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

allegro
03-30-2016, 02:14 PM
Well, because he's a narcissist. Narcissists don't react to criticism, even constructive criticism, very well; they lash out, they blame their critics, etc. This is often to cover up the opposite: insecurity. And the overwhelmingly growing narcissist population in this county, fueled by self-interested Facebook crap and look-at-me selfies, is part of what makes Trump's personality so acceptable to so many.

botley
03-30-2016, 04:04 PM
Well, because he's a narcissist. Narcissists don't react to criticism, even constructive criticism, very well; they lash out, they blame their critics, etc. This is often to cover up the opposite: insecurity. And the overwhelmingly growing narcissist population in this county, fueled by self-interested Facebook crap and look-at-me selfies, is part of what makes Trump's personality so acceptable to so many.
"Adulting is hard" (trans: I refuse to accept the burden of social responsibilities or obligations)

allegro
03-30-2016, 04:54 PM
"Adulting is hard" (trans: I refuse to accept the burden of social responsibilities or obligations)
With Millennials, it's linked to the "Self-Esteem Movement" of the 80s (https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/compassion-matters/201211/is-social-media-blame-the-rise-in-narcissism) but it probably started a little earlier than that, with kids born in the mid-70s and then the advent of cheaper video cameras and parents recording the child's every fart with video cameras and kids grew up thinking they're stars. You're right, though, too; helicopter parents led to the child's disinterest in being an adult and, really, why bother when you're a star?

Therapists have actually weighed in on Trump's NPD (http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2015/11/donald-trump-narcissism-therapists).


“In the field we use clusters of personality disorders,” Michaelis said. “Narcissism is in cluster B, which means it has similarities with histrionic personality disorder, borderline personality disorder, and antisocial personality disorder. There are similarities between them. [...] Narcissism is an extreme defense against one’s own feelings of worthlessness. To degrade people is really part of a cluster-B personality disorder: it’s antisocial and shows a lack of remorse for other people. The way to make it O.K. to attack someone verbally, psychologically, or physically is to lower them. That’s what he’s doing.”

What of Trump’s tendency to position himself as a possible savior to the economy despite the fact that four of his companies have declared bankruptcy? “It’s mind-boggling to me that that’s not the story,” said Michaelis. “This man has been given more than anyone could ever hope for,” he added, referring to the fact that Trump is not wholly self-made, “yet he’s failed miserably time and time again.” Licensed clinical social worker Wendy Terrie Behary, the author of Disarming the Narcissist: Surviving and Thriving with the Self-Absorbed, said, “Narcissists are not necessarily liars, but they are notoriously uncomfortable with the truth. The truth means the potential to feel ashamed. If all they have to show the world as a source of feeling acceptable is their success and performance, be it in business or sports or celebrity, then the risk of people seeing them fail or squander their success is so difficult to their self-esteem that they feel ashamed. We call it the narcissistic injury. They’re uncomfortable with their own limitations. It’s not that they’re cut out to lie, it’s just that they can’t handle what’s real.”

DigitalChaos
03-30-2016, 06:52 PM
I'm still voting for Hillary because of SCOTUS. Although, her bellicose shit makes me nuts.

Jill Stein lets you keep your soul though.

DigitalChaos
03-30-2016, 06:56 PM
Ok, beyond the Dem/GOP circle jerk of hate, anyone watching any 3rd party debates?

The first Libertarian debate not hosted on 1980's high school AV tech is being broadcast this Friday. http://reason.com/archives/2016/03/30/a-better-choice-for-2016

Johnson, McAfee, and Petersen. It's a bit surreal because I've been friends with Petersen for years. Seeing him up there with these big names is crazy.



edit: apparently it's the first nationally televised libertarian debate ever. Airs in 2 parts. http://alibertarianfuture.com/2016-libertarian-party-nomination/stossel-libertarian-party-debate-times-and-dates-announced/

allegro
03-30-2016, 08:22 PM
Jill Stein lets you keep your soul though.

Will she even be ON the national ballot? I like her, she's from Highland Park (where I've owned a home for nearly 20 years) but it's awfully difficult to vote for her.

DigitalChaos
03-30-2016, 08:36 PM
Will she even be ON the national ballot? I like her, she's from Highland Park (where I've owned a home for nearly 20 years) but it's awfully difficult to vote for her.

She was on several of the 2012 ballots wasn't she? I swear she was on CA's. That race landed her the best results of any prior female presidential candidate ever, IIRC.

allegro
03-30-2016, 08:55 PM
She was on several of the 2012 ballots wasn't she? I swear she was on CA's. That race landed her the best results of any prior female presidential candidate ever, IIRC.

Yeah, evidently (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jill_Stein_presidential_campaign,_2012)!


In terms of general election votes, Stein is the most successful female presidential candidate in U.S. history.

Although Hillary is going to destroy that record.

I really like Jill (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jill_Stein), although I think her 2012 choice for VP was not good.

Substance242
03-31-2016, 05:17 AM
Here something for you from theOatmeal, #donmojis:
http://theoatmeal.com/comics/donmojis

Bachy
04-01-2016, 05:05 PM
You know, if Trump gets elected, we'd be heading towards Year Zero right on schedule.

Mantra
04-01-2016, 06:24 PM
What's everyone's current guess on who Trump's going to pick for his running mate?

onthewall2983
04-01-2016, 07:46 PM
Keith Olbermann was on Bill Simmons' podcast yesterday. He made some excellent points about what's going on, especially about how social media relates to politics. Also had a good point about how good it is that there are red and blue states right next to each other, as opposed to all in one part of the country which is essentially how the Civil War started. By the fact that the left/right thing is so nationwide, he couldn't see what's going on now going to those kinds of extremes.

sick among the pure
04-01-2016, 08:15 PM
What's everyone's current guess on who Trump's going to pick for his running mate?
A clone of himself. Because he needs someone who is great and has the best words to be his running mate. Then sometime around september/october there will be a freak accident involving a water bottle being thrown on stage and it will be revealed that the clone was actually a pile of Cheetos with some straw superglued on top.

thevoid99
04-01-2016, 09:18 PM
What's everyone's current guess on who Trump's going to pick for his running mate?

Sarah Palin.

DigitalChaos
04-02-2016, 12:00 AM
Bloomberg just did a great investigative story on what happens inside the electoral corruption efforts as it concerns hacking. This is a story about a lot of countries in latin america, but some of the same people are now, reportedly, working with Trump during the primaries and is chatting with a separate candidate for the general election. You think it's Hillary or Sanders? :) All of this is alleged, as these things always go... but empty allegations don't tend to require bullet proof vests and multiple cops with bomb shields protecting someone in a court room!


All the hacking talked about in this article is fairly basic stuff. There are many people who can pull it off. All of it is applicable to the US political system too. So, this is a great insight into the corruption happening behind the scenes. Most people try and ignore the reality of this kind of thing. Those that acknowledge it don't really understand how prolific it is or what the consequences are. This article does a great job of illuminating some of that.

http://www.bloomberg.com/features/2016-how-to-hack-an-election/

If you don't start connecting a few dots in historical and current US politics after reading this story, you might not have been awake for the last 5-10 years :)
“My job was to do actions of dirty war and psychological operations, black propaganda, rumors — the whole dark side of politics that nobody knows exists but everyone can see.”

DigitalChaos
04-02-2016, 06:31 PM
here is part 1 of the first ever televised libertarian party debate:

First min is a bit glitchy, as it's some random TV rip someone made.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iib0nyobUQM



I.... kinda like McAfee. I take issue with certain stances of all 3 of these candidates, but it's still interesting to watch.

implanted_microchip
04-02-2016, 08:01 PM
That Libertarian debate crowd is exactly what I expected it to look like, holy shit

onthewall2983
04-02-2016, 10:52 PM
Sarah Palin.

Eh... (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/sarah-palin-donald-trump_us_56fff2a1e4b0daf53aefd260?ncid=fcbklnkushp mg00000063)

Congrats to Bernie Sanders for winning Nevada.

GulDukat
04-03-2016, 06:59 AM
What's everyone's current guess on who Trump's going to pick for his running mate?
I don't think he's going to be the nominee.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/its-probably-first-ballot-or-bust-for-donald-trump-at-the-gop-convention/

Mantra
04-03-2016, 12:45 PM
the SCOTUS has already ruled that we can't just "get rid of" the Affordable Care Act but that it must be replaced with something similar or better because people have already been relying on it for several years and it would cause undue hardship if it was removed completely

Hey Allegro, you made this post a few weeks back, and it was the first time I'd ever heard this. Do you by any chance have a link or something that explains more about this? Because I feel like this is actually kind of a huge deal. Was this part of the big 2012 decision or was it something else?

onthewall2983
04-03-2016, 12:51 PM
I don't think he's going to be the nominee.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/its-probably-first-ballot-or-bust-for-donald-trump-at-the-gop-convention/

Now I'm beginning to think Cruz being the nominee won't be so bad, because if he does and Trump runs third party their collective crashes come November will be glorious to watch.

allegro
04-03-2016, 01:22 PM
Hey Allegro, you made this post a few weeks back, and it was the first time I'd ever heard this. Do you by any chance have a link or something that explains more about this? Because I feel like this is actually kind of a huge deal. Was this part of the big 2012 decision or was it something else?
Here is the syllabus and the Opinion (http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-114_qol1.pdf), DAVID KING, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. SYLVIA BURWELL, SECRETARY OF HEALTH, AND HUMAN SERVICES, ET AL., Jun 15, 2015.

Chief Justice Roberts wrote the Opinion. The final paragraph says it all, really:


In a democracy, the power to make the law rests with those chosen by the people. Our role is more confined—“to say what the law is.” Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177 (1803). That is easier in some cases than in others. But in every case we must respect the role of the Legislature, and take care not to undo what it has done. A fair reading of legislation demands a fair understanding of the legislative plan. Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them. If at all possible, we must interpret the Act in a way that is consistent with the former, and avoids the latter. Section 36B can fairly be read consistent with what we see as Congress’s plan, and that is the reading we adopt. The judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit is Affirmed.

See also this:

The combination of no tax credits and an ineffective coverage requirement could well push a State’s individual insurance market into a death spiral. It is implausible that Congress meant the Act to operate in this manner. Congress made the guaranteed issue and community rating requirements applicable in every State in the Nation, but those requirements only work when combined with the coverage requirement and tax credits. It thus stands to reason that Congress meant for those provisions to apply in every State as well.

See this for featured highlights (http://www.nola.com/health/index.ssf/2015/06/inartful_drafting_best_lines_f.html).

But see also this (http://theweek.com/articles/562898/john-roberts-liberal-hero-how-chief-justice-destroyed-conservative-case-against-obamacare).


That brings me to the "replacement" rhetoric. Roberts' clear account of ObamaCare's policy mechanism, and the damage that would be done should any of its main prongs be removed, deals a body blow to the conservative health care wonks who have been trying to cook up a replacement policy for the last five years — in particular, a plan without the unpopular individual mandate. But as Roberts plainly shows, that leads straight to disaster.

Also note that this SCOTUS decision makes it pretty clear that an Executive Order CANNOT undo the ACA; it can only be amended via Congress (the Legislature).

DigitalChaos
04-03-2016, 03:37 PM
That Libertarian debate crowd is exactly what I expected it to look like, holy shit
that'd be the 50 person Stossel/Fox Business crowd. But yes.

Sallos
04-03-2016, 05:50 PM
If there ever was an election to vote third party, this is it. Gary Johnson 2016! Feel the Johnson!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCS6PbtbGmA

Mantra
04-03-2016, 09:07 PM
Here is the syllabus and the Opinion (http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-114_qol1.pdf), DAVID KING, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. SYLVIA BURWELL, SECRETARY OF HEALTH, AND HUMAN SERVICES, ET AL., Jun 15, 2015.

Chief Justice Roberts wrote the Opinion. The final paragraph says it all, really:



See also this:


See this for featured highlights (http://www.nola.com/health/index.ssf/2015/06/inartful_drafting_best_lines_f.html).

But see also this (http://theweek.com/articles/562898/john-roberts-liberal-hero-how-chief-justice-destroyed-conservative-case-against-obamacare).



Also note that this SCOTUS decision makes it pretty clear that an Executive Order CANNOT undo the ACA; it can only be amended via Congress (the Legislature).

Okay, awesome, THANKS! I just read through that whole PDF, lol. Very interesting.

I was asking because a friend of mine was saying yesterday that she was afraid of a Republican president getting in and undoing ACA, which has made a big difference in her life. I wanted to mention all this SCOTUS stuff right here, but since I didn't understand the details of it, I decided not to say anything in case I was wrong.

But reading through all this stuff now, it seems like all the GOP candidates who are promising to get rid of ACA are really just saying that shit to try and win votes by telling GOP voters whatever they want to hear. In reality, it's mostly just an empty threat, because ACA is so legally entrenched and established at this point.

And I think it's absolutely amazing that all the lawsuits and the campaigns to destroy Obamacare are actually what made this possible. If they had never filed their stupid lawsuits and brought this to the Supreme Court in the first place, the court would have never had the opportunity to make this decision in the first place. Their crusade brought about their own undoing.

aggroculture
04-03-2016, 09:47 PM
Their crusade brought about their own undoing.

I really hope this is and will be the story of conservatism in general.

allegro
04-03-2016, 10:10 PM
Okay, awesome, THANKS! I just read through that whole PDF, lol.
The Opinion is great because it does a great job of explaining how and why insurance rates had been steadily rising, etc. People blame the ACA for that but it's false. The fact that this is the 2nd time that Roberts' Court upheld the ACA (and Roberts wrote this opinion) was also a big blow to conservatives who don't understand how the SCOTUS works (including Trump).

Mantra
04-04-2016, 12:33 AM
The fact that this is the 2nd time that Roberts' Court upheld the ACA (and Roberts wrote this opinion) was also a big blow to conservatives who don't understand how the SCOTUS works (including Trump).

What do you mean?

allegro
04-04-2016, 09:44 AM
What do you mean?

SCOTUS Justices are there to strictly interpret laws, not to be puppets of political parties.

Trump has said if he were to choose another SCOTUS Justice, that Justice would be nothing like Roberts, "especially after that Obamacare decision" but this Opinion, whether or not you like Obamacare, makes sense and the dissent is ridiculous, hence the 6-3 decision.

Mantra
04-04-2016, 12:03 PM
SCOTUS Justices are there to strictly interpret laws, not to be puppets of political parties.

Trump has said if he were to choose another SCOTUS Justice, that Justice would be nothing like Roberts, "especially after that Obamacare decision" but this Opinion, whether or not you like Obamacare, makes sense and the dissent is ridiculous, hence the 6-3 decision.

Oh right, yeah. Well in general, I feel like the supreme court is being viewed in increasingly partisan ways. Or maybe it's always been that way.

The Trump comments are kind of hilarious because Roberts was appointed by Bush and even if he's not as conservative as Scalia or Thomas, he is still, by and large, a conservative justice.

allegro
04-04-2016, 12:43 PM
The Trump comments are kind of hilarious because Roberts was appointed by Bush and even if he's not as conservative as Scalia or Thomas, he is still, by and large, a conservative justice.
Right up until the time Roberts makes decisions that aren't considered conservative (and there have been several). Kennedy (appointed by Reagan) replaces now-retired Sandra Day O'Connor (another Reagan appointee) as the Court's swing vote; O'Connor was one of the most moderate Justices in the Court's history. Breyer is also considered a moderate, though appointed by Clinton.

Here, see this (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/27/upshot/a-more-nuanced-breakdown-of-the-supreme-court.html).

DigitalChaos
04-04-2016, 05:04 PM
Barney Frank on Sanders voters:
“I think it is a lack of information, to be honest,” he said on “MSNBC Live with Jose Diaz-Balart” when asked why Sanders is resonating with voters.

“You have people, I believe, who do not understand how hard it is to make change. [It is] the importance of not just being idealistic, but being sensibly pragmatic and keeping their ideals. Sanders is getting their support.”
Frank said some of the voters who are frustrated with the Democratic establishment have unrealistic expectations about what a president can deliver.

“You have people who don’t understand, frankly, the nature of the American political system,” he said. "It’s the separation of powers.

“It takes — because of the Constitution, not because of any one individual — two elections to get a governing majority in America,” added Frank, who has endorsed Clinton.

“People are reluctant to blame themselves, [and] people like to find somebody else to blame, so now they’re saying, 'Sanders pointed out it’s the system’s fault.' I think that’s unfortunate.”


http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/275080-barney-frank-sanders-fans-have-a-lack-of-information-on


hah, holy shit. That's 100% correct. Problem is, it's not just Sanders supporters that suffer from this problem. I'm not sure if Sanders supporters exhibit the issue more than others though. allegro beat Barney Frank by like a month or so.

sick among the pure
04-04-2016, 05:23 PM
Barney Frank on Sanders voters:
“I think it is a lack of information, to be honest,” he said on “MSNBC Live with Jose Diaz-Balart” when asked why Sanders is resonating with voters.

“You have people, I believe, who do not understand how hard it is to make change. [It is] the importance of not just being idealistic, but being sensibly pragmatic and keeping their ideals. Sanders is getting their support.”
Frank said some of the voters who are frustrated with the Democratic establishment have unrealistic expectations about what a president can deliver.

“You have people who don’t understand, frankly, the nature of the American political system,” he said. "It’s the separation of powers.

“It takes — because of the Constitution, not because of any one individual — two elections to get a governing majority in America,” added Frank, who has endorsed Clinton.

“People are reluctant to blame themselves, [and] people like to find somebody else to blame, so now they’re saying, 'Sanders pointed out it’s the system’s fault.' I think that’s unfortunate.”


http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/275080-barney-frank-sanders-fans-have-a-lack-of-information-on


hah, holy shit. That's 100% correct. Problem is, it's not just Sanders supporters that suffer from this problem. I'm not sure if Sanders supporters exhibit the issue more than others though. @allegro (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=76) beat Barney Frank by like a month or so.

I don't know any Bernie supporters who think if elected he would magically be able to change everything he wants to right away. We understand there's a process, and that we need to vote on members of every political position, not just the president, to see anything get done. Bernie supporters aren't voting for him because "ooo that sounds cool I want that to happen!" but because he is the only one who wants to push toward the future we want to see for this country, and has been fighting for these things his entire career.
People keep using the "Bernie supporters are uneducated" line to discredit us.

DigitalChaos
04-04-2016, 05:28 PM
I don't know any Bernie supporters who think if elected he would magically be able to change everything he wants to right away. We understand there's a process, and that we need to vote on members of every political position, not just the president, to see anything get done. Bernie supporters aren't voting for him because "ooo that sounds cool I want that to happen!" but because he is the only one who wants to push toward the future we want to see for this country, and has been fighting for these things his entire career.
People keep using the "Bernie supporters are uneducated" line to discredit us.

So he is going to drop his ability to actually create legislation and move into a role that grants him the power to execute the legislation that doesn't even exist. How is that "pushing forward" anything? The big thing with sanders is income inequality. WTF is a president Sanders going to do about that?

Free College?
Money out of politics?
$15 min wage?
Gender wage gap?
etc

He has more power NOW than he would as president.

The stuff a president has power in is stuff Sanders keeps avoiding, like foreign policy.

allegro
04-04-2016, 05:30 PM
What's everyone's current guess on who Trump's going to pick for his running mate?
Chris Christie.

allegro
04-04-2016, 05:33 PM
I don't know any Bernie supporters who think if elected he would magically be able to change everything he wants to right away. We understand there's a process, and that we need to vote on members of every political position, not just the president, to see anything get done. Bernie supporters aren't voting for him because "ooo that sounds cool I want that to happen!" but because he is the only one who wants to push toward the future we want to see for this country, and has been fighting for these things his entire career.
With a Republican-controlled Tea Party House that not likely to change anytime soon due to gerrymandering, and with the Senate under Republican control that could possibly change with this election but with voters so hyperfocused on the Presidential election they don't know enough to understand that they have to worry about the Senate, too, President Sanders will get none of what he wants against a Republican-controlled Tea Party Congress that will give Sanders four more years of obstructionism. Executive Powers don't give him enough control to do the things he is promising; that is typical Election Schtick. Kind of like "Yes We Can" and "Change we can believe in" and "Building a bridge to the 21 century."

DigitalChaos is right; Bernie has more power as a Senator to get the things he wants than he does as President. The President isn't primarily a Legislator; that's CONGRESS's job. The President has more power with foreign policy than the domestic type policies that Bernie seeks. Also, the truth is that the socialist type policies that sound really great require taxation against corporations that will ultimately cause those corporations to leave this country. They are already leaving; Mondelez built a $150 million facility in Mexico where it will be making Oreos, Wheat Thins, etc., taking over 1200 American jobs (600 in Chicago, alone) (http://www.progressillinois.com/posts/content/2016/03/10/chicago-nabisco-bakery-workers-rally-save-their-jobs-video) with it in order to save taxes and wages and make more profits, and that's just one of many examples. (Mondelez said they would stay here if workers would take a 60% cut in wages and benefits.) A minimum wage increase for all businesses, with no exemptions, will simply kill small businesses in this country, period. A better idea is to make minimum wage jobs a stepping stone or an entry level job, not a "living wage" that provides permanent incomes to people; that's not what minimum wage jobs are intended to do; tax incentives to provide promotions and raises is a better option, or better and more Federal loans and grants for college or trade schools, not strapping people into permanent minimum wage jobs. But Republicans in control in Congress will never ever approve a minimum wage increase of that level, ever. Sounds good, ain't happening. Hell, I don't think $15 for a Federal level will happen with State's rights even with Dems. I know full-time Secretaries who make $15 per hour; that's $31,000 per year. That's middle class (http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/data-mine/2015/12/10/the-middle-class-is-shrinking-and-the-rich-are-getting-richer-pew-report-says). And for teens at McDonald's (unskilled labor) to make the same thing? Ain't happening.

Meanwhile, here's what Trump says about Mondelez:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrTDfA3X56k

Mantra
04-04-2016, 07:54 PM
Chris Christie.

Yeah, maybe Christie, but I was also thinking that Carson seemed likely. If Trump makes it to the GE, he's gonna have to tone down his rhetoric and transition into a more "reasonable" mode, and Carson would help with that much more than Christie. Christie is just repulsive and totally uncharismatic on every level. He has so little to offer the Trump campaign that Trump himself doesn't already got covered. But Carson's got his whole "calm and reasonable" thing that he tries to put on, which might help win back some of the bitter traditional Republicans who didn't want Trump in the first place, so he'd have a better chance at lending credibility to Trump's "moderate" re-branding efforts than Christie ever could. Also, choosing Carson might help with repairing Trump's shitty-ass reputation on race, at least maybe a little bit. I just feel like Carson has more to offer Trump's campaign.


I'm not sure if Sanders supporters exhibit the issue more than others though.

Well yeah, that's not a Sanders thing, that's an America thing. The day after Obama got elected, I remember seeing this video of some young Obama supporter saying "He won! I'm not gonna have to worry about a job anymore! I don't have to worry about putting gas in my car! He's gonna take care of me!" lol, seriously. And it's no different than the legions of starry-eyed Trump fans who view him as their savior. That's just the way America is. They don't understand that Presidents aren't kings. That ignorance isn't the fault of any particular candidate, so I really don't see any legitimate reason why Frank would be singling out Sanders beyond the obvious goal of campaigning for Hillary.

And really, in terms of being smart and practical, it seems like everyone forgets that in order to pass good legislature, you have to get good people into office, which requires HIGH TURNOUT. Democrats are always struggling with their turnout, especially in congress. Their best shot is during the presidential cycle, when Democratic voters have mainly come out to vote for the president and will then proceed to vote along the party lines, even if they don't know jack shit about their congressional races. But those same people are not nearly as likely to show up in the midterms, which is why Dems always seem to get slaughtered there. Republicans don't seem to struggle with this quite as much (instead, they're currently having to contend with the possibility that they may never get back into the white house in the foreseeable future without a fucking miracle). So really, the Dems best shot is to score huge on the presidential cycle and be as productive as possible before they get chewed up in the next midterm. With that in mind, I've always felt that Hillary was a somewhat weaker choice for purely strategic reasons. For a party with a propensity for voter apathy, Hillary isn't ideal. She ain't Obama. There's no guarantee that the progressive masses are gonna turn out in droves to rally behind her. And that in turn will hurt their prospects in congress, I think. Sanders would get most of the Hillary voters anyway, plus extra, which will help boost the Dems overall in the congressional races.

allegro
04-04-2016, 08:32 PM
Yeah, maybe Christie, but I was also thinking that Carson seemed likely. If Trump makes it to the GE, he's gonna have to tone down his rhetoric and transition into a more "reasonable" mode, and Carson would help with that
But Trump has said several times that his running mate will be political (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/02/24/trump_will_pick_someone_political_for_vp_somebody_ that_can_help_pass_legislation.html) since Trump isn't. Carson definitely isn't, either.


Well yeah, that's not a Sanders thing, that's an America thing. The day after Obama got elected, I remember seeing this video of some young Obama supporter saying "He won! I'm not gonna have to worry about a job anymore! I don't have to worry about putting gas in my car! He's gonna take care of me!" lol, seriously. And it's no different than the legions of starry-eyed Trump fans who view him as their savior. That's just the way America is. They don't understand that Presidents aren't kings. That ignorance isn't the fault of any particular candidate, so I really don't see any legitimate reason why Frank would be singling out Sanders beyond the obvious goal of campaigning for Hillary.
Out of all the current candidates, what Sanders is selling is the most unrealistic, Frank is correct. I don't think that Frank is singling out Sanders as far as how most voters are misinformed. Most voters are misinformed. Just like how they think that Cruz or Trump can "tear up" the Iran nuclear agreement (they can't, since 5 other countries signed the agreement) or overturn the ACA (they can't, only Congress can do that, per SCOTUS).

