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

tony.parente
05-24-2016, 01:24 AM
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.
Side stepped the fact that debating is literally her job in the democratic process, and the fact that she already agreed to do this debate. The issue is that she only does things if it's going to help her personally, it's also very telling about who she is as a person and how she's going to treat the presidency if she gets elected. To be honest it wouldn't surprise me if she refused to debate trump in the general, I can already hear the "Trump is too mean, I refuse to debate him" like she did with Bernie already.

implanted_microchip
05-24-2016, 01:26 AM
Side stepped the fact that debating is literally her job in the democratic process, and the fact that she already agreed to do this debate. The issue is that she only does things if it's going to help her personally, it's also very telling about who she is as a person and how she's going to treat the presidency if she gets elected. To be honest it wouldn't surprise me if she refused to debate trump in the general, I can already hear the "Trump is too mean, I refuse to debate him" like she did with Bernie already.

This completely fails to explain why it is that you seem so gleeful at this idea you have that Trump is going to be president and didn't answer my question at all.

Jinsai
05-24-2016, 01:35 AM
This completely fails to explain why it is that you seem so gleeful at this idea you have that Trump is going to be president and didn't answer my question at all.

Well... I for one find the prospect of a Trump presidency a nightmare that I'm not sure my sanity can handle... which is why I didn't want the candidate who has the greater chance of losing to him to be the chosen candidate.

implanted_microchip
05-24-2016, 01:52 AM
Well... I for one find the prospect of a Trump presidency a nightmare that I'm not sure my sanity can handle... which is why I didn't want the candidate who has the greater chance of losing to him to be the chosen candidate.

But see that makes sense and you're not sitting there acting thrilled about the idea of Trump beating Clinton. @tony.parente (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=2107) has made comment after comment that has sounded just over-the-moon about the idea of Hillary supporters being proven "wrong" somehow by Trump winning.

You're being a reasonable adult sticking to your ideals and simply saying "I don't think she has the same likelihood of winning and that concerns me," not "Haha you idiots just you wait fuckheads you're all so dumb dumb dumb you'll have egg on your face (actual thing he said) I can't wait for those debates she's going to get so wrecked lololololololllllllllllllllllllllllllllll!!!!lll1l ll." So it goes without saying that I'm not talking about people like you, I'm talking very specifically about this "reddit as a person"-style Sanders supporter that tony is absolutely embodying. I don't get it at all and trying to respect it as an adult's valid opinion from someone who supported the most far-left candidate in the race when they seem childishly excited about the idea of the right-wing candidate winning is, as you might be able to guess, a real fuckin' strain. I've still yet to get an answer from him either, just more /r/politics-level bullshit.

tony.parente
05-24-2016, 01:58 AM
It's not about being gleeful at a Trump presidency, its anger and frustration that the left has decided to push forward a candidate that couldn't win an election against a republican house plant. The country loses big fucking time regardless if it's Trump or Clinton, but i'm not above saying that seeing egg on Clinton supporters faces won't make me a little happy on election day.

I didn't do this, I voted for the candidate that could win a general election against Donald Trump - I did my job as a democratic voter.

implanted_microchip
05-24-2016, 02:34 AM
You're deciding in advance that someone cannot win and doing nothing to help make it happen then. If she does lose a big part of why will be people with that "Well fuck it then I didn't want her anyway I just won't vote she can't win" attitude that will be exactly the reason why.

And I'm sorry but to act like Sanders really could beat him any more easily is absurd. The only reason polls show him winning so well is that he's never really been attacked much, at all. Hillary has been extremely light on him this entire primary season. Meanwhile he's been harsh on her for months and Republicans have spent decades shitting on her. She's battle-tested. Bernie hasn't had to have been. He's been an indie senator from Vermont from ages who has had his little niche of the country carved out and has been able to avoid ever being high profile. Bernie has photos of him with a Soviet flag behind him in his office, footage of him saying breadlines in Soviet Russia were, and I quote, "a good thing!" and defenses of Castro, among many other skeletons in his closet. His wife made a college close up shop, which really does little to help any idea of fiscal responsibility or open room to criticize Trump for his failed ventures. There's a ton of shit that the GOP would looooooooooove in big bold bright neon letters to be able to craft attack ads out of against Sanders and I can promise you that being able to say "A socialist who traveled to the Soviet Union and support breadlines wants to be president" would be all it would take to get the older generations out to vote in favor of Trump.

To say that he has better chances than her when he has all of that riding against him is to ignore that he has not had to deal with any serious attack ads, not had to deal with any truly shit-talking opponents, not had to deal with being held under a microscope by his competition and not had to deal with owning up to any of that stuff. They used that footage of him defending Castro against him when they debated here in Florida and he lost like a motherfucker here. It carries weight. He floundered and seemed wholly unprepared to have it brought up, too. It was probably his worst debate performance the entire primary season. If anybody thinks the general election would be kinder to him they're kidding themselves.

Besides, speculative general election polls this far out in advance mean very, very little. You can claim that "Oh well poll X shows Hillary would lose so she's going to lose no matter what" yet you can find one that says the exact opposite right now, too, with more or less equal reputability. You're deciding before the nominees have even been officially selected that one of them can't win and really, it's that kind of thinking that does far more damage.

tony.parente
05-24-2016, 02:41 AM
Meanwhile he's been harsh on her for months and Republicans have spent decades shitting on her. She's battle-tested.

I wonder why, it's not like she isn't a walking treasure trove of lies, manipulation, corporate interest and corruption.


She's battle-tested.
LOL

littlemonkey613
05-24-2016, 02:45 AM
I didn't do this, I voted for the candidate that could win a general election against Donald Trump - I did my job as a democratic voter.

Ya.. in the primary..
If I recall there's another important voting day coming up between Hillary and a demagogical lunatic.

tony.parente
05-24-2016, 02:52 AM
Ya.. in the primary..
If I recall there's another important voting day coming up between Hillary and a demagogical lunatic.

That's when you decide whether or not you want someone shitting goldman sachs brand diarrhea in your mouth, or diarrhea with bad hair and a wall in your mouth.

Jinsai
05-24-2016, 04:29 AM
Ya.. in the primary..
If I recall there's another important voting day coming up between Hillary and a demagogical lunatic.

And I'm hoping I'm not sounding like a broken record, but for 85% of us, our vote means NOTHING in that election cycle.

I can't vote for my preferred candidate for the progressive ticket because they already decided before they bothered to ask me for my input, and I know that my state will go democratic no matter what. California will not vote for a republican president right now, even if he's a former reality TV star. I'm not going to argue with Hillary supporters about whether or not she's running a campaign to win at any cost, because she obviously is, and she's pulling out her lifelines. She'll win, but not because more people like her and are enthused about the idea of her being president... and holy shit am I tired of seeing articles arguing that the only reason Hillary is being criticized is because she's a woman. This spin is fucking insane.

Deepvoid
05-24-2016, 06:20 AM
For those who may have missed this very informative piece. The bit about Pennsylvania at 9:09 is ridiculous.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_S2G8jhhUHg

implanted_microchip
05-24-2016, 08:23 AM
Here's some much-needed balance to the "Clinton's got no shot against Trump" narrative around here:

http://thehill.com/opinion/juan-williams/280768-juan-williams-electoral-map-looks-grim-for-trump

tony.parente
05-24-2016, 08:43 AM
“We are a very different country than we were 200 years ago,” she said back then. “I believe strongly that in a democracy, we should respect the will of the people and to me that means it’s time to do away with the electoral college and move to the popular election of our president.”

I very much agree with this specific version of 2000 Hillary Clinton, this version had it right.

implanted_microchip
05-24-2016, 09:20 AM
Good fucking Christ you're like the living embodiment of everything Swykk proclaims me to be in Bernie Bro form

Swykk
05-24-2016, 09:41 AM
You're 100% a Hillary apologist with an unhealthy side of "Condescend And Dismiss Anything Bernie Supporters Say."

The first part is forgivable and understandable. You are passionate about the candidate you love which is good, it shows you care about the future of the country unlike so many people, but the other side of that coin is that you're blindly doing so, ignoring her litany of red flags. Worst of all, you regularly thumb your nose at the opposition, dismissing anything they bring up. Your definition of Bernie Bro seems to be "Any dude that doesn't like Hillary."

At this point, you should stop tagging me and move on. I keep telling you this isn't personal and also that I wasn't the only one to notice all of the above behavior but you keep making it about me.

aggroculture
05-24-2016, 10:51 AM
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?

I'm confused. The second link here says that Obama, not Clinton, won the popular vote in 08.


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)



"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."

So pledged delegates are awarded based on election results. What is the difference between "election results" and the popular vote? Presumably you need to win more votes to get more delegates (with each state following a different model on how that occurs, some splitting delegates, some winner takes all), which is what Clinton has been doing this time... and Obama did in 08? In my understanding Clinton has both been winning the popular vote (the figure I keep reading is that she has 2-3 million more votes than Bernie) and consequently has more delegates, and Bernie can't catch up now.

DigitalChaos
05-24-2016, 11:20 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?




Him wanting to see Hillary and Trump in debates somehow means he wants Trump to be president? WUT
Plus, it's not like Hillary failing horribly in the debates is going to make her lose any supporters. Hillary apologists don't seem to have any limits. Do you think they are suddenly going to be "oh, well gee... Bernie didn't convince me... but Trump... now THAT guy really convinced me"

DigitalChaos
05-24-2016, 11:55 AM
This is a great article that examines the FEELINGS of voters that create a huge draw to Trump and a pretty large negative for Hillary. I have been unable to articulate what I have seen, but this does an almost perfect job.
The perception of authenticity in Trump vs the extreme fakeness in Hillary. The fiction of restoring success back to the blue collar workers vs Hillary representing the nebulous corrupt crony capitalism that is ruining everything. Hillary is basically what Romney was in the last cycle.

The title nearly made me close the window, but there were quite a few great bits in the body.
http://www.salon.com/2016/05/23/donald_trump_is_going_to_win_this_is_why_hillary_c linton_cant_defeat_what_trump_represents/

Im not posting this for people to agree with the perceptions and feelings detailed here, but to provide a well written description of what huge numbers of people ARE perceiving. @kleiner352 (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=4417) - you'd definitely benefit from reading this based on your recent questions of "but why?"

allegro
05-24-2016, 12:35 PM
I'm confused. The second link here says that Obama, not Clinton, won the popular vote in 08.
If you count Michigan, Hillary got more popular votes in '08. But Obama wasn't on the ballot in Michigan, so Michigan is often not counted.

http://i.imgur.com/2AbhJPV.png?1



So pledged delegates are awarded based on election results.
Per district.

For instance in New York: Hillary won the state. Hillary got 139 delegates. But Bernie got 108 delegates, because he won in several very populated districts.

Or in Illinois, same thing. Hillary won the state. She received 79 delegates. But Bernie got 77 delegates, because he won in several very populated districts.

Or in Massachusetts. Hillary won the state. She received 46 delegates. But Bernie got 45 delegates, because he won in several very populated districts.

Etc. etc. etc.

Kasich won 2 delegates in two of Manhattan's most populated districts. Big deal, but that's how it works. It's not ONLY about "popular votes" but about collecting delegates in populated districts. If Bernie gets votes in Podunk Iowa, it's not going to help him. He needs big highly populated areas to collect those delegates.

SEE THIS (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/elections/primary-calendar-and-results.html?_r=0).

Bernie could possibly still catch up with delegates if he takes all of the remaining delegates and get the magic number of 2383; if he's ahead of Hillary with the number of delegates, a lot of those Superdelegates will jump ship, that's the idea of Superdelegates: to be behind the one with the most delegates.

allegro
05-24-2016, 01:00 PM
This is a great article that examines the FEELINGS of voters that create a huge draw to Trump and a pretty large negative for Hillary.
This is going to change all of that (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-escalates-attack-on-bill-clinton/2016/05/23/ed109acc-2100-11e6-8690-f14ca9de2972_story.html).

Blaming Hillary and calling her an "enabler" for Bill Clinton's shit is going to cut Trump's woman vote to zero.

It was obvious, at the time, that Hillary knew NOTHING about any of Bill's shit and believed his stories that he was innocent. I was there, she was on TV saying that he was innocent. Then the shit hit the fan.

Although, this John Kass column is a really really interesting column about how Bill Clinton's shit basically taught us all to pretend that Bill's shit was totally normal and to pretend that it never happened.
(http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/kass/ct-trump-clinton-women-kass-0518-20160517-column.html)


"If you drag a hundred-dollar bill through a trailer park, you never know what you'll find."

Those immortal words belong to James Carville, the Clinton Democratic operative who — with Hillary's assent — set the tone on how the Clintons would treat women who dared accuse former President Clinton of sexual harassment.

And the woman Carville referred to was Paula Jones.

She wasn't fancy or rich, just a working woman sexually harassed by Bill when he was governor of Arkansas.

But she was denigrated by Clinton's top advisers as "trailer park" trash, as someone so craven she'd crawl on dirt for the cash to slander Bill.

She was telling the truth. It was a straightforward sexual harassment case. If Bill had been a private-sector CEO, he'd have been fired.



It wasn't Hillary's fault, and there sure is no reason to blame her for it. But Bill sure as hell wanted us to overlook it all. I don't think it's fair to blame wives for this shit. Dirty dog husbands are only responsible for themselves, and a divorce in a career isn't always a stellar point on a resume. But this is NOT what we need in this fucking campaign. (no pun intended.)

DigitalChaos
05-24-2016, 01:23 PM
This is going to change all of that (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-escalates-attack-on-bill-clinton/2016/05/23/ed109acc-2100-11e6-8690-f14ca9de2972_story.html).

Blaming Hillary and calling her an "enabler" for Bill Clinton's shit is going to cut Trump's woman vote to zero.

It was obvious, at the time, that Hillary knew NOTHING about any of Bill's shit and believed his stories that he was innocent. I was there, she was on TV saying that he was innocent. Then the shit hit the fan.

Although, this John Kass column is a really really interesting column about how Bill Clinton's shit basically taught us all to pretend that Bill's shit was totally normal and to pretend that it never happened.
(http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/kass/ct-trump-clinton-women-kass-0518-20160517-column.html)



It wasn't Hillary's fault, and there sure is no reason to blame her for it. But Bill sure as hell wanted us to overlook it all. I don't think it's fair to blame wives for this shit. Dirty dog husbands are only responsible for themselves, and a divorce in a career isn't always a stellar point on a resume. But this is NOT what we need in this fucking campaign. (no pun intended.)

This very topic was covered in the article I linked to. You need to understand it from the perspective of the supporters. Calling her an enabler isn't blaming her for what Bill did, it's blaming Hillary for how Hillary handled it. Attacking the women and helping Bill hide it... that's kinda the definition of enabling.

You can debate whether she did or didn't do these things, but a LOT of people believe she did. And its not that she did, its the *reason* that she did this that is the point of contention. Why would she do this other than to advance her political power and/or prevent it from being dismantled. *cut to Anderson Cooper asking of Hillary will do/say anything to get elected*



from the article:

Though he is in fact the libertine (certainly not Clinton, who is libertinism’s antithesis), he will be able to tar her with being permissive to an extreme degree—an “enabler,” as the current jargon has it, for her husband’s proclivities, for example. It has nothing to do with misogyny. It has everything to do with the kind of vocabulary that must substitute for people’s real emotions, their fears and desires, in the face of an abstract market that presumes to rule out everything but the “rational” utility-maximizing motive.

allegro
05-24-2016, 01:28 PM
This very topic was covered in the article I linked to. You need to understand it from the perspective of the supporters. Calling her an enabler isn't blaming her for what Bill did, it's blaming Hillary for how Hillary handled it. Attacking the women and helping Bill hide it... that's kinda the definition of enabling.
But we don't know anything about Hillary's personal life, how she handled it with her husband behind closed doors. Just because she didn't divorce him, just because she decided to stay in the marriage doesn't mean that she "enabled" him which implies that he would go on to do it again. We have no idea what happened between the two of them, if they went to counseling, if they are still in counseling, nothing. It's making a lot of assumptions about their personal life, which is really unfair and, in my opinion, victim blaming. Hillary was one of the victims in that mess. Just because she didn't divorce him doesn't mean she necessarily enabled him (implying that she could somehow stop him from doing it if she left him). This isn't the same thing as somebody who was physically or mentally abused by a husband. I still don't know anything about these charges of assault, only the charges of sexual harassment and infidelity. Remember, this is Trump: the same guy accusing Obama of being a Kenyan citizen.

I don't think that Hillary helped Bill hide it; I still don't believe that is what happened. She really seemed to be out-to-lunch and believing what he was saying regarding his innocence. When he confessed his guilt, Hillary disappeared for a while. It was really sad. And, since then, she hasn't publicly addressed it because it's not her crime to confess; it's his.

He was a total poon-hound. How does a wife publicly discuss that? You know what most old-fashioned people tend to think when that happens? They blame the wife. Wasn't she good in bed? Wasn't she giving it up at home? Was he lonely? Was she too involved in her career? Etc etc. And now, later, they're blaming the wife because she was somehow complicit in his fucking around. She "covered it up" or she somehow knew about it. Look, he fucked around and that's his fault. Period. He couldn't keep his dick in his pants, and that's his fault. Why she stayed with him is a personal reason that is not a fault, it's a personal decision. Maybe he gave her a lot of money. Who knows. Not my business. But she DOES have to realize that Bill taught the country to just "look away' when men of power use women and throw them away, just like her husband did. Where was the outrage when that happened to Monica Lewinsky, a really young girl? And now Lewinsky has a permanent Scarlett Letter and Bill's still a hero to many Dems.

DigitalChaos
05-24-2016, 01:41 PM
@allegro (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=76) - It doesn't matter what you think. Its about what Trump believers think. That's the entire point! It's an extremely believable narrative that Hillary does absolutely everything for personal gain and will do a 180 against any proclaimed values if it means she will gain. The right says it and the left says it. This "enabling Bill" thing is just one of many in the list that fit this pattern and you don't have enough time to debate each and every one, but that's exactly what will happen. Debating each one is a debate on *Hillary's* credibility. It will be an endless debate on her credibility. You know exactly what kind of damage that does, especially in a world where the public is deciding who is guilty before a trial has even started.


There are quite a few things I could point to that may change your view on the "enabling Bill" topic, especially in how Hillary treated the women, but what you or I think is not the point here.

allegro
05-24-2016, 01:54 PM
@allegro (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=76) - It doesn't matter what you think. Its about what Trump believers think. That's the entire point! It's an extremely believable narrative that Hillary does absolutely everything for personal gain and will do a 180 against any proclaimed values if it means she will gain. The right says it and the left says it. This "enabling Bill" thing is just one of many in the list that fit this pattern and you don't have enough time to debate each and every one, but that's exactly what will happen. Debating each one is a debate on *Hillary's* credibility. It will be an endless debate on her credibility. You know exactly what kind of damage that does, especially in a world where the public is deciding who is guilty before a trial has even started.


There are quite a few things I could point to that may change your view on the "enabling Bill" topic, especially in how Hillary treated the women, but what you or I think is not the point here.

I understand what you are saying about feelings, and I am addressing that from the viewpoint of women; women are not going to get on board that train. The majority of Trump fans are white dudes, and Trump has to widen his demographic. So, maybe that anti-Bill thing will garner more anti-Bill stuff, but Trump is already in trouble with women voters and this certainly isn't going to help him garner any sympathy with women because Bill isn't running for President. And this really doesn't speak to Hillary's credibility; it speaks to Bill's. Trump has zero evidence that Hillary even know about any of this shit; in fact, there is far more evidence of the opposite.

But, really, it won't matter. In the debate stage, Hillary won't address it and the moderators will shut it down. They will be forced to stick with the topics, the Hillary voters and the women and wives will feel more simpatico for Hillary, Trump will look like a douche bag for diverting attention from the real issues, and that will be that.

Trump is claiming that he "didn't want to bring this stuff up" but that "they" are "saying bad stuff" about him. The bad stuff? Hillary said he's not qualified to be President.

So, this is just a taste of how badly Trump is going to do on the debate stage; the guy can't stick to a topic, he plays dirty, etc. It's gonna be terrible, yet entertaining, yet maybe not. Ugh.

DigitalChaos
05-24-2016, 03:11 PM
I don't know... if we are doing anecdotal: I know plenty of Trump supporting women and not one of them holds your view that wasn't already against Trump. The Trump supporting women fucking LOVE to attack Hillary at any moment, so they were totally siding with Trump on that topic.

