called Kentucky for Hillary while AP has it "too close to call"

Mantra
05-17-2016, 08:57 PM
Have y'all heard the theory that Trump is actually showing the early signs of Alzheimer's?

http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/265291/donald-trump-dementia/
http://www.salon.com/2016/04/25/maybe_donald_trump_has_really_lost_his_mind_what_i f_the_gop_frontrunner_isnt_crazy_but_simply_not_we ll/

Obviously it's just a bunch of speculation, but it's kind of interesting.

implanted_microchip
05-18-2016, 12:10 AM
Have y'all heard the theory that Trump is actually showing the early signs of Alzheimer's?

http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/265291/donald-trump-dementia/
http://www.salon.com/2016/04/25/maybe_donald_trump_has_really_lost_his_mind_what_i f_the_gop_frontrunner_isnt_crazy_but_simply_not_we ll/

Obviously it's just a bunch of speculation, but it's kind of interesting.
Hey, maybe he really can be like Reagan after all!

I'll show myself out

Dra508
05-18-2016, 06:26 PM
I thought this was an Onion headline, but it's not.

http://m.wcvb.com/politics/fomer-mass-governor-to-announce-plans-to-seek-libertarian-party-vp-bid/

Weld got screwed by Bush 2, went on to write a mystery novel, then mucked about with some for-profit college. Why get back into politics now?

Sarah K
05-18-2016, 07:55 PM
https://medium.com/@Boo_Radley/dear-bernie-thanks-but-im-done-6c6bc6e23993#.5kcn85qyp

This piece sums up my feelings so, so incredibly well. It's like we are the same person!

Swykk
05-18-2016, 08:11 PM
You're letting a portion of his supporters alter your stance on him (Once more--Lots of Tool fans are assholes. It doesn't mean I suddenly hate Tool). I don't understand that at all. What happened in Nevada, which again, now has video evidence, was completely shady and unprofessional on Lange's part and of course, the Spin Machine is working overtime today.

There's articles like this and "news" stories everywhere about how nasty Bernie supporters are instead of how dirty the primary process has been and how obvious Hillary's lapdog Wasserman-Schultz has been. It's rather awful that so many Democrats are bought and paid for like Hillary is and fear the changes Bernie wants.

We are angry. Rightfully so. There's been no violence, though so these "stories" coming out are just that. Fiction. Some folks left some shitty voicemails. End of story. You don't broad brush every Bernie supporter or Bernie himself.

I know. I know. Congress would still be Congress even if Bernie was President. Nothing will actually change. I love the idea of perhaps the most honest politician (at least in my 37 years) becoming president. Maybe he'd inspire others to vote out this shitty Congress we currently have. But probably not. For once, there's a candidate who says things he's been saying since before I was born. Caring about important issues. He's not owned by any corporation or dickheaded brothers. I don't see how anyone not rich and evil could be against Bernie. I just don't get it.

It's not personal. Let me say that again. I like most of you. Hell...I wish you liked me more than you do. But I can't compromise this time. Not until it's done. When it's over, I'll take the loss on the chin and cast the white flag vote for Hillary just as I said I would. But not until this is over.

Jinsai
05-18-2016, 08:19 PM
I would also be skeptical of all the outpouring "evidence" of ignorant rabid Bernie supporters who seem impossibly uninformed... a sub-movement that seems to be conveniently escalating lately. We're in the dead heat of an expensive campaign to seize the most powerful position in the country. If you pay me 200 bucks, I'll find you some more damning evidence of unhinged Bernie supporters.

Throw in an extra 100 and I'll make a few plausible Facebook accounts and say some really crazy shit.

DF118
05-18-2016, 08:47 PM
Have y'all heard the theory that Trump is actually showing the early signs of Alzheimer's?

http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/265291/donald-trump-dementia/
http://www.salon.com/2016/04/25/maybe_donald_trump_has_really_lost_his_mind_what_i f_the_gop_frontrunner_isnt_crazy_but_simply_not_we ll/

Obviously it's just a bunch of speculation, but it's kind of interesting.

Still probably wouldn't harm his chances any. It's entirely possible his supporters would just rally behind him harder. He's got this far on cognitive dissonance already.

onthewall2983
05-18-2016, 09:27 PM
I've been hearing comments that he's looking more and more frail, too. I'll take that with a grain of salt, but I have to believe that the stress of this is rather new to him anyway.

Mantra
05-18-2016, 09:36 PM
Still probably wouldn't harm his chances any. It's entirely possible his supporters would just rally behind him harder. He's got this far on cognitive dissonance already. yeah if this election is teaching us anything, it's that people are gonna vote for whoever the fuck they're gonna vote for, and there ain't nobody or nothing that's gonna change their minds. Trump/hillary/bernie could cut a baby's throat open on stage at a rally, and their supporters would mostly just figure out a way to work with it.

implanted_microchip
05-19-2016, 01:46 AM
Politifact rating allegations of fraud in Nevada as False:

http://www.politifact.com/nevada/statements/2016/may/18/jeff-weaver/allegations-fraud-and-misconduct-nevada-democratic/

Swykk
05-19-2016, 08:24 AM
Nailing it.
https://www.facebook.com/TheYoungTurks/videos/10153641109924205/

allegro
05-19-2016, 08:31 AM
But it's entirely possible that the mic on that video was closer to a bunch of Sanders supporters and we are not hearing the overall voice vote.

But, yeah, I hate CNN for all kinds of reasons.

Re ending the convention (in above Politifact link):


Casino spokeswoman Jennifer Forkis said the event ran over its allotted time by about four hours, meaning security hired for the event would soon leave their shifts.

"Without adequate security personnel, and in consultation with the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department and event organizers, a decision was made that it was in the best interest of everyone in attendance to end the event," Forkis said in a statement.

sick among the pure
05-19-2016, 01:52 PM
I always thought the idea of vocal voting, especially in that large a crowd, is stupid anyway. Yeah, it sounds like more people cheered for this than for that, so I'm gonna say this won.
What's so wrong with physical person-by-person voting (paper ballot scanned electronically)?

Wolfkiller
05-19-2016, 02:46 PM
Nailing it.
https://www.facebook.com/TheYoungTurks/videos/10153641109924205/

More nails.


https://youtu.be/jwm10V4j-Kc[

implanted_microchip
05-19-2016, 03:53 PM
How many people would've guess four or five months ago that by the end of the primary season it would be the Democratic convention that was terrifying people because of the unpredictable volatility going down and the Republican convention where no real air of concern existed any longer? Just, good god.