DigitalChaos
04-04-2016, 08:52 PM
It would be interesting to see a PolitiFact style site that compares a candidates selling points against the realities of the powers of a president. A sliding scale between "the people want a king" and "the people understand US Gov 101"

I agree that most citizens view the president as King, but I do feel that Sanders is probably the most on the side of "would need to be king"... which is kind of ironic considering how authoritarian the other candidates seem. But that's the reality of a lot of his policy stances... authoritarian as fuck.

I'm curious if Hillary or Trump end up taking 2nd place for it. It's definitely wrong for the unspoken subtext in Barney Franks comments to imply that Hillary voters aren't prone to the same issue, even if they may be lesser.


edit: and if you watch the clip, you'll see that Trump was also included in the question (alongside Sanders)

implanted_microchip
04-04-2016, 10:04 PM
Chris Christie.

I would think he's more likely Trump's Attorney General spot. Having an unpopular governor of NJ be his running mate when he's from NY wouldn't help him much at all or appeal to any other crowds than he already does, which is generally a goal for VPs. I don't see Christie bolstering any of Trump's weak spots.

On another note, after being bitchy as all fuck about debates, Sanders is now getting one with Clinton and released the most passive-aggressive, douchey statement possible about it:

“Fortunately, we were able to move a major New York City rally scheduled for April 14 to the night before. We hope the debate will be worth the inconvenience for thousands of New Yorkers who were planning to attend our rally on Thursday but will have to change their schedules to accommodate Secretary Clinton’s jam-packed, high-dollar, coast-to-coast schedule of fundraisers all over the country.”

allegro
04-04-2016, 10:35 PM
I would think he's more likely Trump's Attorney General spot. Having an unpopular governor of NJ be his running mate when he's from NY wouldn't help him much at all or appeal to any other crowds than he already does, which is generally a goal for VPs.
Yeah, I wondered about that, too, that's true; a little too East Coast Power for the rest of the country. But he will choose somebody already in politics, most likely somebody who's already a legislator which means somebody already in Congress. Hmmm ...

Mantra
04-04-2016, 10:40 PM
Out of all the current candidates, what Sanders is selling is the most unrealistic, Frank is correct.

Yeah but that sort of depends on why he's claiming Sanders' campaign is unrealistic. He says Bernie supporters "do not understand how hard it is to make change," which, I believe, is mostly just pointing out that Sanders may have to negotiate with an obstructionist Republican congress. He's obviously right about that. If congress continues on the path it's been on for a while now, we're just going to see a rehash of Obama's later years and very little will get accomplished.

But this holds true for nearly all candidates in this race, with the exception of maybe Kasich. A Republican congress would be ultra hostile to Trump and probably even Cruz, given that the party loathes both of them, albeit to varying degrees. When Trump says he's gonna eliminate the national debt by doing a one time 14% tax on the one percent, it ain't like congress is just gonna hand that to him on a platter. And Hillary? The majority of Republicans fucking despise Hillary and will fight her tooth and nail on everything. Hillary herself actually has a pretty decent plan for overhauling education (https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2015/08/10/college-compact/), a plan which would make community college totally free and do a bunch of other cool stuff. We can rest assured that a Republican congress will fight her plan just as strongly as they would Sanders. That's basically all the fucking Republicans know how to do at this point in their existence. They are the party who throws tantrums and grounds the nation to a halt. That's their whole brand.

implanted_microchip
04-04-2016, 10:40 PM
Yeah, I wondered about that, too, that's true; a little too East Coast Power for the rest of the country. But he will choose somebody already in politics, most likely somebody who's already a legislator which means somebody already in Congress. Hmmm ...

Jeff Sessions wouldn't stun me necessarily, and would do a lot to court the "true Conservative" people who deny that he's a Republican (personally I don't think Donald Trump is anything other than whatever he thinks can net him support and popularity).

allegro
04-04-2016, 11:26 PM
Jeff Sessions wouldn't stun me necessarily, and would do a lot to court the "true Conservative" people who deny that he's a Republican (personally I don't think Donald Trump is anything other than whatever he thinks can net him support and popularity).
Ahhhhahaha you must have read this same article (http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/04/inside-the-donald-trump-presidential-campaign.html)??? :p Jeff Sessions absolutely spot on.

allegro
04-04-2016, 11:32 PM
Trump says he's gonna eliminate the national debt by doing a one time 14% tax on the one percent, it ain't like congress is just gonna hand that to him on a platter.
Trump says he wants to tax a one-time fee on trust funds of 14%. That doesn't affect big business. Republicans are big business. Who the fuck KNOWS where that will go. Trump, himself, is a TFB (Trust Fund Baby).


And Hillary? The majority of Republicans fucking despise Hillary and will fight her tooth and nail on everything. Hillary herself actually has a pretty decent plan for overhauling education (https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2015/08/10/college-compact/), a plan which would make community college totally free and do a bunch of other cool stuff. We can rest assured that a Republican congress will fight her plan just as strongly as they would Sanders. That's basically all the fucking Republicans know how to do at this point in their existence. They are the party who throws tantrums and grounds the nation to a halt. That's their whole brand.
Absolutely true. The obstructionists wouldn't just be against Sanders; they'd do it against any Democrat. That's why all those Republicans are voting for Trump: to get rid of the Obstructionists.

implanted_microchip
04-05-2016, 12:11 AM
Ahhhhahaha you must have read this same article (http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/04/inside-the-donald-trump-presidential-campaign.html)??? :p Jeff Sessions absolutely spot on.

I had not seen this, actually, but thanks for the link! That was a great read. Sessions would be a pretty good pick for him and I'd be surprised if he wasn't at the bare minimum on the shortlist of names he's considering. Sessions as VP, Christie as Attorney General, Palin as Secretary of Energy, Carson as Surgeon General - those are the kinds of picks I could see him making, and from where he's sitting, they'd all be good ones. It'd be the perfect nightmare of conservatism.

Mantra
04-05-2016, 12:43 AM
Palin as Secretary of Energy

god help us!

implanted_microchip
04-05-2016, 01:04 AM
god help us!

You're telling me, but this is a position she's openly said she wants, and I get the general impression from Trump's endorsements that he's made people promises to come out and endorse him in exchange. Just imagine that for a few good, frightening moments.

allegro
04-05-2016, 01:32 AM
You're telling me, but this is a position she's openly said she wants, and I get the general impression from Trump's endorsements that he's made people promises to come out and endorse him in exchange. Just imagine that for a few good, frightening moments.
I don't think that will happen, personally. She's an ornament, at this point, and he's said he wants to eliminate that whole department so, bye bye.

For what it's worth (probably absolutely nothing) but my Political Science Award of the Year
(so far) goes to:

* kleiner352
* DigitalChaos
* Mantra
* sick among the pure
* elevenism

and an Honorable Mention to Sallos for linking Johnson and his Johnson (and he's absolutely correct),

sick among the pure
04-05-2016, 02:54 AM
my Political Science Award of the Year
(so far) goes to:
[...]
* @sick among the pure (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=266)


https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/58/19/0c/58190c3f3f268d02915f04060f4e6bd6.gif
Sometimes I feel like I shouldn't leave the comfort of the NIN subforum.

Jinsai
04-05-2016, 03:52 AM
I'm just going to pay attention at this point when I feel like I can handle it... whatever it is. I'm not a young man anymore, I need to keep my blood pressure down. If Trump becomes a real potential candidate, I will be sad and then I'l protest, and stuff like that. It won't matter or make a difference in any way, but I'll do it... I'll eventually vote for whatever candidate is opposing trump or cruz. I'd vote for Carrottop over Trump or Cruz

theimage13
04-05-2016, 07:29 AM
“You have people, I believe, who do not understand how hard it is to make change. [It is] the importance of not just being idealistic, but being sensibly pragmatic and keeping their ideals. Sanders is getting their support.”
Frank said some of the voters who are frustrated with the Democratic establishment have unrealistic expectations about what a president can deliver.

Problem is, it's not just Sanders supporters that suffer from this problem. I'm not sure if Sanders supporters exhibit the issue more than others though. @allegro (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=76) beat Barney Frank by like a month or so.

Yeah, this problem definitely exists among the entire population - I don't mean everyone thinks that way; I mean that every candidate has voters with unrealistic expectations for change. I think it SEEMS like it's higher among Sanders' supporters because he's put out much loftier goals that are in stark contrast to the way things are now. Why do you vote for a candidate? Because you believe in their ideas. So the implication is that voting for someone means you believe that their ideas have a shot at becoming more than just words.

Do Sanders' supporters believe that putting him in the White House will mean free higher education or a drastically increased national minimum wage or amazing health care? Well yes, I do believe that there is a portion of his voters who think that way. But I believe that there are also voters who have a much more realistic grasp of how politics work, and are merely voting for him because they want someone who is at least trying to move things in a way that they agree with, instead of voting for someone who wants to keep things going exactly as they are.

Mantra
04-05-2016, 02:27 PM
For what it's worth (probably absolutely nothing) but my Political Science Award of the Year
(so far) goes to:

* @kleiner352 (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=4417)
* @DigitalChaos (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=598)
* @Mantra (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=925)
* @sick among the pure (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=266)
* @elevenism (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=2475)

and an Honorable Mention to @Sallos (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=776) for linking Johnson and his Johnson (and he's absolutely correct),

Haha, thanks. *high five*

ETS has better political commentary than any cable news show.

Mantra
04-05-2016, 02:47 PM
You're telling me, but this is a position she's openly said she wants, and I get the general impression from Trump's endorsements that he's made people promises to come out and endorse him in exchange. Just imagine that for a few good, frightening moments.

Yikes.

On that note, this inspired me to google our current secretary of energy, Ernest Moniz (who, I must confess, I had never even heard of before a few seconds ago). And I just gotta say, this dude seriously has the coolest fucking haircut of anyone in politics right now.

http://media.npr.org/assets/img/2014/10/03/166169195_sq-fab9d530f0a8bd7328b34438ea107ad97bdeeff0-s300-c85.jpg
http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/OB-WZ344_Moniz_E_20130408154457.jpg
http://c.o0bg.com/rf/image_585w/Boston/2011-2020/2014/02/05/BostonGlobe.com/Metro/Images/Was8183851.jpg

Man, I can't WAIT to get old so I can do my hair exactly like this dude. All the men in politics have the most bland haircuts ever. What's up with that? Obviously they're not gonna have a blue mohawk or something really wild, but honestly, what's with the complete lack of dudes with longer hair? It's not like we're in the 1940s when guys having long hair wasn't 100% accepted. This guy's hair ain't even that long, and still, he's an incredibly rare sight in american politics. I mean, here is a guy who's at least trying to have some style. Dude's an american hero as far as I'm concerned. Give him a damn medal or something.

allegro
04-05-2016, 05:21 PM
Wow, it's the Man Bob, like Michael Hutchence (http://cdn.scahw.com.au/cdn-1cf23a96b1a61d0/ImageVaultFiles/id_224975/cf_3/michael-hutchence-inxs-2-628.jpg) but not as curly and kinda Ben Franklin.

elevenism
04-05-2016, 05:34 PM
despite the horrors of this election season, for someone who enjoys politics, it's been the campaign of a lifetime in terms of entertainment value.
Who saw Trump coming? And who would have dreamed that Bernie would make it this far?
If we get a contested GOP convention, it will be thrilling like double overtime in a game 7 NBA championship.

onthewall2983
04-05-2016, 07:38 PM
http://youtu.be/i0CZfliVMAo

implanted_microchip
04-05-2016, 09:25 PM
What'd everyone think of Bernie's laughably bad interview with NYDN?

http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/05/politics/bernie-sanders-interview-new-york-daily-news/index.html

Between this and a whole lot of other things over the past few months, I'm at the point where I consider myself a full-blown Clinton supporter. For months speculative people said "He's all stump speeches and no specifics" and people like me said "That's just to spread his message, come elections that'll change," and now he'll sit on CNN and basically admit to having no idea what to do. This guy believes some absurd "political revolution" will take place where "a million college-age students will be outside Congress" protesting. It's just ridiculous. He's done nothing to support Dems in Congressional races this November. He continues to dodge any question that demands an answer of substance and he continues to fall back on "I voted against Iraq" as his entire foreign policy credentials.

I just have felt extremely disaffected in general by the Sanders campaign and the vocal contingency of his supporters. It's ridiculous to me.

Deepvoid
04-05-2016, 09:43 PM
Cruz and Sanders picking up Wisconsin.
That's how many in a row for Sanders? 6?

Jinsai
04-06-2016, 03:17 AM
just found myself in an internet rabbit hole, discovering some crazy racist blog... articles about how Dylann Roof wasn't racist, conspiracy theories about how he was obviously framed, and how Donald Trump is being attacked by "savage" illegal immigrants.

Jesus, I feel like I need to wash my laptop in lye. Whether or not Trump actually courts these "voters" is a hard question to answer, but he definitely is doing as little as possible to discourage that sort of support, and he's saying all the things that get these people off.

Mantra
04-06-2016, 04:31 AM
What'd everyone think of Bernie's laughably bad interview with NYDN?

I thought some of his answers were really sloppy, but seeing people today act like this was some incredibly revealing smoking gun moment in his campaign felt like a weird stretch.

In general, I think Sanders is grilled on policies to an extent that's just unrealistic for any president. Obama didn't personally write the ACA. Congress wrote it under his overall direction, and they were the ones who worked out the specifics. Bush didn't write NCLB, Johnson didn't write the Economic Opportunity Act, and FDR didn't write the Social Security act. Bernie shouldn't be required to justify his ideas by launching into some 5 minute monologue about the fine details of a piece of legislation he himself will not even be writing. Even if he did have some hyper-detailed plan, it wouldn't matter because that'll all change as the policy gets fleshed out in congress, kinda like how Obama claimed during his campaign that he was totally against the individual mandate, and yet that's exactly what the ACA has.

And that shit was so petty where they were asking him to list the specific laws he thought that had been violated in the mortgage crisis. What exactly were they wanting him to clarify? The banks sold mortgage-backed securities knowing fully well that they were bundled with fucking garbage ARMs that were guaranteed to fail, so we're clearly talking about some form of fraud. He's not a lawyer, he's never gonna be like, "I believe they should be found guilty of violating Section 112 of Public Law 90-321..." But we all know precisely what he's referring to, so what's the point of nitpicking over it?

implanted_microchip
04-07-2016, 02:34 AM
Well, Bernie just nuked his whole thing:

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/sanders-clinton-not-qualified-for-presidency-660527171846

Calling the most accomplished woman in American political history unqualified for the presidency after making up an imaginary quote from her - wow. What in the fuck was he thinking when he said this? Who in his campaign said "You know what would be a hit"? What in his mind let him say, "These words will come out of my mouth and I will say them with confidence and continue to support them"?

Just, holy shit. This is crazy. He just invited every single attack on Earth and will deserve all of them. This is the guy who was all "Oh we're running a positive campaign." What a fuck-up.

What's everyone else make of this? I'm interested, especially in Mantra and allegro's take.

GulDukat
04-07-2016, 03:23 AM
Well, Bernie just nuked his whole thing:

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/sanders-clinton-not-qualified-for-presidency-660527171846

Calling the most accomplished woman in American political history unqualified for the presidency after making up an imaginary quote from her - wow. What in the fuck was he thinking when he said this? Who in his campaign said "You know what would be a hit"? What in his mind let him say, "These words will come out of my mouth and I will say them with confidence and continue to support them"?

Just, holy shit. This is crazy. He just invited every single attack on Earth and will deserve all of them. This is the guy who was all "Oh we're running a positive campaign." What a fuck-up.

What's everyone else make of this? I'm interested, especially in @Mantra (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=925) and @allegro (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=76)'s take.
I am very disappointed in Sanders. While I voted for Clinton in MA, I really liked Sanders and admired him. I liked how he didn't attack Clinton and how he really tried to talk about the issues. His recent comments about Clinton being "unqualified" show that he is as self-righteous and obnoxious as some of his supporters. Also, he knows that the math isn't there for him to win the nomination, so he is talking about winning via superdelegates and a contested convention. Nice way to unite the party....

richardp
04-07-2016, 09:33 AM
Well, Bernie just nuked his whole thing:

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/sanders-clinton-not-qualified-for-presidency-660527171846

Calling the most accomplished woman in American political history unqualified for the presidency after making up an imaginary quote from her - wow. What in the fuck was he thinking when he said this? Who in his campaign said "You know what would be a hit"? What in his mind let him say, "These words will come out of my mouth and I will say them with confidence and continue to support them"?

Just, holy shit. This is crazy. He just invited every single attack on Earth and will deserve all of them. This is the guy who was all "Oh we're running a positive campaign." What a fuck-up.

What's everyone else make of this? I'm interested, especially in @Mantra (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=925) and @allegro (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=76)'s take.

This isn't going to change anything with Bernie supporters. None of us like Hilary to begin with. While I think she actually IS qualified to be President, this doesn't change my opinion on Bernie at all.

It's out of character for him for sure, and it is disappointing to see him stoop to her level, but at the same time, like I said, it doesn't change anything. His policies and ideas are still way ahead of Hilary and he's got his heart in the right place.

Just my two cents on this.

theimage13
04-07-2016, 10:38 AM
This isn't going to change anything with Bernie supporters. None of us like Hilary to begin with. While I think she actually IS qualified to be President, this doesn't change my opinion on Bernie at all.

It's out of character for him for sure, and it is disappointing to see him stoop to her level, but at the same time, like I said, it doesn't change anything. His policies and ideas are still way ahead of Hilary and he's got his heart in the right place.

Just my two cents on this.

You're missing the point: Sanders needs to be ADDING voters in order to get the nomination. Most of his supporters would be behind him virtually no matter what, as your sentiment demonstrates.

It's the undecideds and the Clinton supporters that need to be on Sanders' side if he wants to have a shot at the nomination. If you take one of the biggest thing his supporters have been touting - his positive, "focus on accomplishments instead of trashing the opponent" campaign - and erase it, then you erase a lot of the reasons to view him any more positively than any other candidate. At that point, you risk voter apathy. Instead of drawing someone over to your side, you just convince them that "well, I don't like any of these people" and they end up staying home instead of casting a ballot.

Not losing a supporter and gaining new support are two very different things, and a shift to a negative campaign will destroy his chances at the latter, and more important, factor.

implanted_microchip
04-07-2016, 10:55 AM
This also pretty much makes it open season for Hillary to attack him, and there's plenty she could use against him without having to make comments that imply Obama and almost any Congressman that voted on Iraq (after being fed false intel, mind you, and at a time where the majority of Americans supported action) is unqualified to be president. I can already see the "bread lines are a good thing!" quote of his combined with his lines about Cubans fucking loving Castro being turned into a really cutting attack ad. I can already see all the various quotes from members of Congress from over the years expressing their distaste for him being used.

The biggest most important thing ultimately in a president is if they can actually get things done and if they have a record that supports their ability to accomplish their goals. Bernie lacks it, big time. He's big on principle, and big on rhetoric, but he's had, what, three pieces of legislation pass, two of which were renaming post offices? He has done fuck-all to support Dems trying to gain Congressional seats this November and if he doesn't do that, if elected he would be able to do as much as Obama has, which is not very much, and that's with far fewer allies than Obama has.

He lacks allies in government, he lacks connections that will allow him to make deals and get things done, he lacks any clear foreign policy experience at a time where that is a high priority for people and he basically implied last night that any candidate who has run for office in recent years is unqualified. He seems like he could not respect Obama less yet calls him a "good friend" and says how much he likes him, despite calling for Dems to contest his nomination in 2012. I used to support this guy, a lot, and it's just totally unraveled for me.

You can say these things won't change anyone's minds, but they've changed mine. It's been accumulative, and this really did it to where I can't say I support him whatsoever now. He went on and on and on about not running a negative campaign and blah blah blah blah blah integrity and now he's just letting the crowd boo a woman who he helped approve for Secretary of State and talking ludicrous shit about her? That is so opposite of what his message was all about. And he's all about this "political revolution" yet he is doing NOTHING to change the make up of Congress, NOTHING to endorse and support down ticket candidates. His image was his best thing going for him and he's completely ruining it with this petty shit. He is not going to be the nominee and he is just making it more and more likely that a lot of his supporters will stay out of the game entirely in an election year where it's really, really important they participate.

And richardp you can say "none of us like Hillary any way," but as someone who actually voted for this fucker in Florida in February, guess what? I certainly do. I've always liked her, and even hesitated in the polling booth. I'm just really, really glad that the rest of the state didn't do the same thing I did. I've seen you pick a lot of bones with statements generalizing the behavior of Bernie fans, and now you're marginalizing yourself by saying that. There are a lot of on the fence and moderate Dems and a lot of people who liked both and were leaning Bernie that are not going to respond well to any of this bullshit, at all, and that's what it is: it is bullshit. This guy implies that Obama is a corrupt president. His campaign came out and claimed how oh, these corporations need to realize that Hillary is lying to them and will go against their interests when in office -- doesn't that then negate their big critique of her?

I'm just sick of the holier-than-thou, self-righteous, condescending bullshit from a guy who was massively helped by the NRA in the 90's, who is defying his own promises of his campaign's behavior, who bellyaches for debates and then throws fits about them when they're not thoroughly accommodating to him and only him, who continues to fundraise fucktons from lower income people while running a campaign that mathematically almost certainly will not be nominated. He's such a "feelings" candidate and those feelings aren't good anymore at this point to me, and I doubt I'm really the only former Bernie supporter feeling this way. Maybe people so dug in out of some hatred for Hillary won't change, but a lot of Democrats do not have that big of an issue with her, and the only reason I'm not proudly considering myself a supporter of hers is the incredibly toxic environment that so many Bernie supporters have created online that makes it practical suicide to say so. I cannot tell you the facebook comments I have gotten just by suggesting that she is not Reagan in disguise or Hitler's long lost granddaughter.

richardp
04-07-2016, 11:56 AM
I see what you guys are saying for sure. And actually I'm not as against Hilary as other Bernie supporters are. I would vote for her in a hot second if she gets the nomination. My problem with her is that I just don't trust her. I think she'd do wonders for our foreign relations and stuff, I just think she's too easily swayed by money when at this point we need someone who doesn't care about money but cares about the people, you know?

but I totally get what you're saying about him gaining supporters. Completely valid argument. I'm inclined to think that it won't hurt him quite as bad as you'd think though.

Also so I don't always agree with demonizing of Hilary that a majority of Bernie supporters engage in. I think their minds are in the right place, but due to the nature of this election they don't know how to not still be somewhat supportive of other candidates that aren't the one you choose.

If any of that makes sense.

allegro
04-07-2016, 12:22 PM
I cannot tell you the facebook comments I have gotten just by suggesting that she is Reagan in disguise or Hitler's long lost granddaughter.
I think some of these are Cruz plants disguised as Bernie Bros, honestly. I've looked at the profiles of a lot of the people making evil and disparaging comments on Hillary's Instagram feed, the ones with the #FeeltheBern hashtags, and I was REALLY surprised to see a ton of Pro-Life, Pro-Jesus profiles. Which does not fit the profile of the typical Bernie supporter. And then I found out that protesters were getting paid $15 per hour to protest at Trump rallies, (http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/03/31/craigslist-ad-offers-protesters-15-hour-crash-wisconsin-donald-trump-rally) and at first they LOOKED like Bernie supporters but now it appears that they're really CRUZ supporters disguised as Bernie supporters. Trojan Horses. I've never seen anything like it. Really, some of this organizational stuff from the Bernie camp against Trump at this point, when Trump hasn't even won any nomination, make zero sense. At least wait until the guy wins the nomination; which makes more sense that the initial organization efforts would come from the Cruz camp, to stop Trump (so that Cruz can win the nomination, instead). And the Cruz vs. Hillary Trojan Horse is just to get Hillary out of the way to make Sanders what they perceive is a much easier win for Cruz.

implanted_microchip
04-07-2016, 12:26 PM
When I see the Hillary-bashing of Bernie fans I just see liberals doing the GOP's job for them.

And allegro I'm sure that happens but these are comments from people on my friend's list who I know personally. Unless Cruz is kidnapping and conditioning these people (and I wouldn't put it past him), these are genuine Bernie fans being complete and utter irrational and hateful tools. Cruz has pulled some of the most under-handed shit this election though and has largely gotten a free pass, it's just nuts.

allegro
04-07-2016, 12:30 PM
This is the craziest election shit I've ever seen, for sure.

Hillary has her detractors, but I think that's just underlying sexism, sadly, just like Obama has brought underlying racism.

I like a lot of elements of Bernie's platform, but I also know for a fact that Bernie Sanders has represented one of the wealthiest states in the nation for his entire career. Calling himself a "socialist" under those circumstances is an oxymoron. He voted against the Brady Bill because his constituents in Vermont are pro-gun. He's running as a Democrat but he's an Independent. He's not perfect, but he's a good candidate. However, as this election gets closer to the end, things are going to get more nasty; that's a fact. Even Bernie, himself, can't avoid that. But as has been mentioned, Bernie is bringing out voters who want to "re-boot" the system, who are fed up with status quo, who want "change" (echoes of Obama), in very much the same way the Trump is doing on the Republican side. In the very least, Bernie and Trump are getting people involved in the election process.

What is sad is that we know that nothing will really change; because a President cannot effect these changes. This is all just campaign speak. That's why so many people are disappointed with Obama, and all that "change" he promised, like repeal the Patriot Act, single-payer healthcare, close Gitmo ... here's a list of the changes that never happened (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/rulings/promise-broken/).