Deepvoid
05-24-2016, 03:54 PM
Trump calls Vince Foster's death "very fishy". (http://www.mediaite.com/online/very-fishy-trump-comments-on-vince-foster-clinton-conspiracy-theory/)

Looks like we have 6 months of Trump digging up every conspiracy theory related to Clinton.

allegro
05-24-2016, 04:03 PM
Trump calls Vince Foster's death "very fishy". (http://www.mediaite.com/online/very-fishy-trump-comments-on-vince-foster-clinton-conspiracy-theory/)

Looks like we have 6 months of Trump digging up every conspiracy theory related to Clinton.
LOL LOL. Well you KNOW she's gonna play the same game back with the pounds of dirt on him, including Ivanka claiming he abused her. Wait, I don't know that Hillary would sink that low.


I don't know... if we are doing anecdotal: I know plenty of Trump supporting women and not one of them holds your view that wasn't already against Trump. The Trump supporting women fucking LOVE to attack Hillary at any moment, so they were totally siding with Trump on that topic.
Again, Trump shouldn't care about current supporters as Republicans don't have nearly enough voters to get the Presidency (as shown by the latest Autopsy Reports). He needs others beyond his current group of supporters.

botley
05-24-2016, 06:51 PM
Its about what Trump believers think. That's the entire point! It's an extremely believable narrative that Hillary does absolutely everything for personal gain and will do a 180 against any proclaimed values if it means she will gain. The right says it and the left says it.
Maybe, to people who are political junkies and are already sick of the Clintons. That's not a relevant assertion in the upcoming general election, however, where voters who aren't already fatigued by these nominees must eventually come to form an opinion one way or another if they've been tuned out since the last Presidential race. Which most people have been, trust me. The primaries make it seem, with their large crowds of hardcore supporters, like they are true indications of how this thing will go in November but they're not. Most people who see Trump doing his thing may not find it interesting or captivating anymore come November. Hillary just has to hang fire and be Presidential for the next six months and the 'values' people feel she may or may not stand for will have blurred into a hazy fog of Democratic stump speeches. That's a bankable strategy to defeat Trump, just let him continue to get in his own way. When Hillary's put on the defence for shit her husband did in their personal life during a Presidential debate, to most women that's like reaching over the podium and slapping her across the face.


I know plenty of Trump supporting women and not one of them holds your view that wasn't already against Trump. The Trump supporting women fucking LOVE to attack Hillary at any moment, so they were totally siding with Trump on that topic.
I'm not sure how many those women are but that's going to wear thin once he actually starts going too far with the hateful language of these personal attacks, just like he did with Hispanics and Black people for his comments about Mexicans and Obama. It's over for him with those communities, and they have already voted in large numbers for Hillary. Consolidating those leads with a few concessions to policy wonks who supported Sanders is the Democratic path to victory.

Mantra
05-24-2016, 07:16 PM
Who's polling better among old people? Trump or Clinton?

Also, and perhaps more importantly, who is going to fair better among independents and swing voters in the battleground states? I could see it going either way. The independent/swing voting block are a bunch of fickle weirdos. They ran for the hills at the sight of Sarah Palin, and McCain's campaign was never really able to win them back after that. So maybe they will react similarly to Trump. There are certain characteristics that you tend to see among those voters, and one of them is a strong distaste for extremist types. These are people who like to imagine themselves as "practical" minded and critical thinkers who aren't swayed by demagogues and emotions. Freakshow candidates like Palin and Trump and even Sanders may please their base, but independents and swing voters have historically tended to favor the more "rational" and "normal" centrist types of candidates. But I could also imagine them feeling really dispassionate about Hillary, and deciding they want to see something "different." The whole anti-"establishment" trend is all the rage these days, and I suspect that not even the moderate/swing/independent crowd is immune to it. Plus, a big part of Trump's thing is that he supposedly tells us all these blunt "truths" without being politically correct, which I could see being really appealing to all those voters who want to imagine themselves as having the ability to "see through the bullshit." So I don't know, it's hard to say how those voter will ultimately respond to the Trump v. Clinton race.

Guys, what's going to happen in this general election? Someone figure it all out and let me know. Pm me, I don't give a shit about spoilers, I just want to know right now how its all going to end.

allegro
05-24-2016, 08:22 PM
HERE is a hilarious article about Trump's former stance on Bill Clinton (http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/trump-defended-clinton-during-lewinsky-scandal-against-moral).



Trump took a different tact in the late '90s, when the scandal was at its peak, defending then-President Bill Clinton against the "moralists" and hypocrites in Congress and arguing that the scandal wouldn't have been that bad if only Clinton had chosen to carry on an affair with a supermodel instead.



The Republican front-runner, who has his own history of extra-marital relations, also wrote in his 2000 book that the American people were tired of hearing about Clinton's private life. "Think for a second about what the entire political world was obsessing over throughout 1998 and part of 1999: Monica," wrote Trump. "I think the national consciousness has been deeply scarred. Americans have been drained of their spirit by the entire Clinton-Lewinsky impeachment fiasco. I think the voters want both Clintons offstage and want to put the whole sordid mess behind us. That's what they mean by Clinton fatigue."

Trump at one point compared himself directly to Bill Clinton, telling CNBC in 1998, "Can you imagine how controversial I'd be? You think about him with the women. How about me with the women? Can you imagine?"

In a 2000 interview with Maureen Dowd of the New York Times, Trump even suggested people would have been more forgiving if Clinton had cheated on Hillary with a beautiful woman of sophistication.

"He handled the Monica situation disgracefully. It's sad because he would go down as a great president if he had not had this scandal," said Trump. "People would have been more forgiving if he'd had an affair with a really beautiful woman of sophistication. Kennedy and Marilyn Monroe were on a different level. Now Clinton can't get into golf clubs in Westchester. A former president begging to get in a golf club. It's unthinkable.''

In another Times story in 1999, Trump said Clinton would have been considered a hero if he cheated with a supermodel:

For example, Trump disapproves of President Clinton's behavior in the White House over the past four years, though he suggested that he was bothered less by what Clinton did, than by whom he did it with.

"It was his choice," Trump said. "It was Monica! I mean, terrible choice." Trump, who showed off fashion magazines displaying cover-art of the latest in a line of models he has dated, suggested that if Clinton had confessed an improper relationship ( Trump offered a more earthy phrase to get the idea across) with a supermodel, as a opposed to a White House intern, "he would have been everybody's hero."

"I'm not making any justification for cheating on your wife," added Trump, whose own extracurricular marital activities have been a tabloid staple.

allegro
05-24-2016, 10:33 PM
Oh, NOW it's getting GOOD!!

Clinton has a new weapon against Trump: Elizabeth Warren (http://wapo.st/1qHUbZ5).

thevoid99
05-24-2016, 10:36 PM
oh, now it's getting good!!

clinton has a new weapon against trump: Elizabeth warren (http://wapo.st/1qhubz5).

oh fuck.....

implanted_microchip
05-25-2016, 01:23 AM
Oh, NOW it's getting GOOD!!

Clinton has a new weapon against Trump: Elizabeth Warren (http://wapo.st/1qHUbZ5).

Warren's been raging against Trump for a while now and it's been a thrill to see. Clinton having Bill, Barack, Elizabeth and Joe Biden all out stumping for her will likely have a pretty large impact, especially considering the popularity of Obama and Warren at the moment. People like her are why I don't believe for a minute that anyone can safely predict what we'll see happen come November because there's way too many key players that have yet to really enter the game to begin with. Meanwhile every former Republican president and nominee has said they're not going to support Trump. Whether any of that will have a lot of impact, who knows, but I do think it's something you can't just shrug at.

Mantra
05-25-2016, 11:59 AM
HERE is a hilarious article about Trump's former stance on Bill Clinton (http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/trump-defended-clinton-during-lewinsky-scandal-against-moral). lol, awesome.

Weren't the Clintons and Trump mildly chummy before? I know there's that hilarious pic of them at his wedding where they look all happy and jolly together. And didn't he and Bill golf together once in a while too? Or am I remembering wrong?

I wonder if all this campaign shit is gonna put a damper on their relationship, or if Trump will call up Bill and be like "Hey dude, sorry for talking all that shit about you. Nothing personal man, obviously I don't actually give a shit about that stuff, lol, I mean you know how these damn presidential campaigns go. What do you say we hit the links next week, eh?"

sick among the pure
05-25-2016, 06:13 PM
lol, awesome.

Weren't the Clintons and Trump mildly chummy before? I know there's that hilarious pic of them at his wedding where they look all happy and jolly together. And didn't he and Bill golf together once in a while too? Or am I remembering wrong?

I wonder if all this campaign shit is gonna put a damper on their relationship, or if Trump will call up Bill and be like "Hey dude, sorry for talking all that shit about you. Nothing personal man, obviously I don't actually give a shit about that stuff, lol, I mean you know how these damn presidential campaigns go. What do you say we hit the links next week, eh?"

Naw, you're remembering correctly, they were all friends. Trump wasn't even a Republican until recently. Some people speculate they're still friends, tbh, I wouldn't be surprised anymore.

allegro
05-25-2016, 06:20 PM
Weren't the Clintons and Trump mildly chummy before? I know there's that hilarious pic of them at his wedding where they look all happy and jolly together. And didn't he and Bill golf together once in a while too? Or am I remembering wrong?
Trump invited a lot of New Yorkers to his wedding, including high-powered New Yorkers like the Clintons. Trump said he invited many many "powerful people" to his wedding because he is "a businessman" and he wanted donations. But Hillary has made it really clear that they were never friends with the Trumps (http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/03/politics/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-friends/).

Edit: Chelsea and Ivanka did develop a friendship but they have allegedly cooled it during the election.

tony.parente
05-25-2016, 11:34 PM
Is it possible to give an excuse or brush this under the rug? (http://freebeacon.com/politics/clinton-hack-personal-email/)

Ryan
05-25-2016, 11:54 PM
2016 Presidential Erection

tony.parente
05-26-2016, 12:06 AM
2016 Presidential Erection

You're not chinese, Ryan. Stop appropriating.

allegro
05-26-2016, 12:21 AM
Is it possible to give an excuse or brush this under the rug? (http://freebeacon.com/politics/clinton-hack-personal-email/)
Attempts but no dice? Pretty impressive, considering the fact that the FBI couldn't manage to protect the top secret security clearance records of over 20.5 million employees, including 10 million fingerprints, from being hacked on their servers by the Chinese. Or that the CIA director's personal email account (on AOL) was hacked which contained attachments with his own security clearance data forms.

See also (http://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/03/07/state-dept-concludes-past-secretaries-of-state/209044).

implanted_microchip
05-26-2016, 12:47 AM
So, uhhhh .... Bernie and Trump have agreed to debate.

What the hell is going on this election? There's no way the DNC or RNC will be pleased with this and certainly no way the CPD will be cool with it. Has a cross-party debate during the primaries even ever happened before, let alone for a mathematically eliminated candidate? What's this even supposed to achieve?

tony.parente
05-26-2016, 01:10 AM
So, uhhhh .... Bernie and Trump have agreed to debate.

What the hell is going on this election? There's no way the DNC or RNC will be pleased with this and certainly no way the CPD will be cool with it. Has a cross-party debate during the primaries even ever happened before, let alone for a mathematically eliminated candidate? What's this even supposed to achieve?

Excellent moves from both sides, it shows that Bernie and Trump are both willing to put up whenever and wherever. It also shows how unwilling to perform, self serving and weak Hillary is.

Mantra
05-26-2016, 01:12 AM
So, uhhhh .... Bernie and Trump have agreed to debate.

What the hell is going on this election? There's no way the DNC or RNC will be pleased with this and certainly no way the CPD will be cool with it. Has a cross-party debate during the primaries even ever happened before, let alone for a mathematically eliminated candidate? What's this even supposed to achieve? Is this really an official thing though? I thought it was them just making casual comments on tv and twitter. Is it actually happening?

implanted_microchip
05-26-2016, 01:51 AM
Is this really an official thing though? I thought it was them just making casual comments on tv and twitter. Is it actually happening?

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/trump-sanders-kimmel-debate-223594

There's a million ways it may not happen but it seems all but official. The CPD would likely ban whoever hosts it from hosting any general election debates, but who knows at this point. This is nuts. A candidate who literally cannot be the Democratic nominee mathematically is going to debate the Republican frontrunner. Why? What does this achieve?

None of this makes any constructive sense unless you're Trump, because then you get to court people like tony.parente by getting Bernie to agree to all your shittalk about Hillary even more and just sell yourself as "the anti-establishment pick WHO CAN WIN" even though he's literally the old rich white guy that everyone's said is the establishment for decades.

This is just beyond weird and so unorthodox, unprecedented and ridiculous. None of this makes any comprehensible sense to me anymore. Sanders went from the guy saying how Republicans needed to lay off on Hillary for Iraq and declaring "I'm sick and tiyahd hearing about yah damn emails" to the guy who stays in after it being genuinely impossible for him to win and then tries to have debates with the opposition's nominee. I'm pretty much done trying to understand any of this circus freakshow at this point. If you said a few months ago it would be the Democrats struggling to have a sense of order and the Republicans who would have things sorted out you'd have sounded like a schizophrenic guy outside of a Wendy's.

tony.parente
05-26-2016, 02:04 AM
kleiner352 i'm sorry your candidate decided to flip flop on her promise (shocking) and refuse to fulfill an obligation once it didn't help her personally and it ended up biting her in the ass. Then again she could literally run over a newborn child and her supporters would be all "well XXX did it too so it's fine".

implanted_microchip
05-26-2016, 02:11 AM
@kleiner352 (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=4417) i'm sorry your candidate decided to flip flop on her promise (shocking) and refuse to fulfill an obligation once it didn't help her personally and it ended up biting her in the ass. Then again she could literally run over a newborn child and her supporters would be all "well XXX did it too so it's fine".

God it must be so wonderful to see the world in such simplified terms

tony.parente
05-26-2016, 02:14 AM
God it must be so wonderful to see the world in such simplified terms

She agreed to a debate.
Once she determined it didn't help her she decided not to do it.
She lied.

implanted_microchip
05-26-2016, 02:19 AM
She agreed to a debate.
Once she determined it didn't help her she decided not to do it.
She lied.

Agreeing to debate a candidate when there's still a race to be had and not debating someone once they literally cannot win mathematically and you are the presumptive nominee is incredibly different. Trump did the exact same thing and even said "no more debates!" and nobody gave him much hell for it even when Cruz still had an actual chance. I've said, on this goddamn website, before, that I think it was a bad move on her part, but holy fucking God's green Earth tony how any of that somehow has fuck-all to do with a candidate who lost debating the winning Republican out of fucking nowhere and it makes that seem like a sensible decision is beyond me.

Clearly, me being confused at what is a really weird decision with no clear end-goal considering Bernie cannot win, he's out, he could win every single state going forward and still not have the necessary delegates, is really just because I'd be fine if Hillary ran over a baby. I guess if this election's done anything it's done a great job of showing how many grown adults are really no different from 13 year olds on 4chan. Goddamn. You can at some level attempt to have a real discussion that isn't some accusatory cunt-fest or you can just stop talking to me.

tony.parente
05-26-2016, 02:28 AM
Agreeing to debate a candidate when there's still a race to be had and not debating someone once they literally cannot win mathematically and you are the presumptive nominee is incredibly different. Trump did the exact same thing and even said "no more debates!" and nobody gave him much hell for it even when Cruz still had an actual chance. I've said, on this goddamn website, before, that I think it was a bad move on her part, but holy fucking God's green Earth tony how any of that somehow has fuck-all to do with a candidate who lost debating the winning Republican out of fucking nowhere and it makes that seem like a sensible decision is beyond me.

Clearly, me being confused at what is a really weird decision with no clear end-goal considering Bernie cannot win, he's out, he could win every single state going forward and still not have the necessary delegates, is really just because I'd be fine if Hillary ran over a baby. I guess if this election's done anything it's done a great job of showing how many grown adults are really no different from 13 year olds on 4chan. Goddamn. You can at some level attempt to have a real discussion that isn't some accusatory cunt-fest or you can just stop talking to me.

It's called integrity. It's called campaigning. Considering how hated she is by both Bernie and Trump supporters you would think she would try and show everyone how willing she is to do whatever it takes to get their vote. Lets be honest, she's not trying to earn your vote anymore, she's got that literally no matter what she does.

She's trying to earn MY vote, and refusing to debate further pushes the fact that her personal interests will always come before the american people.

implanted_microchip
05-26-2016, 02:52 AM
It's called integrity. It's called campaigning. Considering how hated she is by both Bernie and Trump supporters you would think she would try and show everyone how willing she is to do whatever it takes to get their vote. Lets be honest, she's not trying to earn your vote anymore, she's got that literally no matter what she does.

She's trying to earn MY vote, and refusing to debate further pushes the fact that her personal interests will always come before the american people.

Except in my state's primary she didn't have my vote. For months she didn't have my vote.

But complex political views and not seeing everyone in black and white is just impossible, right? You're generalizing for Bernie supporters now yet if I do it I get collectively shit on like I'm Bill O'Reilly. Not all Sanders supporters are reddit. Not all Sanders supporters are you. A ton are just Democrats who like both and like him more. That's how I was for a long, long time, and then that changed. Hell, if I take isidewith I agree with him 98% and her 87%. But guess what? It's not just a personality contest for me, and I care more about who is actually capable of achieving what they discuss and seems capable of helping Dems take back Congress and actually do something with concrete plans rather than fly by the seat of their pants on emotional rhetoric and moralistic appeals.

You have assumed, generalized, marginalized, reduced and dismissed the views of anyone who supports Hillary and it's so fucking shitty. How you don't see how you're behaving is beyond me. You are so caught up in this idea that you're morally superior for liking Bernie Sanders and not that evil old bat called Hillary. Aren't you just so special.

tony.parente
05-26-2016, 02:57 AM
Except in my state's primary she didn't have my vote. For months she didn't have my vote.

But complex political views and not seeing everyone in black and white is just impossible, right? You're generalizing for Bernie supporters now yet if I do it I get collectively shit on like I'm Bill O'Reilly. Not all Sanders supporters are reddit. Not all Sanders supporters are you. A ton are just Democrats who like both and like him more. That's how I was for a long, long time, and then that changed. Hell, if I take isidewith I agree with him 98% and her 87%. But guess what? It's not just a personality contest for me, and I care more about who is actually capable of achieving what they discuss and seems capable of helping Dems take back Congress and actually do something with concrete plans rather than fly by the seat of their pants on emotional rhetoric and moralistic appeals.

You have assumed, generalized, marginalized, reduced and dismissed the views of anyone who supports Hillary and it's so fucking shitty. How you don't see how you're behaving is beyond me. You are so caught up in this idea that you're morally superior for liking Bernie Sanders and not that evil old bat called Hillary. Aren't you just so special.

That was a long way of saying "yeah, she has my vote and you're acting shitty even though you're right about her needing to be campaigning for those not supporting her right now".

Ryan
05-26-2016, 03:23 AM
You're not chinese, Ryan. Stop appropriating.

Me sho sholliy!

Deepvoid
05-26-2016, 06:32 AM
The Young Turks have reached out to Sanders and Trump to host and moderate the debate in CA.
Jill Stein responded to Cenk Uygur and asked that she be invited along with Gary Johnson.

tony.parente
05-26-2016, 06:57 AM
Jill Stein responded to Cenk Uygur and asked that she be invited along with Gary Johnson.
"Guys!! We still exist!!! Guys!"

Swykk
05-26-2016, 07:35 AM
IF this debate ends up happening, and to me, despite both sides agreeing to it, it seems far from being a done deal, there's no denying it will make Hillary look bad (and she deserves it for saying she's all up for it then oops, not so much, because she didn't like it when Bernie defeated her in the others). It is a no win situation for her no matter what choice she makes (looks weak for backing out, gets beat again if she goes through with it) but also a "big picture" win in that she's probably the fucking nominee at this point, so why risk it? Bernie would have to get like ALL of California to become competitive again, and well, we've seen what happens in states Bernie wins, delegate wise. That's well covered bullshit territory. So it's better for her to not risk saying (or not saying) something in a debate. Strategically, it's safer for her.
However, Trump is actually wise to step in though he will be fucking vaporized by Bernie. Just him agreeing to do it makes him look strong (to his base). And it's already proven he can literally say ANYTHING and not lose his supporters, so getting schooled in another debate won't hurt him at all. It'll be ammo for Trump to use against Hillary later.

tony.parente
05-26-2016, 07:56 AM
However, Trump is actually wise to step in though he will be fucking vaporized by Bernie. Just him agreeing to do it makes him look strong (to his base). And it's already proven he can literally say ANYTHING and not lose his supporters, so getting schooled in another debate won't hurt him at all. It'll be ammo for Trump to use against Hillary later.
Trump is going to throw softball after softball to Bernie, buttering him up and saying things like "The DNC isn't fair folks, Bernie didn't get a fair shot at this. How do super-delegates even work?" so he can try and get the angry bernie sanders supporter vote.