It bothers me greatly that after months and months of promising he'd back Hillary if she's the nominee and do all he can to help make sure a Republican is not put in office that I'm genuinely worried about Bernie either not endorsing or getting involved or flat-out going against her when the time comes. I'd like to say to myself "this isn't any worse than in 08" yet back then Hillary stood down and backed the hell out of Barack when the time came because she cares about the Democratic party meanwhile Bernie couldn't give less of a shit about it if he tried. I've felt confident in predicting a lot of this election for a while and it's mostly been accurate so far but I just have no clue how Sanders is going to be when the convention comes, let alone his supporters.

allegro
05-19-2016, 04:38 PM
I always thought the idea of vocal voting, especially in that large a crowd, is stupid anyway. Yeah, it sounds like more people cheered for this than for that, so I'm gonna say this won.
What's so wrong with physical person-by-person voting (paper ballot scanned electronically)?
It is a stupid way to vote; in a civil area like the floor of Congress, yays or nays work just fine. But in this case, you really need to have a written vote, and this proves why.

implanted_microchip
05-19-2016, 05:49 PM
Vocal voting is absolutely stupid and the caucus system is also outdated and dysfunctional for basically everyone -- no one really favors from them, they're just a clusterfuck and always seem to spur some sort of drama. Physical voting closed primaries should be the national standard IMO. But that would be too functional and make too much sense.

Swykk
05-19-2016, 06:36 PM
http://youtu.be/OYaR4X2KDmk

Sense. It's what's for dinner. From someone who was actually there.

allegro
05-19-2016, 07:30 PM
http://youtu.be/OYaR4X2KDmk

Sense. It's what's for dinner. From someone who was actually there.

Yeah, see also this NPR piece (http://www.npr.org/sections/ombudsman/2016/05/18/478579787/fact-checking-nprs-reports-on-vegas-violence). So far, this "violence" or "chair-throwing" appears to be the creation of this Jon Ralston guy, who had already left.

Sarah K
05-20-2016, 10:56 AM
This is really nice. <3

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-05-20/sanders-defiant-on-the-stump-quietly-reassures-democrats-on-unity

Deepvoid
05-20-2016, 10:58 AM
According to a new Gallup poll (http://www.gallup.com/poll/191672/republicans-positive-trump-not-pleased.aspx?g_source=Election%202016&g_medium=newsfeed&g_campaign=tiles), Trump's favorable ratings is at its highest point at 66% amongst Republicans.

I made a friendly bet with my boss a couple weeks ago. $20 that Trump wouldn't become POTUS. We'll see how that pans out.

DigitalChaos
05-20-2016, 12:44 PM
Yeah, see also this NPR piece (http://www.npr.org/sections/ombudsman/2016/05/18/478579787/fact-checking-nprs-reports-on-vegas-violence). So far, this "violence" or "chair-throwing" appears to be the creation of this Jon Ralston guy, who had already left.
There was one dude who picked his chair up and held it above his head. He did this after everyone was told to take their seats (get it??). He was definitely angry while doing it but also clearly not throwing it. People nearby quickly had him put it down and they all hugged it out.

I'm not sure where the video is anymore, but there is definitely a video of it. That's the closest to "chair throwing" that happened.

DigitalChaos
05-20-2016, 01:16 PM
I would also be skeptical of all the outpouring "evidence" of ignorant rabid Bernie supporters who seem impossibly uninformed... a sub-movement that seems to be conveniently escalating lately. We're in the dead heat of an expensive campaign to seize the most powerful position in the country. If you pay me 200 bucks, I'll find you some more damning evidence of unhinged Bernie supporters.

Throw in an extra 100 and I'll make a few plausible Facebook accounts and say some really crazy shit.

this shit IS how elections are won these days thanks to the ease of manipulating social media. If you aren't looking for it unfolding, you are being manipulated by it.

I posted this a while back in the thread, but Bloomberg did a nine month investigation and came out with an amazing story on how Latin American elections were being manipulated/hacked by just a single group. Members of this group are allegedly working with candidates in the US election, and there isn't even anything special about this group! http://www.bloomberg.com/features/2016-how-to-hack-an-election/

If you are into politics and you aren't informed on the details of what is covered in that Bloomberg investigation detailed... you are doing it wrong.

implanted_microchip
05-20-2016, 02:30 PM
A former Reagan speechwriter (among many other things) is now calling Trump's campaign a road to fascism:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/this-is-how-fascism-comes-to-america/2016/05/17/c4e32c58-1c47-11e6-8c7b-6931e66333e7_story.html

allegro
05-20-2016, 02:51 PM
A former Reagan speechwriter (among many other things) is now calling Trump's campaign a road to fascism:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/this-is-how-fascism-comes-to-america/2016/05/17/c4e32c58-1c47-11e6-8c7b-6931e66333e7_story.html
LOL, but then they only need to look at this (http://www.politicususa.com/2015/12/28/reagan-started-gops-fascism-destroying-america.html).

DigitalChaos
05-20-2016, 03:23 PM
https://67.media.tumblr.com/01e26012f293b6ca38169d65be870a4a/tumblr_o78dfi0zsh1r1wu4ao1_500.gif

onthewall2983
05-21-2016, 02:56 PM
The Washington Post: People are overestimating the power of Trump’s white supporters (https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2016/05/17/people-are-overestimating-the-power-of-trumps-white-supporters/)

allegro
05-21-2016, 08:12 PM
What amazes me is the amnesia this country has; in 2008, John McCain was the Republican nominee and everybody seemed to have forgotten that McCain was one of the Keating Five (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keating_Five).

elevenism
05-21-2016, 09:35 PM
I'm not here for a heated argument, so let me say that i respect everyone's opinion here in advance, since i know a lot of you support Clinton, and a couple appear to support Trump. So i do respect everyone's opinion, and that sort of respect is woefully absent from political debates everywhere i look. And while i'm at it, i want to say that we should all respect each other more highly in this thread.

That being said, Trump/Clinton is the biggest "lesser of two evils" sort of decision i've ever seen play out in my life.
I think we're going to have more people voting AGAINST one candidate than FOR the other, on both sides.
This is seriously fucked up. I really can't imagine it being a whole hell of a lot worse in terms of our choices in the general.