Mantra
04-07-2016, 01:40 PM
@kleiner352 (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=4417), maybe I'm just desensitized after being glued to the GOP primary for so long, but I actually don't see what's so unacceptably negative about his comments. It's literally the exact same critiques he's been saying since the beginning, just with the added "not qualified" part, which was in direct response to this: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/04/06/clinton-questions-whether-sanders-is-qualified-to-be-president/

Why is Maddow calling this a "tipping point?" lol, it's not a tipping point. The primary's getting little more heated, but that was bound to happen sooner or later. It's gonna get pretty messy over the next two weeks leading up to New York, but it's nothing compared to the Republicans insulting each other's wives and genitals and whatnot. I feel like people on every side are a little overly eager to see some repeat of Howard Dean's scream, where a campaign collapses in one spectacular moment. I remember the night when Hillary tried to defend her Wall Street stuff by invoking 9/11, and people were like "Oh my GOD! Can you BELIEVE what she just said??!! Welp, that's it lady's and gentlemen! That's it, it's all over! Hillary just fucked up BIG TIME and now her campaign is TOAST." And it's like....come on. Stop trying to inject manufactured "tipping points" into the narrative. People say stupid things, but that doesn't mean their campaign is "nuked." That's just cable news media trying to entertain their customers.

Wolfkiller
04-07-2016, 02:43 PM
I don't see how calling Hillary out on her bullshit is being negative. It's truthful. Just because Trump is exponentially worse doesn't mean we can't acknowledge Hillary is still really bad and the thought of voting for her leaves a bad taste in progressive people's mouths.

implanted_microchip
04-07-2016, 11:44 PM
Well, Obama is now starting to pretty much all but endorse Hillary after remaining impartial for so long:

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/obama-clinton-qualified-president-221685#ixzz45APbF7vk

And here he is talking a lot about what I've been scared of Dems doing this election:

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/275546-obama-warns-dems-against-tea-party-mentality

@Mantra (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=925) does it really count as the same critiques when he literally is now saying the exact opposite as he did here, in which he claimed voting for Iraq wasn't disqualifying and defended her on it:

http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/11/bernie-sanders-hillary-clintons-iraq-war-vote-doesnt-disqualify-her-candidacy/

Jinsai
04-08-2016, 03:09 AM
Honestly, at this point, if Hillary is the candidate I'll be voting for Jill Stein. Not like my vote matters anyway at that point, since I don't live in Ohio. I just don't want to live with the guilt of having given her a stamp of approval... even if it's against Trump.

What we really need is a reformation of the voting system in this country, which is totally broken. Wonder why the turnout is so low? It's because in most states in this country your vote ultimately gets tossed in the trash, and that goes out as well to my neighbors in the conservative pockets of northern California. We need a system where every vote is counted. The overall popular vote should decide the general election at the very least, and we need to stop staggering the primaries. It's maddening to consider how futile this process makes you feel, and it's insulting when they imply that it's your "duty as a citizen." Fuck that.

What we have now is a farcical form of democracy.

Exocet
04-08-2016, 04:25 AM
I really love Bernie Sanders the most....I think he would be great for America...

I love how real he seems. Hillary seems so fake...I dunno I don't hate Hillary. In terms of foreign policy I think she would be better.
That's the only thing I worry about Bernine.
But internally in the U.S... I think Bernie would be amazing.

People worry about Socialism...and how it has sometimes fucked up European economies....it HAS been a benefit to Europe but it also has been a detriment to economic growth in some ways.
There are always pros and cons... But ultimately it did change things forever for the better in the long run.

Look there are some pathetic socialist leaders I cannot stand like Francoise Hollande in France.

But America does not need to worry about its economy tanking...its the biggest in the world. its always going to be ok.
If Bernie fucks ups its not going to affect America in the long run...it will only be a few years...but I say him a chance. be an interesting experiment. Its almost a necessary experiment now .

implanted_microchip
04-08-2016, 05:54 AM
I don't see how calling Hillary out on her bullshit is being negative. It's truthful. Just because Trump is exponentially worse doesn't mean we can't acknowledge Hillary is still really bad and the thought of voting for her leaves a bad taste in progressive people's mouths.

You can call it that, but he essentially just said that Obama and Biden and John Kerry and almost every other Democrat elected in the last sixteen years has no qualification to be president. He's running this ideological purity test of sorts that's frighteningly reminiscent of Cruz's attitude towards "real Conservatives." Hell, the main SuperPAC backing her was Obama's last election. I guess Obama lacks the qualifications to be president?

And this guy openly defended her on the Iraq vote last fucking June. Now he's saying that disqualifies her? He also voted yes on her appointment to Secretary of State -- you know, the position 4th in line for the presidency. This guy is 100% flipping on this subject and suddenly succumbing to basically the Bernie Bro narrative of the world. Considering that his fans loved going "which Hillary hurr durr" all the time, it sure is funny that Bernie can go and do this and it just be "HE'S JUST TELLING THE TRUTH GUYS I DON'T SEE WHAT'S WRONG." Bull-fucking-shit.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CfaPsF7WIAESCOT.jpg:large

Where's that Bernie Sanders now? What happened to the guy who talked like that?

And you can't just say "leaves a bad taste in progressive people's mouths" and speak in that kind of generalization. A ton of progressive people like her. Plenty of liberals support her. She wouldn't have more votes right now if that wasn't the case. You can say "some" but to just imply that anyone who is a "true' progressive wouldn't vote for her happily is just absurd and is going by an extremely narrow definition of the term.

Wolfkiller
04-08-2016, 06:38 AM
This is probably a rant for another thread, but part of the problem is the progressive label has been hijacked by people who actually buy into and perpetuate nonsense like "Bernie Bros."
Maybe as more and more stuff comes out about Hillary, he's gotten to the point where he doesn't want to defend her anymore. It's okay to change your mind based on facts and evidence, as opposed to only telling people what they want to hear. But I'm sure he's just flip flopping to appease those darn sexist Bernie Bros!

implanted_microchip
04-08-2016, 07:42 AM
Maybe as more and more stuff comes out about Hillary, he's gotten to the point where he doesn't want to defend her anymore. It's okay to change your mind based on facts and evidence

Well I guess something changed his mind again in a whole day, or else he would support someone who isn't qualified, because now he's saying this:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton_us_5706fbbde4b03a9e75d3fd93

Just, show me the consistency here. At all. The dude goes on a stage and claims Hillary called him unqualified, which never happened, then says it about her. You know, the lady who even Marco Rubio said "if we make this election about resumes, she'll win." It's erratic and makes no sense.

And you can act like there isn't a contingency of Bernie supporters who fit that moniker but the fact that "Bernie or bust" is a thing and every time he mentions Hillary on a stage, the stadium sounds like a Trump crowd really begs to differ with that. Go on twitter sometime and look at the Bernie accounts that rant and storm anyone who says anything critical of him or so much as makes the evil mistake of mentioning that Hillary has done some good things.

Wolfkiller
04-08-2016, 09:17 AM
Did you even read the link you posted? He doesn't have to believe she's qualified in order to support her against even less qualified people like Trump. What does the "Bernie Bros" narrative have to do with the "Bernie or bust" movement? I'll answer for you: nothing. One is the same bullshit strategy Hillary tried to use on Obama before rebranding it against Bernie, and the other is a group of people that are sick of voting for the lesser of two evils and want to see real change.
Where is your demand for her consistency, by the way?

implanted_microchip
04-08-2016, 09:48 AM
First off, I voted for him in my primary. I've since regretted it and no longer support him, but I used to. Whatever narrative you want to spin on me as a Hillary supporter, go ahead -- you're probably wrong and I do not care what you think about me, Wolfkiller.

I am so baffled by how dismissive of this bullshit Bernie fans are being. It's that echo chamber mentality that began to push me away from his campaign in the first place, the desperate persecution of any suggestion of a flaw in the guy, the plugged-ears shut-eyes behavior. I loathe it. The only places I've not seen people treating the unqualified coment as a big deal have been places full of hardcore Bernie fans. I know people who no longer support him over it. It's a big deal. It's a huge blunder and it just isolated himself even further demographically. He almost certainly won't have the delegates needed to win and yet he is just deciding to say stupid shit like that now and it's ridiculous.

I don't mind some inconsistency in theory and expect it ultimately -- but Bernie is so loud about calling people out on it and has such a platform of "I'm not negative and I am so consistent and I'm so pure," and so many of his supporters behave as if he is just so perfect no matter what. It comes off as extremely hypocritical. Tons of his supporters have bitched and moaned for eight months about "#WhichHillary" and shit like that yet when Bernie turns around and sounds hypocritical there are a million excuses and it's so different and I just don't know what I'm talking about? Okay. Great.

Him saying that voting for Iraq disqualifies you from being president is just fucking stupid. Saying that about SuperPACs is just ridiculous. He is doing a lot to divide a party whose biggest strength has been the ability to get along as the Republican party eats itself alive. He won't be nominated but he will continue to make things more and more contentious. The guy is doing Fox News' job for them at this point.

God it is just like GamerGate douchebags who go "It's not sexist we're not sexist you can't say that that's a really small minority!" Uh, no, it is not a small minority. Look on twitter. Look on Facebook. Look on tumblr. Go to a rally. Look at Hillary's mentions on twitter. You cannot convince me these people do not exist.

I'm done talking about it, I'm tired of feeling irritated about this. His fans are his biggest weakness. I know several people in person who are put off by them and the shit they deal with on social media. I have met those kinds of supporters, a lot of them. I know a girl who has had to block people who were Bernie fans for harrassing her over supporting Clinton. There's this liberal purist green Tea Party of a contingency that just refuses to crawl out of its own ass.

But whatever. Clearly he is just flawless and there are no reasons to have issues with the guy.

Oh, and one last article - Nobel Prize-winning liberal economist Paul Krugman explaining why he has no confidence in Sanders:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/08/opinion/sanders-over-the-edge.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-right-region&region=opinion-c-col-right-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-right-region&_r=0

Wolfkiller
04-08-2016, 10:43 AM
I love this place. Never ceases to amuse me. The lack of self awareness in your posts... oh boy! ;)
I never claimed he was perfect. He's said (or at the very least, approved Facebook posts) cringe-worthy stuff like repeating the wage gap myth and quoting the fucking pope, for example. But seeing you throw a hissy fit about his oh so over the top negative (aka truthful) comments and damning inconsistency (that takes two seconds of rational nuanced thinking to debunk) as if either of those are remotely comparable Hillary's record is laughable.
So I'm probably wrong about you supporting her? Wtf does that even mean? You're only probably supporting her but not enough for me to be right? :rolleyes:

implanted_microchip
04-08-2016, 10:49 AM
wage gap myth
Well, that says all I need to know about you.

DigitalChaos
04-08-2016, 12:07 PM
My problem with her is that I just don't trust her. ... I just think she's too easily swayed by money when at this point we need someone who doesn't care about money but cares about the people, you know?


...

I would vote for her in a hot second if she gets the nomination.


fucking gross
Like, for real man??? Sadly, that's representative of many voters. Democracy Fuck Yeah!






Honestly, at this point, if Hillary is the candidate I'll be voting for Jill Stein. Not like my vote matters anyway at that point, since I don't live in Ohio. I just don't want to live with the guilt of having given her a stamp of approval... even if it's against Trump.

What we really need is a reformation of the voting system in this country, which is totally broken. Wonder why the turnout is so low? It's because in most states in this country your vote ultimately gets tossed in the trash, and that goes out as well to my neighbors in the conservative pockets of northern California. We need a system where every vote is counted. The overall popular vote should decide the general election at the very least, and we need to stop staggering the primaries. It's maddening to consider how futile this process makes you feel, and it's insulting when they imply that it's your "duty as a citizen." Fuck that.

What we have now is a farcical form of democracy.
Yes!
But remember, what you are seeing isn't "the voting system in this country" it's just the primaries right now so it's "the voting system in your party." I don't know exactly what the path to the change looks like for Dems, but I'm pretty sure you can't blame republicans for preventing that change.

Has any plan of attack been proposed so far? I haven't seen any. Once the primaries close, there won't be enough interest in support a fix.

richardp
04-08-2016, 12:10 PM
fucking gross
Like, for real man??? Sadly, that's representative of many voters. Democracy Fuck Yeah!

Who the fuck else would I vote for that actually has a chance at winning? I'm sure as shit not voting for a Republican. Sooooo I either vote for the Democratic candidate or I don't vote at all, and let the Republicans take the victory?

http://gifsec.com/wp-content/uploads/GIF/2014/09/Funny-Hmm-O-rly-oh-really-Orly-Suspicion-Suspicious-Will-Smith-GIF.gif

DigitalChaos
04-08-2016, 12:45 PM
Who the fuck else would I vote for that actually has a chance at winning? I'm sure as shit not voting for a Republican. Sooooo I either vote for the Democratic candidate or I don't vote at all, and let the Republicans take the victory?



man, fucking myopic party-line voters

I realize Dems can't plan long term enough to even build Congress seats, but have you weighed the value in a Hillary loss (if she gets the party nomination) for the future of your party? What do the next candidates look like when the voters say "fuck your offerings" during this iteration? That signal is even stronger if you vote for someone else (3rd party, etc) vs just not voting.

Alan Grayson on Obama vs Romney voting:
"There are only five or six states that matter in this election; in the other 44 or 45, your vote on the presidential level doesn’t matter. It is as decorative as a vote for an “American Idol contestant.” So, unless you are in one of the few swing states that matters, a vote for Obama is simply an unabashed endorsement of his policies. But if you are in a swing state, then the question is, what should you do?"

This is the kind of mentality that brought the left from heavily protesting the civil liberties violations and war crimes of Bush to simply accepting/ignoring them under Obama.

This is the advocacy of the establishment and the solidification of the establishment. "If that's what you give me, i will take it, because that is the only option I recognize"

Khrz
04-08-2016, 12:57 PM
To be crude and vulgar, one shouldn't be surprised to eat shit for the rest of their life if their only reaction when faced to a bowl of turds is "well at least it doesn't smell as bad as that other one".

You're supposed to be able to actually pick a meal, If you keep on eating what you're fed as the quality degrades, you'll keep on getting shittier and shittier options, since "feeding them shit works, guys ! Let's give 'em more of that, and even worse !"
You're not supposed to stay puzzled in front of the menu and pick feces anyway just because "there's nothing else". I agree -for once- with @DigitalChaos (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=598) here, that's a terrible, terribly dangerous (mis)use of democratic power.

allegro
04-08-2016, 01:07 PM
Well, that says all I need to know about you.
Yup, you didn't know that already?

richardp
04-08-2016, 01:14 PM
Ok if we're all so dumb or whatever for voting for Hilary if she gets the nominations, TELL ME, what the fuck are we supposed to do. Like I said earlier, are we supposed to not vote? Are we supposed to get online and continue posting fucking memes and articles until we assume change will happen?

I don't understand what your angle is here. You realize, regardless of what your opinions are on candidates, it will be ONE republican vs ONE democrat no matter what. Voting for anything other than one of those candidates will LITERALLY do nothing. I'd rather vote for the candidate that actually has a shot at winning, that isn't Trump or Cruz.

SO TELL ME. What is your genius plan for getting a non-republican ACTUALLY elected President that isn't Hilary Clinton or Bernie sanders.

I would LOVE to hear how well this plan will work.

Khrz
04-08-2016, 01:26 PM
Ok if we're all so dumb or whatever

Really sorry if you were offended ot felt attacked, I believe our strong language was only a reflection of how a "democracy by default" horrifies us.

To answer your question, at this point there's not much you can do indeed. But having to vote for the lesser of two evils isn't a new phenomenon either, right ? The problem is that people have become lazy and complacent, and can't be hassled to actually act upon their democratic right.
It's supposed to be a system where you actually express your opinion, not one where you strike one of two options you're being spoonfed when the powers that be deign to ask you to pick. The power of the people is the responsibility of the people. You're supposed to act, raise your voice, vote for the people you actually support earlier in the process, participate, inquire, protest... Of course if you do none of that, you'll be extremely lucky to end up with a candidate you can get behind.

It's like everything else, if you don't make your choices clear, those choices will be made for you, which is exactly what is happening right now, and will happen again next time. It can get even worse, you could end up having to choose between a Cruz-type candidate and a full-on fascist warmonger. It has happened before, it will happen again. This is where Democracy-via-Apathy leads every time.

allegro
04-08-2016, 01:37 PM
The very fact that Bernie Sanders, a life-long Independent, was forced to run as a Democrat just to "have a chance" of getting elected shows what a gutless system was have. (Although, in Congress, "Independent" pretty much means "Democrat." Notice how many Libertarians and Green Party people we have in Congress. Go ahead. I'll wait here.)

DigitalChaos
04-08-2016, 01:41 PM
what the fuck are we supposed to do
... reread my post?
I thought it was pretty clear. If you have a specific question on it, let me know.

allegro
04-08-2016, 01:43 PM
... reread my post?
I thought it was pretty clear. If you have a specific question on it, let me know.

These guys are too young and not nerdy enough to remember Ross Perot (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1992).

richardp
04-08-2016, 02:36 PM
... reread my post?
I thought it was pretty clear. If you have a specific question on it, let me know.

I did re-read your post several times, and there wasn't an answer that makes any sense. All you're doing is fucking shaming people who will vote for the "lesser of two evils" because they realize that that's the only option. You posting smart-ass fucking responses about people not voting for some unheard of candidate that offers ZERO chances of actually winning is literally just you pushing your own political agenda. You're not starting a discussion about what options are. You're acting like a condescending dick, who just SCOFFS at society because YOU'RE THE ONLY ONE WHO HAS IT FIGURED OUT and everyone else, they just don't "get it" because they're a bunch of, what'd you call us, "fucking myopic party-line voters".


Really sorry if you were offended or felt attacked, I believe our strong language was only a reflection of how a "democracy by default" horrifies us.

To answer your question, at this point there's not much you can do indeed. But having to vote for the lesser of two evils isn't a new phenomenon either, right ? The problem is that people have become lazy and complacent, and can't be hassled to actually act upon their democratic right.
It's supposed to be a system where you actually express your opinion, not one where you strike one of two options you're being spoonfed when the powers that be deign to ask you to pick. The power of the people is the responsibility of the people. You're supposed to act, raise your voice, vote for the people you actually support earlier in the process, participate, inquire, protest... Of course if you do none of that, you'll be extremely lucky to end up with a candidate you can get behind.

It's like everything else, if you don't make your choices clear, those choices will be made for you, which is exactly what is happening right now, and will happen again next time. It can get even worse, you could end up having to choose between a Cruz-type candidate and a full-on fascist warmonger. It has happened before, it will happen again. This is where Democracy-via-Apathy leads every time.

Yeah man, I completely understand that if everyone was active enough and not complacent enough to stand up and fight for another candidate other than Hilary we'd be in a better situation. And technically that's what a lot of people are doing with Bernie, in my eyes. He's the better option for a lot us, and not the obvious one. But what's happening there? His movement keeps chugging along, but the media and all the people in Hilary's pocket are trying to de-rail that. So it could be Bernie Sanders or any other Democratic candidate that people feel is a better option, but it wouldn't matter, the same thing would happen.

So in my eyes, if the majority won't make an effort to fight against Hilary, the only option to still fight to keep Cruz or Trump out of office is to just vote for Hilary. Sure she is nowhere near what we need right now, but you cannot tell me that she wouldn't be a much better option than Cruz or Trump. Do you see where I'm coming from? This is why I'm going to vote for her if she gets the nomination.

In a perfect world, yes the people's vote would be the only thing that matters. But right now it's not. The voting process is all muddled up with all this other bullshit that takes the voice away from the people. But at this point what can you do. Vote for the lesser of two evils.

DigitalChaos
04-08-2016, 02:39 PM
The very fact that Bernie Sanders, a life-long Independent, was forced to run as a Democrat just to "have a chance" of getting elected shows what a gutless system was have. (Although, in Congress, "Independent" pretty much means "Democrat." Notice how many Libertarians and Green Party people we have in Congress. Go ahead. I'll wait here.)

And it's only gotten worse thanks to Obama.

He was the first candidate to ever turn down public campaign financing, because private financing means he doesn't have spending caps. The public $ that prior candidates made work just wasn't enough, gotta get that big money influence in your campaign! This was despite Romney asking him to agree to do public funding.

"but you gotta play the game to get in and then change things!" the Dems would say.


Then, in 2014, Obama banned public campaign financing (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/04/obama-act-public-funding-signs-aw) under a "for the dying children" titled act. It was done the day after SCOTUS removed campaign contribution limits. Obama supporters don't wanna talk about it.





As for libertarians, yeah... Gary Johnson was elected and reelected as governor under the Repub party. But when he runs as a Libertarian presidential candidate, his own state voters don't vote for him and later go "oh, THAT Gary Johnson?!" ... derp

DigitalChaos
04-08-2016, 02:45 PM
I did re-read your post several times, and there wasn't an answer that makes any sense. All you're doing is fucking shaming people who will vote for the "lesser of two evils" because they realize that that's the only option. You posting smart-ass fucking responses about people not voting for some unheard of candidate that offers ZERO chances of actually winning is literally just you pushing your own political agenda. You're not starting a discussion about what options are. You're acting like a condescending dick, who just SCOFFS at society because YOU'RE THE ONLY ONE WHO HAS IT FIGURED OUT and everyone else, they just don't "get it" because they're a bunch of, what'd you call us, "fucking myopic party-line voters".


You've simply proven my point, quite well. You see nothing but "how to prevent a slightly shittier candidate from getting this single seat right now because nothing else matters" and that's why this mentality is so toxic to democracy. You are creating your own groundhogs day political environment. You've completely ignored the alternate options I proposed.

And that means your answer to my question "have you weighed the value in a Hillary loss for the future of your party?" is a gigantic "LOL NOPE."

Khrz
04-08-2016, 03:15 PM
In a perfect world, yes the people's vote would be the only thing that matters. But right now it's not. The voting process is all muddled up with all this other bullshit that takes the voice away from the people. But at this point what can you do. Vote for the lesser of two evils.

Thus negating everything else you can do.

Let's be honest, "voting for the lesser of two evils" doesn't exist, just like "not voting as a form of protest". The elected only care about the numbers, they don't care about the reasons behind those. If Hillary is elected, it's because you endorsed her, not because you loathed the other guy. There is no "vote against X", it only exists in your own head. In the end it has exactly the same political impact as if you were a raging Clinton fanatic, and your vote will influence the next elections : "X amount voted for Clinton, Y amount voted for Trump. Those strategies/rethorics work, let's do more of that."

The very existence of a guy like Sanders is proof that voting isn't, indeed, your only recourse. He's still here because a fuckton of people acted, talked, discussed, made blog posts, argued, set the american flag on fire, what have you. They didn't wait for him to appear magically next to the finish line.
You loathe Sanders ? Great ! Next time, inquire about the candidates, about the elected officials who deserve to go further, talk about them, compare their positions and policies to those of the next Cruz or Clinton, attend rallies...
The more the people will invest in politics, the more the system will adapt and change, that's the very nature of the game.

richardp
04-08-2016, 03:20 PM
You've simply proven my point, quite well. You see nothing but "how to prevent a slightly shittier candidate from getting this single seat right now because nothing else matters" and that's why this mentality is so toxic to democracy. You are creating your own groundhogs day political environment. You've completely ignored the alternate options I proposed.

And that means your answer to my question "have you weighed the value in a Hillary loss for the future of your party?" is a gigantic "LOL NOPE."

Cool, then once again instead of sounding like a condescending piece of shit who only thinks HIS political opinion matters, how about you IN DETAIL actually explain how your way will work.

I want to you to explain to me step by step how YOU are going to get a President in office that is not Hilary, or a Republican. Just answer it if it's so "simple" to see.

Once again, you're not even open to having a mature dialogue. At least @Khrz (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=2023) had the decency to lower his guard and continue a discussion about it. You just are coming across as a fucking youtube conspiracy theorist or some shit that won't engage in conversation about how to make the current political landscape better. You're replies are just "LOL OMG FUCKING LOSERS. IF YOU DONT VOTE AGAINST THE SYSTEM FUCK YOU LOL I CANT BELIEVE YOU SHEEP DONT REALIZE LOL OMG IF YOU DONT GET IT NOW YOU NEVER WILL LOL THE ANSWERS ARE IN FRONT YOU LOL OMG WORTHLESS MYOPIC PARTY VOTERS LOL"


Thus negating everything else you can do.

Let's be honest, "voting for the lesser of two evils" doesn't exist, just like "not voting as a form of protest". The elected only care about the numbers, they don't care about the reasons behind those. If Hillary is elected, it's because you endorsed her, not because you loathed the other guy. There is no "vote against X", it only exists in your own head. In the end it has exactly the same political impact as if you were a raging Clinton fanatic, and your vote will influence the next elections : "X amount voted for Clinton, Y amount voted for Trump. Those strategies/rethorics work, let's do more of that."

The very existence of a guy like Sanders is proof that voting isn't, indeed, your only recourse. He's still here because a fuckton of people acted, talked, discussed, made blog posts, argued, set the american flag on fire, what have you. They didn't wait for him to appear magically next to the finish line.
You loathe Sanders ? Great ! Next time, inquire about the candidates, about the elected officials who deserve to go further, talk about them, compare their positions and policies to those of the next Cruz or Clinton, attend rallies...
The more the people will invest in politics, the more the system will adapt and change, that's the very nature of the game.