Deepvoid
05-26-2016, 08:41 AM
Trump is going to throw softball after softball to Bernie, buttering him up and saying things like "The DNC isn't fair folks, Bernie didn't get a fair shot at this. How do super-delegates even work?" so he can try and get the angry bernie sanders supporter vote.


I completely agree. That's his move right there. He'll butter up Sanders and attack Hillary in the process.
Doesn't really matter if Sanders perform better when answering the actual questions.

With that being said, I doubt Trump would agree to have TYT moderate the debate.

tony.parente
05-26-2016, 08:48 AM
I completely agree. That's his move right there. He'll butter up Sanders and attack Hillary in the process.
Doesn't really matter if Sanders perform better when answering the actual questions.

With that being said, I doubt Trump would agree to have TYT moderate the debate.
No way, they don't have enough of an audience. But this is great because either way Hillary looks like a complete doofus because either

A. They have the debate, get air time and she sits at home getting fitted for the DNC princess crown while trump gains more voters while she loses some..
B. She goes "oh...um...wait i'm back...i'm back in" and again reinforces she's only in it for personal gain.

onthewall2983
05-26-2016, 11:23 AM
https://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/13255982_1628735030782717_327027482890237278_n.jpg ?oh=463c01e07925966a6e23add758cf1de2&oe=57E81522

allegro
05-26-2016, 01:22 PM
The Young Turks have reached out to Sanders and Trump to host and moderate the debate in CA.
Jill Stein responded to Cenk Uygur and asked that she be invited along with Gary Johnson.
Actually, this would be really awesome.


Clearly, me being confused at what is a really weird decision with no clear end-goal considering Bernie cannot win, he's out, he could win every single state going forward and still not have the necessary delegates
Technically, that's not true. But whatever.

implanted_microchip
05-26-2016, 02:51 PM
Technically, that's not true. But whatever.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-dem-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/05/math-says-bernie-sanders-is-finished-222775

allegro
05-26-2016, 03:42 PM
http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-dem-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/05/math-says-bernie-sanders-is-finished-222775

With pledged delegates, maybe, but Superdelegates can switch over if it looks like he is just barely near the mark; So it ain't really over until it's over, after the final D.C. primary.

It's not nearly as clear-cut as it was with the really obvious Republican Trump lead.

Frozen Beach
05-26-2016, 04:19 PM
Donald Trump supporters and Bernie Sanders supporters are going to murder each other at the debate. They're not gonna have any supporters left.

Deepvoid
05-26-2016, 05:17 PM
The Young Turks announced that they will donate $1M to charity if Trump and Sanders agree to the debate with them as moderators.

Your Name Here
05-26-2016, 06:06 PM
............

Jinsai
05-26-2016, 09:57 PM
this Trump/Sanders debate is never going to happen... mainly because Trump has nothing to gain from doing it. He'll say he'd love to do it, and then he'll back out. It doesn't come down to my personal preferences (I'd love for there to be a debate), but if I was placing a Vegas bet, I'd put my odds on Hillary being the democratic nominee, and the only thing that could come from the Sanders/Trump debate is Trump looking bad. Even if he emerges the victor, it wouldn't be a victory against the candidate he'll probably be running against.

At this point, strategically it would be incredibly stupid for Trump to have a debate with Sanders.

Wolfkiller
05-27-2016, 08:32 AM
https://youtu.be/qlkwsIKWTII
Stay classy, third wave feminism! It's okay to be sexist and racist as long you're demonizing straight white males!

allegro
05-27-2016, 10:27 AM
Stay classy, third wave feminism! It's okay to be sexist and racist as long you're demonizing straight white males!
Come on, please, this is just drift. This isn't the place to air your beef with feminists. Even Bernie isn't against feminists. He IS one.

But the way that this guy is rolling his eyes and snarking at this female journalist (ala Donald Trump), instead of seeing her point and respectfully disagreeing, only shows him to be a giant sexist asshole.

Next, he'll be calling Elizabeth Warren "Pocahontas."

Wolfkiller
05-27-2016, 11:07 AM
Come on, please, this is just drift. This isn't the place to air your beef with feminists. Even Bernie isn't against feminists. He IS one.

But the way that this reporter is laughing and snarking at this female reporter, instead of seeing her point and respectfully disagreeing, only shows him to be a giant sexist asshole.

You couldn't have replied any better, thank you. The perfect example of everything wrong with third wave feminist Hillary supporters who see sexism in everything while being blatantly sexist themselves.
This isn't drift just because you disagree with it. Nice censorship tactic. Also typical. Pretty sure a video response to an article about the two Democratic presidential candidates with commentary about the accusations of sexism being falsely thrown towards Bernie supporters by the Hillary camp belongs here. The sexist Bernie Bro narrative has been discussed in here a few times already. Sorry you don't like someone pointing out your bullshit.

(Side note that actually could be considered drift but hey you brought it up...I don't care if Bernie disagrees with feminism or considers himself a feminist. Plenty of awesome people that I like and agree with consider themselves feminists. Not all feminists are crazy like the author of that article. Who deserves all the snark and laughter. How the fuck is laughing at someone's stupidity sexist?! Do you have any self awareness? You're doing exactly what that video is mocking. Just because the author has a fucking vagina doesn't mean disagreeing with her stupidity is sexist.)

allegro
05-27-2016, 11:30 AM
You couldn't have replied any better, thank you. The perfect example of everything wrong with third wave feminist Hillary supporters who see sexism in everything while being blatantly sexist themselves.
I'm in my 50s; I'm not third wave feminist, I'm second wave feminist. I'm not sure you even know what "third wave feminist" means. (I'm not sure that "third wave feminist" or any "wave" exists, anymore, actually. Most feminists have done away with the terms.)


Pretty sure a video response to an article about the two Democratic presidential candidates with commentary about the accusations of sexism being falsely thrown towards Bernie supporters by the Hillary camp belongs here.
But it isn't "false." The journalist wrote about valid stuff, there. There really is such a thing as "subconscious sexism" and "subconscious racism." We have seen the latter in fully force during the Obama Presidency. Just because the journalist writes about it doesn't mean she speaks for all "feminists," and doesn't make her perspective necessarily "false" or "bullshit." There really are people who (perhaps subconsciously) don't give Hillary a break when they may have given most guys a break; just like underlying racism has people blaming Obama for shit that is all really George W Bush's fault (underlying racism).

Now, does this mean that all or even most Bernie Sanders supporters think this way? Absolutely not. It's like when white people got all pissed off when BlackLivesMatter people started blaming white people for shit, and the answer is "if you think you're at fault, maybe you are; because you know you aren't at fault when you really aren't." In other words, unless people point right at you, maybe they aren't talking about you. But there certainly are a number of "Bernie Bros" out there. Are they ALL Bernie Bros? No, that's ridiculous. Are all people who are against Clinton "sexist?" No, that's stupid. Even Bernie Sanders knows that. But posting incendiary videos in this thread gets us where? Pointing at each other? Look, I'm old enough and wise enough to be more self-aware than most in this thread. That's not the point. The point is that lowering the standards in this thread to man v. woman gets us to a base level of stupidity = primal and then we are going backward. Not good. Respect of opinions = a good thing. Even respecting that female journalist's opinion, sans calling her "crazy," whether or not you agree with her educated and researched article.

Btw, here is the article in question (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rebecca-bohanan/the-bernie-vs-hillary-bat_b_10132260.html).

Wolfkiller
05-27-2016, 11:48 AM
I'm in my 50s; I'm not third wave feminist, I'm second wave feminist. I'm not sure you even know what "third wave feminist" means. (I'm not sure that "third wave feminist" or any "wave" exists, anymore, actually. Most feminists have done away with the terms.)


But it isn't "false." The journalist wrote about valid stuff, there. There really is such a thing as "subconscious sexism" and "subconscious racism." We have seen the latter in fully force during the Obama Presidency. Just because the journalist writes about it doesn't mean she speaks for all "feminists," and doesn't make her perspective necessarily "false" or "bullshit." There really are people who (perhaps subconsciously) don't give Hillary a break when they may have given most guys a break; just like underlying racism has people blaming Obama for shit that is all really George W Bush's fault (underlying racism).

Now, does this mean that all or even most Bernie Sanders supporters think this way? Absolutely not. It's like when white people got all pissed off when BlackLivesMatter people started blaming white people for shit, and the answer is "if you think you're at fault, maybe you are; because you know you aren't at fault when you really aren't." In other words, unless people point right at you, maybe they aren't talking about you. But there certainly are a number of "Bernie Bros" out there. Are they ALL Bernie Bros? No, that's ridiculous. Are all people who are against Clinton "sexist?" No, that's stupid. Even Bernie Sanders knows that. But posting incendiary videos in this thread gets us where? Pointing at each other? Look, I'm old enough and wise enough to be more self-aware than most in this thread. That's not the point. The point is that lowering the standards in this thread to man v. woman gets us to a base level of stupidity = primal and then we are going backward. Not good. Respect of opinions = a good thing. Even respecting that female journalist's opinion, sans calling her "crazy," whether or not you agree with her educated and researched article.

Btw, here is the article in question (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rebecca-bohanan/the-bernie-vs-hillary-bat_b_10132260.html).

And you called my post drift? This belongs in the religious thread. Your devotion to the cult and it's bizarre ideas are scary and fascinating.

allegro
05-27-2016, 12:55 PM
At this point, strategically it would be incredibly stupid for Trump to have a debate with Sanders.
But isn't Trump doing a lot of this for "fun?" Trump is calling Sanders "Crazy Bernie." Trump's whole point of the debate would be to just further his point? Plus, he says the ratings would be GREAT.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=vzO-JYjEcHE#t=4

implanted_microchip
05-27-2016, 03:51 PM
http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2016/05/donald-trump-backs-out-of-debate-with-bernie-sanders-223674

Sarah K
05-27-2016, 04:12 PM
And there he starts targeting the conspiracy theorists. Lolllll. Well played, Trump.

tony.parente
05-27-2016, 05:51 PM
Can we get one nominee that won't flip flop based on personal agenda?

allegro
05-27-2016, 06:00 PM
Can we get one nominee that won't flip flop based on personal agenda?

Trump didn't flop; he never meant it in the first place. He just said it to get better ratings. He's REALLY into that.

tony.parente
05-27-2016, 06:11 PM
Trump didn't flop; he never meant it in the first place. He just said it to get better ratings. He's REALLY into that.
I guess that is what I get for taking a Republican for his word.

allegro
05-27-2016, 06:13 PM
I guess that is what I get for taking a Republican for his word.

He's not a Republican, he's PT Barnum. And he probably REALLY wanted to do it but now he has advisors keeping him from doing his normal stunts.

"Mr Trump, step awayyy from the lion ..."

"But I'm tellin' ya, this thing will be a real pussycat when he hears my plan about building a wall, it's gonna be SO great ..."

tony.parente
05-27-2016, 06:27 PM
He's not a Republican, he's PT Barnum. And he probably REALLY wanted to do it but now he has advisors keeping him from doing his normal stunts.

"Mr Trump, step awayyy from the lion ..."

"But I'm tellin' ya, this thing will be a real pussycat when he hears my plan about building a wall, it's gonna be SO great ..."

"Save it for the puppet Mr. Trump, she already almost lost her cool many times with Bernie, you're sure to make her lose her mind on national television. Patience sir"

allegro
05-27-2016, 06:37 PM
"Save it for the puppet Mr. Trump, she already almost lost her cool many times with Bernie, you're sure to make her lose her mind on national television. Patience sir"
LOL I dunno, we shall see. She's a pretty cool cucumber, but he's gonna push ALL her buttons that is for SURE. And then some. He's an expert button-pusher.

Sarah K
05-27-2016, 07:09 PM
She is pretty unshakable during debates. But it should be entertaining no matter what!

onthewall2983
05-27-2016, 07:15 PM
I've still got to wonder if Trump is doing this to really just destroy the GOP, with no intention of being elected. That he's playing the long con on everyone.

DigitalChaos
05-28-2016, 02:36 AM
For most of 2015 the Hillary email situation was "a right-wing conspiracy like benghazi" for a specific group of people and it was ignored. A very large portion of those people are also the ones saying "Bernie cannot mathematically win." Let's call this group of people Hillary apologists, you know... for the sake of discussion.

So, currently, my maximum schadenfreude scenario would be if Hillary gets taken down by the FBI over the email scandal and Bernie takes the Dem nomination as a result. I'm not sure there is going to be a better scenario for the rest of the election. That scenario produces so much more schadenfreude than watching anti-Trump people get a Trump president or anti-Hillary people get a Hillary president.

DigitalChaos
05-28-2016, 02:58 AM
Is it possible to give an excuse or brush this under the rug? (http://freebeacon.com/politics/clinton-hack-personal-email/)
Attempts but no dice? Pretty impressive, considering the fact that the FBI couldn't manage to protect the top secret security clearance records of over 20.5 million employees, including 10 million fingerprints, from being hacked on their servers by the Chinese. Or that the CIA director's personal email account (on AOL) was hacked which contained attachments with his own security clearance data forms.

See also (http://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/03/07/state-dept-concludes-past-secretaries-of-state/209044).

"no evidence of" reads a lot like technical incompetency that is blind to what may or may not have happened.

An audit dug up some new emails that Hillary failed to turn over... these are emails Hillary felt weren't work related. Two of the emails were from one of her aides worrying that her server may have been breached (http://bigstory.ap.org/article/5a0fb59a4ea44d258877d66762cfa08f/origin-key-clinton-emails-report-are-mystery). Pretty interesting that Hillary felt these shouldn't be turned over.


It's been shown that Hillary gave access to her email to a civilian aide with absolutely no security clearance. There is now testimony that Hillary refused to access her email the official way because there were "too many passwords" for her... so she forced a complete circumvention for herself. I think that speaks plenty as to the comparative security of her email sever!


Remember when news came out about them asking for the company doing backups to cut drastically cut the retention way down? (http://www.politico.com/story/2015/10/hillary-clinton-emails-server-214487) The people at that company said they were "Starting to think this whole thing really is covering up some shaddy shit" and wanted the request in writing. Cutting backup retention down to just 30 days (as was asked) is a great way to make anything vanish that existed beyond that window.

implanted_microchip
05-28-2016, 07:07 AM
Good news, California: Trump declares there isn't a drought after all!

http://time.com/4351330/trump-california-no-drought/

tony.parente
05-28-2016, 08:46 AM
Good news, California: Trump declares there isn't a drought after all!

http://time.com/4351330/trump-california-no-drought/

Thats the best thing about Trump, people. He solves problems, he's the best at problem solving. He's got amazing people folks, people that can solve the biggest problems.

allegro
05-28-2016, 08:57 AM
"no evidence of" reads a lot like technical incompetency that is blind to what may or may not have happened.

An audit dug up some new emails that Hillary failed to turn over... these are emails Hillary felt weren't work related. Two of the emails were from one of her aides worrying that her server may have been breached (http://bigstory.ap.org/article/5a0fb59a4ea44d258877d66762cfa08f/origin-key-clinton-emails-report-are-mystery). Pretty interesting that Hillary felt these shouldn't be turned over.


It's been shown that Hillary gave access to her email to a civilian aide with absolutely no security clearance. There is now testimony that Hillary refused to access her email the official way because there were "too many passwords" for her... so she forced a complete circumvention for herself. I think that speaks plenty as to the comparative security of her email sever!


Remember when news came out about them asking for the company doing backups to cut drastically cut the retention way down? (http://www.politico.com/story/2015/10/hillary-clinton-emails-server-214487) The people at that company said they were "Starting to think this whole thing really is covering up some shaddy shit" and wanted the request in writing. Cutting backup retention down to just 30 days (as was asked) is a great way to make anything vanish that existed beyond that window.
Yeah but REALLY read that article; it looks like the person who alleged that was worried about another backup source, another company doing backups, in competition. Which there WAS, which was "by mistake" but who the hell knows. Hillary herself may not have given the directive for the dupe and this could have just been a big error, but it appears that the 30 day thing never went into affect because the switch to another cloud-based backup server only happened briefly.

Clinton recently admitted that the decision to use her own email server was a mistake and she apologized. The investigation did not indicate any evidence that it was done with malicious intent. She thought, oh well, Colin Powell did it, why not me? Except Colin Powell DIDN'T do it to the extent that she did, with a server in her HOUSE, and having government contractors do repairs at her home and billing the government. It was all control freak arrogant stupid shit that was a BAD idea. I don't trust the security of government servers for one second, but when you are a government employee that's not your call to put a server in your fucking house. But it should end here; her husband was impeached for much worse (sexual harassment on the taxpayers' dime) and nothing happened; GW Bush should be convicted of war crimes but he's relaxing on a Texas ranch. Etc etc

theimage13
05-28-2016, 09:08 AM
Good news, California: Trump declares there isn't a drought after all!

http://time.com/4351330/trump-california-no-drought/

I'm working there at the moment. I accidentally walked through a sprinkler at the edge of someone's lawn and got pretty wet. So yeah, he's totally right, there's definitely no drought in California. I've clearly just demonstrated irrefutable ironclad proof of that.

DigitalChaos
05-28-2016, 11:04 AM
. But it should end here; her husband was impeached for much worse (sexual harassment on the taxpayers' dime) and nothing happened; GW Bush should be convicted of war crimes but he's relaxing on a Texas ranch. Etc etc

Only if "end here" means she doesn't become president or obtain another govt role. Bush and Bill weren't given leadership roles after they did that.

allegro
05-28-2016, 11:12 AM
Only if "end here" means she doesn't become president or obtain another govt role. Bush and Bill weren't given leadership roles after they did that.
I think the other positive things she has done far outweigh this stupid overstep in judgment. People make mistakes; ones like this shouldn't wreck their entire career. McCain was one of the Keating Five yet the SOB gets re-elected every fucking time, AND was the 2008 Republican nominee.

DigitalChaos
05-28-2016, 11:19 AM
I think the other positive things she has done far outweigh this stupid overstep in judgment. People make mistakes; ones like this shouldn't wreck their entire career. McCain was one of the Keating Five yet the SOB gets re-elected every fucking time, AND was the 2008 Republican nominee.

So Entitle Executive Syndrome it is then. Any lower ranking person would have their entire career demolished over just one of the many things Hillary intentionally did here.

allegro
05-28-2016, 11:41 AM
So Entitle Executive Syndrome it is then. Any lower ranking person would have their entire career demolished over just one of the many things Hillary intentionally did here.

High ranking dudes do shit all the time. Again, the Keating Five, how did they not get JAIL time? How did those S&L guys not get prison time? McCain is still a high-ranking Senator. Lower ranking people get sent back home if they pull stunts, like that junior congressman from Illinois who spent a shitload of taxpayer money decorating his DC office to look like Downton Abbey (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/aaron-schock-happen-downton-abbey-office/story?id=30019131), including campaign funds, now he's in trouble with the Feds. Whoops. Shit, look at Denny Hastert using the wrong bank account to pay off a guy he fondled back when the guy was a kid and Denny was a wrestling coach. Whoops, the Feds found out and now Denny is going to prison (too bad the statute tolled for numerous counts of child molestation). What she did was arrogant and stupid. Why it took the Feds so long to FIGURE IT OUT is worse and alarming. But I don't think this is big enough to not consider her for the Executive position. Not after all the Executives I've worked for; it's par for the course.

DigitalChaos
05-28-2016, 09:50 PM
Good news, California: Trump declares there isn't a drought after all!

http://time.com/4351330/trump-california-no-drought/

All the coverage using this title is biased stupidity. He was clearly saying that the water is being grossly mismanaged. He's right. He also exhibits more knowledge on the topic than most Californians.

theimage13
05-29-2016, 12:33 AM
All the coverage using this title is biased stupidity. He was clearly saying that the water is being grossly mismanaged. He's right. He also exhibits more knowledge on the topic than most Californians.
.
He literally said "there is no drought" in talking about California and the water crisis. It's hard to take seriously - or even believe - anything else that one has to say on the matter if they say something so blatantly idiotic and objectively wrong. Whether or not he may have had any valid points is pretty much overshadowed by a glaringly inaccurate and idiotic statement. I would be saying the exact same thing if Clinton made a long and well-reasoned speech about the issue of sexual assault on college campuses, then wrapped up the statement by saying "guys don't rape women in college". If you're trying to make an intelligent argument about something, you can't finish it up by completely contradicting the entire statement with a bonafide and boneheaded lie.

implanted_microchip
05-29-2016, 06:20 AM
Yeah this is the guy who tweeted about vaccines causing autism in the most absurd twitter short-story form and said "global warming was invented by and for the Chinese." I don't feel like you can really defend much of what he said when it's loaded with outright lunatic-level denial of reality. There's lots of 9/11 Truthers who can "demonstrate knowledge" on the subject while claiming that the towers were holograms. That doesn't give credence to their claims.