I will be voting for who scares me the least, and it may take a hot minute to decide who that is.
And i can't believe i'm saying that.

Jinsai
05-22-2016, 02:00 AM
if it's Trump vs Clinton, I don't know... for the first time in my life since I was legally able to vote, I might just stay home. I'll be voting in the primaries though, for what it's worth.

littlemonkey613
05-22-2016, 03:28 AM
I will be voting for who scares me the least, and it may take a hot minute to decide who that is.
And i can't believe i'm saying that.


if it's Trump vs Clinton, I don't know... for the first time in my life since I was legally able to vote, I might just stay home. I'll be voting in the primaries though, for what it's worth.

If yall in some state that automatically going blue then whatever tbh/ignore this. But like generally there is no justification for being complicit in the election Trump. I would vote for hundreds of vile Republicans over this person bc it is the responsible thing to do. He is actually not all there. Like Clinton vs Sanders is one debate. Clinton vs anyone is another. Clinton vs Trump is easy.

I follow Trump pretty heavily (on his side). He is not stable and he doesn't KNOW things, and he's not even interested in knowing things. He fakes positions and conviction but he is not faking his personality, general worldview and temperament. This isn't merely some "cater to the dumb ass voters" and be a character (though its included) bs. He is actually batshit. This is the American Presidency. Be afraid and don't let it happen

allegro
05-22-2016, 08:12 AM
Not to mention one SCOTUS justice, with possibly two more retiring soon. Vote for Clinton FOR THAT REASON ALONE.

SCOTUS justices are there FOR LIFE.

Even if you are in a state that typically goes blue, I never understood not instituting your right to vote. There are OTHER THINGS on that ballot. Get involved, be counted.

I think Bernie stirred up too much of this ideological candidate "feelings" thing, the same thing that got a lot of us with Obama in '08 when he was a brand new Senator from Illinois bringing new ideas of hope and change that was so refreshing to so many of us. And he was honest, nothing crappy in his past, a brilliant guy, a constitutional scholar, a black guy, his campaign was grass roots, small donations. And then he got to the White House and things didn't go as planned, not all of them his fault. And the lesson is to not rely on hopes and dreams in campaign rhetoric.

Be logical about what is realistic, given Congress and the voter base.

I just wish some of these states would wake up to some of these ASSHOLES in Congress who are just as dangerous as any Presidential candidate.

allegro
05-22-2016, 08:43 AM
Donald Trump, your drunk neighbor (https://youtu.be/cRly-0wwl_g).

theimage13
05-22-2016, 09:26 AM
I'm not here for a heated argument, so let me say that i respect everyone's opinion here in advance, since i know a lot of you support Clinton, and a couple appear to support Trump. So i do respect everyone's opinion, and that sort of respect is woefully absent from political debates everywhere i look. And while i'm at it, i want to say that we should all respect each other more highly in this thread.

That being said, Trump/Clinton is the biggest "lesser of two evils" sort of decision i've ever seen play out in my life.
I think we're going to have more people voting AGAINST one candidate than FOR the other, on both sides.
This is seriously fucked up. I really can't imagine it being a whole hell of a lot worse in terms of our choices in the general.

I will be voting for who scares me the least, and it may take a hot minute to decide who that is.
And i can't believe i'm saying that.

The shit hole hotel I'm staying at right now has Fox "News" BLASTING in the breakfast area, and I walked in as one of those wasted sacks of flesh was saying "the only way Clinton can win is if she makes Trumps negatives look worse than hers".

If I wasn't committed to someone whose career gives them no real option to leave, I'd be working on my papers to head to Canada now. I grew up near there and have spent a LOT of time both working and vacationing in numerous provinces, and I have always enjoyed my time there. Great people and awesome scenery. I would love to leave this nightmare behind and go live up north.

allegro
05-22-2016, 09:59 AM
theimage13, I've said that MANY times because of the price of prescription medicines in this country, even WITH insurance. I am on Sumatriptan (generic Imitrex) for migraines, and Blue Cross charges me $10 for 18 pills but BC PAYS $20 PER PILL. FOR GENERIC. It's nuts. I am going through a temp spike of increased migraines right now, but BC put the brakes on my Sumatriptan last week and my neurologist's office tried to get BC to increase it but BC DECREASED it instead, to 36 pills every 96 days. They actually ASKED ME, "how many pills will you need in 67 days?" What the fuck is with the 67 days?

AND DO YOU THINK I HAVE A FUCKING MIGRAINE CRYSTAL BALL?!?!

So now I am using a legal online pharmacy that charges me $22 cash for 18 pills, no insurance crap. GO FIGURE.

It's like I'm trying to buy fucking HEROIN. Sumatriptan is NOT a painkiller! It's just STUPIDLY expensive! I don't blame Blue Cross for not wanting to pay it. Why a generic costs so fucking much is ridiculous (but this online pharm is prob getting it from Canada or Mexico).

I want a President who fixes THIS SHIT, which won't happen because ALL OF CONGRESS IS IN BED WITH BIG PHARM LOBBYISTS.

I grew up in Detroit, a/k/a "Canada Lite." I keep trying to convince G that the hockey will be a lot better in Canada. eh?

Jinsai
05-22-2016, 12:17 PM
If yall in some state that automatically going blue then whatever tbh/ignore this.

Yep, I'm in California, one of the most populated states in the union, so naturally my vote is impotent in the general election. I honestly used to think it was tragic that the voter turnout was so low. Then I discovered that unless you live in Ohio or New Hampshire, you might as well stay at home (unless there's other pressing measures on the ballot that you care about). I have more important things to do than pretend that my lesser-evil vote fulfills some purpose.

I'm tired of hearing people on both the Clinton and Sanders side threatening that if their candidate doesn't win they'll write in the one they most wanted, as if it's some kind of threat. OH NO, some college kid who lives in Torrance has threatened to write in "Bernie" on the ballot should Hillary win the primaries! OH NOOOOO! Whatever shall we do!?!?! Oh wait, you live in Torrance, which means that you live in the state of California. Oh well. Maybe if you lived in Rhode Island or something we'd give a fuck. Vote or don't vote, either way you're voting for the chosen Democratic candidate.

If there's one salvageable thing from this recent soul-crushing election cycle, it's the hope that the crooked farce that we call democracy is being clearly unmasked in such a blatant way that it's hard to not see how broken and corrupt it is. You have to be trying to ignore everything that's in the news to avoid the myriad of ways that the voice of the American people is loudly ignored by a system beholden to crony bullshit.