I personally think Bernie can pull through and over-take Hilary. And it's because us Bernie fans ARE fighting so hard for it. Absolutely. But deep down I know that a large chunk of other voters don't want to take the time to put in the effort. I completely realize that they just want want looks best at the moment without doing any research. And there are so many other Dem candidates that would be better than Hilary, but I honestly don't see people rising up and finding an alternative to Hilary. I see people just not voting if Bernie doesn't get the bid, and to me, that's more harmful than voting for Hilary. Because, to me, a whole slew of Democrats not voting just gives more and more votes to the Republicans. Do you see what I'm getting at here? I'd rather have someone in the white house that will be less dangerous. Regardless of what people will say, you know deep down when it comes time to vote, if it is Hilary vs. Trump/Cruz there won't be an alternative. To not vote for the less dangerous option is just giving the Republicans power. In my opinion, at least.

DigitalChaos
04-08-2016, 03:22 PM
Cool, then once again instead of sounding like a condescending piece of shit who only thinks HIS political opinion matters, how about you IN DETAIL actually explain how your way will work.

have you weighed the value in a Hillary loss for the future of your party?

DigitalChaos
04-08-2016, 03:56 PM
Seriously, lets talk about the positive aspects (for Dems) of Hillary winning the nomination and then the Dems rejecting her to the point that she loses the general.

tony.parente
04-08-2016, 04:05 PM
I think I would rather have a literal pile of dog shit run this country than that gigantic corporate phony clinton.

Swykk
04-08-2016, 04:22 PM
I like you DigitalChaos but you do come across in this thread and in the Guns thread as a guy who wants an armed revolution by "the people." Except what would happen is those people would be wiped the fuck out by the government/military's better weapons or fuck it, maybe just drones, and the media would have it written off as a gang of disgruntled and/or mentally ill rampage. It is not a reality in this day and age. So yes, it DOES in fact become a lesser of two evils.
Bernie is who I want and who I think is a step in the right direction, and who I will vote for but if he gets fucked, and he probably will, I cannot throw my vote away and give Trump or Cruz a chance.

Does this scenario suck? Fuck yes it does. But until money is out of politics...this is the reality.

Khrz
04-08-2016, 04:30 PM
I think I would rather have a literal pile of dog shit run this country than that gigantic corporate phony clinton.

You're in luck! This time it seems like it actually is an option!

DigitalChaos
04-08-2016, 04:31 PM
I like you @DigitalChaos (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=598) but you do come across in this thread and in the Guns thread as a guy who wants an armed revolution by "the people." Except what would happen is those people would be wiped the fuck out by the government/military's better weapons or fuck it, maybe just drones, and the media would have it written off as a gang of disgruntled and/or mentally ill rampage. It is not a reality in this day and age. So yes, it DOES in fact become a lesser of two evils.
Bernie is who I want and who I think is a step in the right direction, and who I will vote for but if he gets fucked, and he probably will, I cannot throw my vote away and give Trump or Cruz a chance.

Does this scenario suck? Fuck yes it does. But until money is out of politics...this is the reality.

This makes me happy, but my revolution comes in alternate forms. No guns needed.

But that's not related to the current topic. I'm focusing entirely on what will best achieve the desires of Sanders supporters in the hypothetical where Hillary wins the primaries. It's depressing watching people play tic-tac-toe on a chess board. Even the fucking Tea Party is a decade ahead of you guys in terms of playing the game. How do you maximize your political gains if Hillary is what the Dems offer? How do you get more Dems in Congress? More importantly, how do you get BETTER Dems in Congress that are more in line with Sanders? Pretty sure that dumping Hillary *hard* will send a pretty good signal that benefits these needs...

DigitalChaos
04-08-2016, 04:44 PM
This is a good time to post my favorite Jacques Ranciere quote:

"The police says that there is nothing to see on a road, that there is nothing to do but move along. It asserts that the space of circulating is nothing other than the space of circulation. Politics, in contrast, consists in transforming this space of ‘moving-along’ into a space for the appearance of a subject: i.e., the people, the workers, the citizens: It consists in refiguring the space, of what there is to do there, what is to be seen or named therein. It is the established litigation of the perceptible."

@Khrz (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=2023) - is Ranciere remotely popular over there? (being French philosopher and all)

allegro
04-08-2016, 11:09 PM
Look, guys, here's the reality of our American situation: we vote to KEEP THE BAD GUY OUT.

It's worse than voting for the "lesser of two evils."

It's voting to keep the most evil out.

It's a chess game.

Chess moves, two sides, pick a side and move to get rid of the King who has to die. Checkmate. Choosing a third side is playing a three-sided chess board. Doesn't exist. Not in our lifetime.

Consider what is at stake: SCOTUS justices, taxes, secular government, foreign policy, Social Security, peace, the environment ...

It's not about who wins but WHO YOU WANT TO LOSE because that person is too dangerous to be the winner.

Think "Risk" game but real life.

200+ years of this system is not bound to change soon. Vote to keep the bad person out, not the good person in.

Do not vote for your personal hero or savior because no such person exists, and we have term limits and impeachment provisions for a reason.

Career politicians are corrupt, lazy, and suspicious; trust none of them.

Mantra
04-09-2016, 12:17 AM
@Mantra (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=925) does it really count as the same critiques when he literally is now saying the exact opposite as he did here, in which he claimed voting for Iraq wasn't disqualifying and defended her on it:

http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/11/bernie-sanders-hillary-clintons-iraq-war-vote-doesnt-disqualify-her-candidacy/

Ha! That's pretty funny and amazing that there's a quote of him "flipflopping" like that.

I don't know what to say dude. I agree that the "not qualified" statements were kinda dumb, and if I was one of Sanders' campain people, I would have tried to steer him away from that strange argument. But in the grand scheme of things, I don't care. I don't feel, as you seem to, that this is some catastrophic betrayal of everything he's stood for.

At the end of the day, it's a matter of who I am and what I believe in. For better or for worse (probably for worse) I'm a hardcore lefty. I'm an activist. I've been arrested on multiple occasions for my political beliefs. I've been described as a "left wing extremist" by some of my friends. I believe in super radical forms of wealth redistribution. I'm essentially some kind of socialist, marxist, leftist, whatever-ist. This is who I am. I'm just never gonna support someone like Hillary. I may or may not begrudgingly vote for her if I feel like my state is a battle ground state and I can't stomach the thought of my state going for Ted Cruz or whoever, but still, she does not represent the things I want for my country. Ideally I would want to see the United States become more like some of the northern European/Scandinavian counties, with strong social safety nets and whatnot. I don't hate Hillary supporters. Most of them are perfectly good people. Hell, I just spent the evening hanging out with a Trump supporter, and all things considered, she's a fundamentally good person. I don't feel the need to go to war against Hillary supporters, but I'm also not gonna change my mind about this. No matter what happens in this primary, Sanders is the candidate whose beliefs most closely represent my own, so that's who I support. That's all that matters to me.

Wretchedest
04-09-2016, 03:06 PM
Look, guys, here's the reality of our American situation: we vote to KEEP THE BAD GUY OUT.

It's worse than voting for the "lesser of two evils."

It's voting to keep the most evil out.

It's a chess game.

Chess moves, two sides, pick a side and move to get rid of the King who has to die. Checkmate. Choosing a third side is playing a three-sided chess board. Doesn't exist. Not in our lifetime.

Consider what is at stake: SCOTUS justices, taxes, secular government, foreign policy, Social Security, peace, the environment ...

It's not about who wins but WHO YOU WANT TO LOSE because that person is too dangerous to be the winner.

Think "Risk" game but real life.

200+ years of this system is not bound to change soon. Vote to keep the bad person out, not the good person in.

Do not vote for your personal hero or savior because no such person exists, and we have term limits and impeachment provisions for a reason.

Career politicians are corrupt, lazy, and suspicious; trust none of them.

Yeah I feel like this is the reality, and the bigger reality is that it really isn't THAT bad. If there any lesson to learn from this election it's that there is in fact a lot of nuance between each of up to 6 candidates in only two parties.

I'm a very liberal guy, and I am a sanders supporter, but I think all the people who won't vote for hilary if she gets the nomination are just obtuse and selfish. As though she doesn't really hold specific major beliefs differently than trump or cruise. It's mind blowing. But here we are in a day and age of sensationalism and rampant yellow journalism and, above all else, black and white thinking.

Khrz
04-09-2016, 03:37 PM
Well that all turns to grey when you face the facts. How many people actually emigrated to Canada once Bush got elected a second time? How many for Obama? Not so black and white then...
People make a lot of noise and claim strong beliefs, the reality is that it all settles down once you actually have to make a choice.
Hell, people kept reading novels, dancing and talking about the weather under the third Reich.

GulDukat
04-09-2016, 05:09 PM
Why things don't look great for Sanders.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/bernie-sanders-is-even-further-behind-in-votes-than-he-is-in-delegates/?ex_cid=upshot&smid=fb-nytupshot&smtyp=cur

theimage13
04-09-2016, 08:56 PM
Why things don't look great for Sanders.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/bernie-sanders-is-even-further-behind-in-votes-than-he-is-in-delegates/?ex_cid=upshot&smid=fb-nytupshot&smtyp=cur

Long story short: To date, Sanders has captured 46 percent (http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/delegate-targets/democrats/) of Democrats’ pledged delegates but just 42 percent (http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/D) of raw votes. So even if Sanders were to draw even in pledged delegates by June — which is extremely unlikely — Clinton could be able to persuade superdelegates to stick with her by pointing to her popular vote lead.

GulDukat
04-09-2016, 11:59 PM
Long story short: To date, Sanders has captured 46 percent (http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/delegate-targets/democrats/) of Democrats’ pledged delegates but just 42 percent (http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/D) of raw votes. So even if Sanders were to draw even in pledged delegates by June — which is extremely unlikely — Clinton could be able to persuade superdelegates to stick with her by pointing to her popular vote lead.
But don't try telling that to (some) Sanders supporters, they're not big fans of math.

Jinsai
04-10-2016, 12:23 AM
But don't try telling that to (some) Sanders supporters, they're not big fans of math.

I'm just not a big fan of bullshit... conflating the superdelegate panic-button with the "popular vote" is spin. The superdelegates aren't going to be won over by an argument of popular support. If that were the case, Sanders would own that vote.

GulDukat
04-10-2016, 01:01 AM
I'm just not a big fan of bullshit... conflating the superdelegate panic-button with the "popular vote" is spin. The superdelegates aren't going to be won over by an argument of popular support. If that were the case, Sanders would own that vote.
Clinton is actually ahead with the popular vote. The Silver article explains how.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/bernie-sanders-is-even-further-behind-in-votes-than-he-is-in-delegates/?ex_cid=upshot&smid=fb-nytupshot&smtyp=cur

Jinsai
04-10-2016, 01:47 AM
Clinton is actually ahead with the popular vote. The Silver article explains how.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/bernie-sanders-is-even-further-behind-in-votes-than-he-is-in-delegates/?ex_cid=upshot&smid=fb-nytupshot&smtyp=cur

Lets simplify things and leave it up to a one-day popular vote election. I think Sanders would be in favor of that.

Yes, surprisingly enough, it probably is going to come down to California and New York here... but I live in Los Angeles, and I know literally ONE person who supports Clinton. Out of my hundreds of liberal friends, ONE is a big Clinton supporter. Everyone else begrudgingly admits they'll vote for her if it comes to that vs Trump. I know anecdotal evidence is bullshit, but this is just bizarre. These are the biggest liberal/dem battlegrounds, and I see a single Hillary bumper sticker for every five hundred I see for Sanders. Yet I'm being told that she's the leading candidate in the popular vote in my state?

Where are these supporters?!

implanted_microchip
04-10-2016, 03:30 AM
LA is just one part of California and one of the most liberal areas of it. Clinton does better with minorities than any other demographic. It's safe to assume she has a lot of the southern regions of California. In general there are a lot of reasons you only see Sanders support around despite her doing well in that state as a whole, not to mention no one's really started campaigning hard there.

allegro
04-10-2016, 12:43 PM
Where are these supporters?!
Here are a few (http://www.thepeoplesview.net/main/2016/3/30/the-silent-majority-how-hillary-clintons-enthusiasm-gap-is-a-complete-media-fabrication) interesting articles (http://www.salon.com/2016/03/29/the_strange_silence_about_hillarymania_clinton_fir es_up_voters_more_than_bernie_does_so_why_is_no_on e_talking_about_it/).

Where are her supporters? You are looking at a response from one, right now.

In my younger and naive days, I was a much more of a radical idealist. Now, I'm still a Democrat but I'm a realist.

Mantra
04-10-2016, 12:48 PM
Long story short: To date, Sanders has captured 46 percent (http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/delegate-targets/democrats/) of Democrats’ pledged delegates but just 42 percent (http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/D) of raw votes. So even if Sanders were to draw even in pledged delegates by June — which is extremely unlikely — Clinton could be able to persuade superdelegates to stick with her by pointing to her popular vote lead.

This exact scenario already happened in 2008, and it didn't play out the way this article is predicting. Hillary had the popular vote, but Obama had more delegates. See this article from 2008 about her trying to persuade the superdelegates: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2008/05/clintons-closing-argument-to-superdelegates/53314/

Superdelegates don't give a shit about the popular vote. They do whatever the fuck they want. Their positions were created for purpose of being a counterbalance against a pure popular vote. The party leadership doesn't like the idea of voters having absolute control. They want a greater degree of influence that is not completely bound to the will of the people.


Yes, surprisingly enough, it probably is going to come down to California and New York here... but I live in Los Angeles, and I know literally ONE person who supports Clinton. Out of my hundreds of liberal friends, ONE is a big Clinton supporter. Everyone else begrudgingly admits they'll vote for her if it comes to that vs Trump. I know anecdotal evidence is bullshit, but this is just bizarre. These are the biggest liberal/dem battlegrounds, and I see a single Hillary bumper sticker for every five hundred I see for Sanders. Yet I'm being told that she's the leading candidate in the popular vote in my state?


Where are these supporters?!

I think Hillary supporters are just way more chill about their candidate and don't feel the need to do the whole bumper sticker/t-shirt thing.

allegro
04-10-2016, 01:01 PM
This exact scenario already happened in 2008, and it didn't play out the way this article is predicting. Hillary had the popular vote, but Obama had more delegates. See this article from 2008 about her trying to persuade the superdelegatehttp://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2008/05/clintons-closing-argument-to-superdelegates/53314/
The superdelegates CAN flip if they are persuaded but they are rarely persuaded; in 2008, Obama had more delegates and superdelegates so he won, hence why she was trying to get some of them to flip. Hence why Bernie is trying to get some of Hillary's superdelegates to flip, now. Horse trading can happen but it hasn't happened in a really long time

Current list of 2016 superdelegates (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Democratic_Party_superdelegates,_2016).

Unpledged (superdelegates (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdelegate)) exist "to make sure that party leaders and elected officials don't have to be in a position where they are running against grass-roots activists."

thevoid99
04-10-2016, 02:31 PM
The Boston Globe just unveiled a satirical front page of what will happen in January if the Fascist A$$hole becomes president: http://www.thewrap.com/boston-globe-envisions-life-under-president-trump-in-withering-satirical-front-page/

allegro
04-10-2016, 02:44 PM
The Boston Globe just unveiled a satirical front page of what will happen in January if the Fascist A$$hole becomes president: http://www.thewrap.com/boston-globe-envisions-life-under-president-trump-in-withering-satirical-front-page/

Gee, that sounds really familiar ... (http://fusion.net/story/252637/obama-has-deported-more-immigrants-than-any-other-president-now-hes-running-up-the-score/) really familiar ... (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/obama-family-deportation-raids-217329)

elevenism
04-10-2016, 10:38 PM
I haven't had much time to shoot the proverbial shit around here lately due to the wifey's health, BUT...

Barack Obama turned out to be GWB 2.0 (GWB. Also available in 50% african!)
Hillary Clinton=GWB 3.0! (GWB. Also available in Female!)

Each of the 3 supports: endless foreign wars. Ever encroaching surveillance and a semi-police state. Insane spending (mostly on useless shit, like endless foreign wars.) Taking ridiculous amounts of money from corporate lobbyists who literally write bills (granted, this is mostly at the congressional level, but these fuckers all support it.) Need i go on?
As i've said before in this thread, the older i get and the more things unfold, the more hollow a democratic victory is for this born and bread yellow dog dem.
We are divided by social issues. "Family values" issues.
These fuckers are all in the same gang.
Perhaps i'm just getting old and cynical, but i will just keep enjoying my politics the same way i used to enjoy pro wrestling.

Edit: oh. and right now, John Kasich is pretty much my favorite Democrat.

allegro
04-11-2016, 12:23 AM
Edit: oh. and right now, John Kasich is pretty much my favorite Democrat.
Except for defunding Planned Parenthood in Ohio and being totally pro-life and a whole bunch of other really conservative shit (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/02/john_kasich_isn_t_as_moderate_as_many_democrats_an d_republicans_think.html).

elevenism
04-11-2016, 12:30 AM
Except for defunding Planned Parenthood in Ohio and being totally pro-life and a whole bunch of other really conservative shit (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/02/john_kasich_isn_t_as_moderate_as_many_democrats_an d_republicans_think.html).
i STILL think he could've pulled off running as a democrat.
At least he scares me a hell of a lot less than the other two still standing.

(republicans, i mean)

don't get me wrong, under no circumstances am i fucking voting for him or anything like that ;)

allegro
04-11-2016, 12:33 AM
i STILL think he could've pulled off running as a democrat.
At least he scares me a hell of a lot less than the other two still standing.

Exactly none of his platform is Democrat. He's stone cold Republican.


Kasich, as he laid it out in one of his final New Hampshire town halls Monday before his second-place finish, calls for “no more federal regulations outside of health and safety for one year,” and promises to task his vice president with “unraveling the regulatory morass in this country.” He wants to compress the tax code to three brackets with a top marginal rate of 28 percent, down from the current 39.6 percent. He would lower the long-term capital gains rate back to 15 percent, lower the corporate tax rate to 25 percent, and eliminate the estate tax. He would cut Social Security. He would freeze nondefense discretionary spending, bump up defense spending (while targeting Pentagon waste), and block-grant federal food stamp and Medicaid programs to the states. All of this, he says in Mitt Romney–esque language, is to inspire the “job creators” to do their thing. Kasich is also strictly pro-life and once tried to crush unions in Ohio, though he did seem to cool down when voters overruled him in a referendum.

elevenism
04-11-2016, 12:38 AM
Exactly none of his platform is Democrat. He's stone cold Republican.
well, but...
medicaid expansion, path to citizenship, assault weapons ban, common core, same sex marriage (which i totally stole from an MSNBC graphic just now.)

Maybe it's just that he's a REGULAR old republican and not a raving fucking lunatic.

Also, I know that YOU know that the only reason i said that was to bolster my recurring point that we are in for the same ride no matter what.

allegro
04-11-2016, 12:43 AM
No we are not. If we end up with Ted Cruz, we are in big fucking trouble. Whole other fucking ride. Bend over.

So get off your ass and vote for the Democrat. Not for a dumb label like Yellow Dog (or Straight Ticket or Life-long or Hardcore or whatever) but just to keep a fucking evangelist crazy asshole like Cruz out of office; he makes Trump look like Mother Teresa.

Kasich only did Medicaid expansion. Common core sucks and has to go. Kasich doesn't want the path to citizenship, go look at his web site. Re assault weapons ban, he's flopped (http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/John_Kasich_Gun_Control.htm).

elevenism
04-11-2016, 12:44 AM
No we are not. If we end up with Ted Cruz, we are in big fucking trouble. Whole other fucking ride.
you just read my mind. that's what i was just thinking ;)

but surely, SURELY that's not going to happen. SURELY.


Oh, and while we're on the topic of good old Teddy, how come prominent republican assholes attempt to front like they're from texas when they are really from New England and fucking CANADA and such?

allegro
04-11-2016, 12:53 AM
Who cares? The country is full of immigrants. The only people really "from" here are Native Americans.

And nothing is surely. Brokered convention means those assholes in the GOP are trying to install Cruz, even though they hate him, because Trump is an outsider. So you'd better hope that the Dems beat their asses to the polls or the Evangelist will bring Fire and Brimstone down upon us all and Creationism will be an Executive Order.

elevenism
04-11-2016, 12:56 AM
and allegro , as you well know, my views on this entire subject tread into corruption/conspiracy territory.
i'm fairly certain that HC will be the next president, just as i am fairly certain that quite a few people privy to things unbeknownst to lowly plebeians such as ourselves, have known that HC would be the next president for quite some time.

And we are therefore in for a ride whose course has been set for quite some time. Furthermore, we have 2 viable parties that have goddamn near the same agendas.

elevenism
04-11-2016, 12:57 AM
Who cares? The country is full of immigrants. The only people really "from" here are Native Americans.
true. i just don't like being blamed for/associated with them.

also, allegro , there's a whole lot more i'd like to say, but i i don't want to like TRIPLE post.
So i will just say that you've seen more of this shit than i have, and maybe i'm wrong, and your cruz installation talk is giving me the Fear.
And so i'm scared, and i'm going to sleep.

allegro
04-11-2016, 01:01 AM
I don't think the course to the Presidency is as set as you think, hence why the GOP is shitting its pants over Trump and Bernie thinks he has a real shot at winning. Conspiracy theories are for hippies. :-p

elevenism
04-11-2016, 01:06 AM
I don't think the course to the Presidency is as set as you think, hence why the GOP is shitting its pants over Trump and Bernie thinks he has a real shot at winning. Conspiracy theories are for hippies. :-p
but if they hate Cruz, wouldn't they prefer to install Kasich?

implanted_microchip
04-11-2016, 01:09 AM
2 viable parties that have goddamn near the same agendas.


Except for when it comes to:

Health care reform

LGBT rights

Immigration reform

Economic regulation

Global warming/environmental issues

Taxes

Staes vs. federal rights

Authoritative vs. diplomatic foreign policy approaches

Religious tolerance/acceptance (specifically Islam currently)

Acceptance of refugees

Iran's nuclear deal

Voting ID laws/reform

Police brutality and the militarization of our police force

And many, many, many more things that are impacting the lives of millions (and in the case of a couple, billions) every day and are extremely important to many, many people.

I am sorry but nothing annoys me more than that pseudo-intellectual "they're the same parties" mentality that is often held by people who want an excuse to not be involved. Not that you are that, but good god, you have to ignore an immense amount to truly believe there are no ssrious differences when it comes to policies/views. Some things aren't as drastically in different in practice because compromise is essential and many people are moderates who meet in the middle, but it's still significant and to dismiss it as that is to ignore a whole lot of important things in this country.

And anyone could have predicted Hillary would be the nominee since 2008 ended. That doesn't mean it's some conspiratorial ploy. It just means that people knew that the only reason he wasn't the president already was because Obama, a relatively unknown, charasmatic politician came in and ran one of the most effective campaigns in American history and was one of the first to take advantage of social media while everyone else ignored it, and preached a message of hope and change that inspired millions. Absolutely no other politician has risen to that this election and Hillary's lead against Bernie right now is more than Obama's was at this time, relatively speaking.

The reason Bernie won't be the nominee has nothing to do with conspiracies -- it has to do with the fact that most Democrats really aren't that far left, many love Obama and don't want someone seeking to dismantle and replace many of his systems but rather someone who will further them rather than risk it all and many are pretty happy with the direction he's taken us, which Hillary promises to continue. Sanders' supporters on the internet shout into their echo chamber and ignore it but most of America does not want a self-described socialist, especially those old enough to have the Soviet Union in their memory -- whether it's a fair comparison or not, these things matter greatly.

allegro
04-11-2016, 01:11 AM
but if they hate Cruz, wouldn't they prefer to install Kasich?

He doesn't have enough delegates or backing. He only won Ohio, so far.

Fear is countered by voting (and by stats showing the low odds of a GOP winner).

kleiner352, I think what he means is the contention that PUBLICLY those are the platform differences but a lot of those policies have no teeth because the politicians are all beholden to lobbyists, corporations, unions, etc. Although there are basic ones that are really true like social differences (LGBT rights, civil rights, voting rights, entitlement preservation, Roe v Wade, etc.)

elevenism
04-11-2016, 01:25 AM
@kleiner352 (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=4417) , i'm certainly not someone who is looking for an excuse not to be involved. i've been as involved as possible, or at lest been riveted by, and participated in politics all the way down to the city level since about 1998.

But i've become deeply jaded watching things like endless foreign wars and lobbyists LITERALLY writing bills in exchange for donations. THAT shit goes down on both sides of the aisle and isn't changing anytime soon.
And i can also pretty well personally guarantee you that you, too, will become frustrated over the next 18 years or so, barring some type of fucking revolution.

also, what @allegro (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=76) said. I just deleted a whole bunch of shit because she explained it much more concisely.

i'm TIRED, y'all. But it sure is nice to talk again :)

implanted_microchip
04-11-2016, 01:27 AM
I truly believe that lack of action has far more to do with incompetence, gridlock and compromise than it does everyone being some sellout puppet who is corrupt as fuck and living out some House of Cards episode. I really don't believe for an instant the majority of progressive politicians are really that beholden to lobbyists. Does it have an influence? Absolutely. Is it defining? Not really.

Anyone who can compare Elizabeth Warren and Ted Cruz's voting records and tell me they're following virtually the same ideology is, at that point, desperately trying to defend a slacktivist, cynical outlook on the world rather than considering the facts.

War is not the only issue. Both sides disappoint on it. But it's not the top priority for some people and it isn't the only priority. Minimum wage is a priority for many. Healthcare is for many. Education is for many. Taxes are for many. Social security is for many. These things matter a lot.