The thought that anyone's trying to defend that is just bewildering.

On another note, anyone see Bernie's Bill Maher interview Friday night? Really good appearance and he sounded a lot like he used to, criticizing the focus on the e-mail scandal and insisting voters just want to hear about the issues. He seems to be getting a lot more diplomatic again which will only do him favors IMO.

Ryan
05-29-2016, 07:31 AM
Yeah this is the guy who tweeted about vaccines causing autism in the most absurd twitter short-story form and said "global warming was invented by and for the Chinese."

Chinese, Chinese! I knew it was them. Even when it was the bears I knew it was them.

tony.parente
05-29-2016, 11:41 AM
So I got banned from /r/the_donald for asking how Trump breaking his promise to debate Sanders makes him any less of a cowardly lying snake than Hillary.

Turns out that place is a circle jerk safe space like the Hillary subreddit lol

Also /r/politics is now calling him Donald Duck, and calling his supporters Clucks. So that's hysterical.

allegro
05-29-2016, 12:14 PM
Welllll, I wouldn't call it a "promise," exactly.

It was a publicity stunt.

And it worked, so he didn't need to actually debate Bernie. Just saying he would do it "for charity" got him publicity and laughs and that's all he wanted.

Swykk
05-29-2016, 12:27 PM
But isn't that the whole deal with Trump? He doesn't ever make promises. It's only ever been about headlines.

I firmly believe that the beginnings of reality TV gave birth to the stupid "culture" which enabled someone like Trump to become this politically powerful..to become their champion. It's all a big reality show where the audience thinks they matter. Republicans also had a big hand in cultivating his followers by appealing to the lowest common denominator of the population. All of this was empowering to the "silent majority" (even that term feels like a fake reality show brand term).

allegro
05-29-2016, 12:48 PM
But isn't that the whole deal with Trump? He doesn't ever make promises. It's only ever been about headlines.

I firmly believe that the beginnings of reality TV gave birth to the stupid "culture" which enabled someone like Trump to become this politically powerful..to become their champion. It's all a big reality show where the audience thinks they matter. Republicans also had a big hand in cultivating his followers by appealing to the lowest common denominator of the population. All of this was empowering to the "silent majority" (even that term feels like a fake reality show brand term).

Remember, "reality TV" started with "The Real World" on MTV a long time ago (1992), it's not a new phenomenon. What really grew the Trump movement is social media. He knows social media, he uses it LIKE A BOSS (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump).

He makes his own Twitter movie clips and posts them himself. The reason why his primary campaign has cost relatively nothing is because he uses his Twitter and Facebook accounts to get out messages and that spreads like wildfire, the cable and network news networks pick it up and interview him for free. Cost to him = zero.

So this is not about "reality TV" culture but all about how somebody can use social media to create a sensation. For free. Social media is the perfect outlet for narcissists, pseudo-celebs, and marketing!

And his supporters DON'T CARE if he does it only for publicity. In their mind, that's why they love Trump: that's the "anti-politician" part of him that is appealing, the "haha, fuck you!" part that doesn't play by "the rules" that they say is so "anti-establishment."

implanted_microchip
05-29-2016, 01:00 PM
So did anyone see the Lib. debate where someone was booed for saying we should have driver's licenses and someone said how we shouldn't worry about roads because in the future we're going to have jetpacks?

This is their year, everybody

allegro
05-29-2016, 01:01 PM
So did anyone see the Lib. debate where someone was booed for saying we should have driver's licenses and someone said how we shouldn't worry about roads because in the future we're going to have jetpacks?

This is their year, everybody


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=flge_rw6RG0

allegro
05-29-2016, 01:21 PM
What I personally like is that both Sanders and Trump are pushing for a peace deal between Israel and Palestine; Clinton isn't, but she is being pushed in that direction. Conservative Republicans are totally pro-Israel, but Trump ain't playing by their rules. And Sanders at least has respect for the Palestinian people, where Clinton appears to have zero.

DigitalChaos
05-29-2016, 01:37 PM
.
He literally said "there is no drought"

just like Hillary literally said "what difference does it make?" When talking about how someone died in Benghazi.

Congrats, you guys have reached the objectivity bar of most of the anti-Hillary people I see on Facebook.

Jinsai
05-29-2016, 02:28 PM
Remember, "reality TV" started with "The Real World" on MTV a long time ago (1992), it's not a new phenomenon. What really grew the Trump movement is social media. He knows social media, he uses it LIKE A BOSS (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump).

There's no denying that it's effective, somehow. There's some weird invulnerability to him though. He says all sorts of insane, stupid, petty shit on Twitter and it only makes people like him more. He comes across like a petulant child, and people love it. For some reason, the collection of outrageous shit that he says never sinks him. He can post a picture of him eating a taco salad bowl in Trump tower on Cinco de Mayo, in an obvious and pathetic attempt at pandering to Hispanic voters, and people chuckle and say "ah, good ol Donald!" He uses redundant insults! How many people are "losers" or "low energy" or "very boring?" He is definitely very active on social media, but I don't understand how he's so "good" at it. His skill set here seems to be more attached to the fact that his supporters are incapable of wavering in support for him.

More and more, I think his appeal to bigotry, his mock-up as a successful businessman (and the lie that he is a self-made man), and status as a celebrity are his only real selling points, and the people buying that are idiots who can't be reasoned with. A lot of these fanatics (like the "OMG! Kiss my BABY DONALD!!!!" woman) are really just enamored with the idea of the country being run by the star of The Apprentice... that somehow him winning will make politics as fun as their favorite mindless television shows. It's the same reason that California elected Arnold Schwarzenegger for Governor.

In other news, The Daily Kos will now ban you from commenting if you say mean things about Hillary or endorse Jill Stein (http://www.mintpressnews.com/daily-kos-issues-controversial-call-unity-among-democrats-bans-third-parties-attacks-clinton/216757/)

All in the name of "Democratic party unity." Sounds more to me like if straight white males show support for Jill Stein, it might fuck up this ridiculous narrative that the only reason straight white dudes hate Hillary so much is because she's a woman, and that ridiculous argument has been instrumental in tearing down support for Bernie Sanders.

implanted_microchip
05-29-2016, 02:53 PM
Most people are irrational emotion-driven beings that just think they're above that. None of us are above emotional manipulation or the powers of persuasion and the more immune we consider ourselves the more vulnerable we are, arguably.

Trump has never pretended to be an inoffensive politician. His whole thing is not being either of those things. He's that piece of shit you know who treats women like garbage and is unreliable and never paid his part of the rent consistently and would sell drugs and short people but if you brought it up and said how unreliable he was would just smile slyly and say "When did I ever tell you I was? You know what you're getting."

A ton of people are tired of politician-speak. Bernie flaunts it so he gains support. Trump flaunts it so he gains support. Trump is pure emotion, pure manipulative tactics of persuasion. That's his game and it works. A lot of us make the mistake of thinking "He never discusses policy like people are supposed to and doesn't behave the right way that we're used to so shouldn't that damage him" when really it's just showing that, maybe, none of those things actually mattered as much to a lot of voters as we always thought they did, it's just that no one ever tried to do things differently before, or at least not on such a large scale.

Social media's his best tool and we live in an era of ego-maniacal narcissists who think they're right and anyone different is wrong and their point of view is the end-all-be-all because they have all of information on a glass telephone in their pocket. He appeals to that. He appeals to the narcissistic society we have today. When everyone's polishing status updates and taking the right selfies for Instagram and judging things based on hashtags, how is it surprising he's been successful? I think a lot of people have been dying for someone like him. I think a lot of people love a guy that focuses on slogans, catch-phrases, doesn't challenge them heavily or bore them and is telling them what they've always been thinking but couldn't really prove -- that the system is broken and stacked against them and it's corrupt and shit and these politicians get nothing done and all the patriotism we all were sold growing up isn't valid right now and we need to be better than we are. It appeals to the idiot, to the angered, to the stunted and to the self-absorbed that wants to put all the blame on something else.

I'm honestly not baffled that he's done so well, I'm baffled that it's taken this long for someone like him to do so well. Bernie on the left speaks to that same outrage and emotion as well, just in different ways with a better vocabulary and less racist sexist rhetoric, but the emotional core is largely the same. People want a scapegoat and those two candidates offer an easy black and white morality play of American society which is that there is a vague bad guy you can point to and they are the only ones willing to fight them. People want easy narrative. Life doesn't offer it. Our problems don't offer them. People want to just be able to feel morally superior and like there's some clearly bad and clearly good side to be against and on. That's really not the case at all but it's all anyone wants to believe.

Democrats want to think all Republicans are stupid uneducated destructive idiots and Republicans want to believe Democrats are socialist evil controlling immoral godless maniacs. People want that narrative. People want that good guy bad guy dichotomy. And if you think you're smarter and think you don't, you're probably wrong. Trump gives a ton of people exactly that but in even less narrow or specific ways so that you can just broadly feel like "Well hey, that guy is calling the bullshit the bullshit no matter what!" and feel like you "win" because you can "see things for how they really are." When it comes to American politics everyone seems so dead-fucking-set on believing they're Neo taking the red pill and seeing the code of the Matrix for some weird odd reason -- which really isn't that weird, they want to be emotionally satisfied and feel smart and feel "correct" rather than accepting the difficult reality which, most of the time, is that there isn't some easy yes/no right/wrong approach to our problems or our system. Nuance is really just an irritant to 99% of us even if we think it isn't. Trump offers the least amount of it yet.

allegro
05-29-2016, 04:03 PM
When it comes to American politics everyone seems so dead-fucking-set on believing they're Neo taking the red pill and seeing the code of the Matrix for some weird odd reason -- which really isn't that weird, they want to be emotionally satisfied and feel smart and feel "correct" rather than accepting the difficult reality which, most of the time, is that there isn't some easy yes/no right/wrong approach to our problems or our system. Nuance is really just an irritant to 99% of us even if we think it isn't. Trump offers the least amount of it yet.
This is SO true. A friend of ours is a total leftist yet he thinks Trump is shaking things up in a way that is somehow a positive contribution as a big FUCK YOU to the whole system, the same as Sanders and maybe even more than Sanders since, our friend says, in the end, Sanders will probably back Hillary as a Democrat. And, ultimately, Sanders is still a part of Congress and the political "system" that he allegedly doesn't like yet has paid him for most of his career. Whereas Trump is truly an outsider who is making fun of the whole thing and doesn't know the rules, isn't playing by any of them, is making the media, the GOP, the Democrats, everybody shit their pants. And maybe that's what's needed to get a "real" candidate in there in the future. I'm not sure if this friend is right or wrong but this shit sure is different than prior elections, and everybody is running around figuring out how to do damage control and certainly a whole bunch of "stupid" Republican voters didn't put Trump there (I voted for Trump to keep Cruz OUT of there, LOL, and I'm not a Republican) but, instead, a bunch of voters are sending a "message" that says "fuck you to all of you politicians" and they know that Trump is something of an experiment but they don't care, they're willing to take that pill and a chance because they don't like the direction that the GOP has taken and they're rebooting the GOP.

Here is the kind of stuff that is passed around by Trump fans on Facebook (http://endingthefed.com/the-most-incredible-acts-of-kindness-donald-trump-did-for-americans-that-you-werent-aware-of.html). Also stuff like this (https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10209926953039104&set=o.663702017034419&type=3&theater).

What gets me are these comparisons I see on TV between Reagan and Trump. I saw Michael Reagan on TV the other night, promoting his book about his dad and saying that his dad cared about people, never said "I" and didn't care about himself, whereas Trump "only" cares about himself, etc. And I don't get why we are STILL so fucking hung up on Reagan, as if he is the Gold Standard of Republicans or something. Look, FUCK REAGAN; the economy was a fucking SHAMBLES under Reagan, we GHW Bush had to raise taxes and deal with the giant S&L bailout after Reagan, there were massive layoffs during and after Reagan, we are STILL suffering the affects of Reagan, FUCK Reagan. But Rubio and Cruz were invoking Reagan, as if they were speaking the words of the Holy Spirit, "it's morning in America" BULLSHIT, and then Trump started the same Reagan crap. FUCK REAGAN. And Hillary needs to stop invoking her fucking husband as if what he did was sacred, PEOPLE, THE 80s AND 90s ARE OVER, fucking MOVE ON. FUCK Reagan AND Bill Clinton. IT'S 2016. During one of the debates, Hillary actually brought up Bill Clinton and Yasser Arafat and Arafat not taking the Palestinian deal. YEAH, HOW MANY FUCKING YEARS AGO WAS THAT? MOVE ON.

Frankly, ALL of these candidates are awful choices. Awful. But it is what it is.

DigitalChaos
05-29-2016, 04:57 PM
Christ, y'all take a whole lot of words to describe the success of Trump and Sanders. You just need one word: populism (http://www.dictionary.com/browse/populism)

DigitalChaos
05-29-2016, 05:04 PM
So did anyone see the Lib. debate where someone was booed for saying we should have driver's licenses and someone said how we shouldn't worry about roads because in the future we're going to have jetpacks?

This is their year, everybody
link?
that sounds like an Austin Petersen line and that guy is a legit professionally paid troll. I've been friends with him for many years.

elevenism
05-29-2016, 05:05 PM
Allow me to state that while i still staunchly support Bernie Sander's platform, despite a handful of exciting moments, he has become what i initially viewed him as: a protest candidate. And for the record, i'm not ignorant, or a "Bernie Brah" or whatever who is "mad at the system" and "looking for someone to blame," like some people have described Sanders supporters. I am, in fact, an ultra left wing pinko commie socialist-i've always made that very clear, and Sanders is the first candidate in my lifetime to describe himself as a socialist. I don't like him because i'm some strange breed of liberal frat boy sheep; in fact, i actually AGREE WITH MOST OF THE SHIT HE SAYS, as a sizable amount of it is shit I'VE been saying my entire adult life.

THAT BEING SAID, can anyone tell me why he is still in the race? The man knows he's not going to win, and if he splits the democrat party TOO far apart, like, to the point where a segment of his supporters vote for Trump simply to vote against Clinton, he is handing the election to Trump.
And while today's mainstream democrats are more or less what we used to call moderate republicans, SURELY Sanders prefers an establishment democrat to Donald Fucking Trump, right? right?

What am i missing here?

DigitalChaos
05-29-2016, 05:10 PM
THAT BEING SAID, can anyone tell me why he is still in the race?
Because he promised he would. Because running has lots of value beyond winning... like spreading an idea (ex: Ron Paul). Because there are actually some ways he actually could win (ex: FBI Emails).

implanted_microchip
05-29-2016, 05:18 PM
@elevenism (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=2475) a big thing is him wanting to guide the direction of the party platform at the convention and IIRC he's already been given the ability to appoint some people into party leadership roles. Hillary kept running to the convention in 08 after it became clear she'd not win but it was more so she could build a war chest to help support down ticket candidates, which she did, and she then went on to stump for Obama, which I expect Sanders will also do. He's recently made it very, very clear that his biggest thing is making sure Trump isn't elected and that he believes completely in not being "another Ralph Nader" and spoiling the party, so to speak.

That said I think he's gone about it in a rather erratic way and it didn't help a lot for a while there. Shit got really ugly and he's lacked a real control over his campaign's messages and attitudes. Jeff Weaver has been an absolute troll of a person on CNN for a while and many of his surrogates said tons of inflammatory shit. It seems like he's starting to get a lot more serious about just making sure that Democrats win whether it's him or not at this point as we draw closer and closer to the convention, which is good.

And oh boy let's not get into the Ron Paul train, good Lord what year is this.

@Digital Chaos I know that Johnson (who is now the nominee) got booed at a few points for saying things that were less-than-insane. He also said he "didn't know" if we should've been involved in WWI and WWII. Also at one point someone said how children shouldn't be targeted by heroin dealers and they were booed. It was like a greatest hits show of all the stereotypes of Libertarians and why people like myself think it's an insane and toxic ideology that jives more with an angry 15 year old boy's views than anyone living in reality. I think the whole thing's up on C-SPAN's site but I watched it live. There was a lot of drinking involved to make it through to the end.

DigitalChaos
05-29-2016, 05:25 PM
And oh boy let's not get into the Ron Paul train, good Lord what year is this.

It's the year the democrats have such a shit offering that they are legitimately worried about losing against a reality TV star, and they are still, apparently, unable to look at campaign strategy of people they aren't in perfect ideological alignment with and you'd rather completely shut down any line of thought. For fuck's sake, literally referencing his strategy is enough to evoke this response from you?



Ron Paul!

allegro
05-29-2016, 05:32 PM
THAT BEING SAID, can anyone tell me why he is still in the race? What am i missing here?
Because it still isn't technically "over" because he could still win a lot of delegates in the remaining states and in DC, and there are those Superdelegates who could untie themselves from Clinton at the convention and instead commit themselves to Sanders. It's not impossible. And he's continuing to run because of those possibilities and based on principles because of his beefs with Wasserman Schultz and the DNC; he's going to hang in there until the Convention.

DigitalChaos
05-29-2016, 05:49 PM
@Digital Chaos I know that Johnson (who is now the nominee) got booed at a few points for saying things that were less-than-insane. He also said he "didn't know" if we should've been involved in WWI and WWII. Also at one point someone said how children shouldn't be targeted by heroin dealers and they were booed. It was like a greatest hits show of all the stereotypes of Libertarians and why people like myself think it's an insane and toxic ideology that jives more with an angry 15 year old boy's views than anyone living in reality. I think the whole thing's up on C-SPAN's site but I watched it live. There was a lot of drinking involved to make it through to the end.

So I went and looked it up. It was part of a fucking Back To The Future joke before he went into detail. Do democrats not get jokes or something?
http://www.c-span.org/video/?409916-1/libertarian-party-holds-presidential-debate&live&start=3255#

MR. PETERSON: THE OLD WHO WILL BUILD THE ROADS. ROADS, ROADS. WHERE WE ARE GOING WE DON'T NEED ROADS. [APPLAUSE] THE TRUTH IS IN THE FUTURE WE WILL HAVE A JET PACK. (and then he went on to actually explain things)

I'm gonna go watch the full debate now.

elevenism
05-29-2016, 05:53 PM
Because it still isn't technically "over" because he could still win a lot of delegates in the remaining states and in DC, and there are those Superdelegates who could untie themselves from Clinton at the convention and instead commit themselves to Sanders.
Does this mean i might still get my open convention after all!?!? :) :) :)
I've been "out" lately too-a little too much personal tragedy and medical drama on the homefront for me to keep up with things at my usual breakneck pace.

Meanwhile, Noam Chomsky calls the current incarnation of the Republican Party "the most dangerous threat to the species in human history." (http://www.rawstory.com/2016/05/noam-chomsky-todays-gop-is-the-most-dangerous-threat-to-the-species-in-human-history/)

This reminds me of something the good Doctor Hunter S. Thompson might say if he hadn't been suicided (his word, not mine ;) )
These guys are two of my all time heroes. Although they are wildly different, they are both pure mavericks: both of them too weird to live, too rare to die.

Chomsky fucking blows me away. At 88, sharp and sardonic as ever, he has (very) recently been speaking and writing almost constantly. I am assuming that this is because he knows that he isn't going to live forever, and people wish to hear what he has to say, possibly now more than ever. Whatever his reasoning, i am thrilled to hear his speeches and read his writings, perhaps now more than ever.
-end drift ;)

allegro
05-29-2016, 06:46 PM
Meanwhile, Noam Chomsky calls the current incarnation of the Republican Party "the most dangerous threat to the species in human history." (http://www.rawstory.com/2016/05/noam-chomsky-todays-gop-is-the-most-dangerous-threat-to-the-species-in-human-history/)

Chomsky fucking blows me away. At 88, sharp and sardonic as ever, he has (very) recently been speaking and writing almost constantly. I am assuming that this is because he knows that he isn't going to live forever, and people wish to hear what he has to say, possibly now more than ever. Whatever his reasoning, i am thrilled to hear his speeches and read his writings, perhaps now more than ever.
-end drift ;)
I am a HUGE Chomsky fan as well; but not (as that article describes him) as a "political theorist," but as one of the most important (if not the most important) linguists in history.