Mantra
05-22-2016, 12:20 PM
The shit hole hotel I'm staying at right now has Fox "News" BLASTING in the breakfast area holy shit, what us the deal with this? I just spent the last few days driving from Minneapolis to LA to visit my grandma for a couple weeks and help her out while she's recovering from surgery, and I swear to god every fucking hotel I've stayed in has this exact same setup. Kinda hilarious to read about someone else encountering this, lol. Its like every single lobby or dining area is bombarded with fox news. And I've stayed at a couple different chains too. Is the entire hotel industry in on this thing??? Have they all made a collective commitment to blast their guests with fox news every chance they get??? "if they want our free breakfast they WILL be subjected to our political views."

And good lord, i think it's been a few years since I actually watched fox news, cuz I don't have cable, so its really blowing my mind how horrible this garbage is. Has it always been this bad and I just forgot? I feel like they've gotten dumber. They're so irrational and melodramatic about things. How can anyone go along with this? And it's so slow! I guess I've just gotten so used to getting news online that I just don't have the patience for this cable news shit anymore. They spend fifteen minutes discussing the most basic information about that plane crash that I could have read through in an article in like 90 seconds. It's so inefficient and boring and tedious. They go round and round talking to all these bland "experts" who make the most basic, obvious, inconsequential statements. How can anyone stand this? It's so slow and mind-numbingly idiotic. Christ, to think of all these people who live off this nonsense. No wonder this country is so crazy and stupid.

allegro
05-22-2016, 12:27 PM
(unless there's other pressing measures on the ballot that you care about)
And there always are.

And I vote for the President, anyway.

Because women DIED for my right to vote.


It's like every single lobby or dining area is bombarded with fox news.
I was driving to Detroit every other weekend to see my Dad while he was in the ICU from early-January through late-March, and I stayed at either a Comfort Inn or a Hilton Garden Inn; same thing, Fox News in the Lobby. But, Hilton Garden Inn also had MSNBC on another TV in the lobby. CNN drives me just as nuts; "non-news" with the same talking heads talking about absolutely nothing, with these pseudo-experts; it's way worse when there's a plane crash or a natural disaster, it's nearly tolerable when they go back to plain ol' election crap.

Jinsai
05-22-2016, 12:44 PM
And there always are.

And I vote for the President, anyway.

Because women DIED for my right to vote.

That's the part that really wrecks me. We can look at brave people throughout history who risked their lives to secure that basic right, as a testament to equality and the voice of the people. The idea is important, vital to the very notion of civil rights. We're supposed to be proud of our democratic process.

Instead, the big reveal is that the deck is stacked. The voices of all Americans have achieved equality in that they collectively mean nothing.

Unless you live in Ohio.

allegro
05-22-2016, 01:44 PM
Unless you live in Ohio.
Well, that settles it, then!

I'M MOVING TO OHIO COLORADO!!

Mantra
05-22-2016, 02:12 PM
Man, I dunno, I think I'd rather die than live in Ohio (apologies to any Ohio folks).

I think we should become lobbyists instead.

If anyone sees a lobbyist position posted on indeed or Craigslist or whatever, pm me, cause I really want to break into that scene.

allegro
05-22-2016, 02:15 PM
Man, I dunno, I think I'd rather die than live in Ohio (apologies to any Ohio folks).

I think we should become lobbyists instead.
Colorado is looking pretty good for a Swing State. Recreational pot, they are trying to pass their own statewide version of single-payer healthcare ... and I can work part-time as a ski instructor in the winter! Free passes, dude!

Mantra
05-22-2016, 02:42 PM
Colorado is looking pretty good for a Swing State. Recreational pot, they are trying to pass their own statewide version of single-payer healthcare ... and I can work part-time as a ski instructor in the winter! Free passes, dude!
Cool. I can get high as fuck and then hit the slopes! When I crash and break my neck, it'll be alright cause the state health care will pick up the tab. Then Fox News can do a feature on me, a case study of how left wing politics leads to a society of degenerate free loaders.

allegro
05-22-2016, 02:58 PM
Cool. I can get high as fuck and then hit the slopes! When I crash and break my neck, it'll be alright cause the state health care will pick up the tab. Then Fox News can do a feature on me, a case study of how left wing politics leads to a society of degenerate free loaders.
Sounds like a plan!! Hell, near Beaver Creek, CO (Avon) there is a liquor store called "Beaver Liquors" and there's a whole cottage industry selling swag for that! Party on, Garth!

I am sure there are many entrepreneurial ideas we could come up with after ingesting several legal recreational gummy bears.

Colorado ftw!!

elevenism
05-22-2016, 07:20 PM
Sounds like a plan!! Hell, near Beaver Creek, CO (Avon) there is a liquor store called "Beaver Liquors" and there's a whole cottage industry selling swag for that! Party on, Garth!

I am sure there are many entrepreneurial ideas we could come up with after ingesting several legal recreational gummy bears.

Colorado ftw!!
Man my little brother and family moved out there, and due to my limited travel experience, when i visited, i swear to god i might have well as been on another planet. The mountains, the smell of the air, just all of it. It was AMAZING and i can't wait to go back. And this has nothing to do with grass, something i once loved but switched gears on me about 15 years ago and now i can't stand. But CO looks and smells like fucking paradise, and if they pass a single payer healthcare system, i am so totally there (if and when my fucking back permits.)
allegro , i used to suffer from migraines and imitrex and the like are magical pills. I remember when i was taking them, they were like $9 each-this was in the nineties. Also, my mother has an issue with one of her medicines where the insurance refuses to pay for x number because it exceeds the appropriate amount for some other seemingly arbitrarily chosen random length of time, so she pays like $7000 a year out of pocket.
And we know these drugs can't POSSIBLY cost more than a few dollars to produce, tops.

DigitalChaos
05-22-2016, 07:22 PM
if it's Trump vs Clinton, I don't know... for the first time in my life since I was legally able to vote, I might just stay home. I'll be voting in the primaries though, for what it's worth.
At least go to vote for everything else on the ballot. Just skip the presidential bullshit portion.

allegro
05-22-2016, 11:11 PM
elevenism, I don't like recreational pot anymore, either, but I love the idea of a place where it plus medicinal pot (which often is better than opiate painkillers) is legal. And this shit where Big Pharm is limiting meds or charging so much to Big Insurance that they won't pay for it is a Fucked Up system ... surely single-payer won't put up with. And, yeah, those mountains are awesome and healing.