And I'm not just speaking of the presidency, I'm speaking of local and state and Congressional government. I don't think we have a perfect functional system but I do believe it isn't the evil and dark and sinister thing that extremely jaded people portray it as. I think stupidity has much more to do with the dysfunction than just about anything else. Look at the education in a deeply red state and then compare it to a deeply blue state and you'll often find dramatic differences, and those are extremely important. I can't buy into that defeated point of view.

And I cannot imagine how fucking pathetic and useless an attempt at some "revolution" would be in America. I do not believe it would benefit anyone. Working with the system to shape it into something better slowly and incrementally over time would be more lastingly beneficial than hitting a "fuck it" button and seeing the sorry excuse for a revolution a bunch of grumpy middle class white guys would bring about in this country.

allegro
04-11-2016, 01:31 AM
elevenism, I've been voting since Jimmy Carter was first elected and I've been disappointed by government ever since. Government is inherently disappointing and frustrating. I don't think it's ever been anything different.

kleiner352, I just keep thinking about this article (http://billmoyers.com/story/elizabeth-warren-recalls-a-time-when-big-donors-may-have-changed-hillarys-vote/).

elevenism
04-11-2016, 01:39 AM
ahhhh kleiner352 , how i admire your idealism.
and i truly hope you retain it, and are given a REASON to retain it.
and i hope that one day i have that same fire again.
once again, don't get me wrong, some times ALL i do during my waking hours is follow politics.
but as i've said before, i consider it a little bit like pro wrestling.

Also, as i've said before, i'm pretty sure that the frustration to which allegro and i are referring is what Disappointed is about (this being an nin forum.)

implanted_microchip
04-11-2016, 01:39 AM
I only find it disappointing if you expect massive and sweeping change. I don't expect that, at all. I'm an idealist at heart but pragmatist in practice. Gay rights weren't overnight nor are they complete but compare being LGBT in the sixties to now, or even the eighties to now, or even the early 2000's to now and it's a very, very different climate. Lasting change takes time and I do not expect any one Congress member or president or SCJ or representative to make everything better in a few short years.

I just can't buy into the idea that 8 years of Obama have honestly been as bad or worse as 8 years of Bush and I can't beleive for a minute that 8 of Hillary would be worse or the same as 8 of Trump or Cruz or Kasich or ... you get the idea. How that makes me an idealist is beyond me. I was let down a lot by Obama but I also know that it's impossible to expect a candidate to hold to and achieve every single promise and every single guarantee.

elevenism
04-11-2016, 01:41 AM
sorry for double post, but i didn't mean an actual armed revolution kleiner352 .
Because that isn't happening.

What i meant is that nothing much is going to change.

allegro
04-11-2016, 01:45 AM
Some things change. A woman in the White House is one big change. Possibly 3 new liberal SCOTUS justices is a good thing. Hillary has some pretty great and possible reform proposals if the Dems manage to take back the Senate and she can encourage bi-partisanship.

Glass half-full!! :-)

implanted_microchip
04-11-2016, 01:48 AM
nothing much is going to change.


Yet unemployment rates are lower than they have been in ages after being at an extreme high eight years ago. I know people who finally have insurance because of the ACA that didn't and millions are in similar situations. We aren't in two active land wars when we were. Life-long same sex couples that are long-time family friends are finally married in fucking Florida of all places and it was one of the happiest moments of their lives. Etc.

These things are big to me. These things matter. There's a lot of bullshit and a lot unchanged and a lot that could be better and a lot that won't ever be but to act like those aren't big for many is insane and to pretend it all would be the same no matter who had been elected is just baffling. That makes me some wide-eyed idealist? I don't think so.

aggroculture
04-11-2016, 08:54 AM
And I cannot imagine how fucking pathetic and useless an attempt at some "revolution" would be in America. I do not believe it would benefit anyone. Working with the system to shape it into something better slowly and incrementally over time would be more lastingly beneficial than hitting a "fuck it" button and seeing the sorry excuse for a revolution a bunch of grumpy middle class white guys would bring about in this country.

I agree with you about Dems and Reps being not the same, but this is a total parody of what Bernie is doing. I think at this point it's pretty clear that Hillary will be the candidate, but I think Bernie is doing a great and necessary job of pushing her and the Dems more to the left: my experience, among the people I know and have seen, is that Bernie supporters are not foolish idealists or libertarian nihilists, I think they are people sick of trickle-down bullshit and state brutality and mass incarceration and theocracy and anti-union politics and social darwinism and imperialism being passed off as business as usual. Democrats have failed spectacularly over the last two decades to prevent all that shit getting worse: and they did not fail because they were too lefty. Rather, the left has not been a proper left: it's been a limp centrism. This is why Ed Milliband got a drubbing in the UK, and why Jeremy Corbyn (the UK's Bernie Sanders) offers at least a new approach.

This is the kind of narrative I like: Bernie may not be the nominee, but he has given expression and shape to a new left for US politics and society: hopefully it will build into something; we direly need a stronger left in the US and globally

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-0410-mcmanus-bernie-miracle-20160410-column.html


Also...do the Dems have ANY gameplan to recapture all the States they've lost?
Reading that Rolling Stone article about Kasich trying to destroy Planned Parenthood in Ohio made me so mad: the majority of the OH population is pro-choice, and yet, due to extreme gerrymandering, the state gets a Republican legislature, and a governor who does not represent the majority of his constituents:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-war-on-planned-parenthood-20160406
@elevenism (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=2475) please read this piece if you think Kasich is an OK guy.

allegro
04-11-2016, 09:20 AM
You know how Ohio pro-choice voters fix that? Get off their fucking asses and vote. Gerrymandering only works when Republicans vote and lazy Democrats stay home. So more Dems need to get into those areas and then VOTE.

Also, the "revolution" thing stemmed from elevenism's ideas about the need for one (unrelated to Bernie); some of his text he has since deleted.

implanted_microchip
04-11-2016, 09:23 AM
aggroculture I identify as pretty liberal and fall very far to the left on just about any placement quiz you can find, and I supported Sanders once upon a time quite a bit. I like his general ideology and messages. I have given him credit for months for shifting the dialogue more to the left and think that's been a wonderful thing. He was a great ideology candidate who did what he could achieve but now he's dragging it out into something that continues to feel nastier by the days, especially among many of his supporters. Anyone who's been following the Vatican thing is baffled by his campaign's bizarre behaviors.

I care more though about actual capability and the chance to accomplish things, and when I look at Bernie I see a guy saying a lot that seems radical to many without supporting anyone that would help make it possible and when I look at Hillary I see someone saying a lot that resonates with many, most of which I agree with, and supporting lots of down-ticket politicians and trying to make sure that the Dems re-take Congress -- something necessary for any legislation from either to be introduced and passed in any meaningful way.

I consider myself an idealist in theory but a pragmatist in principle and I know that you can't make the pendulum swing deep in either direction legislatively without it in turn swinging deep into the opposite as a reaction to it. I would rather see eight more years of a relatively moderate Democrat building on Obama's legacy than four years of a radical (for America) liberal getting fuck-all done while having little respect for a lot of Obama's achievements and then resulting in another Republican for 4-8 years. That matters a lot to me.

elevenism
04-11-2016, 12:40 PM
And i can also pretty well personally guarantee you that you, too, will become frustrated over the next 18 years or so, barring some type of fucking revolution.


whoa whoa, i didn't DELETE it. I try really hard not to do that shit.
It was just misunderstood.
@kleiner352 (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=4417) let me try to give you a tiny bit of my perspective.
The ACA was modeled on Mitt Romney's plan in his home state. It was going to happen no matter who won.
And it isn't working for everyone-for instance, where i live, for months you couldn't buy a ppo and doctors switched to TAKING ppos exclusively.

Things like LGBT rights don't have much to do with the government. Meaning, you can't legislate people's opinions. I see gay people fucked with constantly here. no law will change that.

And as far as the war thing? Take a good look around. Check out Obama's drone strike record and the fact that he is KILLING AMERICAN CITIZENS and BOMBING COUNTRIES with whom we aren't at war. And Hillary is a war hawk, make no mistake about that shit.

You know i like you a lot and respect you very much, and i'm not trying to, like, belittle you or anything. Please understand.
And maybe it's just me. Maybe i'm just too fucking cynical after having my heart broken by mayor after senator after president.

And remember, i'm a hardcore, goddamn near militant (not really, but...) leftist. And i will support whomever we run.

But i am long past the point of thinking these people actually CARE about us, and i've seen a little too much of the man behind the curtain at this point.

Remember when Obama said he was closing gitmo on day one? I kinda noticed that shit's still open. Do you feel me man?

Edit: and good god, if i've given ANYONE here the impression that i thought ANY right wing candidate for ANYTHING is an "ok guy," i offer my sincere apologies! ;) aggroculture , my point is that he's another, how you say...limp centrist?
And obama has been a limp centrist.
And i think hillary will be too.

allegro
04-11-2016, 12:44 PM
I just deleted a whole bunch of shit because she explained it much more concisely.
I don't know what you deleted, I was just pretty sure that kleiner352 was addressing your comment(s) about a "revolution" and not Bernie Sanders' (which aggroculture misunderstood). Which doesn't really matter at this point.

This is an interesting article (http://www.thenation.com/article/who-is-the-real-progressive-hillary-clinton-or-bernie-sanders/).


Hillary Clinton is best described as a liberal. Like liberals from Woodrow Wilson to Franklin Roosevelt to Lyndon Johnson, Clinton wants to use the federal government to improve the lives of the majority of Americans. Like nearly every Democratic presidential candidate since the 1970s, she makes special pitches to women, non-whites of both genders, and the LGBT community. But she largely views social movements as creatures to be wooed and managed. What she really cares about is shrewd, effective governance. Like every liberal president (and most failed Democratic nominees) since Wilson, she wants the United States to be the dominant power in the world, so she doesn’t question the massive sums spent on the military and on the other branches of the national-security state.

Bernie Sanders, on the other hand, is a leftist. Although he has been winning elections since 1981, Sanders resembles his hero, Eugene V. Debs—the Socialist who ran five quixotic races for president, the last time, in 1920, from a prison cell—far more than he does a standard-issue career politician. Other pols identify with “revolution” and claim their campaign is a “movement.” But Bernie really means it. He is perpetually on the attack against undue power and misused privilege, armed with an unvarnished class-conscious message that, until the emergence of Occupy Wall Street, had long been absent from the public square. He advocates policies he knows even a Congress controlled by Democrats would be quite unlikely to implement: breaking up the biggest banks, making public colleges and universities free to all, outlawing private donations to campaigns, and more. Except for increasing aid to veterans, he seems cold toward every part of the military establishment. His true foreign policy is, in effect, a domestic policy that would turn the United States into another Norway.

Despite these fundamental differences between Clinton and Sanders, the fierceness of their rivalry should not obscure a central truth of political history: Leftists and liberals have always needed each other to push America toward becoming a more humane, more equal place. Radical activists and intellectuals promote fresh ideas, challenge entrenched elites, dedicate themselves to grassroots organizing, and push liberals down paths they might otherwise have avoided or tiptoed along at a craven pace. Liberals build governing coalitions that enact measures, from the progressive income tax to the Civil Rights Act to Obamacare, which improve the lives of ordinary Americans.

It would be a serious mistake for “progressives” of any stripe to ignore this symbiotic relationship. Leftists backing Bernie ought to realize that the route to a social-democratic Promised Land will be long, arduous, and uncertain. Clintonian liberals should embrace the passion for a transformed America that has always been essential to making meaningful reforms in the existing one. Neither can ignore the certain consequence of an internal battle that lasts beyond the time when one of the two candidates secures enough delegates to win the nomination: a federal government under the total control of a Republican right that is determined to undo nearly everything liberals and leftists have achieved.

allegro
04-11-2016, 01:00 PM
elevenism, to be fair, Obama couldn't close Gitmo; his mistake isn't that he didn't close Gitmo (no power to do so as President with no backing) but that he PROMISED HE WOULD and that we idiots believed him. So blame us, not him. No President has the single legislative ability to do that without 100% backing of Congress. Congress, during Democratic control, was so hyperfocused on the ACA, it didn't do a whole lot of anything else. Then, it lost control of Congress (pretty much BECAUSE of the ACA) and then we got 6 years of obstructionism as Payback Time. Those promises were pretty much all promises that sounded good but no President could deliver, not even the most leftist honest President on the planet; not unless that President became a Fascist Dictator.

But, yeah, we haven't had a really really "liberal" President in office since, say, Nixon. Because all politics have shifted right. Because the voters have shifted right. But LGBT rights are definitely there because of legislation. Sure, shitty attitudes still exist (like that crappy new trans bathroom law in NC) and that will take a long time to change but we still have to pass laws to protect the civil rights of people.

elevenism
04-11-2016, 01:07 PM
Ok, yeah, i read the article. Maybe i AM too cynical. But i call bullshit! I don't think she really cares about people. I think she cares about getting elected, and she will, and then she will make good on all the fucking compromises she had to make to get there, and SHIT WILL STAY THE SAME.

I'll vote for yer, yes, but i'm goddamn sure not getting all excited about it. i tried that with obama and it broke my fucking heart.

Edit: @allegro (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=76) you KNOW i'm passionate about civil rights.
And yes, laws help, but i don't expect things to magically keep getting better for the LGBT community because of this law or that law. We can't legislate prejudice and hate away.
Jesus, look at where we are NOW with civil rights for minorities!

allegro
04-11-2016, 01:09 PM
Ok, yeah, i read the article. Maybe i AM too cynical. But i call bullshit! I don't think she really cares about people. I think she cares about getting elected, and she will, and then she will make good on all the fucking compromises she had to make to get there, and SHIT WILL STAY THE SAME.

I'll vote for yer, yes, but i'm goddamn sure not getting all excited about it. i tried that with obama and it broke my fucking heart.

Because you expected too much. You bought his rhetoric, his great speaking ability, and you forgot that you weren't electing Jesus; you were electing the Executive branch of the three branches of Government, and the most powerful is the Legislative branch.

Compromise is absolutely necessary; the lack of compromise is why nothing is getting done right now, why there is so much hostility in Congress, why TRUMP has gotten so far in the Republican primaries. This system only WORKS if the Executive and Legislative branches work together for the benefit of the people. The Executive branch works as the leader, who inspires or gathers like the coach of the football team; not the King or Queen. And a President Hillary Clinton can get a lot more done if voters remember who is in Congress.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rq_0un5CPSo

elevenism
04-11-2016, 01:14 PM
Because you expected too much. You bought his rhetoric, his great speaking ability, and you forgot that you weren't electing Jesus; you were electing the Executive branch of the three branches of Government, and the most powerful is the Legislative branch.

you are absolutely right about that.

allegro
04-11-2016, 01:29 PM
Edit: @allegro (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=76) you KNOW i'm passionate about civil rights.
And yes, laws help, but i don't expect things to magically keep getting better for the LGBT community because of this law or that law. We can't legislate prejudice and hate away.
Jesus, look at where we are NOW with civil rights for minorities!
That is because of POVERTY. Poverty and class differences create those additional problems related to race relations. The more poverty, the worse that problem gets. RE LGBT rights, this is a relatively new area of civil rights that is developing rather quickly and powerfully with a very powerful movement behind it; just because there is a lot of prejudice behind it doesn't mean we throw up our hands and say "we give up, we can't stop it." Making LGBT hate crimes a Federal offense and making the police enforce these laws helps to protect more people. Look, murder is illegal; murder laws doesn't mean that no murders happen, does it? Of course not. But, we pass whatever laws we can in an attempt to protect people and to thwart crime; laws do not lead to a perfect society; laws are our attempt to create a civilized society.

Look where we are with civil rights? Before you were born, when I was a child in Detroit in the 60s, Motown artists were not allowed to enter through the front doors of most hotels while on tour with the Motown Review. Blacks had to use separate drinking fountains. Many blacks in the south were denied admittance to several whites-only hospitals. Blacks were denied admittance to many public schools across many southern states until Brown vs. the Board of Education, which had to be enforced via the National Guard in several states. Jim Crow laws were abolished as of 1965. The police brutality you see, now, is a result of a systemic problem of police brutality as a result of police training and abuse of poverty and ghettoization. But a black dude is in the White House, which could not even be imagined in the 60s during the civil rights movement.

But we can blame Bill Clinton for the mass incarceration of minorities (http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/15/politics/bill-clinton-1994-crime-bill/).

implanted_microchip
04-11-2016, 01:31 PM
elevenism

... I don't even know how to go about trying to diffuse the Ludicrous Bomb of claiming LGBT rights had nothing to do with legislation. Tell that to every single married LGBT couple alive who weren't allowed to do so for ages because of, you know, the laws that were progressively changed by, you know, legislation and appeals. ie., through politics. There are parts of this country right now where my trans siblings couldn't use their correct bathroom because of laws that were passed in government. Tell me more about how government has no influence. Does it influence attitudes? Maybe not. Can it legally guarantee fair treatment and rights? Yes. See: women's suffrage and women's rights, civil rights, slavery, segregation, and every single other social advance made in America over the years that was propelled due to legislation. Racism didn't end with segregation, but black kids could attend the same schools, and I almost promise you not a single African American was saying "Eh government can't fix anything" about that. LGBT rights are no different.

There are places in the country where it's a debate whether or not LGBT people can live in the same apartments as other people. There are debates around if they can use the same bathrooms, or if they can be denied employment because of it. That impacts those people's lives. That impacts my life. That impacts my family's life. That is government-based. When those rights are all in place through legislation then all of those people, myself included will directly benefit from them, and that kind of progress leads to acceptance as people are forced to confront these things and realize that, hey, maybe we're not all out to kill marriage.

Just this last week or so, even, it was made so that same-sex couples can finally adopt nationwide. So now kids in foster care are benefiting from lGBT rights at the government-level and families will exist that didn't because of government-level policy. That was just a fucking bullshit statement and I'm amazed you made it and it's extremely dismissive of massive legal fights and pushes for legislation that have been fought for decades by the LGBT community and are being fought to this very single day and have hurt and benefited millions of people, myself and my family members included. That just was not cool at all.

And where did I call the ACA perfect and say it's worked for everyone? I said millions now have insurance that didn't, which is a numerical fact. You can look it up. That's all I said. I know people who have it harder because of it and I know people who have coverage for the first time in their lives because of it. It's give and it's take, like everything in the world. It's a system that needs improvement but it's more than we had and I don't believe for a second that when for eight years Conservatives have ranted and raved about repealing and replacing the ACA that it would've happened no matter who won. Romney was pretty moderate, all things considered, and went full deep-end right in '12 to appeal to the base before trying to pivot back, which more or less killed him. Come on dude.

You seem to think I have some naive sense that everything is some Utopian liberal paradise. I'm the first person to admit there's holes in everything. But I'm not going to jump out of a boat and into the shark-infested water and hit the "fuck it" button and stop caring, nor am I going to turn into the opposite of a naive idealist which is being a cynical pessimist who claims there aren't big differences between the left and the right. I truly do not believe you are understanding me at this point here and I'm done commenting on the subject because I feel like I'm talking to a wall.

I acknowledged the war point, like, a while ago. Drones are not even remotely the same thing as what a full-on boots on the ground invasion of Iraq was. Fucking please. Do I like that he's done that? No, not really. Do I prefer it given a choice between a continued active war in the Middle East where actual soldiers get shipped away en masse? You fuckin' bet, buddy. It's being realistic. I don't expect to get the choice between Jesus and Hitler. I really don't. I expect to get choices between decent people who likely try hard to improve things, fail in a lot of respects but nudge things along and have a couple big victories in others, and between someone who is likely a piece of shit who will do extremely poorly.

Look at what Rick Scott IN MY STATE just did to Planned Parenthood and tell me a liberal governor would've done that. That affects people. That affects friends of mine. That affects people directly around me. And I am affected by association, because when one aspect of a community suffers, all of it is dragged down. It's a bunch of bullshit, sure, but it's bullshit worth navigating because it's the system in place and it's not getting magically better overnight. If expecting every candidate to just sweep it all up is what you've done your whole life, of course you're cynical and disaffected. But not everyone expects that.

If you really believe that all of these things that have changed my life and tons of people's lives aren't real change and don't really matter or are just peanuts to make us ignore the big stuff, you're just clinging to an idea of dysfunction and meaninglessness and that's no better than what I feel like you're mocking me for pretending I have.

And allegro is $100% correct about Gitmo. But, guess what? We don't waterboard anymore. We don't engage in "enhanced interrogation techniques." This goddamn morning people on Fox News were babbling about the necessity of torture and showing Trump and Cruz ranting about some dirty bomb hypothetical. An entire political faction in this country advocates fucking torture of people and the other doesn't. They are not effectively the same. That's where this whole discussion started -- you claiming that. And now I don't even know what the fuck it's about and it's just clogging up this thread.

Hillary has influenced lots of progressive legislation throughout her life. She fought extremely goddamned hard to improve education in Arkansas. She fought hard to give kids health insurance. She has been a huge voice for health care reform for decades. She's done a whole lot of good progressive shit that's benefited many while being able to compromise to actually get things done along the way. Is this someone just spending their entire life to advance themselves? Because there are easier ways to do it. And you know what, if it is, I don't care -- she gets shit done. I care more about the results than I do about their intent in getting them. If her advancing a progressive agenda while trying to work at a bipartisan level and compromising on some things to get her way at others and push the ideology that I align with is just for her own legacy, then I want her legacy to look as good as possible, because I win in that scenario. I don't know, I honestly feel like I'm just more pragmatic about it. It's not a bad thing to not be. But you can't just sit there and tell me it's all meaningless shit and not expect to catch flak for that.

elevenism
04-11-2016, 01:34 PM
oh no kleiner352 ... fuck ... i didn't say it had NOTHING to do with it. But okay, let me read all this :p

elevenism
04-11-2016, 01:44 PM
Can it legally guarantee fair treatment and rights?
NO! it can't GUARANTEE shit!
Women are still treated like shit! Black people are still treated like shit! I certainly didn't say it didn't HELP, however.
And for the record, do you REALLY believe people aren't being tortured anymore?

And jesus dude, YOU are not understanding ME.

I am CERTAINLY not mocking you.

And i am a left wing, pinko commie socialist yellow dog democrat. Possibly more so than you are!

I am just jaded because i feel that i have been perpetually baited into thinking that MASSIVE changes were going to take place based on who we put in office, and then they didn't.

And now i am a little less excited.

That's all i'm saying. I feel that the victories aren't as meaningful as i once did.

You are acting like i am attacking you personally and taking this shit way too far.

allegro
04-11-2016, 01:48 PM
Hillary has influenced lots of progressive legislation throughout her life.
This is something a lot of people don't know that she did (http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2010/06/142922.htm).


Women are still treated like shit!
Not really. There are way more female CEOs now than ever in history, more females in medical school and law school than in history, more females going into the STEM fields (and we're encouraging them to do so) than in history, a WOMAN COULD BE PRESIDENT IN 2017, the pay gap is getting smaller and smaller and we may actually DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. Up until the late-60s, a woman couldn't be on a mortgage on her own without her husband as a co-signer. Hell, most women DIDN'T HAVE DRIVER'S LICENSES. Women didn't VOTE until the 1920s. Women still see the glass as more than half-full, really. And it's getting fuller all the time. I have more opportunities, now, than I did 30 years ago. We live in exciting times in this country. We are working to make things better for women in less fortunate countries. I feel great victories all the time.

Joe Biden passed the VAWA 20 years ago (http://time.com/3319325/joe-biden-violence-against-women/).

I think your own personal situation is making you feel negative about everything else.

There are children in this country whose only meal comes from school lunches. I meet teachers who bring food to the kids at school. I know senior citizens who make $1,000 per month on Social Security but that is "too much" to qualify for food stamps so they rely on local food pantries and neighbors for assistance.

G and I donate to charities, food banks, assistance programs, etc., all the time. The real problem isn't things like race relations and women's rights: IT'S POVERTY. It's the level of poverty in this country, and why we can't seem to fix it.

No kid should go without meals. Senior citizens shouldn't be starving or having to make the decision between their medication and food. So my vote goes toward the party that cares about that, and not about pensions or corporate taxes whatever.

When changes "were supposed to happen" and they didn't, and you claim to know politics, then you should know why: because the Legislative branch did not work with the Executive branch (and/or vice versa) to effect those changes, and/or probably because you didn't use your noggin' and didn't remember your 7th grade civics lessons when you believed all those changes could happen in the first place.

For instance: The Republican candidates saying that they will overturn Obamacare (ACA). They can't. Or saying they will tear up the Iran nuclear agreement. They can't. But some Republican voters out there are peeing their respective pants with excitement about those changes (that will never happen).

Jinsai
04-11-2016, 01:59 PM
... I don't even know how to go about trying to diffuse the Ludicrous Bomb of claiming LGBT rights had nothing to do with legislation. Tell that to every single married LGBT couple alive who weren't allowed to do so for ages because of, you know, the laws that were progressively changed by, you know, legislation and appeals. ie., through politics. There are parts of this country right now where my trans siblings couldn't use their correct bathroom because of laws that were passed in government. Tell me more about how government has no influence. Does it influence attitudes? Maybe not. Can it legally guarantee fair treatment and rights? Yes. See: women's suffrage and women's rights, civil rights, slavery, segregation, and every single other social advance made in America over the years that was propelled due to legislation. Racism didn't end with segregation, but black kids could attend the same schools, and I almost promise you not a single African American was saying "Eh government can't fix anything" about that. LGBT rights are no different.