But this is so true:



Chomsky pointed out that the phenomenon was an “extreme version of something that’s been going on just for years in the Republican primaries.”

“Every time a candidate came up from the base—Bachmann, McCain, Santorum, Huckabee, one crazier than the other—every time one rose from the base, the Republican establishment sought to beat them down and get their own—get their own man—you know, Romney,” he explained. “And they succeeded, until this year. This year the same thing happened, and they didn’t succeed. The pressure from the base was too great for them to beat it back.”

According to Chomsky, the roots of extremism in the current Republican Party went back to Ronald Reagan’s administration.

“This has been going on for a generation. And while this has been happening, there’s a kind of a vicious cycle. You have more concentration of wealth, concentration of political power, legislation to increase concentration of wealth and power, and so on,” he remarked. “[T]he parties have shifted so far to the right that the—today’s mainstream Democrats are pretty much what used to be called moderate Republicans. Now, the Republicans are just off the spectrum.”

allegro
05-30-2016, 11:03 AM
So I went and looked it up. It was part of a fucking Back To The Future joke before he went into detail. Do democrats not get jokes or something?
I got it! I posted the video clip to BTTF Part II!

Bernie Sanders visits small farm town in California (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/05/30/bernie-sanders-did-something-special-for-this-california-farm-town-he-showed-up/).

DigitalChaos
05-31-2016, 05:58 PM
So, Johnson wins the Libertarian nomination.

McAfee wages war against the Libertarian party over race exclusion: https://www.facebook.com/officialmcafee/posts/620966951392822

onthewall2983
05-31-2016, 08:11 PM
Sirius XM Radio suspends Glenn Beck, for essentially urging his listeners to "stand in the way" of Trump. (https://www.yahoo.com/news/siriusxm-suspends-glenn-beck-over-guests-trump-comments-190242258.html)

GulDukat
05-31-2016, 08:17 PM
The Jerry Brown/Clinton relationship has been interesting. Good to see an endorsement.

Jinsai
05-31-2016, 09:36 PM
Sanders has already said that if he loses the primary, he will back Hillary 100%. His full endorsement will change things, and most of the people in the "Bernie or Bust" camps will reluctantly cast a vote for Clinton if it's either her or Trump. That said, it is not impossible for Sanders to win the nomination (due to this bizarre delegate system). It's just incredibly unlikely. If these mounting scandals gain ground (and I'm not really saying that there's enough merit there to justify the hysteria), it is possible that the super delegates will go for Sanders. All of these people saying "why doesn't he quit already!?!?!" have been saying it for a while... and now the discussion is reaching a fever pitch as we near the finish line. Oh no, if Sanders hangs in for another couple weeks it could be devastating to Hillary!!!!?! Bullshit. Spin bullshit, meant to further weaken support for Sanders by making him sound like he's the next Nader.

Clinton will have more than enough time to focus her campaign against Trump and get her message across before November if she is the chosen candidate. The whole "STOP, please stop Bernie! You're handing votes over to Trump!!! WHY???!?!??!!" is nonsense.

allegro
05-31-2016, 10:27 PM
Sirius XM Radio suspends Glenn Beck, for essentially urging his listeners to "stand in the way" of Trump. (https://www.yahoo.com/news/siriusxm-suspends-glenn-beck-over-guests-trump-comments-190242258.html)

More than that, his guest pretty much suggested KILLING Trump and then Beck agreed with it. Wtf.


“I’m about to suggest something very bad. It is a hypothetical I am going to ask, as a thriller writer,” he said. “With the feckless, spineless Congress we have, who will stand in the way of Donald Trump overstepping his constitutional authority as president? If Congress won’t remove him from office, what patriot will step up and do that if… if he oversteps his mandate as president? His constitutional-granted authority, I should say, as president.”


Beck responded to the brewing controversy shortly after the Thor interview aired.
“So evil. That is NOT what he meant, nor is it what we thought,” he wrote on Facebook. “How evil do you have to be to think this?”
LOL right

Jinsai
06-01-2016, 02:59 AM
More than that, his guest pretty much suggested KILLING Trump and then Beck agreed with it. Wtf.

Glenn Beck is the derivative lunatic version of Rush Limbaugh. He's half as smart and twice as crazy, but he figured out how to bottle the stupid.

I can't believe it's taken this long for someone to pull the plug on him. It's kind of ironic that he's blinking out over his opposition to Trump. He is Trump.

onthewall2983
06-01-2016, 04:52 AM
It's kind of ironic that he's blinking out over his opposition to Trump. He is Trump.

Except I think this all boils down to Trump's perceived lack of faith.

Deepvoid
06-01-2016, 06:30 AM
Glenn Beck is the derivative lunatic version of Rush Limbaugh. He's half as smart and twice as crazy, but he figured out how to bottle the stupid.

I can't believe it's taken this long for someone to pull the plug on him. It's kind of ironic that he's blinking out over his opposition to Trump. He is Trump.

Limbaugh is smarter than Beck?? Are you sure about this?

Limbaugh thinks evolution is a hoax because the Cincinnati gorilla never became human. (https://www.rawstory.com/2016/05/confused-rush-limbaugh-thinks-evolution-is-a-hoax-because-cincinnati-gorilla-never-became-human/)

"If we were the original apes, then how come [deceased Cincinnati zoo gorilla] Harambe is still an ape?” Limbaugh asked. “And how come he didn’t become one of us?”

implanted_microchip
06-01-2016, 08:47 AM
Having doubts about Donald Trump? Don't worry, Kim Jong Un is here to make you feel better about him:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/may/31/north-korea-praises-trump-and-urges-us-voters-to-reject-dull-hillary

DigitalChaos
06-01-2016, 10:43 AM
Bernie's Secret Service just Expecto Patronum'd some animal liberation protestors in Oakland.


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

Deepvoid
06-01-2016, 10:57 AM
Bernie's Secret Service just Expecto Patronum'd some animal liberation protestors in Oakland.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=rokSMbkGmcc

Slightly off topic but I gotta admit, SS job looks as cool in real life as it is in the movies. I thought they were carrying P90s or is that just for POTUS?

allegro
06-01-2016, 11:22 AM
Slightly off topic but I gotta admit, SS job looks as cool in real life as it is in the movies.
Yeah, holy crap, that was awesome.

I wonder how Bernie Sanders is "supporting animal torture," though.* See, no candidate is perfect.

*edit: Ah, okay (https://www.yahoo.com/news/least-four-people-rush-stage-during-sanders-rally-042735353.html).


“Bernie Sanders claims to support the 'good' farms," activist Rachel Ziegler said in the statement. "But as our repeated investigations have shown, even the 'good' farms are horrific."

DigitalChaos
06-01-2016, 03:55 PM
Slightly off topic but I gotta admit, SS job looks as cool in real life as it is in the movies. I thought they were carrying P90s or is that just for POTUS?
I think it depends on the environment. I suppose some of those guys could have been concealing P90's (thats usually how they carry them, i guess). The asian guy was about to pull his handgun though.

It's funny, you never hear about SS pulled into discrimination problems like the police. At the same time, they respond issues in a way that completely extinguishes any possible threat. Shit is crazy. They are absolute machines but can also handle just about any level of threat with varying response. They are pretty damn badass.

DigitalChaos
06-01-2016, 03:56 PM
I'm having way too much fun with this.

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

Jinsai
06-01-2016, 04:34 PM
Limbaugh is smarter than Beck?? Are you sure about this?

Limbaugh thinks evolution is a hoax because the Cincinnati gorilla never became human. (https://www.rawstory.com/2016/05/confused-rush-limbaugh-thinks-evolution-is-a-hoax-because-cincinnati-gorilla-never-became-human/)

"If we were the original apes, then how come [deceased Cincinnati zoo gorilla] Harambe is still an ape?” Limbaugh asked. “And how come he didn’t become one of us?”

I don't know, I'd be surprised if Glenn Beck isn't confused on the topic of evolution as well. He probably just heard Rush say that and thought "woah! I never thought of it that way!"

The Tea Party page on FB seems to think Limbaugh's recent comments about Harambe are "brilliant."

neorev
06-01-2016, 05:23 PM
Here is the current official delegate count...

Hillary Clinton - 1769
Bernie Sanders - 1501

There's 930 delegates left up for grabs with California having 475 on its own. Mainstream news networks keep including superdelegates in their count, which absolutely wrong to do. Superdelegates do not vote until July 25th and can pick whoever they choose on that date. So using their votes in the current delegate count is wrong. Hillary had a bunch of superdelegates back in 2008 and they all jumped ship and went over to Obama's side. Hillary conceded back then because Obama offered her Secretary of State and covered her campaign costs. Superdelegates are there for when a candidate can't clinch the nomination. Hillary is under 300 delegates in the lead at the moment and it's looking near impossible for her to clinch. She would literally need to be in the 70s for the rest of the remaining primaries in order to clinch.

If you don't believe me about superdelegates and when they are meant to be counted, here is the head of the DNC telling Rachel Maddow on MSNBC that they're wrong in including them in their counts...


http://youtu.be/kb2rnnRNKIk

More info:
http://huffpost.com/us/entry/the-national-media-has-be_b_9364170.html

So it will most definitely come to the Democratic Convention where Bernie Sanders can make his case to them. Especially since Clinton isn't polling too well against Trump. She either loses to Trump or only a few points ahead. Whereas Bernie beats Trump in almost every poll, many in the double digits. Bernie has the Independent vote and the Republican voters afraid of Trump. My Republican Bush/Cheney lover said she would vote for Bernie over Trump if he gets the nomination over Hillary. The Convention is where and when the superdelegates must choose. They backed Hillary before Bernie was ever running against her, yet alone surging and doing good in the polls against Trump. But Chris Matthews and MSNBC and the other mainstream entertainment news are looking past the actual rules of the Democratic Primaries and simply calling Hillary the winner when she really is not...

As Chris Matthews says here...
https://youtu.be/wGG3DJAALkw

At 1769 delegates, Hillary needs another 613 delegates out of the 930 left to get to 2,382 and clinch the nomination. Superdelegates are not part of the primaries. Without them, we move to the Democratic Convention in July.

This Primary has really exposed the bullshit going on with our media trying to manipulate the vote. Especially with all of the blatant election fraud and voter manipulation. It's good to see states taking it back and removing superdelegates from future primaries (3 states so far and more following).

DigitalChaos
06-01-2016, 09:57 PM
^ fucking EXACTLY!

I also don't get how "if bernie doesnt stop messing around and drop out, he is continuing to hurt the democrat party's chance" rhetoric. How does that make any sense? If it was valuable to the part to have a single candidate by now, well... the party could choose to have their primaries finish earlier than they are scheduled for.



This Primary has really exposed the bullshit going on with our media trying to manipulate the vote.

I mean, this happens every single time. You just have to be paying attention to the candidates who aren't part of the establishment. Normally, I'd say that the media is just plain incompetent... but this is a topic that dominates the new cycle for months and the rules are something that has existed for a very very long time. There is just no justification for them being this clueless. It seems much more like a deliberate attempt to get voters to believe that Hillary is their candidate and to stop pushing for Bernie. SO many people I talk to are repeating the "Hillary already won, Sanders needs to stop" rhetoric. Even people who aren't going to vote dem.

Jinsai
06-01-2016, 10:49 PM
I mean, this happens every single time. You just have to be paying attention to the candidates who aren't part of the establishment.

This is true to an extent, but this time around it's been broadcast in a really blatant way. I think a lot of people are seeing it for the first time.

botley
06-02-2016, 06:33 AM
Mainstream news networks keep including superdelegates in their count, which absolutely wrong to do. Superdelegates do not vote until July 25th and can pick whoever they choose on that date. So using their votes in the current delegate count is wrong. Hillary had a bunch of superdelegates back in 2008 and they all jumped ship and went over to Obama's side. Hillary conceded back then because Obama offered her Secretary of State and covered her campaign costs. Superdelegates are there for when a candidate can't clinch the nomination. Hillary is under 300 delegates in the lead at the moment and it's looking near impossible for her to clinch. She would literally need to be in the 70s for the rest of the remaining primaries in order to clinch.
She will still be leading going into the convention unless Sanders sweeps every remaining contest — and I mean SWEEPS, like by a margin of 9 to 1. That's not going to happen. See this (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/02/upshot/how-the-democratic-race-will-probably-end.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=0). The media "calling it" is not the same as making a (likely accurate) prediction for Clinton given that she is leading the contest and has been from the start. Sanders did an amazing job energizing a vocal minority but it's still a minority. That's democracy.

I would encourage everyone to vote for Sanders, even though I absolutely know he will not win the election. He's done something very important and historic and hopefully it will have a lasting impact on your country. But he's never going to be your President.

neorev
06-02-2016, 07:24 AM
But can you imagine the amount of votes Bernie lost from everyday people when the media just called his campaign a loss even before it started? The mainstream news networks have been hard at work to discredit him and namecall every single step of the way while praising Trump and Clinton. I'm sure that has had a huge effect on those new to him from voting for him. One of the most biased elections I have ever seen reported. The more they demonize him, the stronger his support seems to get now. And let's now get into the blatant voter manipulation/fraud going on in Nevada, Kentucky, Illinois, New York, and many other states. I believe Sanders would be very close to Hillary in delegate counts if we actually had the correct vote in.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9fDPiMqRGA

Or the investigation that shows Hillary does best where voter machines fail hacking tests...
http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/05/16/clinton-does-best-where-voting-machines-flunk-hacking-tests-hillary-clinton-vs-bernie-sanders-election-fraud-allegations/

Or when nearly 5,000 votes in Kentucky for Sanders were scrubbed on live TV on top of 31 counties confirming fraud...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8WjW3Rb1c90

None of the mainstream news is reporting the push for a recount in Kentucky. Sadly, Bernie would be forced to pay for a recount if one is done. So they're currently doing a "recanvass" at the moment...
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-kentucky-idUSKCN0YF2FK
http://www.npr.org/2016/05/24/479346781/why-sanders-requested-a-recanvass-and-not-a-recount-in-kentucky

Bernie's votes scrubbed in Chicago and evidence of fraud...
http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/05/13/chicago-election-official-admits-numbers-didnt-match-hillary-clinton-vs-bernie-sanders-election-fraud-allegations/

Or when the mainstream news was calling Sanders' supporters violent at the Nevada convention and throwing chairs, based off a reporter who left the event early and never saw anything happen. There's actually ZERO footage of chair throwing, except the one clip shown where someone picked up a chair and then placed it back down...
http://www.snopes.com/did-sanders-supporters-throw-chairs-at-nevada-democratic-convention/

Both Hillary and Trump are absolute horrible choices. Once you see all of the evidence, tt's all pretty clear that it was rigged against Bernie and that this election was stolen... while the mainstream news blissfully ignores these facts and calls it for Hillary.

sick among the pure
06-02-2016, 09:44 AM
Sshhhhh, you guys, stop. You're going to make Hillary look bad!
In other news...
"Washington (CNN) - A former State Department IT specialist who was involved in setting up and maintaining Hillary Clinton's private email server plans to invoke the Fifth Amendment at a deposition next week, refusing to answer 'any and all questions that may be put to him.' The move comes even after the staffer, Bryan Pagliano, accepted an immunity deal with the FBI earlier this year and began cooperating with their investigation into the server."
Apparently he's the second of her staffers who has chosen to plead the fifth about her e-mail problems. Which is well within his right... just so strange that he made a deal and suddenly changed his mind now that it's obvious this isn't going away and neither is her opponent in the Democratic campaign. I wonder what, or who, changed his mind...

allegro
06-02-2016, 10:43 AM
Sshhhhh, you guys, stop. You're going to make Hillary look bad!
In other news...
"Washington (CNN) - A former State Department IT specialist who was involved in setting up and maintaining Hillary Clinton's private email server plans to invoke the Fifth Amendment at a deposition next week, refusing to answer 'any and all questions that may be put to him.' The move comes even after the staffer, Bryan Pagliano, accepted an immunity deal with the FBI earlier this year and began cooperating with their investigation into the server."
Apparently he's the second of her staffers who has chosen to plead the fifth about her e-mail problems. Which is well within his right... just so strange that he made a deal and suddenly changed his mind now that it's obvious this isn't going away and neither is her opponent in the Democratic campaign. I wonder what, or who, changed his mind...
Pleading the Fifth means you are afraid of incriminating yourself, so he's not protecting her, he's protecting himself in case he did anything wrong, even if he didn't. It's the safest route. For him.


Chicago and evidence of fraud...
Voting in Cook County has been fucked up since the beginning of time. Ever heard the term, "Vote Early and Often?" Made popular in Chicago. I know a girl whose brother worked for a summer at the Chicago Board of Election as a token non-minority (I'm not kidding) and his job was to investigate addresses of voters; he found a SHITLOAD of voters registered to vacant gas stations and vacant lots, etc. When he tried to point this out to supervisors, he was told to shut up. So the fraud works for and against everyone. It's not called "Crook County" for nothing.

My husband was a registered voter in Crook County for nearly 40 years, then he moved to Lake County when we bought our house here in Lake County; he became a Registered Voter in Lake County and voted in several elections. He then received an updated Voter's Registration Card from Cook County, using his prior address, AND then he was called for Jury Duty ... in Cook County. He called to tell them that he didn't LIVE in Cook County so he shouldn't be forced to serve as a Juror in Cook County, that he'd lived in Lake for over 15 years at the time; but they said "too bad, gotta show up downtown." So he had to take the day off work, show them his DRIVER'S LICENSE with the Lake County address, and they said "go home." But, technically, he could be fraudulently voting in both Cook and Lake Counties for 18 years.

My mother moved from Detroit to Cook County after her husband died, and we took her to the DMV to get her registered to vote. She voted at her local precinct for the 2012 National and Local elections. At the 2016 Primary, she was told (at the same voting precinct in Cook County) that she was not in their system, that the Precinct on her Voter's Registration Card "did not exist anymore" (bullshit) and that she would have to present "3 forms of ID" to vote. She only had 2 on her, so several voting judges came over and decided to give her a provisional ballot. I did some online investigation on the Cook County Voter Registration Database; ends up she IS registered in their system as somebody who has "not yet voted in any elections" (even though SHE VOTED IN 2012) and must present several forms of ID. WHAT THE FUCK. My mom said that the first voting judge was looking at my mom's ballot and giving her "suggestions" about Trump (even though my mom had a DEMOCRAT ticket ballot) and was INSISTING to my mom that leaving Judge entries blank might invalidate her ballot (BULLSHIT).

DigitalChaos
06-02-2016, 10:55 AM
Pleading the Fifth means you are afraid of incriminating yourself, so he's not protecting her, he's protecting himself in case he did anything wrong, even if he didn't. It's the safest route.


It's also important to note that he plead the 5th in a criminal trial that is separate from the FBI investigation that he was given immunity for. If he says one wrong thing in the trial it could screw up the value of what he gave to the FBI. It could even cause his immunity to vanish.

neorev
06-02-2016, 11:19 AM
Sshhhhh, you guys, stop. You're going to make Hillary look bad!


http://youtu.be/wK2K5v5bm0Q

theimage13
06-02-2016, 06:46 PM
Well, I just don't know what to do come November. HRC is getting the Democratic nomination (I will film myself eating a printout of this post if I'm wrong), and frankly the only reason I'd vote for her over Trump is because she doesn't have as large of an on-record history of horrifically racist and sexist rhetoric. So the two primary candidates are out, and voting for a third party won't actually accomplish anything with our two party system. Frankly, I'm stumped.

neorev
06-02-2016, 08:49 PM
theimage13
She may not have a history of racist and sexist rhetoric, but she has a history of being anti-gay and lesbian. Not wanting to give them equal rights and marriage. She only changed her opinion when that became a negative thing to be in typical Hillary fashion. If only no one showed up for the polls on election day if Hillary and Trump are chosen lol.

DigitalChaos
06-02-2016, 08:52 PM
neorev
Hillary absolutely does have racist and sexist history. Even Sanders called her out in one of the debates, actually using the word "racist."

allegro
06-02-2016, 10:25 PM
theimage13
She may not have a history of racist and sexist rhetoric, but she has a history of being anti-gay and lesbian. Not wanting to give them equal rights and marriage. She only changed her opinion when that became a negative thing to be in typical Hillary fashion.
She wasn't anti-gay, she was (like Obama) anti-gay marriage and (like Obama and Bill Clinton) she says her opinion has evolved from representing the more traditional stance. Sanders was only anti-DOMA due to states rights, not civil rights (http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2015/10/05/bernie_sanders_on_marriage_equality_he_s_no_longti me_champion.html); he publicly stated at the time that he didn't think gay marriage was enough of an issue for anybody to care about.