We are in big trouble if Big Pharm tries to take over medical marijuana, though.

When I try to get 9 generic 100 mg Imitrex at a Walgreens now, it's $185. For 9 generic pills. Wtf.

sick among the pure
05-23-2016, 12:17 AM
@elevenism (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=2475), I don't like recreational pot anymore, either, but I love the idea of a place where it plus medicinal pot (which often is better than opiate painkillers) is legal. And this shit where Big Pharm is limiting meds or charging so much to Big Insurance that they won't pay for it is a Fucked Up system ... surely single-payer won't put up with. And, yeah, those mountains are awesome and healing.

We are in big trouble if Big Pharm tries to take over medical marijuana, though.

When I try to get 9 generic 100 mg Imitrex at a Walgreens now, it's $185. For 9 generic pills. Wtf.


Medicinal in NY is somewhere around $600 or so for a month's worth (that apparently doesn't last a full month). My mom's co-worker has to get it for her daughter, the only thing that helps with the seizures. There are like 3 or 4 places in the whole state where you can get it, too, so she has to spend a full day driving to pick it up every month. We really need it to be fully legalized so people can afford it for medicinal purposes.

Jinsai
05-23-2016, 03:50 AM
At least go to vote for everything else on the ballot. Just skip the presidential bullshit portion.

yeah, I'll vote. I'll write in "fuck you" for the presidential ticket.
I just hate how transparent this is. Nobody thought Sanders had a chance at first... I was even really dismissive. But then the ball started rolling, and I thought for a second we were going to see a real anti-establishment candidate reach the main stage. I should have known that would be shot down.

allegro
05-23-2016, 08:48 AM
Medicinal in NY is somewhere around $600 or so for a month's worth (that apparently doesn't last a full month). My mom's co-worker has to get it for her daughter, the only thing that helps with the seizures. There are like 3 or 4 places in the whole state where you can get it, too, so she has to spend a full day driving to pick it up every month. We really need it to be fully legalized so people can afford it for medicinal purposes.

Very true. A friend recently told me, "you know, no insurance company covers medical marijuana because it's Federally illegal, and it's REALLY expensive out-of-pocket" and it hadn't occurred to me until then that NO insurance COULD cover it. There are a lot more dispensaries in other states, NY is one with a lot of stupid restrictions (as is IL). It really does need to change Federally, at least for medicinal purposes. A parent should not be accused of child abuse for administering medical marijuana when recommended by experts because it's on the The List.

allegro
05-23-2016, 08:56 AM
yeah, I'll vote. I'll write in "fuck you" for the presidential ticket.
I just hate how transparent this is. Nobody thought Sanders had a chance at first... I was even really dismissive. But then the ball started rolling, and I thought for a second we were going to see a real anti-establishment candidate reach the main stage. I should have known that would be shot down.

Look, a conpiracy is not why Bernie isn't winning; Bernie simply didn't resonate with a larger demographic of voters, or with wider groups that leaned more toward Clinton. Clinton overwhelmingly won several states that carried many delegates. Yet she lost in some states where Bernie's message resonated better. Clinton and Sanders are on the same side, but they tend to appeal to different demographics. And that is not necessarily good for Bernie, because his is more specific. This is easily broken down by marketing analysis, and whether or not the subject demographic got out there and voted. The obstacles (closed primaries, VRA repeal) affect each side, equally. Even if we give Bernie all 12 remaining Nevada delegates, it's nowhere near enough to win. The fact remains that nobody tilted the voter scale in favor of Clinton; people voted for her, and lots of people don't LIKE that but it is what it is.

Swykk
05-23-2016, 09:33 AM
One could break that down a bit more to show "odd" (at best) instances where Bernie wins a state, and Hillary gets almost as many delegates. Or, Bernie loses a close state to Hillary, and gets nowhere near the delegates Hilary got in a previous loss. Superdelegates are even more obviously slanted...but I'm so fucking tired of all of this now. Plus, John Oliver, TYT, and countless others have already done this more in depth and funnier than I ever could anyway.

tony.parente
05-23-2016, 10:55 AM
I hope you Hillary voters enjoy opening the door to a trump presidency.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/trump-hillary-clinton-polling-average-223461

allegro
05-23-2016, 11:32 AM
One could break that down a bit more to show "odd" (at best) instances where Bernie wins a state, and Hillary gets almost as many delegates. Or, Bernie loses a close state to Hillary, and gets nowhere near the delegates Hilary got in a previous loss. Superdelegates are even more obviously slanted...but I'm so fucking tired of all of this now. Plus, John Oliver, TYT, and countless others have already done this more in depth and funnier than I ever could anyway.
But there are LOGICAL REASONS for that, based on demographics. The more populated the district you win in that state, the more delegates you get. Bernie tends to win in college towns, Hillary tends to win in more urban areas. In some states, Bernie won more populated urban districts. Oliver is either misinformed of this very old method or knows it and plows ahead with his conspiracy theory, anyway. In the 2008 primary, Hillary got more votes but Obama had more delagates so Obama won. Superdelagates are committed to a candidate before the voting even began, but can switch at the convention.

allegro
05-23-2016, 11:36 AM
I hope you Hillary voters enjoy opening the door to a trump presidency.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/trump-hillary-clinton-polling-average-223461

Oh please. Minorities are not going to vote for Trump (or any Republican at this point in history). It is FAR too early to be relying on polls.

Swykk
05-23-2016, 11:59 AM
But there are LOGICAL REASONS for that, based on demographics. The more populated the district you win in that state, the more delegates you get. Bernie tends to win in college towns, Hillary tends to win in more urban areas. In some states, Bernie won more populated urban districts. Oliver is either misinformed of this very old method or knows it and plows ahead with his conspiracy theory, anyway. Superdelagates are committed to a candidate before the voting even began, but can switch at the convention.

I think the idea (or at least what I have learned) is that probably ALL delegates have already decided beforehand. That the popular vote doesn't matter in the least.

allegro
05-23-2016, 12:16 PM
I think the idea (or at least what I have learned) is that probably ALL delegates have already decided beforehand. That the popular vote doesn't matter in the least.