Hillary in 2002

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZkK2_6H9MM

vs Bernie Sanders in 1995...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAFlQ6fU4GM

elevenism
04-11-2016, 02:03 PM
Well allegro , i guess i AM just a cynical pessimist. Because i sincerely don't expect to see equal SHIT in my lifetime.
Sure, it's great that same sex marriage is legal. It's fucking awesome.
But a gay married couple in this town would probably quite literally be KILLED, and it would be covered up. And i imagine it will be this way for another 50 years, at least. My point on those subjects is simply that people's fucked up attitudes can't be legislated away.
I swear to god, you and kleiner352 should come kick it for a few hours in this area. Try telling people you are even a fucking DEMOCRAT. The only other democrats i know within like a 100 mile radius of Stratford, Tx LITERALLY talk about it in hushed voices. We pretty much have to be closeted here for fear of PHYSICAL VIOLENCE. I swear to god.

And as far as my original point about the corporate oligarchy situation, i feel quite certain that you know exactly what i mean.

allegro
04-11-2016, 02:09 PM
Look, an interracial couple used to be killed (and in some areas probably still would be) in certain areas of the country, too, but that doesn't mean we don't bother passing equality laws, like Loving vs. Virginia. I have friends in interracial marriages and they don't just move into any old neighborhood, even in 2016. I had a real estate deal fall apart the other day and the Buyers pulled out of the Contract because the Buyers are hispanic and they had done some research and determined that the suburb of Chicago was too white for them and their children. That's the reality of our world. But it's getting better all the time.

And, frankly, no offense, but yes, the rest of the country knows about that and Texas and then you try to justify some romantic 100-yrs-ago shit about Texas like some cowboy shit from the past, but we're talking the last 40 years of reality, here. And you refuse to move, so you can suffer and live among the Ted Cruz supporters. You know, Ted Cruz who, with his father, stood on a stage next to a preacher who said that the Bible declares that all homosexuals should be executed while Ted just smiled and nodded. Texas, where they execute retarded people. So you can live in Texas with the romantic and nostalgic aspects of it and you can completely blind yourself to its politics and views, or you can just leave; but you can't have both. It's a big reason why I left Michigan and have no intention of ever returning. It's beautiful, but no thanks. We make these choices to stay or leave, ignore it, blind ourselves or do something. Hell, at one point I think you said you considered leaving the country so that was a forward-thinking move. None of us are prisoners. We only imprison ourselves.

implanted_microchip
04-11-2016, 02:13 PM
NO! it can't GUARANTEE shit!
Women are still treated like shit! Black people are still treated like shit! I certainly didn't say it didn't HELP, however.

... but women can also vote and own property and aren't thrown into insane asylums while on their periods and black people aren't bought and sold like property and can attend school and vote and count as a whole human being and not 3/5ths. If you cannot see the immense value all of that legislation has done then I don't know what to tell you. I never once said it's perfect. At all. Far from it. But it has come an immense way and it did so because of these sorts of steps. When Lincoln emancipated the slaves half the country was ready to die to keep them in chains. They moved past it, because eventually, people are forced to accept that progress will occur whether they are on board or not. Legally protecting people from discrimination cannot change attitudes but it can prevent discrimination and that is vital.

I don't know, as someone who had glass bottles thrown at their head for being a "fag" because I had a thing for another guy in my high school as I walked home from it, I think I have something of an idea of the hate in this country that minorities get. And I am not going to go in an all-caps rant about how government doesn't do shit to change it, because I have witnessed this deep South shithole become slowly more and more begrudgingly tolerant over the years as I have lived here and I have seen the general climate change in terms of attitudes and dialogue about it. In the 80's gay people were straight up dying and no one cared about it and it was called a "gay plague" and people thought it was deserving and now I can get screened two blocks from where I live for it without any immense stigma and without being protested for it. That fucking counts. That's real. That's tangible and I go and I can see it and touch it and feel it. I value that a lot and if it weren't for the right legislation and the right politicians it would not have happened. You're dismissing and belittling immense achievements.

@allegro (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=76) legislation like that is phenomenal and important and not a single GOP senator would've ever introduced it. To some people these are just bullshit social issues but to some of us they're our daily lives and they matter, deeply. Hillary has done a lot that makes me respect her and believe in her ability and commitment to a lot of progressive things that mean a lot to me. I know a woman who found out about their cancer and were able to get treatment in time after visiting Planned Parenthood for a screening. Hillary would actually fight to make sure women like her keep being able to do so. The only GOP candidate who might not do anything to PP would be Trump and that's just because of how much of a wild card he is. That matters to me. Not to mention all she did with SCHIP, her sanctions with Iran that led to them being willing to make the deal we currently have, and a lot of other accomplishments that are all significant that I can't dismiss. People ought to read about the Pediatric Research Act that led to tons of prescriptions having to test for their effects on children taking them, leading to a ton of labels changing and a lot of good being done for kids on life-saving medications. That is substantial change in my eyes, and in the lives of every kid affected by it.

I don't agree with her on everything but if I ever do find a politician who I agree with on everything, I will not trust them in the least because I will know there will have to be more to it than that.

@Jinsai (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=272) yeah great and Bernie opposed same-sex marriage in Vermont in 2006, a lot of people came around on gay marriage and I couldn't give a shit because most people were cautious at best at supporting it early on, here's a bit about his lack of the emphatic support people act like he had for LGBT rights over the years: http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2015/10/05/bernie_sanders_on_marriage_equality_he_s_no_longti me_champion.html I firmly believe both would support them as much as they could if elected, it's not an issue I think one is better on than the other really at all.

elevenism
04-11-2016, 02:19 PM
Ohhhhhhhh fucksake. I'm not saying to not bother passing civil rights laws. It seems that i'm having trouble expressing myself properly.
Furthermore, this is starting to feel WAY too personal, and as you two ( kleiner352 and allegro ) are both big ass reasons i bother coming around here, i'm bailing out of this one.

allegro
04-11-2016, 02:24 PM
Hillary in 2002
Yeah, well, they've all changed their mind based on precedent (Hillary, Bill, Barack). Hillary's comment on that video, if you listen closely to all her comments, is based on precedent. She's also since changed her mind, as has Bill Clinton (who signed DOMA; Bill, Hillary and Barack have since gone on to say that they regret DOMA's passing). Those three are lawyers, focusing on legal precedent. Bernie isn't a lawyer, but that whole thing about homos in the military during discussion about the Clean Water Act passage was pretty fucking weird.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6K9dS9wl7U

allegro
04-11-2016, 02:28 PM
Ohhhhhhhh fucksake. I'm not saying to not bother passing civil rights laws. It seems that i'm having trouble expressing myself properly.
Furthermore, this is starting to feel WAY too personal, and as you two ( kleiner352 and allegro ) are both big ass reasons i bother coming around here, i'm bailing out of this one.

Nah, don't take it personally, just don't MAKE IT personal. We all live in various areas of discrimination, really. But coming into a political thread and saying "nothing is going to change" is kinda like trolling, isn't it? Where do you go from there? End of discussion?

Jinsai
04-11-2016, 02:36 PM
@Jinsai (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=272) yeah great and Bernie opposed same-sex marriage in Vermont in 2006, a lot of people came around on gay marriage and I couldn't give a shit because most people were cautious at best at supporting it early on, here's a bit about his lack of the emphatic support people act like he had for LGBT rights over the years: http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2015/10/05/bernie_sanders_on_marriage_equality_he_s_no_longti me_champion.html I firmly believe both would support them as much as they could if elected, it's not an issue I think one is better on than the other

That Slate article is so slanted it makes my head spin. Here, for a take on Sanders and where he stands on the issue from Politifact: http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/sep/29/chuck-todd/nbcs-chuck-todd-bernie-sanders-there-same-sex-marr/

Saying that you think it's an issue that should be decided on a state level is completely different from saying "no" immediately when asked if NY should recognize same sex marriage, and it's worse when it's accompanied by a smug grin. Saying that approaching a new legal precedent is unwise because it will be divisive and unlikely to effectively bring about change is not the same thing as saying that you don't want it.

TO say that Sanders isn't a long time champion of gay rights and marriage equality is spin, but to say that there's no difference between him and somebody who supported DOMA is something I would strongly disagree with.

allegro
04-11-2016, 02:43 PM
saying "no" immediately when asked if NY should recognize same sex marriage, and it's worse when it's accompanied by a smug grin.
She's addressed the evolution of her feelings about that (http://www.washingtonblade.com/2015/10/16/clinton-addresses-evolution-on-same-sex-marriage/), as has Obama and Bill Clinton.

implanted_microchip
04-11-2016, 03:07 PM
to say that there's no difference between him and somebody who supported DOMA is something I would strongly disagree with.

I agree the article was slanted but the whole point was it showed numerous examples of him not being such a stalwart defender of LGBT rights. He flat-out said he probably wouldn't support an anti-discrimination bill, once upon a time.

To me I say there's no difference in the present-tense. I don't think for a minute that either would be anything less than defending and supportive of better anti-discrimination legislation and LGBT rights. I don't really care if either of them said otherwise in the past because they both have proven otherwise since and have come around on it, just as Obama did (whose administration went on to be the one in which it was legalized at the federal level despite him saying in 2007 that he opposed it, and ended up being a big advocate of it later down the line) and just as a majority of the American population did. Not that long ago at all approval of gay marriage was incredibly low, now it's at the lowest around 60% or so if I'm not mistaken, if not a little higher now. People changed on it, politicians included, and as long as they're willing to support the fight for better equality now, that's what I care the most about, unless if they were straight-up running conversion therapy camps or some BS in the past.

It's a non-issue to me and that article cherry-picked examples just as you did in your choice of videos. That's what happens when you're trying to paint one as a valiant defender and one as a washy flip-flopper -- you'll look full of shit from either side because it's not completely true of either of them, regardless who you drop into this roles.

Mantra
04-12-2016, 01:58 AM
Hmmm, I don't know if I buy this whole "progress through compromise" theory.

The idea behind this theory is that, supposedly, the Democrats are honestly trying their hardest to achieve the most progressive goals possible, but these pesky Republicans force them to settle for the middle ground. This theory imagines that our political system is almost like haggling at a market, where each party is going to begin the negotiation process by fighting as hard as they can for their own side, because they know that the end result will be a meeting place somewhere in the middle. Except the Democrats don't actually seem to approach things that way.

Take the ACA. I firmly believe that, if the Democrats had wanted it badly enough, a public option could have been possible. Obama took office with an unprecedented amount of public support, and obstructionist Republicans weren't nearly as much of a concern because he had a Democrat congress. So that was their big moment, their chance to do something incredible. Instead, they themselves were the ones who watered down the health care reform. The senate finance committee largely made the ACA what it is, and it was chaired by Max Baucus, a shitty conservative Democrat who received several million dollars in campaign contributions from the health sector. They never once even considered a public option. It would have been one thing if they fought their hardest for it but were then forced to give it up because of the Republicans. At least then you could say, "Oh well, that's the way the system works, they're not dictators." Instead, they began the entire process from a watered down position, because many of them are not actually that progressive at all. Baucus didn't "compromise" on health care reform. He got exactly what he believed in. Even Obama and Hillary never fought hard enough for the public option, never made it part of their platforms.

I don't buy this "progress through compromise" theory because it incorrectly assumes that the Dems are always fighting for the very best. People seem to think that deep inside every centrist Democrat is a strong progressive who's being forced to compromise against their will, but the truth is that many Democrats just aren't super progressive. And yet these centrist types still feel entitled to the votes of strong leftists and act kind of resentful if anyone dares to point out that they may not have done enough to inspire those voters. Centrists are not any more "pragmatic" than the people who are more to the left. They're just ideologically different. I've always felt that the best negotiation approach is to come out of the gate swinging, pushing for the best, that way when the process forces you to compromise, at least you're starting from the best position. That's what I'd like to see in my Dems, and that's why Clinton-style politicians don't inspire me that much.

allegro
04-12-2016, 08:19 AM
Mantra then you have to totally get rid of those pesky radical conservative Republicans. Senator Ted Kennedy had been seeking some type healthcare plan since 1966. If no compromise had been reached, we'd be waiting another 50 years. Since Ted was dying during the process of writing the ACA, and several Senate seats were up for grabs during the next election, and the members of the Senate were beholden to their constituents, it was complicated. And the Senate needed 60 votes to pass the ACA, then Ted died and he was replaced by a Republican (Scott Brown) in a special election, and then it got weird ...

The Democrats had been pretty willing to make deals, get what they want in some areas, give up a little in others, for decades. Same with Republicans. The sneaky voting trick with the ACA pissed off so many Republicans, they have flat out refused to deal ever since* (particularly the Tea Party faction) which is why we had the sequester and then the government shutdown, with the military and essential workers working without a paycheck. Same hard-fighting no-compromise Legislators coming out of the gate swinging (led by Ted Cruz) got them nothing. Except Donald Trump.

The President is not the key legislator; CONGRESS is. Clinton compromised on a lot of stupid social and financial shit, yes, but that was Congress handing him those deals to sign. He wasn't personally making those deals. That's not the Executive's position, although they get blamed for it later. The Legislative branch represents the will of the people. Maybe.

Lobbyists do control Congress a lot of the time. Dems and Republicans. Fucking insurance and big pharma lobbyists wrote the ACA, for their own benefit. But Trump is right: we ain't Canada. Medicare is so fucked up, it pays bills net 120. Who DOES that, other than our stupid government? When providers have to wait that fucking long to get paid, of course they build in extra costs TO US. We have one of the biggest and most INEFFICIENT governments in the world. The Medicare coding system is so complex, medical workers had to go back to school to learn and specialize in coding.

The Nordic Model that Bernie loves (free market welfare state) comes with a price: Denmark has income taxes of over 50%. If we instead tax the shit out of Wall Street, per Bernie's suggestion (gee, so simple, why didn't anybody do that before? Sarcasm) the results will be companies leaving the U.S. in droves to avoid taxes (as they are already doing).

*until Ryan took over as Speaker so at least he refuses to shut down or sequester.

implanted_microchip
04-12-2016, 09:49 AM
If we instead tax the shit out of Wall Street, per Bernie's suggestion (gee, so simple, why didn't anybody do that before? Sarcasm) the results will be companies leaving the U.S. in droves to avoid taxes

Fucking bingo. It's a big miscalculation to think that you can just go ahead and massively tax Wall Street without that cost getting shifted somewhere. The little people that type of legislation's supposed to be protecting would likely be hurt the most. It's one of many reasons that economists have been tearing into Sanders' platforms for months now, but no one seems to be listening besides those who already knew it, unfortunately. There'd be a whole lot of costs to a lot of his proposed ideas that he and his people don't seem to want to talk about or consider. Watching Robert Reich and Paul Krugman bicker about it's been a real delight though.

allegro
04-12-2016, 12:56 PM
Another notable quote about compromise, from a surprising source:


When I began entering into the give and take of legislative bargaining in Sacramento, a lot of the most radical conservatives who had supported me during the election didn’t like it. “Compromise” was a dirty word to them and they wouldn’t face the fact that we couldn’t get all of what we wanted today. They wanted all or nothing and they wanted it all at once. If you don’t get it all, some said, don’t take anything.

I’d learned while negotiating union contracts that you seldom got everything you asked for. And I agreed with FDR, who said in 1933: “I have no expectations of making a hit every time I come to bat. What I seek is the highest possible batting average."

If you got seventy-five or eighty percent of what you were asking for, I say, you take it and fight for the rest later, and that’s what I told these radical conservatives who never got used to it.

- Ronald Reagan

elevenism
04-12-2016, 01:35 PM
the lack of the will to compromise and extreme polarization is the biggest problem in the political arena these days, i would say.

Mantra
04-12-2016, 03:01 PM
If we instead tax the shit out of Wall Street, per Bernie's suggestion (gee, so simple, why didn't anybody do that before? Sarcasm) the results will be companies leaving the U.S. in droves to avoid taxes (as they are already doing).

What you're describing is just the biggest entities in the private sector throwing a temper tantrum and trying to armtwist the government into submission. "Give us everything we want or we'll dump you!" The effective corporate tax rate in the U.S is the lowest it's ever been in the history of the country. It's almost 50% lower than what it was under Reagan, and yet they still act as if they're horribly burdened. We could go ahead and slash the tax rate another 50%, and they'd just want more. Corporate profits have been rising and rising for years, especially through the great recession, and yet nothing ever seems to trickle down because, of course, the whole thing doesn't actually work that way. So ultimately, the government needs to call their bluff and do what's right for the people in the country.

And the primary motive for offshoring is to reduce labor costs. It's a race to the bottom, because they're forcing us to compete with some of the most impoverished workers in the world. And it's not just "unskilled" jobs, it's stuff like software engineers, accountants, etc. The private sector isn't creating jobs, they're eliminating jobs, between 150,000 to 300,000 every single year, and this in spite of falling tax rates and rising profits. Within the strict framework of boiler plate free market ideology, there is NO solution to this problem, at least not one that wouldn't force the United States to adopt third world living conditions. Lowering the tax rate certainly ain't gonna do it. Offshoring hasn't happened to anywhere near the same extent in Europe because they've taken more measures to protect their people, such as laws that make it difficult to arbitrarily fire employees, thereby making an offshoring operation extremely expensive, and also smarter trade agreements that create incentives to support their home economies. We need more of that stuff here. Even conservative voters are starting to wise up to this horseshit (re: Trump's populist economic stuff).

All these corporate-friendly, capitalist-minded politicians have had it their way for decades now, and I'm not that impressed. The corporations like it, but the rest of us are down here waiting our entire lives for this imaginary "trickle down" that's never going to happen. I say it's time we try for something better.

allegro
04-12-2016, 04:08 PM
Mantra, I don't disagree with anything you say, but companies are still moving locations and jobs overseas to make even MORE profits. Because of corporate greed. As mentioned in another post, look how many jobs Mondelez (division of Kraft) is sending to Mexico and their new facility there (http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-nabisco-mondelez-plant-0730-biz-20150729-story.html). Walgreens nearly moved its entire friggin' operations out of the U.S. until we scared the piss out of them (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/07/walgreens-tax-inversion_n_5655934.html) (for now). Bernie would need a pretty huge tax increase to cover all of the things he needs; and with the huge corporate greed that we have right now, Switzerland is going to be on the map for these greedy corporations. We ain't living in the Eisenhower years, anymore; Corporate greed has spawned a monster that will never die.

Why does a fucking iPad cost over 700 fucking bucks? And Apple dodges all those taxes. (http://venturebeat.com/2013/05/21/how-apple-avoided-paying-taxes-on-44b-of-offshore-income/) Why does an average car cost over 20 grand? And Ford just announced another plant in Mexico (http://technology.inquirer.net/47630/ford-to-build-small-car-factory-in-mexico-adding-2800-jobs). The cost of living is fucking nuts, all due to GREED. Have you ever seen this movie (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbarians_at_the_Gate_(film))??

What we need is to start hitting the corporate greed with better pay and more jobs, first; worry about hitting them for free college in another lifetime. We have kids who are going without FOOD in this country, a huge percentage of families below the poverty line with no assistance while certain Republicans are concerned about cutting or removing "entitlement" (ugh) or safety net programs entirely. Fuck college; right now, college is a fucking scam to make colleges rich. There are college presidents making half a million bucks per year, the whole college system is as corrupt as Wall Street. Like, really, LOOK AT THIS SHIT at a public community college (https://www.illinoispolicy.org/95-million-in-hidden-spending-revealed-at-college-of-dupage/). See also this (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/09/charts-college-presidents-overpaid-pay). Meanwhile, we have kids and seniors going without food and people working two jobs to make ends meet. EMT and Ambulance workers make an average of $15 per hour, that's skilled labor. Having Mickey D's workers making the same pay makes zero sense. The Fed minimum should be $12, and then we should look to increasing some of the other wages in this country that have been horrifyingly low for decades (like EMT workers, nursing home workers, etc.)

Mantra
04-12-2016, 08:51 PM
Have you ever seen this movie (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbarians_at_the_Gate_(film))??

Nope. Looks interesting though. :)


LOOK AT THIS SHIT at a public community college (https://www.illinoispolicy.org/95-million-in-hidden-spending-revealed-at-college-of-dupage/).
Damn!! $243,305 on liquor. Now that's some impressive hedonism.


What we need is to start hitting the corporate greed with better pay and more jobs, first; worry about hitting them for free college in another lifetime.

Well, I think the higher ed reform is important for a number of reasons.

First and foremost is the fact that the student debt situation is turning into a ticking time bomb for the economy. The colleges are acting like they've been given a blank check, and the sky is the limit. They don't give a fuck how much debt they're piling on the kids, or what that means for the long term health of our economy. The U of M TRIPLED the cost of tuition in less than ten years and provided no justifiable reason. Honestly, they've all gone fucking crazy. In the past, the main people who would graduate with the kinda debt we're seeing now were fucking doctors and shit. But now we got all these people graduating with 125k in debt even though they're only gonna be a kindergarten teacher or some white collar office drone making 25k a year. It makes no fucking sense. It's like in the mortgage crisis, how we were seeing people who worked low wage jobs, and yet somehow they were ending up with these enormous fucking mortgages that they were never in a million years gonna be able to pay off. It's unsustainable. We now have more than a trillion dollars in national student debt. Sooner or later, this bubble is gonna burst, and it's gonna tank the economy worse than '08. So yeah, someone needs to get in there and regulate the living shit out of higher ed, particularly in the public sector which has no fucking business running their institutions like some predatory corporation. Higher ed reform isn't just about providing some nice socialist program. It's about trying to prevent an economic disaster before it's too late (and personally, I suspect that it probably already is too late and it's just a matter of time before the economy caves in again, but who knows).

The other reason that higher ed reform matters is because of poverty, as you mentioned. The cost of living has been going up and up, and yet minimum wage has not kept pace. It ain't easy to get by in this country without a degree. Hell it ain't even that easy WITH a degree, at least in some fields. But really, for someone looking for an entry level job that only requires a highschool diploma, the options are fucking grim, especially with all the offshoring and union busting and the shitty fucking wages. The student debt situation is closing off one of the few remaining avenues out of poverty. And anyway, I thought that's what this fucking country was supposed to be about? All that class mobility, American dream shit? Higher ed reform matters so that we don't end up with a de facto caste system. I work at a community college, and I see people working their ass off everyday to try and claw their way out of a shitty situation, following the same path I myself followed. Higher ed shouldn't be some high stakes gamble over your future. These are public institutions and their job is to serve the pubic's best interest.

And really, raising the minimum wage helps the working professional class too. I know people who work at nursing homes making 12, 13 bucks an hour. It's awful. They would be instantly helped by the minimum wage bump, because $15/hr is already more than some of them are making. And in the long run, their wages would increase even more, because if someone can make the exact same wage working as a barista, why bother to go through the hassle of getting your nursing certification? So those employers would have to increase wages even further in order to outbid all the retail jobs and whatnot. Raise the minimum wage and pretty EVERYONE will get a bump.

allegro
04-12-2016, 09:19 PM
I know people in nursing homes making NINE BUCKS PER HOUR.

I have a friend who is an art professor, with a Master's Degree. She'll never get a full time job, never get tenure. Hell, aggroculture will never get tenure and he has a PhD. The college education system is fucked. My friend was teaching at a 4-year school, now she's teaching at a community college but now her job is at stake because of this (http://www.progressillinois.com/news/content/2016/04/11/illinois-democratic-congressmen-urge-rauner-act-higher-education-funding) and she constantly tells me about the dumbing-down of students she has. Students go to college not because of better jobs but because it's 13th grade. We can't compete with other countries as far as education. Our lower education is what needs a total overhaul. And never mind if you are blue collar and don't WANT to go to college.



It's like in the mortgage crisis, how we were seeing people who worked low wage jobs, and yet somehow they were ending up with these enormous fucking mortgages that they were never in a million years gonna be able to pay off.

I've been in real estate law for nearly 28 years and I can tell you how those people qualified: They didn't have low-wage jobs; they made decent-wage jobs but they had shit credit and they FORGED THEIR W-2s and the mortgage brokers helped them and underwriting approved everything (subprime) and we in law saw it and there was nothing we could do about it. Fraud was rampant. People wanted the AMERICAN DREAM, big houses, McMansions, pretending to be a Gatsby, and the mortgage industry never verified wages or W2s because, hey, they could foreclose and just sell the property for more money, later, right? These "lenders" (mortgage brokers, with investors doling out money at closing) sold these loans 5 seconds after the closing, so who fucking cared. I had clients who had loans that had been sold FIVE TIMES IN 1 YEAR.

Oh and guess what? Those foreclosed-upon people got to game the system and live in their homes, payment-free, for at least a year, per mortgage foreclosure laws. God bless America.

SEE ALSO THIS (https://www.reedsmith.com/files/Publication/410b60c2-4aa7-4ec9-b660-7f909e384f47/Presentation/PublicationAttachment/ab49fc30-6891-4b9f-a19e-9398fc2f9fde/What-About-Mortgage-Insurers.pdf) because pretty much every one of those fucking loans had PMI (Private Mortgage Insurance, required with less than 20% down or with ALL Federally-insured loans, eg FHA, VA, etc. You can't write off PMI, btw, and it's not cheap; a monthly PMI payment is for the life of the loan for Federally-insured loans or until you reach 20% equity for non-Federally-insured loans, minimum average is $100 per month.)

Lenders used to ask their own appraisers: how much is this property worth? And the appraisers would say: How much do you want it to be worth? And the appraisal would magically be worth the sale price, voila. After the mortgage crash, lenders and appraiser can't even communicate, anymore; it's now Federally illegal. No-doc loans are rare. Underwriters are totally anal and where it used to take sometimes days in underwriting, it takes months (a good thing). And with these new Federal TRID rules after October of 2015, (http://www.cnbc.com/2015/10/05/getting-a-mortgage-may-take-longer-under-new-rules.html) HA, forget it. And that's a good thing; keeps people from hurting themselves wanting more than they can actually afford.