Ultimately, we shouldn't vote for rhetoric; we should vote for whatever they have or have not accomplished in their respective history; we should consider their overall experience, their ability to lead and to work with others, and whether or not they can work with our current Congress to move toward closing the budget gap, improving unemployment, reducing poverty, helping veterans, bolstering entitlement programs, making the U.S. more conducive to job growth, etc.

Dra508
06-02-2016, 10:59 PM
I think Trump is going to get bored and drop out. Then what?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Jinsai
06-03-2016, 04:37 AM
If Clinton is shrewd and interested primarily in beating Trump, if/when she wins, her running mate is obvious.

allegro
06-03-2016, 11:31 AM
If Clinton is shrewd and interested primarily in beating Trump, if/when she wins, her running mate is obvious.

Elizabeth Warren (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/clinton-must-make-elizabeth-warren-her-vice-president/2016/03/04/b9d45004-e208-11e5-8d98-4b3d9215ade1_story.html)

theruiner
06-03-2016, 01:19 PM
Elizabeth Warren (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/clinton-must-make-elizabeth-warren-her-vice-president/2016/03/04/b9d45004-e208-11e5-8d98-4b3d9215ade1_story.html)
Oh my god, please let that happen.

implanted_microchip
06-03-2016, 01:27 PM
I'd love Warren but the VP spot often is meant to appeal to groups that the candidate doesn't really win with already, and Warren would at most get more of the far-left on her side, which will ultimately happen regardless since it's a choice between her and Donald goddamn Trump.

Also IIRC Harry Reid had a whole thing of deeming senators from states with Republican governors as "off-limits" because they don't want to lose those seats and that would make Warren a no-go since Massachusetts has a Republican governor right now.

I'm of the opinion that Warren can do more good where she is than what she could in a VP slot. I'd love her as a presidential candidate and would probably even outright campaign for her if it ever happened but who knows. I think it's just far more likely we'll either see a safe white guy as Hillary's VP as a way of trying to get that masculine appeal that Trump has (and, really, it's the only market he has) or go for a minority as her VP. The Castro brothers get tossed around a lot but I find them to be poor choices -- lack of experience is the best attack I think she's got against Trump and having a largely inexperienced and untested VP on her ticket would soften those blows. Corey Booker would be a fine choice but again that falls into "states with Republican governors" territory so I think it's unlikely, too.

DigitalChaos
06-03-2016, 04:06 PM
Yeah, Warren is a horrible strategic choice if you consider the political landscape outside of just the presidential election.

allegro
06-03-2016, 05:06 PM
Yeah, Warren is a horrible strategic choice if you consider the political landscape outside of just the presidential election.

Well, my PERSONAL FAVORITE would be AL FRANKEN (http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/03/2016-elections-al-franken-vice-president-213756).

http://static2.politico.com/dims4/default/0af7bf9/2147483647/resize/1160x%3E/quality/90/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.politico.com%2Fd9%2F09%2F 1c6987e24d2d80d5d173c192746d%2Ffranken-and-hillary.jpg

GulDukat
06-03-2016, 07:06 PM
"Look at my African-American friend."

"He's a Mexican," speaking about a judge's conflict of interest because he is an American of Mexican heritage.

Sweet Jesus, you cannot make this up.

implanted_microchip
06-03-2016, 07:23 PM
I'm sure that some judges, he assumes, are good people.

DigitalChaos
06-03-2016, 07:49 PM
Have you guys seen all the attacks happening on Trump supporters in California? Just in San Jose, there have been tons.

The boogymen that the Trump supporters talk about on the left... the highly intolerant individuals... they are very real. They are the people I see ever day in the bay area. This same tribalistic and very animal response isn't unique to the left, I saw it plenty of times with conservatives when I lived in the midwest. However, the left preaches tolerance, so the hypocrisy stands out.

There are so many of these videos, I'm just going to post the ones where physical violence unfolded. Unfortunately, there is a 1 video per post limit...

#1 - Trump supporter attacked and bleeding

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmBXNE8gZvI

DigitalChaos
06-03-2016, 07:49 PM
#2 - Woman punched in the head, then chased down an alley by a group of latino "gangsters"


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itgxxrWQ7Y8

DigitalChaos
06-03-2016, 07:49 PM
#3 - A large group attacks a man multiple times. Lots of Mexican flags being held up, I see a Hillary shirt too.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=osyxz7n6Olw

DigitalChaos
06-03-2016, 07:49 PM
#4 - Woman pelted with various food objects by a mob flying Mexican flags.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oEMZSn8iLr4

DigitalChaos
06-03-2016, 07:50 PM
here is a group of idiots who accidentally attacked their own, then start shouting BERNIE BERNIE BERNIE BERNIE!

https://twitter.com/smahaskey/status/738573795896610816/video/1

DigitalChaos
06-03-2016, 07:53 PM
more punches thrown
https://twitter.com/smahaskey/status/738570881392214017/video/1

aaaand more puches thrown at someone just walking away
https://twitter.com/marcusdipaola/status/738572899808743424/video/1

Kid left bloodied
https://twitter.com/TomLlamasABC/status/738571817388908545/video/1


Mob attacking someone
https://twitter.com/NBCNightlyNews/status/738567898965233664

implanted_microchip
06-03-2016, 08:29 PM
Yeah like that first big violent outburst at a Trump rally happened and I tried to talk about how people behaving like that only give Trump more validity among his crowd and would only give the right more ammunition, only to get talked down to about how "people have a right to protest" and "they're asking for it" and more hypocritical eye for an eye bullshit from people pretending they're so much more civilized than conservatives

allegro
06-03-2016, 09:51 PM
Here is a GREAT WaPo article about the media's recent turning point re Trump. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/06/03/the-media-have-reached-a-turning-point-in-covering-donald-trump-he-may-not-survive-it/)

allegro
06-03-2016, 09:54 PM
Yeah like that first big violent outburst at a Trump rally happened and I tried to talk about how people behaving like that only give Trump more validity among his crowd and would only give the right more ammunition, only to get talked down to about how "people have a right to protest" and "they're asking for it" and more hypocritical eye for an eye bullshit from people pretending they're so much more civilized than conservatives

NOBODY is "asking for" or "deserves" that shit.

Violence is never welcome. It's bullshit. It's pointless, and stupid. They're not doing that for a "cause;" they're doing it to get on television and because they're clueless thugs.

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall

implanted_microchip
06-03-2016, 10:18 PM
NOBODY is "asking for" or "deserves" that shit.

Violence is never welcome. It's bullshit. It's pointless, and stupid. They're not doing that for a "cause;" they're doing it to get on television and because they're clueless thugs.

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall
I agree with you but plenty of people don't and quite a few felt the need to claim that "anything these protesters do is nothing compared to what Trump and his fans do." This entire election is just becoming a bunch of assholes and holier-than-thou self-righteous douchebags pointing fingers and going "but they did something worse!" all the time.

Just think, we still aren't in the general yet. Ugghhhhhhhhh it's gonna be a long summer

Jinsai
06-03-2016, 10:21 PM
Way to go, idiots... you have now turned the situation around to make Trump supporters look like reasonable, rational victims. Trump's team could not have dared dream that they'd be handed something like this. They're probably watching this footage spill out onto social media and spraying champagne around the room.

allegro
06-03-2016, 10:40 PM
Way to go, idiots... you have now turned the situation around to make Trump supporters look like reasonable, rational victims. Trump's team could not have dared dream that they'd be handed something like this. They're probably watching this footage spill out onto social media and spraying champagne around the room.

I don't think so. I think they are probably scared about what is going to happen at the convention.

As am I, really. This is just ignorant shit.

Protests aren't NEEDED. Trump is gonna dig his own grave, especially this crazy shit he is doing re this Judge in the Trump University case (http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/06/04/us/politics/donald-trump-university-judge-gonzalo-curiel.html?referer=http://m.facebook.com/), holy crap.

Dra508
06-03-2016, 11:15 PM
.

Protests aren't NEEDED. Trump is gonna dig his own grave, especially this crazy shit he is doing re this Judge in the Trump University case (http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/06/04/us/politics/donald-trump-university-judge-gonzalo-curiel.html?referer=http://m.facebook.com/), holy crap.

THIS. If we could all just shut up and let the man talk, he can dig his own grave once and for all. https://media1.giphy.com/media/12bpEjD05ac2IM/giphy.gif

Jinsai
06-03-2016, 11:36 PM
But the problem there is that it doesn't matter what insane shit he says! His supporters love him for it! Donald Trump could say "I think we need to teach these crybaby liberals that their precious global warming isn't a real threat. You know how we're going to do that? We're going to start increasing our carbon footprint! I want tax breaks for companies that double their carbon emissions! Hell, I'm going to build a factory that doesn't accomplish anything other than blast CO2 all day long into the atmosphere! And you know what? I'm going to make Elizabeth "Pocahontas" Warren pay for it!"

He could say that, and somehow, his support would increase.

allegro
06-04-2016, 12:10 AM
But the problem there is that it doesn't matter what insane shit he says! His supporters love him for it! Donald Trump could say "I think we need to teach these crybaby liberals that their precious global warming isn't a real threat. You know how we're going to do that? We're going to start increasing our carbon footprint! I want tax breaks for companies that double their carbon emissions! Hell, I'm going to build a factory that doesn't accomplish anything other than blast CO2 all day long into the atmosphere! And you know what? I'm going to make Elizabeth "Pocahontas" Warren pay for it!"

He could say that, and somehow, his support would increase.
I don't know how many more times it can be said, or how more creatively: his current supporters aren't enough to get him elected. The typical Republican pull is no longer strong enough, hence why Obama has won the last 2 elections. Trump would have to attract independents or Democrats, minorities and women, people BEYOND his current Groupies, to win. And accusing a Judge, who is just doing his job, of being a Trump hater because he is Mexican (except he was born and raised in Indiana) and then threatening revenge against him "in November" is digging his grave of additional voters beyond his base of Groupies (who aren't enough in numbers to get him elected).

DigitalChaos
06-04-2016, 12:27 AM
^ Unless Dem voter turnout ends up being rock bottom... which its is probably going to look like. Obama got to see some record turnout.

allegro
06-04-2016, 12:28 AM
^ Unless Dem voter turnout ends up being rock bottom

I ain't buying that.

Jinsai
06-04-2016, 12:35 AM
His groupies might not be enough alone, but it's hard to really gauge support until the main election cycle gets underway. This is the most bizarre presidential run I've ever seen, and it's weirdly unpredictable. If it comes down to Trump vs Clinton, which is what it's looking like it's going to be, that's going to be two hugely polarizing figures during a time when partisan division is running out of control. There's a lot of lifelong democrats and republicans who will vote for whomever the party candidate is, no matter who it is. Then there's a smaller section of lifelong voters who hate Trump or Clinton so much that they'll be voting for the other side out of spite for the first time in their lives. I've also met some Trump "supporters" who claim to hate Trump with a passion, but not as passionately as they apparently hate Clinton. Trump also seems to be pulling heavily from a large group that never even got involved in politics before. I think you're going to see a lot of people casting their vote for a third-party for the first time in their lives. This is a total wild-card election, and it's too soon to know.

When Trump first announced he was running, nobody took it seriously. It was a huge joke. Nobody believed it would come to this.

DigitalChaos
06-04-2016, 12:45 AM
It's also looking like the Libertarian option is going to further cause uncertainty in the Trump v Clinton question. The FiveThirtyEight guys have a lot of unknown variables they were just discussing: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/of-course-trump-can-win/

allegro
06-04-2016, 12:49 AM
I never thought it was a joke. Nope.

The MEDIA sure did, though. And all this fear and hatred, toward both Trump AND Clinton, is primarily generated by the media.

I took my mom to the doctor today and on the way there she told me she was "really afraid" of what would happen if Trump became President. My mom is 78. I know this "fear" is all that shit from Yahoo News, etc.

I told her that this country's founding fathers deliberately put in place safeguards, like the balance of power (Executive Branch, Legislative Branch, Judicial Branch), impeachment provisions, limited power of the Executive office, etc., and that there is nothing she should be "afraid" of except maybe crazy drivers or the flu.

The thing is, "Fear of Trump" should mean that you get people to register and vote for the opposition, NOT BEAT UP THE TRUMP SUPPORTER. Unless you KILL that voter, that's still not going to decrease the Trump vote; so you need to INCREASE the OPPOSING votes.

People who intend to vote out of "spite" and completely disregard issues like SCOTUS appointments, they aren't really Democrats.

DigitalChaos
06-04-2016, 01:06 AM
I never thought it was a joke. Nope.

The MEDIA sure did, though. And all this fear and hatred, toward both Trump AND Clinton, is primarily generated by the media.

I took my mom to the doctor today and on the way there she told me she was "really afraid" of what would happen if Trump became President. My mom is 78. I know this "fear" is all that shit from Yahoo News, etc.

I told her that this country's founding fathers deliberately put in place safeguards, like the balance of power (Executive Branch, Legislative Branch, Judicial Branch), impeachment provisions, limited power of the Executive office, etc., and that there is nothing she should be "afraid" of except maybe crazy drivers or the flu.

That's good advice that a lot of people should understand. It brings up something that is worthy of discussion though:

What does a Trump presidency vs a Hillary presidency actually look like for the entire government? Everyone looks at the candidates as an individual that they either identify with or disagree with. Nobody really discusses what our government collectively looks like with each one in the presidential seat.

A Hillary presidency... that's going to be more gridlock than you can imagine. Way more than we saw under Obama. We are going to see impeachment attempts on day 1. The GOP has so much legitimate meat to use and lots of precedent to stand on. A Trump presidency seems highly unpredictable to me, but a Hillary one is incredibly predictable. The only thing I could see happening with Trump is that the Dems may actually take back Congress.

GulDukat
06-04-2016, 07:23 AM
It's still possible for Sanders to be the Democratic nominee. All he has to do is win CA, show that he has "momentum," and the have hundreds of Superdelegates defect from Clinton.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yCFB2akLh4s

botley
06-04-2016, 10:31 AM
What does a Trump presidency vs a Hillary presidency actually look like for the entire government? Everyone looks at the candidates as an individual that they either identify with or disagree with. Nobody really discusses what our government collectively looks like with each one in the presidential seat.

A Hillary presidency... that's going to be more gridlock than you can imagine. Way more than we saw under Obama. We are going to see impeachment attempts on day 1. The GOP has so much legitimate meat to use and lots of precedent to stand on. A Trump presidency seems highly unpredictable to me, but a Hillary one is incredibly predictable.
Pretty sure Clinton made a very accurate and likely prediction of what would happen during her speech in San Diego.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zysLlX-ug0w

A lot of what she said focused on America's role in the world stage but it's equally applicable to the day-to-day business of domestic policymaking. Also, the GOP wouldn't make any viable impeachment attempt. They spent $7 million and two whole years (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/04/opinion/the-benghazi-committees-dead-end.html) trying to validate claims of her alleged misconduct and got BUPKIS.

allegro
06-04-2016, 11:16 AM
^^ Although I do love the online comments that her speech looks like it's in a flag factory, LOL.

Bottom line, true Democrats are never going to vote for a fucking Republican, let alone a crazy egotistical maniac one like Donald Trump. And I think there is a LOT more respect than hatred toward Hillary Clinton.

DigitalChaos
06-04-2016, 12:11 PM
Pretty sure Clinton made a very accurate and likely prediction of what would happen during her speech in San Diego.


is there a specific time in the 30min video? Is it a prediction of a Clinton presidency I am looking for or a Trump presidency?
Skipping through, everything she is talking about is very specific to the presidential role (as would be expected for the speech), and not the much larger scope that I was pointing to (how the rest of our govt will work).


The $7mil on Benghazi is exactly why you'll see the impeachment attempts. There is now the email scandal, which could certainly be viable... but viability doesn't necessarily matter (see benghazi). Blocking a SCOTUS appointment just because the POTUS is near the end of term... 100 filibusters per year just due to political disagreement... What happens when POTUS is viewed by the GOP as having committed treason? How much more gets completely blocked when the top priority becomes unseating a treasonous president who's every action must be blocked? The GOP has already started using untested techniques to block things, and now a lot of that is a standing precedent.

I think you greatly underestimate how much more the GOP hates Hillary than Obama.

allegro
06-04-2016, 12:33 PM
is there a specific time in the 30min video? Is it a prediction of a Clinton presidency I am looking for or a Trump presidency?
Skipping through, everything she is talking about is very specific to the presidential role (as would be expected for the speech), and not the much larger scope that I was pointing to (how the rest of our govt will work).


The $7mil on Benghazi is exactly why you'll see the impeachment attempts. There is now the email scandal, which could certainly be viable... but viability doesn't necessarily matter (see benghazi). Blocking a SCOTUS appointment just because the POTUS is near the end of term... 100 filibusters per year just due to political disagreement... What happens when POTUS is viewed by the GOP as having committed treason? How much more gets completely blocked when the top priority becomes unseating a treasonous president who's every action must be blocked? The GOP has already started using untested techniques to block things, and now a lot of that is a standing precedent.

I think you greatly underestimate how much more the GOP hates Hillary than Obama.

But now Trump is openly threatening a Federal Judge with his potential Presidential position. That Judge is appointed for life, so there's nothing that Trump can "do" but the mere threat is enough to wonder how much more shit he would do with his "power." I used to think he was all talk and it was funny; but threatening a Federal Judge who is doing absolutely nothing wrong just because Trump is being a fucking baby is not funny, at all. And there's not much Trump can actually "do" without being impeached, but damaging the U.S. status and relationships with other countries has to be considered.

Jinsai
06-04-2016, 01:53 PM
allegro, I think you dismiss the "fear of a Trump" presidency a little too quickly. Yes, we have checks and balances, but those only prevent so much. You can't impeach Trump for offending the leaders of the rest of the world, for instance. These same checks and balances were in place during Bush Jr's presidency, and still, he went on vacation most of the time until 9/11 happened so we got the fucking Patriot Act and a pointless war that destroyed our economy. The checks to presidential power didn't stop us from engaging in the Vietnam War. James Buchanan's distress about being president, and failure to address the growing movement towards secession, basically handed Lincoln a country primed to start the Civil War.

It's a reasonable fear.

allegro
06-04-2016, 03:24 PM
Jinsai, GW Bush's attack on Iraq was approved, unanimously, by Congress. It's one thing having a stupid President; it's another when the stupid President convinces the vast majority of Congress to do stupid shit. Congress also uninimously voted in favor of this piece of shit (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Te rrorists) with Bush.

Congress passed the Patriot Act (https://epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html) with Bush.

Re Vietnam, Congress passed this (https://history.state.gov/milestones/1961-1968/gulf-of-tonkin) at the request of Johnson.

But when Nixon did really stupid shit, he was impeached.

Even the people who seem totally unscary can be scary.

Look at the Russian Roulette that JFK played
with the clusterfuck known as Bay of Pigs (https://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/the-cia-still-doesnt-want-to-talk-about-the-bay-of-pigs)

DigitalChaos
06-04-2016, 04:03 PM
Yeah, the post-9/11 bullshit was thanks to Congress as well. A lone Bush couldnt have managed that mountain of shit.


We can only hope that a Hillary/Trump presidency is spent mostly on vacation.

GulDukat
06-04-2016, 04:08 PM
@Jinsai (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=272), GW Bush's attack on Iraq was approved, unanimously, by Congress. It's one thing having a stupid President; it's another when the stupid President convinces the vast majority of Congress to do stupid shit. Congress also uninimously voted in favor of this piece of shit (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Te rrorists) with Bush.

Congress passed the Patriot Act (https://epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html) with Bush.

Re Vietnam, Congress passed this (https://history.state.gov/milestones/1961-1968/gulf-of-tonkin) at the request of Johnson.

But when Nixon did really stupid shit, he was impeached.

Even the people who seem totally unscary can be scary.

Look at the Russian Roulette that JFK played
with the clusterfuck known as Bay of Pigs (https://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/the-cia-still-doesnt-want-to-talk-about-the-bay-of-pigs)
The Congress did not unanimously vote for the Iraqi War.

On other note, Warren for VP?

http://aattp.org/breaking-boston-globe-reports-hillary-close-to-choosing-elizabeth-warren-for-vp/

DigitalChaos
06-04-2016, 04:27 PM
It wasn't unanimous but 77% voted for it. Hillary was one of them. https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/107-2002/s237

DigitalChaos
06-04-2016, 04:36 PM
Man, this San Jose thing is just growing.