But that's not true. In winner-take-all primary states, all the delegates go to the voted winner. In the remaining primary states, the number of delegates are dependent on population of the district. And superdelegates are so that grassroots movements can't dictate a winner. This isn't some new thing invented for this primary; it's worked for and against prior winners and losers. Look at 2008 (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_delegate_count.html). 2008 popular vote (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html)

implanted_microchip
05-23-2016, 12:40 PM
I hope you Hillary voters enjoy opening the door to a trump presidency.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/trump-hillary-clinton-polling-average-223461
You could not sound more smug, bitter and condescending about something you supposedly don't want to happen which is funny since @Swykk (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=285) routinely facepalms and talks down to me for allegedly the same things and then everyone here tells me people like you with that attitude do not exist. Bernie lost because the majority of Democratic voters didn't want to elect him and the raw numbers when it comes to the primary's popular vote prove it. Get over it.

"Haha I believe this terrible thing is happening but at least it will validate me and then they'll see, they'll all see! I was so right all along! Go me and my sterling clarity!" Good fucking Christ.

DigitalChaos
05-23-2016, 12:57 PM
Look, a conpiracy is not why Bernie isn't winning; Bernie simply didn't resonate with a larger demographic of voters, or with wider groups that leaned more toward Clinton. Clinton overwhelmingly won several states that carried many delegates. Yet she lost in some states where Bernie's message resonated better. Clinton and Sanders are on the same side, but they tend to appeal to different demographics. And that is not necessarily good for Bernie, because his is more specific. This is easily broken down by marketing analysis, and whether or not the subject demographic got out there and voted. The obstacles (closed primaries, VRA repeal) affect each side, equally. Even if we give Bernie all 12 remaining Nevada delegates, it's nowhere near enough to win. The fact remains that nobody tilted the voter scale in favor of Clinton; people voted for her, and lots of people don't LIKE that but it is what it is.

Not true.
Are Bernie supporters incredibly uninformed about the primary system and incorrectly viewing it as corruption? Absolutely
Is Bernie more "extreme" or ideological on the leftism than Hillary and that could be less desirable to a lot of Dems? Absolutely

But is this all down to who won over the voters? Fuck no! Hillary has a lot more connections across the existing machine. The Chair of the DNC, for example. You also need to consider how much shady shit is done to sway voter "opinion", which has become a lot easier these days. You can see evidence of it overflowing into this very thread.

Mantra
05-23-2016, 12:57 PM
I hope you Hillary voters enjoy opening the door to a trump presidency.
I think it's all the Trump voters who are opening the door to a Trump presidency.

Swykk
05-23-2016, 01:03 PM
kleiner352 He's referred to it maybe once or twice whereas just about every post you have done in this thread since the primaries began has the exact condescending attitude you're referring to. You've been more careful to qualify lately, which is appreciated, and like magic, no more facepalms.

allegro
05-23-2016, 01:03 PM
But is this all down to who won over the voters? Fuck no! Hillary has a lot more connections across the existing machine. The Chair of the DNC, for example. You also need to consider how much shady shit is done to sway voter "opinion", which has become a lot easier these days. You can see evidence of it overflowing into this very thread.
Dude, that is a bunch of crap. Minorities are hands-down voting for Hillary, particularly in populated urban areas, based on generations of minorities being Clinton voters; it's like some kind of minority agreement between them and the Clintons that never went away; Hillary has better name-recognition, overall; Hillary has better marketing in bigger urban and minority areas, whereas Bernie's reddit groups and marketing tend to reach more college areas and working class groups but didn't reach the same areas as Clinton. This thread is not swayed by the DNC one fucking iota. We are smart enough, in this thread, to make informed opinions and not be "swayed" whether you like it or not. Hillary won over voters in the debates and in town hall meetings and focus groups and all kinds of other really smart things that Bernie missed when he was focusing on college students and his "revolution" gathering its own "momentum." Ultimately, it's marketing. The "machine" can have a candidate like John Kerry but that don't mean shit if the demographic isn't responding to the machine's candidate. John Kerry was a really nice wimpy fucking guy who didn't stand up for his own actual war veteran record against a guy who got himself out of the fucking draft, e.g. Kerry couldn't even manage to market himself so the demographic responded in kind by not giving a shit.

Look at the Republican side: The "machine" was pushing their chosen Golden Boy, Jeb Bush. Romney wanted to again throw his hat into the ring, but the machine said, "go away, Jeb's our man," so Romney went away. And then the Golden Boy got pummeled by the voter's choice, Donald J. Trump. So the machine can't make voters do shit.


"Is Bernie more "extreme" or ideological on the leftism than Hillary and that could be less desirable to a lot of Dems? Absolutely"

And this is exactly why many more Democrat voters are voting for Hillary than Bernie. The (perhaps sad) reality is that this country is not yet ready for a Bernie Sanders for President. It's barely ready for a woman for President. It wasn't really ready for a black dude for President.

Swykk
05-23-2016, 01:06 PM
Not true.
Are Bernie supporters incredibly uninformed about the primary system and incorrectly viewing it as corruption? Absolutely
Is Bernie more "extreme" or ideological on the leftism than Hillary and that could be less desirable to a lot of Dems? Absolutely

But is this all down to who won over the voters? Fuck no! Hillary has a lot more connections across the existing machine. The Chair of the DNC, for example. You also need to consider how much shady shit is done to sway voter "opinion", which has become a lot easier these days. You can see evidence of it overflowing into this very thread.


Wasseman-Schultz and Boxer's behavior has been appallingly awful throughout. WS in particular.

Jinsai
05-23-2016, 01:15 PM
Superdelagates are committed to a candidate before the voting even began, but can switch at the convention.

And this is the only "conspiracy theory" really that I'm talking about when it comes to Sanders. The entire voting process, from this ridiculous state allocation of electoral votes and the primary process... why do we need to obfuscate the process which should really start and stop at the counted vote from the people?

allegro
05-23-2016, 01:18 PM
And this is the only "conspiracy theory" really that I'm talking about when it comes to Sanders. The entire voting process, from this ridiculous state allocation of electoral votes and the primary process... why do we need to obfuscate the process which should really start and stop at the counted vote from the people?
These SDs won't matter until the convention. If Clinton gets enough without the SDs to win the nomination, it doesn't matter.