Mantra
04-12-2016, 11:25 PM
I have a friend who is an art professor, with a Master's Degree. She'll never get a full time job, never get tenure. Hell, @aggroculture (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=318) will never get tenure and he has a PhD. The college education system is fucked. My friend was teaching at a 4-year school, now she's teaching at a community college but now her job is at stake because of this (http://www.progressillinois.com/news/content/2016/04/11/illinois-democratic-congressmen-urge-rauner-act-higher-education-funding) and she constantly tells me about the dumbing-down of students she has. Students go to college not because of better jobs but because it's 13th grade. We can't compete with other countries as far as education. Our lower education is what needs a total overhaul. And never mind if you are blue collar and don't WANT to go to college.

oh man don't even get me started on the adjunct labor situation, or I'll just rant for days. It's awful. I've been in two separate adjunct unionizing efforts over the years (as an organizer), one at UMN and another one at a different four year college nearby. It sucks. At this point, adjuncts are to higher ed what migrant labor is to agriculture. Most of my colleagues at work are adjuncts, many with PhDs, busting their asses, teaching 4 or 5 classes at two or three different institutions, never knowing what the next semester is gonna look like. It's insane that I only have a B.A. and just work here as a tutor, which should place me lower on the totem pole than a doctorate professor, and yet I have benefits and make more per year than most of the adjuncts (and that's that I don't actually make that much at all), all because I have a union and they don't. To be honest, I actually wish we didn't have to fight for unions across the industry, because it's exhausting and it's still not a guarantee and because unions can sometimes have their own issues, but people have no other options at this point. This is the shit people are facing: http://www.npr.org/2013/09/22/224946206/adjunct-professor-dies-destitute-then-sparks-debate

And yeah, I was just reading about the Illinois budget stuff yesterday. That sucks. I wonder if Illinois' higher ed will end up in a similar place as Wisconsin. Because MN is so close, I regularly encounter folks in education who describe themselves as "Walker refugees" because of how badly he's destroyed everything. It would be a shame to see that shit spreading to other places.

All of these issues are connected. the skyrocketing cost of education, the exploitation of adjunct labor, and so on. It's all a product of the way in which higher ed is being mismanaged and treated like a corporation. This is why we need drastic national reform, something like what Sanders is talking about, or whatever. I actually like Hillary's program quite a lot and think it would help the situation immensely: https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2015/08/10/college-compact/
It's not just a matter of providing a nice social welfare program, its a matter of reigning in the fucking disastrous trajectory we're currently on.

Edit: P.S. I think some of what you wrote about the mortgage crisis is going over my head, lol, so I don't really have that much to say in response, but I do very much appreciate reading your thoughts on it. You should write a book about everything that went wrong. I'd read it!

allegro
04-12-2016, 11:52 PM
Illinois' college funding situation is at an impasse due to the budget crisis; we are broke and it's mostly due to the State pension crisis, and the Governor promising to not raise property taxes to cover Chicago bills anymore because the rest of the State is sick of it. But because of that impasse and lifer Democrat Madigan in the House, nothing is getting done and the "MAP" (Monetary Award Program) funds that go to college students aren't getting doled out. Most of my college money came from MAP. See this (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-bruce-rauner-vetoes-college-funding-met-0221-20160219-story.html).

re Hillary's proposal, this makes so much sense to me: "Colleges and universities will be accountable to improve their outcomes and control their costs to make sure their tuition is affordable and that students who invest in college leave with a degree."

Yeah, and this makes fucking sense, too: "The Federal government will make a major new investment in the New College Compact and will never again profit off student loans for college student."

It just makes me want to barf that so many law schools embarked on this whole "fuck yeah, law school is so HIP, now, let's all fuck the law students!" program, and then there were WAY TOO FUCKING MANY law graduates with HUGE debts and NO JOBS because of supply and demand and the law schools LIED about jobs (number of students "employed" after graduation included shit like part time job at Subway but the college will lie about that).

I worked with law clerks from Loyola Chicago who bitched that every year there were more and more students but the class sizes would double or TRIPLE but in the same rooms, with same profs, and tuition INCREASED. So the overhead stayed the same but profits? Obviously fucking skyrocketed.

I was in the Loyola Chicago paralegal program (Graduate certificate) and on the Watertower law school campus there is this little "store" where they charge an arm and a leg and it seems like it's owned and operated by some outside source where the stupid new students are charged $3.00 for a tiny tube of toothpaste but, nope, the Catholic law school is making money from all that shit, too. KACHING. About a block away from the statue of Mother Teresa.

It never ends. They asked me to do an Open House for the school once and I did it and decided after the one time that I would never again be involved in it, not without feeling like I sold my soul. It's worse than corporate.

Nothing used to make me feel happier than these articles. Ha. Ha. Ha. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/03/09/law-schools-are-in-a-death-spiral-maybe-now-theyll-finally-change/)

I didn't mean to get in too deep in details with the mortgage crisis (it goes with the business) but my point was that it wasn't an innocent bystander situation, it was contributory neglegence; and the same goes for people who get in too deep with student debt. We can pass regulatory and anti-predatory laws but we can't protect all the stupid people. If somebody takes out $125,000 in student loans for a shitty art degree from a crappy college, then what really needs to be done is close down those shitty colleges to protect stupid people (or what is already in effect: shut down Federal loans to shitty colleges).

But, at some point, we also need to stop these colleges from admitting too many education students (ha, as if that will ever happen). It's still the law of supply and demand, just like with lawyers. Potential teachers can shell out $125 grand toward a BA and a Masters when there are hardly any teaching jobs out there but face it, a LOT of K-12 teachers out there end up wanting to go into teaching not because they love kids and get fulfillment from teaching but because they want summers off and think it's easy money. They're delusional, and they haven't investigated the supply and demand prospects ahead of time, except for the dog and pony show the Education dept. at the college put on for them upon acceptance to the college, get out your checkbook. A job? Oh, sure, we'll get you "a job" (fingers crossed behind back). Same for nursing school.

Mantra
04-13-2016, 02:32 AM
I worked with law clerks from Loyola Chicago who bitched that every year there were more and more students but the class sizes would double or TRIPLE but in the same rooms, with same profs, and tuition INCREASED. So the overhead stayed the same but profits? Obviously fucking skyrocketed.

Yeah, it was the exact same situation at the University of Minnesota. Tuition went through the fucking roof, but the overhead stayed the same or even dropped given that they were relying more and more on cheap adjuncts and grad students.


re Hillary's proposal, this makes so much sense to me: "Colleges and universities will be accountable to improve their outcomes and control their costs to make sure their tuition is affordable and that students who invest in college leave with a degree."

Yeah, and this makes fucking sense, too: "The Federal government will make a major new investment in the New College Compact and will never again profit off student loans for college student."

Yeah, I like it a lot. I'm actually kinda surprised that Hillary isn't talking this stuff up a bit more, given that she needs to win more of the youth vote. I suspect a lot of kids just think "Bernie will pay for my college degree, and Hillary will do nothing at all, so I'm voting for Bernie!" Maybe I've missed it, but I haven't seen her mentioning her higher ed plans that much.

The only thing that makes me just a little bit concerned is the language about "improving outcomes," because I often find outcome based assessment to be kind of crude and sometimes downright destructive. I just wonder about whether that could lead to the kind of stat games that resulted from NCLB's standardized tests. I also used to do grant writing for non-profits, and I saw the way this fixation on outcomes fucked over a number of great organizations. But on the other hand, in my state we've really been focusing a lot on retention rates in college, and I actually have found that it's a positive thing, because there's really no other way to boost those rates except by actually improving education quality, providing better support services, etc. So who knows, the "improve outcomes" thing might be fine, depending on what it actually ends up looking like.

Regarding the supply and demand stuff...I agree, especially in some fields, that there needs to be more discretion about how many students are being admitted to the programs. (side note: most of the nursing programs at my school and tons of others have long waitlists for this reason). And not to beat a dead horse, but that problem is also related to the corporatization of higher ed. To these institutions, the student is nothing but a customer, and obviously no business is going to reject a customer and lose out on profits. But a college that truly operates as a public institution should view things through a completely differently lens. They should be concerned about the long term well being of their students (as in, can they actually get a fucking job with this degree), and they should be thinking about their role in the larger community/job market. When education is just a product and the university is the seller, no one gives a shit about that stuff. It all just becomes "buy at your own risk." The colleges seem to feel no sense of responsibility to the world around them.

That said, I don't think it's fair to be blame students for making bad choices. How are they supposed to know any better? They're not old enough or financially experienced enough to fully comprehend how that debt is going to affect their life, especially when people are telling them stuff like "just think of it as an investment! You're investing in YOURSELF!" It's totally predatory. And sure, we can criticize the students who make obviously stupid choices, like the guy I read about who took out 200k on a film studies B.A. But I don't think most students are pursuing things that are so unreasonable or doing anything comparable to forging their W-2s. The bulk of the blame falls on the administrations trying to hijack our education system.

allegro
04-13-2016, 06:21 AM
Mantra, "corporatization of higher ed," yup, exactly. How these PUBLIC schools can be riduliculously unaffordable with huge class sizes and TAs (or adjuncts) handling most of the classes just shows that the guys at the top are making millions. No, we can't blame all the students for dumb choices, I said that, but choices are choices and these students shouldn't be forced to live with bad ones for a lifetime; I think we need to go so far as to revise Chapter 11 Bankruptcy laws to include certain student loan debts, and we need to have better pre-debt counseling and probably even better career counseling. Yes, it IS predatory. Absolutely. Just like those law schools. Or the fucking film school that costs $200 grand.

We also need more trade schools (e.g. for electricians, automotive, etc.) with better financial support for non-traditional students, but with the same anti-predatory standards. (I worked with a guy who owned a few beauty schools for years, he was a law client and then I updated his web sites while I was in college full time. He told me horror stories about how predatory the beauty school industry is, especially toward minorities, awful stuff; nearly all the students drop out and end up with huge debt and non-traditional loans with huge interest rates.)

implanted_microchip
04-13-2016, 12:49 PM
Reince Priebus, talkin' smack!

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/rnc-chairman-reince-priebus-trump-give-us-all-break-n555176

Timinator
04-13-2016, 12:50 PM
Back to the election: I'm a science nerd, and noted science blogger Greg Laden has been doing an interesting series of posts that contain a very quantitative look at the campaign.

Greg has developed a model that has, so far, been quite successful at predicting the outcome of the Democratic nomination process (http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2016/04/11/something-important-something-troubling-and-something-dangerous/). He maintains that Clinton will win.

He has also gone deep - very deep (http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2016/04/12/democratic-primary-2008-vs-2016-delegate-math/) - into how the nomination process works. It hurts my head.

DigitalChaos
04-13-2016, 01:39 PM
It's worse than voting for the "lesser of two evils."

It's voting to keep the most evil out.

It's a chess game.

No, not at this level. It's a very simple and continual slide toward "evil"

Every time you accept someone more evil than the last one (because the alternative is even more evil) you are just on a continual slide toward a future that is even more fucked up. "oh, they voted for her? shit, we can probably push someone even more in our pockets next time!"

It's the same situation in the gun control topic, whether your are for or against it. The perpetual "compromise" between *existing* gun laws and gun control advocates is almost always moving toward more gun control, never toward more gun freedom.

It's not a 50% compromise between what group A wants vs what group B wants. It's a compromise against what is current (5% what A wants and 95% what B wants) vs more of what group B wants. Because group B is always finding a way for the compromise to go in their direction each and every time.

But hey, maybe we can have more OWS protests in the streets about how the 1% have all the power.



edit:

like so:



Barack Obama turned out to be GWB 2.0 (GWB. Also available in 50% african!)
Hillary Clinton=GWB 3.0! (GWB. Also available in Female!)

allegro
04-13-2016, 02:21 PM
It's not a 50% compromise between what group A wants vs what group B wants. It's a compromise against what is current (5% what A wants and 95% what B wants) vs more of what group B wants. Because group B is always finding a way for the compromise to go in their direction each and every time.
Face it, all politicians are full of crap and beholden to somebody or something that gave them money. But we can't have anarchy so we're stuck with somebody. Even those nice innocent-looking third party people are full of crap and end up owing somebody something and then they're totally neutered and powerless because the entire system is controlled by the oligarchy. When I think "evil" I'm thinking mostly the religious people trying to take away the secular government. I don't even believe in "evil." But they do.

I'm just too pragmatic to use my vote for a 3rd party with Ted Cruz as a possible President. Nope. Can't do it. Just can't.

Also, I don't believe that Obama is anything like GWB. That's just ridiculous. I don't love all of Obama's policies or decisions, but I'm not in agreement with these people who bitch and complain about Obama or go so far as to compare him to GWB. That's just silly (http://us-presidents.insidegov.com/compare/2-39/Barack-Obama-vs-George-W-Bush).

GulDukat
04-13-2016, 08:12 PM
If I had to pick a campaign song for each of the five candidates running for president:

John Kasich--Nowhere Man, The Beatles
Bernie Sanders--Holier Than Thou, Metallica
Donald Trump--One in a Million, Guns N' Roses
Ted Cruz--Liar, Rollins Band
Hillary Clinton--We are the Champions, Queen

implanted_microchip
04-14-2016, 03:32 AM
That's just ridiculous. I don't love all of Obama's policies or decisions, but I'm not in agreement with these people who bitch and complain about Obama or go so far as to compare him to GWB. That's just silly (http://us-presidents.insidegov.com/compare/2-39/Barack-Obama-vs-George-W-Bush).

Get out of here with all those facts that don't fit the easy narrative disaffected liberals like to adopt

Also, this is going to be a bit of a shitstorm of a gaffe that will result in plenty of heated debate and change no one's stances on either side:

http://bluenationreview.com/speaker-at-bernie-nyc-rally-refers-to-corporate-democratic-whores/

It's a good idea to not use the word "whore" when introducing someone running against a woman but hey, maybe I'm just too PC with my evil SJW rhetoric and all that

DigitalChaos
04-14-2016, 01:15 PM
Face it, all politicians are full of crap and beholden to somebody or something that gave them money.
You know my politics puts me in agreement with this more than most people who have never even thought about a 3rd party. But even I recognize there are gradients of this. It's also about which groups the candidate is beholden too. And it's about what the individual voter believes. Plenty of Sanders people view him as much less beholden to special interests, or at least special interests they disagree with. They view Hillary as quite the opposite when it comes to who she is beholden too. And that's why it's horrible for the individuals who believe this to then vote for her.



I'm just too pragmatic to use my vote for a 3rd party with Ted Cruz as a possible President. Nope. Can't do it. Just can't.

Pragmatism is exactly why you shouldn't do this. You are much more likely to get shitty candidates over the next several years (presidential and congressional) because you positively accepted a candidate that fell below your bar. It's already been happening over the years. You now have a primarily right-wing candidate you feel you are forced to vote for. congrats!

There are plenty of examples of this actually working, even incredibly recently. You may not like the Tea Party or they type of candidates they want, but you can't ignore the fact that they dramatically changed the landscape of the type of candidates that the GOP had.


And wtf is Cruz going realistically do as president? Especially when he will trigger a wave of Dems to take Congressional majority as backlash? (which will be much more helpful to Dems than a Hillary presidency... especially if those candidates end up being more representative of what the voters demanded during the presidential election)

elevenism
04-14-2016, 01:24 PM
No, not at this level. It's a very simple and continual slide toward "evil"


Absofuckinglutely

allegro
04-14-2016, 01:29 PM
And wtf is Cruz going realistically do as president? Especially when he will trigger a wave of Dems to take Congressional majority as backlash?
With gerrymandering greatly helping Tea Party Republicans in the House, I don't believe this is likely to happen any time soon in the House. Maybe in the Senate; not in the House.

I am not just voting for a candidate against a candidate; I also just don't like the 3rd party candidates, and I also just don't feel that Bernie is my candidate, anymore (he's not a 3rd party candidate). Whatever, we will never agree on any of this, and I don't have to explain my choices to you.

You know, it's weird; I grew up in a generation that didn't even DISCUSS THIS STUFF among family, let alone IN PUBLIC; it was private, just like voting booths are private. Your vote was something that was sacredly private, so nobody would chastise you, threaten you, etc., because peoples jobs were threatened, families were threatened, etc., if that information was disclosed. So I don't even like to disclose for whom I am voting, it just seems like somebody rifling through my wallet. I have my reasons, and I no longer feel like I have to defend them; here or anywhere. So, I guess I'm out of this discussion. I don't think we are sliding toward "evil," I think that this country has always been imperialist, has always been a superpower, it hasn't ever changed, and this is all just a lot of hype by people with too much time on their hands and the Internet, hand-rubbing and forgetting about the civil war, sliding toward evil holy crap, what a fucking load. I have to go fight with the IRS, now, about my 77-yr-old Mom's efiled return. You know, more evil.

Khrz
04-14-2016, 01:35 PM
the lack of the will to compromise and extreme polarization is the biggest problem in the political arena these days, i would say.

On the other hand, constant compromise and lack of identity bring the exact same result, ie Europe.

The left leans on liberalism since traditional socialism is seen as idealistic, and the right leans towards the center to get as much support as it can and to accommodate the people's social and economic concerns.
As a result their respective identities got muddied and their political stances considered unpredictable, resulting in a lack of confidence and general disenchantment from their base. Said base dispersed towards "stronger", more radical parties either promising to muzzle capitalism or on the other end of the spectrum to isolate the country and end immigration.

Sounds familiar yet ?

allegro
04-14-2016, 01:37 PM
Sounds familiar yet ?
Not in this country right now, no. The Democrats have been trying to compromise, but the radical right has been unwilling because they represent the oligarchy and / or the religious right. And the radical left is so far to the left of the radical right, well ...

DigitalChaos
04-14-2016, 01:40 PM
With gerrymandering greatly helping Tea Party Republicans in the House, I don't believe this is likely to happen any time soon in the House. Maybe in the Senate; not in the House.


A few days ago, *someone* said something about gerrymandering... hrmm what was it...


Gerrymandering only works when Republicans vote and lazy Democrats stay home. So more Dems need to get into those areas and then VOTE.

What gets Dems out in force during congressional elections more than a president they despise?



I am not just voting for a candidate against a candidate; I also just don't like the 3rd party candidates, and I also just don't feel that Bernie is my candidate, anymore.

Sounds more ideological than pragmatic, but its still a better reason than the vast majority of party-line voters who will vote simply to keep an R from winning and not thinking beyond that election.





You know, it's weird; I grew up in a generation that didn't even DISCUSS THIS STUFF among family, let alone IN PUBLIC; it was private, just like voting booths are private. Your vote was something that was sacredly private, so nobody would chastise you, threaten you, etc., because peoples jobs were threatened, families were threatened, etc., if that information was disclosed. So I don't even like to disclose for whom I am voting, it just seems like somebody rifling through my wallet.
I blame social media for the oversharing thing leading to everyone openly talking about who they vote for. At the same time, I've heard that political party affinity has become a MUCH more important factor in relationships and even in terms of families accepting a child's partner. It's like how religion was a few generations ago. I hate that shit so much. It's stupid tribalism.

It kinda works with me in some ways though. I just wear a lot on my sleeve, literally at times. It drives some of my downtown SF coworkers nuts.

allegro
04-14-2016, 01:43 PM
I blame social media for the oversharing thing leading to everyone openly talking about who they vote for. At the same time, I've heard that political party affinity has become a MUCH more important factor in relationships and even in terms of families accepting a child's partner. It's like how religion was a few generations ago. I hate that shit so much. It's stupid tribalism.
I'm with you, there. I'm fucking sick of it, plus all the bullshit "information" spreading on social media, makes me so fucking mad, my blood pressure is usually very low but I think this stupidity has taken a few years off of my life. So I'm out of it; I'll wake up sometimes next February. I told my husband the topic is off fucking limits, unless it's a joke.


What gets Dems out in force during congressional elections more than a president they despise?
Fucking over the VRA really had a negative effect on the ability to stop Republicans from using gerrymandering in their favor, we sure have seen that so far. (Case in point: Arizona)

DigitalChaos
04-14-2016, 01:43 PM
Not in this country right now, no. The Democrats have been trying to compromise, but the radical right has been unwilling because they represent the oligarchy and / or the religious right. And the radical left is so far to the left of the radical right, well ...
lol, maybe if you ignore the fact that you have a right-wing warhawk as the leading Dem candidate a while 8 years after Bush.

You really shouldn't be so quick to discount what Khrz is saying. There is a huge foundation for it and it exists in all kinds of government models where democracy is attached.

allegro
04-14-2016, 01:53 PM
Here's the bottom line: Socialism sounds great but this is a country where Capitalism is King, baby. You will find far too many people in this country who will fight for less limits on Capitalism and less infringements on rights and less government than more government and less Capitalism. We are and always have been a country full of (Capitalist) Individualists with a capital I, with the "I want to keep every last fucking cent I earn" mentality who aren't willing to pay one more cent toward their fellow man and don't give one single fuck about anybody or anything except themselves and their latest post on Facebook or their latest selfie; even those Bernie supporters are ultimately looking toward what's in it for them and not what's in it for senior citizens or starving kids or poor people; it ain't no collectivist mentality. And that ain't likely to change any time soon. And, really, that ain't no giant movement; they're still voting for one of the two parties. It ain't like they're filling 20,000 capacity stadiums for a fucking Libertarian. Most of the Washington Square Park people? They ain't even registered to vote.

Khrz
04-14-2016, 01:58 PM
Not in this country right now, no. The Democrats have been trying to compromise, but the radical right has been unwilling because they represent the oligarchy and / or the religious right. And the radical left is so far to the left of the radical right, well ...

I meant, the sudden surge in popularity of (relatively) radical movements, not the compromise part obviously...

allegro
04-14-2016, 02:03 PM
I meant, the sudden surge in popularity of (relatively) radical movements, not the compromise part obviously...
That isn't sudden. The Tea Party movement is considered radical right and that's been around for about 13 years and has had Congress by the 'nads. It was able to shut down the Occupy Wall Street movement (http://thehill.com/opinion/mark-mellman/198157-mark-s-mellman-tea-party-vs-occupy-wall-street). It's been especially prominent in U.S. Elections since about 2010 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_history_of_the_Tea_Party_movement).

DigitalChaos
04-14-2016, 05:59 PM
Also, I don't believe that Obama is anything like GWB. That's just ridiculous. I don't love all of Obama's policies or decisions, but I'm not in agreement with these people who bitch and complain about Obama or go so far as to compare him to GWB. That's just silly (http://us-presidents.insidegov.com/compare/2-39/Barack-Obama-vs-George-W-Bush).

That's a lot of random shit in that link. Much is about their personal views that make little difference in an executive role.

It's all about *meaningful* difference. For many of us, there is no meaningful difference. When they both support the military industrial complex, invasion of privacy (on so many different areas), war on drugs, federal reserve, deficits, etc... i really don't give a shit about their nuanced differences. Even something like a different stance on gun control is pretty minor to someone like me (who hates gun control, have I told you guys?)



He's not a fucking right-wing warhawk, give me a fucking break.
*candidate*
i was referring to Hillary

allegro
04-14-2016, 06:16 PM
What worries me more than anything is a candidate who threatens the secularity of this country. And that's Cruz. He has governors across this country who fully support him, his pro-life stance, his anti-gay stance, his anti-transgender stance, his evangelical views, his creationist stance, etc. Sure, he may have no bearing on Federal laws when facing Congress but he will fully support governors and states on any of THEIR laws and he will place Federal and SCOTUS judges who support those religious-right laws. And that shit will affect this country for DECADES after he's gone.



*candidate*
i was referring to Hillary

Ah, okay, edited, I misunderstood. And I think that Hillary will have to reign that in.


It's all about *meaningful* difference. For many of us, there is no meaningful difference. When they both support the military industrial complex, invasion of privacy (on so many different areas), war on drugs, federal reserve, deficits, etc... i really don't give a shit about their nuanced differences. Even something like a different stance on gun control is pretty minor to someone like me (who hates gun control, have I told you guys?)
I'm not arguing with you, here. It's the main reason why I voted for Obama (he was a Constitutional law professor, swore he would protect the right to privacy, would get rid of the Patriot Act, etc., but then it fell off the agenda, because the ACA was top priority and it appears that this was lip service and he was scared of losing a second term? who the fuck knows) but those things I now assume to be just bullshit because they're worried about the next election and campaign funds and then they're worried about their library and book deals and shit. But, still, to me, issues like pro-choice, preserving safety net programs, preserving the VRA, preserving civil rights, fighting against domestic violence, preserving our safe water, climate change, etc., is "left" enough for me to be a MEANINGFUL difference.

DigitalChaos
04-14-2016, 08:50 PM
Sure, he may have no bearing on Federal laws when facing Congress but he will fully support governors and states on any of THEIR laws and he will place Federal and SCOTUS judges who support those religious-right laws. And that shit will affect this country for DECADES after he's gone.
Won't be an issue if the Dems freak out about a Repub president and make it to the polls to fix Congress. Luckily, we have the current Congress working on some untested ways of blocking SCOTUS nominations that we can use going forward :)

But even if that doesn't happen, wouldn't it be incredibly hard to move backward on a lot of these topics? The rulings that were made are already in place to block a lot of the discrimination you speak of. They aren't going to reverse rulings. Hell, after Scalia died all the gun-rights groups were freaking out because the Heller majority no longer existed... but just last month there was Jaime Caetano v Massachusetts which basically advanced the "radical" 2A interpretation behind Heller.