The mayor of San Jose (a big Clinton supporter) told police to stand down AND blamed the violence on Trump. The fuck... Apparently there are multiple media source that were encouraging this too, including a Vox editor that told people to riot anywhere Trump went.


There are SO many instance of violence in this single event in San Jose that people are making complications to try and demonstrate it all.

This is a demonstration to a lot of people that this isn't some isolated incident with a few bad apples because of how much of it happened here. The optics are also horrific. You literally have Mexican citizens, illegally here (in some admitted situations), flying the Mexican flag while physically attacking US citizens for their political beliefs. Like... holy fuck.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2qpQjoBKY8

Jinsai
06-04-2016, 05:09 PM
yes, Congress voted in favor of the Iraq war, but it was really Bush's brain child. If Bush hadn't been pushing for us to wage war on the wrong country, the issue wouldn't have been voted on. We get these perfect storms, and that was one. The checks and balances failed, and we got the Iraq War, the Patriot Act, and the further destabilization of a the middle east. Party divisiveness tends to swing congressional support down party lines, though here's an interesting take on how that might not work out with Trump as president (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/06/03/how-president-donald-trump-could-make-life-much-harder-for-republicans-in-congress/), though I'm not sure I buy it. I balk at the idea that someone really thinks he's "warm and genuine."

Given Trump's recent comments about the Mexican judge who's just a Trump-hater because of his Mexican heritage, do you really want that guy appointing Supreme Court justices?

He's already condescended to foreign politicians we consider our closest allies. He actually inferred that he'd make an exception to his Muslim ban for the new mayor of London. Holy shit.

Really, how will our international allies feel about political discourse with President Apprentice? The more optimistic people seem to be hoping that he'll just "leave the politicking to the professionals and handle the circus side show." I don't think those people appreciate what a narcissistic egomaniac they're dealing with here.

And yes, he'll need congressional support to do some of the insane loony tunes stuff he's proposing, but he just might get it. Inaction can be just as devastating as proactive idiocy. And who is he going to pick to be his running mate? What sensible career-politician wants to tag along for that potential travesty?

Really though, we urgently NEED a leader who will aggressively tackle climate change, and it looks like Trump will do everything in his power to disregard the scientific evidence, and do his best to roll back what little progress we've been fighting for. He tweeted that "The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make US manufacturing non-competitive." On another occasion he called it "a very, very expensive form of tax." This is scary, and you know Republicans in congress will be completely behind him in this regard.

Of course I hope you're right, that he's going to sink his own campaign soon enough, and even if he does reach the White House, he'll ultimately be kept in check like the man-baby brat he is. I really side with Chomsky here though, and I agree with him that it should be something that the entire world should be terrified of.

EDIT: And now Trump has made his "look at my African-American over here" gaff even worse... by tweeting a fake photo of black Trump supporters (http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2016/06/04/3784856/trump-responds-accusations-racism-fake-photo-black-supporters/)

allegro
06-04-2016, 06:15 PM
The Congress did not unanimously vote for the Iraqi War.
True, they unanimously passed the Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Terrorists. Which is worse, actually.

(Bernie voted for it, too.)

Jinsai
06-04-2016, 06:20 PM
True, they unanimously passed the Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Terrorists. Which is worse, actually.

I think in the climate following 9/11, anyone who voted against using military force against terrorists would have been crucified.

allegro
06-04-2016, 06:22 PM
Really though, we urgently NEED a leader who will aggressively tackle climate change
Dude, are you kidding? Look who is the head of the Environment Committee. (http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/230254-sen-inhofe-takes-charge-of-environment-committee) Pretty much the entire fucking Republican Party is convinced that climate change is a way for barefoot hippies to charge businesses more money.


I think in the climate following 9/11, anyone who voted against using military force against terrorists would have been crucified.
You mean, like BARBARA LEE (http://www.thenation.com/article/barbara-lee-still-speaks-arguing-congress-must-declare-wars/)?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zh_sxilhyV0

allegro
06-04-2016, 06:30 PM
You literally have Mexican citizens, illegally here (in some admitted situations), flying the Mexican flag while physically attacking US citizens for their political beliefs. Like... holy fuck.
Seriously?? That's totally bizarre.

GulDukat
06-04-2016, 08:21 PM
I was talking about.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution

allegro
06-04-2016, 08:57 PM
I was talking about.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution

Yeah, so were we ... http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/threads/3669-2016-Presidential-Election?p=304222#post304222 -- see his link.

House: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/107-2002/h455

Jinsai
06-04-2016, 09:21 PM
Dude, are you kidding? Look who is the head of the Environment Committee. (http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/230254-sen-inhofe-takes-charge-of-environment-committee) Pretty much the entire fucking Republican Party is convinced that climate change is a way for barefoot hippies to charge businesses more money.

This is exactly the thing I'm most concerned with, and I think Chomsky is right to say that it should be alarming to have a presidential candidate right now who is on board with that kind of thinking. That's the "perfect storm" I'm talking about, and that's where all the placed checks/balances do the opposite of keeping a lunatic in check. That's where you have a bunch of crony capitalists destroying the world in the name of greed and agreeing with each other.

allegro
06-04-2016, 09:32 PM
This is exactly the thing I'm most concerned with, and I think Chomsky is right to say that it should be alarming to have a presidential candidate right now who is on board with that kind of thinking. That's the "perfect storm" I'm talking about, and that's where all the placed checks/balances do the opposite of keeping a lunatic in check. That's where you have a bunch of crony capitalists destroying the world in the name of greed and agreeing with each other.
But George W Bush was totally on board with that same shit, for 8 god damned years. The PUBLIC has to DEMAND that leaders accept that this shit as real. Until the public demands it, leaders will think Business First and everything else last. Frankly, even Democrats give a lot of lip service to climate change but when push comes to shove they are going to put business lobbyists and lining their own pockets ahead of everything else, UNTIL THE VOTERS LET IT BE KNOWN THAT THEY WANT CHANGE.

Deepvoid
06-04-2016, 09:59 PM
Is Trump trolling the entire country?

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2016/06/04/3784856/trump-responds-accusations-racism-fake-photo-black-supporters/

GulDukat
06-05-2016, 08:53 AM
Good article on radicals vs.liberals when it comes to free speech.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/06/anti-trump-riots-and-the-war-over-liberalism.html?mid=facebook_nymag

Jinsai
06-05-2016, 10:48 AM
But George W Bush was totally on board with that same shit, for 8 god damned years. The PUBLIC has to DEMAND that leaders accept that this shit as real. Until the public demands it, leaders will think Business First and everything else last. Frankly, even Democrats give a lot of lip service to climate change but when push comes to shove they are going to put business lobbyists and lining their own pockets ahead of everything else, UNTIL THE VOTERS LET IT BE KNOWN THAT THEY WANT CHANGE.

Well, trust me, I don't want to go through another Bush presidency. I think if we got Sanders in the white house, we'd see actual progress regarding climate change. If we get Clinton, we'll probably see a lot of lip service, but her supporters aren't going to let her pander to corporate interests at the expense of the environment as much as we'd just expect Trump to.

If we get Trump, we'll get an aggressive step backwards. I know, it's up to the voters... and if the voters were really wanting progress here, they'd have elected Bernie Sanders.

allegro
06-05-2016, 11:37 AM
Well, trust me, I don't want to go through another Bush presidency. I think if we got Sanders in the white house, we'd see actual progress regarding climate change. If we get Clinton, we'll probably see a lot of lip service, but her supporters aren't going to let her pander to corporate interests at the expense of the environment as much as we'd just expect Trump to.

We've had Obama in there for nearly 8 years and have we seen a lot of change? Clinton claims she and Obama had a meeting with the Chinese at Copenhagen but it was a bunch of shit. Obama has done not much of anything in 8 years. Why? Well, Congress just isn't all that interested. And, that includes a lot of the Dems in Congress. If we wanted a real pro-environment President, we should have kept Martin O'Malley. Clinton is, for all intents and purposes, Obama Part III. Note that this doesn't mean I'm anti-Obama; it's just that the President can't do a whole hell of a lot if the majority of Congress doesn't give a fuck. Although, to be fair, Obama has kept several of his environmental promises (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/subjects/environment/).

It's reasonable to expect that the Dems could regain Senate control in this election. And, after this mess, we could even pick up a lot more Dems in the House.

DigitalChaos
06-05-2016, 12:23 PM
Seriously?? That's totally bizarre.
Yup. Check out the videos. Most of the violent ones have the attackers waving the flag of Mexico.

The optics of it adds so much support to the "build a wall" immigration enforcement angle that Trump has. And how about the whole "its just racism" vs "no, he just wants them to immigrate legally and not have criminals from mexico coming over" ... well, San Jose handed one to Trump on that topic as well:

A gay latino Trump supporter was left beaten and bloodied
http://i.imgur.com/4JElpoT.jpg




TheYoungTurks and lots of other left news sources are covering the San Jose situation. It's mostly "holy fuck don't do this people" and not many are pointing out exactly how bad the optics are on this... but the Trump-supporting news sources are ALLLLL over that.

DigitalChaos
06-05-2016, 12:28 PM
There is currently a tie for my favorite bits of these videos... i just cant decide who wins:
- "fuck that racist cracker, nigga!" (referring to Trump, of course)
- the crowd chanting "BERNIE, BERNIE, BERNIE" after they accidentally beat up one of their own

neorev
06-05-2016, 03:30 PM
http://youtu.be/07XpqAPj7lM

Jinsai
06-05-2016, 03:43 PM
Good article on radicals vs.liberals when it comes to free speech.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/06/anti-trump-riots-and-the-war-over-liberalism.html?mid=facebook_nymag

The main problem with this article is it presumes a sort of political strategy behind violent protest. Maybe a few truly misguided people are justifying violence as a response to a demagogue suggesting what they consider bald fascism. These aren't the words of actual violent protesters though. These are people sitting around and Tweeting like dipshits.

What are the protesters saying? "Fuck Trump! Fuck him! Fuck you! Racist motherfuckers! Fuck youuuuuuuuuuuu!!!!" Maybe some really idiotic people will start cheering "Bernie!!! Feel the Bern!" right after punching someone in the head, but they're not "feeling the Bern" because they're really politically invested in the values and ideas coming from the Sanders campaign.

There's no political strategy on display here. I think it's an aspect that DigitalChaos is overlooking as well when he says "You literally have Mexican citizens, illegally here (in some admitted situations), flying the Mexican flag while physically attacking US citizens for their political beliefs. Like... holy fuck." I think it makes perfect sense. If I was an illegal immigrant in this country, of course I would fucking hate Donald Trump. I wouldn't consider the people who are taking that hatred and actually expressing it with violence to be really confronting a political belief. They're attacking people who supported a leader who made a blanket statement inferring that illegal immigrants are rapists and murderers. That's the problem here though... that statement about rapists and murderers, that's not a political belief. That's demagoguery, and when you appeal to people in that manner, there is bound to be a backlash.

I don't think Trump is a brilliant enough strategist to have planned this, but violent protesters are playing right into his hands. Ultimately though, Trump's success as a politician has nothing to do with politics, so it's almost a mistake to consider his most ardent supporters of being behind a political ideology. At the very least, the people who are actually physically attacking his supporters do not view it that way.

DigitalChaos
06-05-2016, 04:02 PM
I get exactly what you are saying, but I think you are trying to shove these people in a box they don't belong. A lack of political strategy represents most voters. The sheer number of incidents in San Jose also puts this beyond "a few bad apples." And as for the character of Trump, what you are describing is the distillation that the Dem-supporting media has created of him. It's this media that is magnifying and distorting his racism attribute to the level that creates such a violent reaction. You know these people aren't getting their views by listening to a full Trump speech in context. So blaming Trump for this is silly. Just like the Hillary supporting Mayor who told police to stand down is blaming Trump for the violence.

Jinsai
06-05-2016, 04:21 PM
But whether or not Trump is truly a racist is almost irrelevant to the point that what he says appeals to racists. He knows it too. That's showing pretty blatantly in his pathetic defense for his comments about the Hispanic judge who he thinks is just mad at him because he's a Mexican. He knows that the things he's said and his bullshit about building a wall that Mexico is going to pay for is going to piss off Mexicans, especially illegal immigrants. He's so sure of it, that it's the only reason that he can conceivably come up with for why this judge doesn't like him. It doesn't matter that the judge isn't an illegal immigrant. It doesn't matter that he was actually born in Indiana.

Trump just cannot believe that the guy doesn't have a grudge against him because he's Hispanic. If you're saying and proposing shit that you are certain is going to enrage Hispanics, then you have to have enough self-awareness to know that the things you're saying are going to go over really well with people who hate Hispanics.

allegro
06-05-2016, 04:54 PM
He knows that the things he's said and his bullshit about building a wall that Mexico is going to pay for is going to piss off Mexicans, especially illegal immigrants. He's so sure of it, that it's the only reason that he can conceivably come up with for why this judge doesn't like him.
Trump doesn't understand anything about law, other than when he loses he's sure it's ONLY due to his being "bullied." He's a baby with a giant ego, and his blaming the Judge for being "Mexican" is just what he does: he blames everybody else every time he doesn't get his way. The Judge granted part of his Motion for Summary Judgment and denied other parts of his Motion (https://www.scribd.com/doc/302142735/Makaeff-v-Trump-University-order-on-motion-for-summary-judgment-pdf), which means the case has to go to Trial, which has made Trumpzilla mad. The Judge's Order on the Motion totally spells out WHY he made his decision, as you can read yourself, but Trump automatically assumes he is being bullied because he wants to build a wall and the Judge is "Mexican" because Trump has not actually READ the ORDER, obviously.

But the more compelling argument, here, is why these people are beating up Trump supporters when President Barack Obama has deported more illegal aliens than any other President in U.S. history, including raids on Central Americans (http://www.newsweek.com/obama-illegal-immigration-raids-central-america-women-children-deportation-460973).

Meanwhile, Trump harassed the lead Plaintiff in the class action suit against Trump University so much, the Judge granted her the ability to drop out as lead Plaintiff so long as another Plaintiff takes her place (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-03-22/trump-university-plaintiff-may-be-allowed-to-leave-lawsuit); Trump now contends that means that the entire suit must be dropped, even though there are tons of other co-Plaintiffs in the class action suit. He is one mean man if you cross him, that's for sure.

I saw a clip of a Trump interview this morning about the TU suit and he said what made TU so "special" is their "evaluations" because they handed them out to "everybody" and had everybody evaluate "everything; teachers, the program, everything, from 1 to 5." And I'm thinking, "DUDE, ALL FUCKING COLLEGES DO THAT, FOR THE LAST 20 YEARS, AT LEAST!! HELLO?!?!??!!"

DigitalChaos
06-05-2016, 05:02 PM
Jinsai- that's some "he's asking for it" sounding victim blaming. But these people aren't beating up Trump. They are beating up people who simply attended his rally and were leaving the building.

allegro - that's a great point, but these people don't give a shit about deeper politics. This is emotional reactionary bullshit based on headline-only information. It's extreme tribalism. These are the same idiots that repeatedly destroy their own city after a sports game.

allegro
06-05-2016, 05:03 PM
allegro - that's a great point, but these people don't give a shit about deeper politics. This is emotional reactionary bullshit based on headline-only information. It's extreme tribalism. These are the same idiots that repeatedly destroy their own city after a sports game.
True, dat.

neorev
06-05-2016, 05:30 PM
Ugh, my girl's parents are watching MSNBC with a header that says Clinton close to clinching the nomination. It's amazing how wrong this statement is. Clinton is nowhere near clinching the nomination. Superdelegates don't count in helping you clinch the nomination. Clinton is 600+ delegates away from clinching with only 930 delegates left up for grabs before the end of the primary. She would need to win each primary at like around 70-80% in order to do so, which is an impossibility. I wish the mainstream news could do their job right and not be biased, unethical cunts like they are.

DigitalChaos
06-05-2016, 06:10 PM
wish the mainstream news could do their job right and not be biased, unethical cunts like they are.

lol. Everyone is sounding like all the rants I've been having over the years. It makes me feel less crazy. I hate the ever living shit out of most of the media.

It's the same reason I really feel like getting Trump and Hillary/Sanders on the debate stage is going to change a lot of rhetoric around Trump. It's going to be a bit harder to vilify him as this cartoonish racist by cherry picking. The guy is obnoxious and lacks any substance, but he isn't this super racist cartoon when you listen to him in full context.

A lot of people are going to hear him in context for the first time when those debates start. The first debate is probably going to be breaking some amazing viewership records too. I think it will be damaging to Hillary when "Trump is a racist and hates women" gets heavily deflated. Those are the biggest selling points that Hillary has for herself. Sanders would still have some strong value without that as he hasn't so heavily invested his pitch as "not trump"

Jinsai
06-05-2016, 08:07 PM
Jinsai- that's some "he's asking for it" sounding victim blaming. But these people aren't beating up Trump. They are beating up people who simply attended his rally and were leaving the building.

youre misunderstanding me. I'm not "blaming" Trump. I would only blame him if I suspected this violence was all part of some brilliant master plan. I'm not giving him that much credit.

DigitalChaos
06-05-2016, 08:23 PM
youre misunderstanding me. I'm not "blaming" Trump. I would only blame him if I suspected this violence was all part of some brilliant master plan. I'm not giving him that much credit.

I may be misunderstanding, but to reuse your phrasing in a different situation: "I'm not blaming her. I'm not saying she deserved it. I'm not justifying the rape. I'm just saying that it makes sense that she got raped by choosing to wear that dress around those types of men.




I don't even know why I am arguing this. I think I'm just filling the space of none of us having a decent topic to debate for a while. This god damn election...

Jinsai
06-06-2016, 02:47 AM
I don't know... this almost feels like a philosophical distinction, and rape analogies... there's so many dissimilar factors and the end-topic feels hyperbolic. Recently, Anonymous (whatever that really entails at this point) released a video condemning the mother of the kid who fell into the pit with Harambe the gorilla. They even released personal details about her, where she lives, her phone number, the location of her workplace. If she were to be harmed, would speculating that Anonymous' video played a part in that be a similar sort of objectionable thing?

If we flip the tables, and instead point to the irresponsible tweets from people encouraging rioting, comparing the rise of Trump to the third reich, is that really much different when it comes to the degree of ultimate responsibility? It really doesn't matter much I guess, though I'm pretty sure I said that at the end of the day, the blame falls on the people who committed the violence.

implanted_microchip
06-06-2016, 04:19 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/06/politics/hillary-clinton-barack-obama-endorsement/

So, Obama might be endorsing Hillary within the next week.

Deepvoid
06-06-2016, 07:29 PM
AP just announced that Clinton has commitments from delegates to be the presumptive Democratic nominee.

implanted_microchip
06-06-2016, 09:34 PM
You just know the Clinton campaign is probably livid over this since it'll most likely discourage turnout tomorrow. It's been set for ages now but regardless, every show of victory matters and builds credit and considering she's more or less a lock for NJ and the competitive nature of Cali, it's not like tomorrow is unimportant by any means. Riding high to the convention would be a whole lot better than having to deal with constant "BUT WHAT ABOUT CALIFORNIA" questioning and rants from the Sanders camp.

Edit: yep, probably not thrilled judging by this -- https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/739983730002022400

Also, and this is an honest question to people here since most of you are Bernie supporters, how is this race any different from back in 2008 when: http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/08-sanders-endorsed-obama-clinton-formally-exited-race-n586556

Jinsai
06-07-2016, 01:25 AM
Riding high to the convention would be a whole lot better than having to deal with constant "BUT WHAT ABOUT CALIFORNIA" questioning and rants from the Sanders camp.

Geeeeeeeeezuz.... I'm very sorry that you're sick and tired of all the "rants" from people who wish that they were simply given a chance to vote before the winner was decided.

implanted_microchip
06-07-2016, 01:47 AM
Geeeeeeeeezuz.... I'm very sorry that you're sick and tired of all the "rants" from people who wish that they were simply given a chance to vote before the winner was decided.

It's like you think nothing else exists outside this forum. The instant conspiracy theory bullshit in response to Associated Press on twitter from Bernie accounts was just unbelievably astounding. You do not know the people I know in person. You do not have all of the interactions with people that I have. You do not meet the people I meet. It is wholly possible that the Bernie fans I end up around day to day are not like you (and I truly hope you're not like most of them). I can make a broad comment and it not be about you, you know.

And I'm sorry you don't like the concept of a staggered primary. I tried talking about it with you a while ago but you thoroughly ignored it. Not really interested in repeating myself yet again. Even then, you read my statement and totally took it in a way just to validate your point of view. I said that meaning "it would be better to win California rather than lose it yet still win the primary but spend the next several weeks with the Bernie crowd waving a Cali win as reason for superdelegates to flip," so, you know, nothing like what you're imagining I said at all.