Wasseman-Schultz and Boxer's behavior has been appallingly awful throughout. WS in particular.
Yet Joe Biden is backing Wasserman-Schultz' re-election.

implanted_microchip
05-23-2016, 01:21 PM
just about every post you have done in this thread since the primaries began has the exact condescending attitude you're referring to.
This is only true if you're wildly hyperbolic and selectively cherry-pick posts of mine in here and ignore a large number. It's pretty old getting told what all of my posts are about when I'm the person making them and am well aware that they've not been exclusively anything other than election-related.

aggroculture
05-23-2016, 01:25 PM
Hillary won the popular vote, so that's settled.
The question now is: how does she get Bernie supporters to vote for her in the general?
I'm sure Bernie will "do the right thing" and throw his support behind her when the time comes, but still, I worry that hostility toward Hillary on the democrat side will usher in a Trump victory.
Note: this hostility is hardly Bernie's fault. You can't shoot the messenger (Bernie) here. Clinton's choices and policies over the years are on her.
One good way would be to choose a genuinely left-leaning VP. I do worry that Clinton is so confident she has already won this election, that she will lose it. Hubris is a terrible thing.

Swykk
05-23-2016, 01:28 PM
This is only true if you're wildly hyperbolic and selectively cherry-pick posts of mine in here and ignore a large number. It's pretty old getting told what all of my posts are about when I'm the person making them and am well aware that they've not been exclusively anything other than election-related.

But...you brought it up AND tagged me. That's why I responded and explained. Take a step back and re-read some of those posts you did and I think you'll see how some of us may've come to the conclusion we did.

Swykk
05-23-2016, 01:31 PM
These SDs won't matter until the convention. If Clinton gets enough without the SDs to win the nomination, it doesn't matter.


Yet Joe Biden is backing Wasserman-Schultz' re-election.

That's easy. I don't think Biden (or Obama) wants anything to do with the changes Bernie wants. Back the business (<---emphasis on) as usual candidate.

Jinsai
05-23-2016, 01:41 PM
and what are Biden's future political ambitions really? I'm pretty sure he's peaked.

Jinsai
05-23-2016, 02:33 PM
Hillary won the popular vote, so that's settled.

Yep, that seems to be the conclusion... despite the fact that I live in the state containing the largest progressive population in the country and we haven't even had a chance to vote yet... but yeah, nothing weird going on here. Ignore the sexist Bernie bros and their wild conspiracy theories about how there's something dubious about this election process.

aggroculture
05-23-2016, 03:02 PM
My understanding is that even if Bernie won the remaining states, he still wouldn't win: am I wrong about this?
I wish Bernie had toppled Hillary like Trump toppled Jeb, Rubio, etc...but it didn't happen.

botley
05-23-2016, 03:07 PM
Yep. Bernie's lost this thing, fair and square (http://m.dailykos.com/story/2016/5/23/1529938/-11-reasons-why-Bernie-Sanders-lost-this-thing-fair-and-square). I love him but allegro is 100% right, he was not reaching enough people from different backgrounds. That's not the result of a conspiracy, he just wasn't courting the groups he lost, and the ones he won weren't enough to carry him over the top.

allegro
05-23-2016, 03:58 PM
Yep. Bernie's lost this thing, fair and square (http://m.dailykos.com/story/2016/5/23/1529938/-11-reasons-why-Bernie-Sanders-lost-this-thing-fair-and-square).
GREAT article, thank you.

Jinsai
05-23-2016, 04:50 PM
My understanding is that even if Bernie won the remaining states, he still wouldn't win: am I wrong about this?

No, you are absolutely correct, which is why staggering the primary vote basically makes the last states to vote irrelevant, even in a close race like this.

DigitalChaos
05-23-2016, 05:08 PM
Wasseman-Schultz and Boxer's behavior has been appallingly awful throughout. WS in particular.
Yet Joe Biden is backing Wasserman-Schultz' re-election.
nope... no benefit to Hillary from the establishment machine there! /s

DigitalChaos
05-23-2016, 05:11 PM
Hillary won the popular vote, so that's settled.

Yep, that seems to be the conclusion... despite the fact that I live in the state containing the largest progressive population in the country and we haven't even had a chance to vote yet... but yeah, nothing weird going on here. Ignore the sexist Bernie bros and their wild conspiracy theories about how there's something dubious about this election process.

yuuup. "the popular vote is settled" has been said so many times in this thread as a way to end the Bernie thing. But according to @allegro (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=76), nobody in this thread is influenced by manipulative media sock-puppets telling people what direction they need to move and why.

I don't even like Bernie and I think his economic policies are pants-on-head stupid, but the manipulation being done to hurt him (and help Hillary) is so incredibly obvious.

allegro
05-23-2016, 06:04 PM
yuuup. "the popular vote is settled" has been said so many times in this thread as a way to end the Bernie thing. But according to @allegro (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=76), nobody in this thread is influenced by manipulative media sock-puppets telling people what direction they need to move and why.
what in the FUCK are you talking about? Only a few (like, THREE) people in this thread said they are voting for Clinton. I voted for TRUMP in the primary in order to kill Cruz. How has the (cough) "media" influenced our tiny little heads? Because we don't want to vote for GARY JOHNSON?

The delegates are pretty much settled, not the popular vote. Bernie is not likely to get enough delegates. Hillary got the popular vote in '08, but Obama got more delegates. Math plus rules. Bernie got neither the popular vote nor the delegates. So far.

DigitalChaos
05-23-2016, 06:07 PM
There are various "Bernie is done" ideas that magically pop up every week. This week is clearly "the pop vote is done and the loss of pop vote is entirely Bernies failing" or whatever. You were one of the people saying it too even though pop vote hasn't even finished.

allegro
05-23-2016, 06:15 PM
nope... no benefit to Hillary from the establishment machine there! /s

WS isn't up for re-election for several months. And the "machine" sure as fuck didn't help the Golden Boy Jeb. Trump won, and now the Republican Machine is shitting its pants. Voters don't care about a machine. Trump is Exhibit "A" manifesting proof.

allegro
05-23-2016, 06:18 PM
No, you are absolutely correct, which is why staggering the primary vote basically makes the last states to vote irrelevant, even in a close race like this.

He could win if he won California but he is NOT going to win California.

allegro
05-23-2016, 06:21 PM
There are various "Bernie is done" ideas that magically pop up every week. This week is clearly "the pop vote is done and the loss of pop vote is entirely Bernies failing" or whatever. You were one of the people saying it too even though pop vote hasn't even finished.
I have said, and quoted links at least 2x, that Clinton won the popular vote in 08 but OBAMA won the delegates. I have been stressing delegates being based on population in districts. I suggest you go back and read.

Bernie never reached the demographics that Clinton did, e.g. minorities. That is not the same as saying "Clinton got the popular vote," that's ridiculous. Trump isn't polling well with minorities, but he got the popular white vote?

DigitalChaos
05-23-2016, 08:09 PM
^ you are right. @aggroculture (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=318) and @kleiner352 (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=4417) were the ones saying it. Not sure how I attributed it to you directly, but this is an example of the fabricated politically driven memes (of the true definition) that are bleeding into this thread. That much you did say wasn't happening :D

allegro
05-23-2016, 08:52 PM
^ you are right. @aggroculture (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=318) and @kleiner352 (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=4417) were the ones saying it. Not sure how I attributed it to you directly, but this is an example of the fabricated politically driven memes (of the true definition) that are bleeding into this thread. That much you did say wasn't happening :D

No, aggroculture is British and was genuinely asking how this thing works. I don't recall kleiner352 referencing a popular vote but I highly doubt he did so because he has been influenced but, instead, like the vast majority of Americans plus talking heads on cable news networks, said it (if he in fact did say it) because he didn't understand how our delegate system works.

It ain't over 'til it's over. In Trump's case, the remaining opponents knew they'd never catch up with Trump's number of delegates after Indiana especially since the remaining states polled heavily in Trump's favor. On the Dem side, the remaining states' polls heavily favor Clinton. But, who knows.

546 delegates are up for grabs in CA.


"Superdelegates (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/elections/primary-calendar-and-results.html?_r=0) = Unpledged Democratic party leaders who are free to support any candidate. The majority of the 714 superdelegates have declared support for Mrs. Clinton, though they could switch candidates if she were to lose the lead in pledged delegates, which are awarded based on election results."

implanted_microchip
05-23-2016, 10:50 PM
No, you are absolutely correct, which is why staggering the primary vote basically makes the last states to vote irrelevant, even in a close race like this.
At the same time a staggered primary gives a lesser-known candidate like Sanders more opportunities to get their name out there and become better-known -- with them it's highly likely that the candidate with the highest name recognition would always be the nominee outright. We would have never seen a President Barack Obama in '08 if that were the case since he started as a mostly unknown Congressman against a woman everyone believed had it locked down from the beginning. I can see how it's frustrating but at the same time it's got its merits as well.

And if it were closer it would matter but Clinton has a delegate lead in the hundreds IIRC and could lose every upcoming state and still be elected. If it were more like the Republican primary where for several weeks every delegate was vital, it could still matter greatly.

Personally I think primaries should be shortened to three months with nothing but closed primaries -- no caucuses, no open primaries -- and that campaigning should have a set date of "this is the earliest you can begin running," because as it stands we have flection cycles so long and monotonous that they burn out even the most passionate of supporters and facilitate a lot of the ugliness we've seen on both sides this year. But then the whole issue arises of how you institute and enforce that and you have a whole other problem on your hands.

tony.parente
05-24-2016, 12:00 AM
Hillary Clinton refuses to debate Bernie Sanders (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/hillary-clinton-declines-fox-news-debate)

"Honestly, I mean, I just believe that this is the most important job in the world, itís the toughest job in the world. You should be willing to campaign for every vote. You should be willing to debate anytime, anywhere. I think itís an interesting juxtaposition, where we find ourselves. And, you know, I have been willing to do all of that, during the entire process, and people have been trying to push me out of this ever since Iowa.Ē

implanted_microchip
05-24-2016, 12:28 AM
Here's a ... less-biased and more impartial source:

http://time.com/4345841/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-fox-news-debate/

I think that she should've just gone ahead and done it because now Sanders' fans have yet another gripe to harp on ceaselessly and uselessly but at the same time if anyone thinks that a debate on Fox News at this point would do a single thing when she's already winning in most projections for California and has enough pledged delegates that she could just outright fail and lose in every single upcoming primary and still win the nomination, they're kidding themselves. I get why her campaign decided it's not worth the time, but I also think that it would've been better to just waste their time and do it anyway.

Also if we're going to start digging up quotes that dispute attitudes put forth this election there's that whole video footage of Bernie on CNN claiming last July that the Iraq vote was an unfair thing to attack Hillary for only for him to, you know, less than a year later imply that it disqualifies her from the presidency, but when I linked that a while ago I just got told how "people's views change and it's fair to have a different stance after time's gone by" so if we're going to be fair then a quote from eight years ago shouldn't count because "people's views change and it's fair to have a difference stance after time's gone by."

tony.parente
05-24-2016, 12:52 AM
I think that she should've just gone ahead and done it because now Sanders' fans have yet another gripe to harp on ceaselessly and uselessly but at the same time if anyone thinks that a debate on Fox News at this point would do a single thing when she's already winning in most projections for California and has enough pledged delegates that she could just outright fail and lose in every single upcoming primary and still win the nomination, they're kidding themselves. I get why her campaign decided it's not worth the time, but I also think that it would've been better to just waste their time and do it anyway.


What bias does that link hold? It literally is just a direct quote from her spokeswoman. Isn't it her job at this point in the campaign trail to debate and answer questions? This isn't the first time she's refused to debate, but then again why would she...she's weaker every single time she talks.

I can't wait for the general election debates.

implanted_microchip
05-24-2016, 01:15 AM
I can't wait for the general election debates.


Can you please please please and I am asking this sincerely explain to me how it is that someone who supports a candidate as progressive as Bernie could possibly in a million years seem giddier than a 13 year old boy discovering PornHub about what they think is going to be Donald fucking Trump succeeding at running for the presidency? It makes zero sense to me and I really want a post of actual discussion and substance from you instead of this weird childish schoolboy bullshit because I'm trying to respect your opinions but holy fuck are you making it difficult when all I ever see out of you are these weird one-sentence smarmy "TOLD YA SOOOOOOOO DUMMIES!" mentality. Like, if you actually stand for anything resembling liberal or progressive policy I fail to see how you could seem so goddamned happy about a Republican president getting the chance to appoint up to three or four SCJs for life.

I mean if you're just that anarchistic 14-year old kid in thought of "bruh bruh bruh down with the establishment" then maybe I could see how you'd just be all for seeing that happen but even then, holy shit, if you don't think Trump would represent the interests of big business to the extreme then I don't know what to tell you. It's people like you that give Sanders supporters reputations of being less progressive and more just anti-establishment and I don't get how I feel like the only person here seeing this shit.