That scenario is one Bernie himself and people like Robert Reich have openly said they plan on enacting if he takes California, which is ironic since like six months ago Bernie and Co. kept perpetuating this notion that Bernie would win the popular vote yet Hillary would use superdelegates to defy the will of the people -- and now here Hillary is, having won a democratic majority of votes, and here Bernie is, basically saying he wants to sway superdelgates despite having not won.

But hey, thanks for ignoring anything I actually have to say completely.

Thanks for singling that out in my comment to make some snarky, douchey comment instead of answering an actual question that was sincere and, in my opinion, a good point of discussion.

Jinsai
06-07-2016, 02:18 AM
It's like you think nothing else exists outside this forum.

Well, to be fair, you made a condescending dismissal of Sanders supporters endlessly ranting, but I guess you weren't very specific... so sorry I assumed you were referring to the objection that I am primarily hearing. Outside of this forum.


But hey, thanks for ignoring anything I actually have to say completely.

Thanks for singling that out in my comment to make some snarky, douchey comment instead of answering an actual question that was sincere and, in my opinion, a good point of discussion.

Ok. No, I don't think the Clinton campaign is "absolutely livid" about securing the nomination prior to the California/Jersey vote. The popular perception that Clinton has "already won" is only damaging to her opponent. I can promise you the Sanders camp doesn't like the fact that the AP has basically last-minute (and very conveniently timed) an announcement that he has basically already lost.

implanted_microchip
06-07-2016, 02:32 AM
Well, to be fair, you made a condescending dismissal of Sanders supporters endlessly ranting, but I guess you weren't very specific... so sorry I assumed you were referring to the objection that I am primarily hearing. Outside of this forum.



Ok. No, I don't think the Clinton campaign is "absolutely livid" about securing the nomination prior to the California/Jersey vote.


Since you still keep ignoring the question part let me just flat out repost it for you

I asked if any Sanders fans could explain why Sanders should stay in at this point and what makes it different from when, in 08, he called it for Obama at this same point, as explained here:

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/08-sanders-endorsed-obama-clinton-formally-exited-race-n586556

It was an honest question because I just don't see the difference at all and now two posts in a row you've just seemed blind to it because you seem immediately against me because I don't agree with you on things.

Hazekiah
06-07-2016, 02:41 AM
See also; the last few pages of the Ghostbusters thread.

>_>

Jinsai
06-07-2016, 02:44 AM
It was an honest question because I just don't see the difference at all and now two posts in a row you've just seemed blind to it because you seem immediately against me because I don't agree with you on things.

You are definitely projecting here.

I don't believe in the earnestness of the "drop out! In the name of party-unity!" thing. Sanders may drop out if the outcomes tomorrow are unanimously against him. But even with the 2008 election, there was not all this begging Hillary to "drop out in the name of party unity." This has been going on for a while, and I think it's bullshit to claim that hanging in there for a little while longer is going to be as damaging as people are implying it is.

You want to know what will alienate Sanders supporters from endorsing Hillary, even if Sanders himself encourages them to? Dealing with all this condescending horseshit from Clinton supporters might just piss people off enough to the point where even if Sanders endorses Clinton, they'll say "fuck it."

EDIT: Thanks for "contributing" Hazekiah. I know you can't see this because I guess you blocked me, but yeah, enthralling as always.

EDIT2: listening to the Rachel Maddow show and their interview w/ their campaign manager, I'm pretty sure Clinton's team is not angry at all about today's announcement. Hillary, during her interview, seems very pleased. She's smiling, laughing, and very happy about this historic moment.

GulDukat
06-07-2016, 06:52 AM
Ugh, my girl's parents are watching MSNBC with a header that says Clinton close to clinching the nomination. It's amazing how wrong this statement is. Clinton is nowhere near clinching the nomination. Superdelegates don't count in helping you clinch the nomination. Clinton is 600+ delegates away from clinching with only 930 delegates left up for grabs before the end of the primary. She would need to win each primary at like around 70-80% in order to do so, which is an impossibility. I wish the mainstream news could do their job right and not be biased, unethical cunts like they are.
Superdelegates do count in securing the nomination, as they did in 2008 for then Senator Obama. Neither pledged delegates nor superdelegates actually vote until the convention. Pledged delegates have to vote for a certain candidate and the superdelegates are free to vote for whomever they want. Clinton has reached the magic number to secure the nomination, with superdelegates, and there is absolutely no way there will be a mass defection of these superdelegates from now until the convention. The AP is correct to call her the presumptive nominee.

RE: Sanders dropping out. My guess is, Obama will endorse Clinton this week, maybe tomorrow, and that might give Sanders the nudge he needs to concede. He could take it to the convention, but why? Clinton will be officially nominated on the first ballot. All this talk about a contested convention is nonsense.

Swykk
06-07-2016, 07:09 AM
Lots of poor journalism on display today. You might call it thinly veiled voter suppression attempts. "GUYS, HILLARY CLINCHED! NO NEED TO EVEN SHOW UP AND VOTE."--Media

I stopped trying to talk politics with him when he compared Bernie Sanders to the fucking High Sparrow, Jinsai. At this juncture, it's just we are going to have to agree to very much disagree, kleiner352.

GulDukat
06-07-2016, 07:29 AM
Lots of poor journalism on display today. You might call it thinly veiled voter suppression attempts. "GUYS, HILLARY CLINCHED! NO NEED TO EVEN SHOW UP AND VOTE."--Media

I stopped trying to talk politics with him when he compared Bernie Sanders to the fucking High Sparrow, @Jinsai (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=272). At this juncture, it's just we are going to have to agree to very much disagree, @kleiner352 (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=4417).

It's not so much "thinly veiled voter suppression" as it is cold, hard math. If I lived in CA I'd be pissed too. I remember voting for Howard Dean in the 2004 primary, despite Kerry being the presumptive nominee at that point. The whole primary process and calendar is arbitrary and stupid. I hate how Iowa, of all places, gets to vote first. Have one day when all 50 states vote in the primaries. The candidate with the most votes wins the nomination--no delegates, no superdelegates. And get rid of the electoral college while you're at it, let's elect our President by the popular vote.

DigitalChaos
06-07-2016, 10:43 AM
It's just math guys! Bernie can't win!

http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160607/200d8a7497f105cee41344735f9aa42e.jpg

/s


...another thing that is just math is how it's already being called for Hillary as to influence the numbers in the remaining voter turnout.

botley
06-07-2016, 10:47 AM
Influence the numbers? The numbers have been consistent from the word go (http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-system-isnt-rigged-against-sanders/). Bernie has had approximately 3 million fewer Democrats vote for him than Hillary has. That's not delegates, or superdelegates, that's how all their party members voted as a bloc. If it was just down to popular vote, the parties would have nominated exactly the same people that they're about to under the current system.

However he does in California (and yes, I agree that this sucks for those of you who vote in California), Sanders will likely also win a few more primaries today... probably Montana, and the Dakotas... and yet tomorrow he will still have fewer delegates than Clinton, because fewer people will have voted for him, and he will have no case to make that superdelegates should switch horses at the convention.

implanted_microchip
06-07-2016, 11:28 AM
@Swykk (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=285) how you don't see a surface level physical resemblance and the populist anti-establishment attitude and see how someone joking might compare them, yet get the humor behind comparing Cersei to Hillary really shows how insanely biased you are. Clearly a one-off joke in a goddamn Game of Thrones thread defines me.

@botley (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=469) but don't you see how those facts don't play into people's eagerness to believe everything is rigged and they're really the correct and righteous majority instead of being a minority in a party that lost?

Also @Jinsai (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=272) as of April, ~70% of Sanders supporters said they'd vote for Hillary.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-dem-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/04/sanders-supporters-not-vote-clinton-221642

And if you want to talk tone and condescension then how it is you don't see the moral high horse so many douchebags are on running around proclaiming everything Hillary ever does to be the result of criminal activity and fraud then I don't know what to tell you. The way the Sanders camp went from condemning caucuses when they lost them to suddenly being silent once they started winning them says a lot. This whole election is everyone on every single side for any candidate saying "It's only okay it it helps my person win" and Bernie's fans are not immune to that. Everyone's generally a piece of shit.

botley
06-07-2016, 11:38 AM
Welcome to politics!

DigitalChaos
06-07-2016, 11:40 AM
I don't give a shit about Sanders. I think he'd make a horrible president. My interest is in the honesty and sanctity of the electoral process. If you don't see how fucked it is that the AP called the primary on a day when nobody voted, I'd guess that your interests in this system lie elsewhere.


This quote from Glenn Greenwald sums it up:

"This is the perfect symbolic ending to the Democratic Party primary. The nomination is consecrated by a media organization, on a day when nobody voted, based on secret discussions with anonymous establishment insiders and donors whose identity the media organization – incredibly – conceals. The decisive edifice of superdelegates is itself anti-democratic and inherently corrupt: designed to prevent actual voters from making choices that the party establishment dislikes. But for a party run by insiders and funded by corporate interests, it’s only fitting that its nomination process ends with such an ignominious, awkward, and undemocratic sputter."

Perfect End to Democratic Primary: Anonymous Superdelegates Declare Winner Through Media (https://theintercept.com/2016/06/07/perfect-end-to-democratic-primary-anonymous-super-delegates-declare-winner-through-media/)

allegro
06-07-2016, 11:49 AM
Look, it's the fucking Associated Press. The MEDIA, which hasn't been about "journalism" and has been about MONEY for DECADES. They only care being FIRST (even if they end up being totally wrong). It's really no different than any Hollywood rag wanting to be the first to publish a Hollywood rumor and collecting big bucks. AP wanted to be the first, even if it's incorrect.

I mean, come on, THIS IS AN HISTORIC (INCORRECT) FRONT PAGE:

http://www.trbimg.com/img-50222f13/turbine/chi-histdewey_truman20080104104817/500/500x281

implanted_microchip
06-07-2016, 12:08 PM
I already made it clear that I think AP made a mistake doing what they did. It's nothing about bias or partisanship, it's about what gets the most clicks and attention, but that won't stop people from going "Shills!" on twitter all day long and sharing bullshit "infographics" that don't really amount to anything and linking The Young Turks nonstop like they're some bastion of bipartisan clarity.

Jinsai
06-07-2016, 02:27 PM
I already made it clear that I think AP made a mistake doing what they did.

And you believe that what they did will hurt Clinton, or at least that her team is upset about their announcement, when I think it's pretty obvious the opposite is the case.

implanted_microchip
06-07-2016, 02:31 PM
And you believe that what they did will hurt Clinton, or at least that her team is upset about their announcement, when I think it's pretty obvious the opposite is the case.

What a shock, I was wrong. Who knew it was possible for someone to predict something incorrectly? To say that saying someone's the winner already before there's been a full vote can totally result in their supporters seeing it as less important to turn out, and I don't think I'm at some grandiose fault for thinking that.

neorev
06-07-2016, 02:39 PM
I hate Trump... but I hope he wins. We deserve him. Maybe we need a President so horrible that people will wake up and be like "What the hell have we been doing all along?" Instead of the middle line, continuing the same 16+ years of politics by having Hillary as President. America needs a kick in the ass before they actually do anything about it.

Trump... Hillary... neither are gonna do anything to help my life. Lose/lose situation.

Jinsai
06-07-2016, 02:45 PM
look... from the get-go, it seems very hard to disagree with you about something without you taking it personally. I know politics are generally very internalized and it's considered to be a topic that is difficult to discuss without it blowing up... but acting like you're under attack when people are merely disagreeing with your assessment is rough. If you condescend to people, you're bound to get a condescending response.

I think the point on the table here is the issue regarding the impact of the strangely-timed announcement from the AP. allegro believes it is TMZ-style "got there first!" shenanigans. I think DigitalChaos and I think there's something more suspicious going on (and goddamn is it weird to be agreeing with him so much lately in this thread). Either way, if you look at the ultimate effect of how this benefits one camp or the other, I think it's safe to say that this is a "win" in the Clinton corner, and I think the reasons for it are obvious. This has been a running theme that I keep seeing, and the intent seems clear. If you convince someone they've already lost, they take their ball and go home.

neorev
06-07-2016, 02:46 PM
There's plenty of things that can happen between now and the convention in July to cause the superdelegates to switch sides.

Can Bernie just run as an Independent in the election to make things more interesting? I think he has a chance as a third party candidate between the large amount of Independents who support him (on the way to outnumbering Democrats & Republicans), the Democrats who want him over Hillary, and the Republicans who want him over Trump. A huge chunk of the population has had their voice silenced throughout these primaries... the Independents. Bernie does quite well in open primaries.

Swykk
06-07-2016, 02:49 PM
I'm somewhere in the middle--I think the media and gross shenanigans by Democrats are both factors here.

Jinsai
06-07-2016, 02:52 PM
I hate Trump... but I hope he wins. We deserve him. Maybe we need a President so horrible that people will wake up and be like "What the hell have we been doing all along?" Instead of the middle line, continuing the same 16+ years of politics by having Hillary as President. America needs a kick in the ass before they actually do anything about it.

Trump... Hillary... neither are gonna do anything to help my life. Lose/lose situation.

Maybe we do deserve Trump. But after 8 years of Bush Jr, there's one thing I'll always swear by: People do not learn and they have very selective, short memories. Trump could drag us into WWIII, and even if historians pin the blame on him it won't matter to the idiots who aren't paying attention. Ironically, they're the sort that is deserving of a Trump presidency.

You still don't hear enough layman talk about the responsibility James Buchanan bears for failing to prevent the Civil War, still the bloodiest conflict this country has been through. It's a war that divided this country so dramatically that we're still stuck up on it, we still have people saying "the south will rise again" and shit like that. You still have people calling it the "war of Northern aggression." Partisan loyalty works like that, and it goes beyond party affiliation. It goes down to personal identity and lineage. More people still believe that Lincoln is to blame for the outbreak of the Civil War, even though it was pretty much ready to happen and basically started a couple weeks into his presidency. Accurate history is generally more important to historians. Everyone else makes up their own version of it to suit their biases.

implanted_microchip
06-07-2016, 02:56 PM
Can Bernie just run as an Independent in the election to make things more interesting?

The date needed to get your name on most ballots is gone and many don't offer write-ins. He's openly said he has zero plans of being "another Ralph Nader" as I recall him putting it. He's going to endorse Hillary and while that may be a tepid endorsement I'll be shocked if you don't see him speak out heavily against Trump and why we need to elect the Democratic nominee instead. "Make things more interesting" is such a spectator, detached attitude to have about the political structure of the country you're in.

Also your attitude that Trump would at least "speed things along" is accelerationism which has no real historical evidence of being worthwhile at all.

Jinsai
06-07-2016, 03:02 PM
If Bernie ran as an independent, I would immediately retract my support for him. That would be handing the presidency over to Trump, and Sanders has already stated repeatedly that a Trump presidency is ultimately the thing he is most worried about. He couldn't run as an independent without pissing all over his entire life's work. He would become a political pariah, and politics don't work that way. The only people who will upset an election to that degree (Nader, Perot) are people who haven't completely thrown their hat in.

He's said he won't do it, and I would be horrified to hear him change his mind. Honestly, I would think he had completely lost his mind if he didn't support the leading opposition to Trump should he not win the party nomination.

botley
06-07-2016, 03:08 PM
Can Bernie just run as an Independent in the election to make things more interesting? I think he has a chance as a third party candidate between the large amount of Independents who support him (on the way to outnumbering Democrats & Republicans)
Even if this were true, "support Bernie" does not equate to "will vote for Bernie in November". I support him but I can't vote for him. Plenty of people support his ideas, but not enough to physically go out and cast a ballot for him. The on-the-ground ability to really energize people, enough so they will actually make the effort to vote for their candidate, is the reason why the Democratic Party is currently as strong as it is, and why there has never been a viable candidate for President outside the two major American parties in the last 150+ years.


A huge chunk of the population has had their voice silenced throughout these primaries... the Independents. Bernie does quite well in open primaries.
The opposite of these things is true. Bernie has been an Independent his whole career; this is the most vocal someone with Independent leanings has been on the American stage since the Tyler administration. Also, if you look at the results, Bernie tends to lose primaries and win closed caucuses.

implanted_microchip
06-07-2016, 03:50 PM
Over on the other side of the aisle, Trump is now getting flat-out attacked by Lindsay Graham who has said in reference to the "Mexican" judge thing:

“This is the most un-American thing from a politician since Joe McCarthy,” Mr. Graham said. “If anybody was looking for an off-ramp, this is probably it,” he added. “There’ll come a time when the love of country will trump hatred of Hillary."

Paul Ryan has criticized it heavily just shortly after his tepid endorsement of him (via twitter, no less).

Mitch McConnell's come out and said that Trump needs to flat-out stop attacking minorities and Newt Gingrich, who's been floated heavily as a potential VP and has been highly supportive of him, has come out and said that he's wrong on this and distanced himself from the attack. Trump's surrogates are now calling Ryan racist for saying this: https://twitter.com/cspan/status/740188794503069696

Hillary's campaign even has a video now that's entirely just Republicans attacking Trump for it, without any Democrats commenting or any other voices chiming in even:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaIyu9ze_lI&feature=youtu.be

What's everyone make of this? People who are Trump supporters are outright distancing themselves from him over this, GOP elite that tepidly and unenthusiastically supported him are backing away quickly, people like Graham are all but saying they'll vote for Hillary instead -- what's any of this mean, why is this the issue and story that's prompted this response and how (if at all) do you think this'll affect him going into the general? What was, above all, the point in Trump saying this? It's a topic no one's seemed particularly concerned about, and the Clinton email news the other week could've dominated the cycle, and yet instead he kicked up dirt where there wasn't anyone looking for it and seems to have gotten it all into his own eyes. Why? Is this just a genuine fuck-up on his part?

Jinsai
06-07-2016, 04:24 PM
Trump's surrogates are now calling Ryan

The irony on display here is truly astonishing, but it shouldn't be surprising at all that Trump's camp flagrantly gets the definition of racism backwards. This is a campaign bolstered by support from straight white people who think that straight white people are under attack for being straight and white.

And yes, it seems that this most recent blunder may be the first real flaw in this idiot's bulletproof armor. He really upped the ante here.

DigitalChaos
06-07-2016, 04:33 PM
I'm somewhere in the middle--I think the media and gross shenanigans by Democrats are both factors here.
this is the right answer.

I believe that they are both profit motivated AND some aspects of the media have ties to Clinton. I'm just arguing one aspect because it's getting dismissed.



https://i.sli.mg/GIbD8z.jpg

DigitalChaos
06-07-2016, 04:40 PM
(and goddamn is it weird to be agreeing with him so much lately in this thread)
me too man... me too! But it's because we aren't discussing which ideological political system is better; we are discussing whether the current system is being corrupted or not. The only thing that seems to stop some people from seeing that is if their candidate is winning. I'm just perpetually on the extreme underdog side, so I live here.

That said, our political difference really arent that different in context. A Trump presidency would greatly demonstrate this.

DigitalChaos
06-07-2016, 04:42 PM
allegro - you were the one mentioning that Trump needs to pull in a lot of independents to win and he isn't going to do that with his divisive messaging. Did you see that Hillary refused to say that "the 2nd Amendment grants the right to bear arms"? That's something that would lose here a LOT of independents and even a sizable chunk of democrats.

implanted_microchip
06-07-2016, 05:02 PM
The irony on display here is truly astonishing, but it shouldn't be surprising at all that Trump's camp flagrantly gets the definition of racism backwards. This is a campaign bolstered by support from straight white people who think that straight white people are under attack for being straight and white.

And yes, it seems that this most recent blunder may be the first real flaw in this idiot's bulletproof armor. He really upped the ante here.

I agree with you, and I find it so weird that this is the instance where his racism and bigotry is "too much" for people. Is it because it's a guy who's in the judicial system, and the establishment's a lot more sensitive about that? What is it, exactly? It's not the most outrageous statement of his. Why is this the thing that seems to be the stand-out comment, after so many more insane things previously?

implanted_microchip
06-07-2016, 05:50 PM
So a local reporter where I live broke this story about Pam Bondi, the FL attorney general having been essentially bribed by Trump to drop the Trump University case.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/opinion/os-pam-bondi-donald-trump-scott-maxwell-20160604-column.html

Is it at all possible that the "point" of this bizarre "let's keep being racist and attacking him as a Mexican when he isn't even Mexican" thing is going on because they wanted to avoid that story getting traction instead?