But you know what can completely undo the impact of SCOTUS rulings? CONGRESS! which brings me right back to the beginning of the post :)

GulDukat
04-14-2016, 09:17 PM
Clinton is winning tonight's debate, hands down, imho, of course.

allegro
04-14-2016, 09:57 PM
Won't be an issue if the Dems freak out about a Repub president and make it to the polls to fix Congress. Luckily, we have the current Congress working on some untested ways of blocking SCOTUS nominations that we can use going forward :)

But even if that doesn't happen, wouldn't it be incredibly hard to move backward on a lot of these topics? The rulings that were made are already in place to block a lot of the discrimination you speak of. They aren't going to reverse rulings. Hell, after Scalia died all the gun-rights groups were freaking out because the Heller majority no longer existed... but just last month there was Jaime Caetano v Massachusetts which basically advanced the "radical" 2A interpretation behind Heller.

But you know what can completely undo the impact of SCOTUS rulings? CONGRESS! which brings me right back to the beginning of the post :)

First, Heller wasn't radical, Heller was logical; Heller said that handguns are okay but assault weapons aren't, and that it's not reasonable to force people to have locks on guns deeming them useless. Heller was the defining opinion as to why SCOTUS refuses to hear any assault weapon ban cases. Second, I was talking about the MANY states that ALREADY violate Roe v. Wade, already violate civil rights and LGBT rights; we shouldn't have to go to fucking court to enforce the law each time these religious assholes decide to flagrantly violate constitutionally-upheld laws. You care about gun laws, but those don't violate human rights or civil rights; those don't use "right to religion" to violate human rights and put peoples lives in danger or abuse poor women. Using SCOTUS to force these states to conform to SCOTUS opinions is HARD ; it takes a LOT OF MONEY to get to SCOTUS to enforce its own opinion. These governors know it and pass laws that go against SCOTUS decisions all the fucking time (and shitty crooked Federal judges uphold them) and they shouldn't be pulling this shit in the first place, forcing people to attempt to go before the SCOTUS which requires a lot of money and expensive attorneys and time. Even Scalia said that with the gay marriage opinion, citing the Brown v. the Board of Education opinion as an example: the SCOTUS interprets laws; it does not create or enforce laws; with Brown, George Wallace refused to integrate Alabama schools and JFK sent in the National Guard to enforce Brown (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand_in_the_Schoolhouse_Door). I'm not talking about SCOTUS reversing rulings (although it does it all the time); I'm talking about Federal judges and states that flagratly ignore SCOTUS rulings, knowing how hard it is to get people to do anything ABOUT it. See also THIS LOAD OF SHIT IN TEXAS (http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/supreme-court-abortion-rights_us_56d6f857e4b0871f60ed48e6) which is likely to continue now that Scalia is dead and Merrick is being ignored, since it's likely we will see a 4-4 split which will mean business as usual (violation of Roe v Wade).


Clinton is winning tonight's debate, hands down, imho, of course.
It's why she was an excellent Secretary of State; she has awesome debate skills. But otherwise, I had to turn off the debate because it was giving me a stomach ache.

Mantra
04-15-2016, 12:02 AM
You know, it's weird; I grew up in a generation that didn't even DISCUSS THIS STUFF among family, let alone IN PUBLIC; it was private, just like voting booths are private. Your vote was something that was sacredly private, so nobody would chastise you, threaten you, etc., because peoples jobs were threatened, families were threatened, etc., if that information was disclosed. So I don't even like to disclose for whom I am voting, it just seems like somebody rifling through my wallet.

Interesting...I think this stuff varies between cultures and generations. Recently a student from Nigeria asked me who I was voting for, but before I could answer she was like "Or...Is that a rude question?" She said she's noticed that people here seems more guarded about their politics than what she's accustomed to, and she thought it was kinda funny how the election's all over the news but then she goes to work and it's like nothing's happening.

I love debating politics, especially with people I disagree with, but I don't like the current tone of political conversations on tv and social media. Everything is so inflammatory and emotional and reactive. I'm kinda burned out on that shit. When it comes to how I spend my time with people on the internet, I mostly just want to have a good time. I want to joke around, laugh about this fucking crazy election, analyze and reflect on the primary developments as they happen, and maybe share a moment of understanding with someone I disagree with. I just don't feel like getting into personal fights with people anymore.

DigitalChaos
04-15-2016, 12:43 PM
First, Heller wasn't radical, Heller was logical; Heller said that handguns are okay but assault weapons aren't, and that it's not reasonable to force people to have locks on guns deeming them useless.
Maybe radical isn't the right word. How about landmark? It was the first SCOTUS decision to rule on whether the *individual* has the right to guns for defense. That was pretty huge. A lot of the left want to see that undone because "huuur not a militia are you??!" level of reading and punctuation comprehension problems. To some of us, yes... logical. But to many on the left... no. And that's the point! Everyone gun-rights advocate thought Heller was going to fall apart the moment Scalia died and SCOTUS ruled on something similar. Heller was a 5-4 decision. But Caetano v Mass? UNANIMOUS! not a single dissenting opinion! It was a ruling stacked on top of the Heller ruling. Heller was used as a huge part of the justification. They weren't going against Heller now that Scalia was gone. What's been ruled sticks! Undoing a SCOTUS ruling is fucking hard and uncommon.





You care about gun laws, but those don't violate human rights or civil rights
It was an example to prove how SCOTUS works. Here is another one (that you know very well): The RFRA that produced the Hobby Lobby ruling. That was *Congress* who essentially decided Hobby Lobby, not SCOTUS. SCOTUS said that religious exemptions aren't Constitutional, but Congress didn't like that in the 90's. So they produced legislation that forced SCOTUS to rule differently.


Yes, on the local level there may be some larger issues. (governors, etc) with an "opposing party" president. But im not entirely sure how that would realistically work. That something I'd love you to elaborate on.

allegro
04-15-2016, 04:35 PM
Maybe radical isn't the right word. How about landmark? It was the first SCOTUS decision to rule on whether the *individual* has the right to guns for defense. That was pretty huge. A lot of the left want to see that undone because "huuur not a militia are you??!" level of reading and punctuation comprehension problems. To some of us, yes... logical. But to many on the left... no. And that's the point! Everyone gun-rights advocate thought Heller was going to fall apart the moment Scalia died and SCOTUS ruled on something similar. Heller was a 5-4 decision. But Caetano v Mass? UNANIMOUS! not a single dissenting opinion! It was a ruling stacked on top of the Heller ruling. Heller was used as a huge part of the justification. They weren't going against Heller now that Scalia was gone. What's been ruled sticks! Undoing a SCOTUS ruling is fucking hard and uncommon.

First of all, the SCOTUS does reverse itself and is the one high court in the land that does not always use stare decisis since it relies on other case law for its decisions which decisions are constantly evolving.

See this list of reversed / overruled SCOTUS decisions. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_overruled_United_States_Supreme_Court_deci sions)

SEE ALSO THESE (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_abrogated_United_States_Supreme_Court_deci sions).

For instance, re Roe v Wade, the case Planned Parenthood v. Casey (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Parenthood_v._Casey) amended Roe because the Court did NOT use stare decisis. It REVISED Roe v. Wade:


Viability of the fetus
Although upholding the "essential holding" in Roe, and recognizing that women have some constitutional liberty to terminate their pregnancies, the O'Connor-Kennedy-Souter plurality overturned the Roe trimester framework in favor of a viability analysis. The Roe trimester framework completely forbade states from regulating abortion during the first trimester of pregnancy, permitted regulations designed to protect a woman's health in the second trimester, and permitted prohibitions on abortion during the third trimester (when the fetus becomes viable) under the justification of fetal protection, and so long as the life or health of the mother was not at risk. The plurality found that continuing advancements in medical technology had proven that a fetus could be considered viable at 22 or 23 weeks rather than at the 28 weeks previously understood by the Court in Roe. The plurality thus redrew the line of increasing state interest at viability because of increasing medical accuracy about when viability takes place. Likewise, the authors of the plurality opinion felt that viability was "more workable" than the trimester framework.

Under the new viability framework, the plurality held that at the point of viability and subsequent to viability, the state could promote its interest in the "potentiality of human life" by regulating, or possibly proscribing, abortion "except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother." Prior to viability, the plurality held, the State can show concern for fetal development, but it cannot pose an undue burden on a woman's fundamental right to abortion. The plurality reasoned that the new pre- and post-viability line would still uphold the essential holding of Roe, which recognized both the woman's constitutionally protected liberty, and the State's "important and legitimate interest in potential life."

The undue burden standard
In replacing the trimester framework with the viability framework, the plurality also replaced the strict scrutiny analysis under Roe, with the "undue burden" standard previously developed by O'Connor in her dissent in Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health. A legal restriction posing an undue burden is one that has "the purpose or effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion of a nonviable fetus." An undue burden is found even where a statute purports to further the interest of potential life or another valid state interest, if it places a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman's fundamental right to choice. In applying this new standard, the plurality overruled City of Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, 462 U.S. 416 (1983) and Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 476 U.S. 747 (1986), each of which applied "strict scrutiny" to abortion restrictions.

Applying this new standard to the challenged Pennsylvania Act, the plurality struck down the spousal notice requirement, finding that for many women, the statutory provision would impose a substantial obstacle in their path to receive an abortion. The plurality recognized that the provision gave too much power to husbands over their wives ("a spousal notice requirement enables the husband to wield an effective veto over his wife's decision"), and could worsen situations of spousal and child abuse. In finding the provision unconstitutional, the authors of the plurality opinion clarified that the focus of the undue burden test is on the group "for whom the law is a restriction, not the group for whom the law is irrelevant." Otherwise stated, courts should not focus on what portion of the population is affected by the legislation, but rather on the population the law would restrict. The plurality upheld the remaining contested regulations – the State's informed consent and 24-hour waiting period, parental consent requirements, reporting requirements, and the "medical emergencies" definition – holding that none constituted an undue burden.

Notably, when the authors of the plurality discuss the right to privacy in the joint opinion, it is all within the context of a quotation or paraphrase from Roe or other previous cases. The authors of the plurality opinion, do not, however, explicitly or implicitly state that they do not believe in a right to privacy, or that they do not support the use of privacy in Roe to justify the fundamental right to abortion. Justice Blackmun would not agree with an implication asserting otherwise, stating "[t]he Court today reaffirms the long recognized rights of privacy and bodily integrity."



Second, Heller READ THE HELLER OPINION (http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf) which clearly states precedent (which the Court requires):


None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individual rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes.

Third, a State Supreme Court (Caetano v Mass) does not carry the same weight as a SCOTUS decision; the State Supreme Court decision is simply following the Heller decision since the SCOTUS is the highest court in the land. But, that has to do with stun guns in Massachusetts. And the right to have a handgun at home for protection is not what "the left" wants to "undo" -- the left loves Heller because it clearly states that "dangerous weapons" (including assault weapons) are not protected by the 2nd Amendment.

Further, Obama supported the Heller ruling:


Today's ruling, the first clear statement on this issue in 127 years, will provide much-needed guidance to local jurisdictions across the country ... what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne. .... if we act responsibly, we can both protect the constitutional right to bear arms and keep our communities and our children safe.

And this isn't what I was talking about re the danger of somebody like Cruz being President with his puppets as Governors and appointees on the Appellate Courts, for instance ABORTION LAWS. Appellate Courts rule against Roe all the fucking time, here's another example (http://bigstory.ap.org/article/1cfbfa87c0af4732976d546fd18e3d14/appellate-court-rules-against-abortion-clinics-louisiana). That is because these pro-life appellate Judges are trying to get the SCOTUS to hear the case and to set a new precedent re Roe (modifying Roe, AGAIN).

elevenism
04-15-2016, 06:48 PM
i've been watching the cnn documentary series the 60s and the 70s and remembering a lot of things about the push for civil rights of all kinds, and i wanted to pop my dome in here and concede that my remarks a few pages back about how government legislation doesn't change much, were, in fact, ridiculous.
i move that those statements be stricken from my permanent record.
:p

As you were.

allegro
04-15-2016, 06:55 PM
elevenism, your statements are hereby stricken.

:)

(p.s. I've seen those documentaries, too, they're awesome!!)

Mantra
04-15-2016, 07:54 PM
speaking of cruz

came across this pic and thought of @jinsai (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=272)

https://scontent-ord1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfa1/v/t1.0-9/12512243_10153506258340994_995181425237744002_n.jp g?oh=4a05e084c504bfd3b74f152c0d37dcc0&oe=57724D7A

neorev
04-19-2016, 04:09 PM
If you thought Arizona was bad with voter fraud/election rigging, New York is in a shitstorm right now.

Those turned away must ask for an affidavit ballot. They must provide you one. Don't walk away without your vote taken.

implanted_microchip
04-19-2016, 04:20 PM
I feel like such a dork because I've been excited for today and to read analysis of it all night for actual weeks on end now

allegro
04-19-2016, 05:12 PM
I feel like such a dork because I've been excited for today and to read analysis of it all night for actual weeks on end now
My husband is the same, he doesn't want us to make dinner, we're ordering a pizza and drinking champagne and glued to the TV all night again.

Mantra
04-19-2016, 06:23 PM
I feel like such a dork because I've been excited for today and to read analysis of it all night for actual weeks on end now

lol, same here.

I hate sports, but I've always been a little jealous of those people who get all pumped up for game days. This right here is probably the closest I'll ever get to experiencing something like that.

I almost wonder if half the reason we have this stupid system, where the primaries for each state are separated and dragged out over several months, is just because people think it's fun. It's like a big tournament that moves from state to state.

implanted_microchip
04-19-2016, 06:31 PM
Mantra that recent John Oliver joke where he said "Politics -- sports for nerds" was way too close to home.

Mantra
04-19-2016, 10:21 PM
I'm actually pretty surprised that Kasich beat Cruz by a solid ten points. How?

Ted must be bummed out.

Jinsai
04-19-2016, 10:31 PM
I'm actually pretty surprised that Kasich beat Cruz by a solid ten points. How?

Because his idiotic comment about "New York values" bit him in the ass.

DigitalChaos
04-19-2016, 11:27 PM
And this isn't what I was talking about re the danger of somebody like Cruz being President with his puppets as Governors and appointees on the Appellate Courts, for instance ABORTION LAWS. Appellate Courts rule against Roe all the fucking time, here's another example (http://bigstory.ap.org/article/1cfbfa87c0af4732976d546fd18e3d14/appellate-court-rules-against-abortion-clinics-louisiana). That is because these pro-life appellate Judges are trying to get the SCOTUS to hear the case and to set a new precedent re Roe (modifying Roe, AGAIN).
Interesting. This is really worth digging into more. It seems like very few people talk about this realm of legal fuckery. Without a full understanding of it, it's hard to leverage the existing system to stop it.

DigitalChaos
04-19-2016, 11:37 PM
@Mantra (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=925) that recent John Oliver joke where he said "Politics -- sports for nerds" was way too close to home.
It's true, at least on the non participatory angle! Though, we now have spectator gaming... As someone who has worked in the gaming industry for over a decade, I don't get it. Stadiums of people watching a handful play a computer game, insane amounts of money behind watching various top gamers play all day. So fucking crazy.

anyway. NerdSports! Fuck everyone who treats political parties like sports teams though. ugh

Mantra
04-19-2016, 11:52 PM
Because his idiotic comment about "New York values" bit him in the ass.

Hmmm...Seems like his team should have come up with some kinda damage control strategy for that, given how many delegates were at stake.

I really think Ted completely sucks at politics and basically just has Trump to thank for his success. Everybody in the party mostly hated him before, but Trump's presence has caused them to rally behind him to an extent that probably would have never happened under any other situation. If this primary had been like Cruz and Rubio or Cruz and Kasich, Cruz is the one they would have been portraying as the extremist monster that must be stopped.

Ted should be thanking Jesus Christ every single day that Trump came along. He ain't got SHIT without an anti-Trump movement to bolster his lackluster campaign.

implanted_microchip
04-20-2016, 12:32 AM
In general Cruz's grassroots Texan Evangelical angle does not play as well in the Northeast. His best states are well behind him and he's mathematically got zero path to 1237 now. That New York values comment likely was just the reason to hate him that many may have been looking for. Kasich will likely come in second a lot from here on out but it'll be relatively meaningless.

I disagree that Ted is bad at politics; he's a political machine. It's why I find him terrifying -- he can get things done. He had people working over delegates in Wyoming a whole year ago before ever announcing a campaign. He has been able to climb ranks and make his way to where he is despite nobody ever liking him. When popularity is often the most important part of politics, for him to be able to be where he's at despite being unanimously unpopular amidst his peers is very impressive in a Machiavellian way. He knows how to get things done in an underhanded, opportunistic manner. He was all about being the Tea Party, anti-establishment candidate but Trump did it bigger and better so he kept the energy from it while being able to label himself as the off-brand alternative. He captures both the anti-establishment and the anti-Trump vote and that's pretty intelligent and he knows how to maneuver very well, he just has no chance against somebody who's entire game is on another level. Trump is playing chess while the GOP plays checkers. Cruz could do quite well against another politician but Donald Trump is not a politician and that is his greatest strength; none of these sessoned people know how to fight him because it's like you trained your whole life to kill a bear and suddenly you're being dragged into the river and it's a crocodile.

I am so extremely interested in how the Sanders camp tries to spin this off as a victory. After countless "we will win" statements and stressing it's vital importance, I'd think people would know when it's a done game, but every time Bernie loses somehow someway it gets spun into this bizarre fantasy of a win by his supporters and I don't get it. Hillary has won in votes in large numbers despite being outspent by $3 million by Bernie. It's so weird the narratives they choose to play when it suits them and to ignore when it doesn't.

Right now it's "closed primaries are evil!" even though they make perfect sense. For a while the narrative was that Hillary would use superdelegates to subvert the popular vote and now that she has that vote loudly and clearly Jeff fucking Weaver goes on CNN saying that he and Bernie will try to convince superdelegates to defy that vote. It's a fucking hypocritical trainwreck of a campaign at this point that will do nothing but serve to splinter a party further when that's the last thing we need to see happen.

TheyCallMeDrug
04-20-2016, 01:09 AM
ny is done, bernie's (been) done. i voted for him in the ny primary tonight to make a point and i'm honestly surprised how close the actual number came. if ny didnt have assfucked backwards voter registration laws bernie could have swung it imo.


HAPPY 420. dabbin for bernie lol.

Jinsai
04-20-2016, 02:50 AM
It's true, at least on the non participatory angle! Though, we now have spectator gaming... As someone who has worked in the gaming industry for over a decade, I don't get it. Stadiums of people watching a handful play a computer game, insane amounts of money behind watching various top gamers play all day. So fucking crazy.

I don't get it either, but it makes as much sense to me as sports, which I don't care about at all. Every time I've attended a sporting event I feel like my precious time is being sucked out of me. I would rather be almost anywhere else.

Jinsai
04-20-2016, 02:54 AM
I am so extremely interested in how the Sanders camp tries to spin this off as a victory.

Oh please. Please. Fuck off. It wasn't a victory. Nobody is calling it that. Please, I know you love Hillary, but piss in someone else's face right now.

Swykk
04-20-2016, 07:38 AM
I don't understand how it's not 100% clear that under Hillary it'll be war and Wall Street all day, every day. It baffles me. Who would willingly choose that over Bernie?
The only evidence I've seen (and it's really fucking stupid) is some women saying "It's time we had a woman president!" Well okay, sure, I'm with you, but wait for the right woman (Elizabeth Warren comes to mind). I'd love to hear any actual reasons voting for Hillary makes sense. Really. I'm not joking.
Of course, now I even have to vote for her to avoid Idiocracy from becoming real life.

And here's a good pre-existing question worth mentioning--How much closer would it be if the ridiculous distribution of delegates was fair when Bernie won states as opposed to when Hillary won states? She somehow ends up with close to as many delegates when she loses. Strange...

Deepvoid
04-20-2016, 09:48 AM
I'm starting to see a lot of Bernie supporters saying they would never vote for Hilary.
I'm assuming by that statement that they would rather have Cruz or Trump as POTUS.
That's fucked up imo but I'm starting to think it could actually be bad news for the Dems.

You guys were talking about voting for the less of two evils ... If you look at those three candidates, I would pick Hilary in a heartbeat.

Anyways, I also think Bernie is done. His numbers are terrible in Maryland. I don't think he has a shot in PA either.

onthewall2983
04-20-2016, 10:17 AM
I'm starting to see a lot of Bernie supporters saying they would never vote for Hilary.
I'm assuming by that statement that they would rather have Cruz or Trump as POTUS.
That's fucked up imo but I'm starting to think it could actually be bad news for the Dems.

I think that's just talk, and a lot of them will change their minds come November, if that's the case. Hurray for voting for the lesser of two evils...again.

implanted_microchip
04-20-2016, 10:31 AM
And here's a good pre-existing question worth mentioning--How much closer would it be if the ridiculous distribution of delegates was fair when Bernie won states as opposed to when Hillary won states? She somehow ends up with close to as many delegates when she loses. Strange...

I honestly doubt it would have done a whole lot -- the momentum argument seems to not hold up to me since he just won eight out of nine states and it didn't swing it for him, and previously Hillary had won large clusters and that didn't guarantee things for her victory-wise either. In general momentum seems to not exist this election -- it comes down heavily to demographics, and if you look demographically, Sanders is just not there. His majority of supporters are under 45's and mostly white males. Romney lost in 2012 largely because, as the GOP's own autopsy report (I still adore that they called it that) found, he lacked strong numbers amidst Hispanics and other minorities and America is no longer a country where you can count on white men to elect you. And he had a lot of the older vote, too, which is more reliable when it comes to turn-out. Most of the states that Sanders has done very well in have been mostly white areas, similar to Cruz in that respect, who also has low appeal amidst minority demographics and relied on mostly white states to net his early victories and try and say that it was "proof of momentum." For whatever bizarre reason, Trump does extremely well with most minorities that are Republicans, and you've seen the rest of the Republicans suffer for it all year now.

I just don't think Sanders' campaign managed to broadcast his message to other demographics well. How should he have done that? I have no idea, but he honestly was at an extreme disadvantage going against Hillary when the Clintons have had widespread favorability and support among minorities since Bill was in town. It was something of a built-in advantage for them. Personally I think that his campaign was poorly set up in terms of longevity -- I really don't believe they at first expected to make it this far at all and it's really impressive that they have, I have felt for a while that Bernie was an issues candidate who saw the surprisingly large support and went with it -- and I think he just chose bad people to have as managers. Tad Devine was behind two loosing campaigns that should have won, but didn't. Jeff Weaver is a mess. Those kinds of people being his advisors were not a good choice as far as I'm concerned and the numbers certainly seem to support that. He just didn't get himself out there enough for anyone outside of a relatively young white college-educated crowd, and you can't count on that to win a nomination.

allegro
04-20-2016, 12:53 PM
I know you love Hillary
Actually, he voted for Bernie.

But he later changed his mind.

Anyway, nobody in this forum can change anybody's mind about anything. What people should do, really, is stop listening to others online or on TV and just go to the candidate web sites and read the candidate positions. And even that might not change anybody's mind but whatever.

Here, for example, are Hillary Rodham Clinton's positions on various issues (https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/).

Here are Donald Trump's positions on various issues (https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions).

Here are Ted Cruz's positions on various issues (https://www.tedcruz.org/issues/).

Here are John Kasich's positions on various issues (https://www.johnkasich.com/issues/).

allegro
04-20-2016, 01:16 PM
I'm actually pretty surprised that Kasich beat Cruz by a solid ten points. How?
MSNBC was saying that because the Republicans in NY, especially NYC and Manhattan, are moderate, and Kasich actually won 2 delegates in Manhattan due to the moderate Republicans (Cruz is way too conservative).

Jinsai
04-20-2016, 01:34 PM
Actually, he voted for Bernie.

But he later changed his mind.

I know that, but the insinuation that Sanders supporters are so delusional that they're going to spin the NY primaries as some kind of victory is a little aggravating.

Regardless, who we voted for in the past doesn't say much about where we stand right now. I voted for Ralph Nader in 2000, but if I passed him walking down the street today I'd slap him.

allegro
04-20-2016, 02:00 PM
Regardless, who we voted for in the past doesn't say much about where we stand right now. I voted for Ralph Nader in 2000, but if I passed him walking down the street today I'd slap him.
well, his "past" was a month ago. Ralph Nader was ... is he still ALIVE?? Heh. He was around when *I* was a kid, with that Corvair shit. (Wait, I should probably add a link (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsafe_at_Any_Speed) since that might not make sense to younger people.)

edit: yeah, he's still alive; he's 82.

implanted_microchip
04-20-2016, 02:30 PM
Jinsai I'm already seeing Bernie fans putting out electorate graphs trying to compare things to Obama in '08 and act like New York wasn't a big loss. I don't think all his supporters are that deluded by any means but there are a lot that are and his campaign encourages it a lot. Jeff Weaver is a clown who says ridiculous garbage all the time. He outright has said that they'd consider trying to sway superdelegates to go against the popular vote since Hillary has such a wide lead in votes despite having previously ranted about that kind of behavior being so awful. It's a "let's be all about integrity until it doesn't benefit us" sentimentality that I find extremely distasteful and it is very much present. Sorry that you don't agree with me but to act like I'm just dancing around pissing in people's faces is pretty dismissive of my opinions and assessment of things.

So since we're nearing the point where it's going to become a discussion -- who do we think the picks for VP might be? I know I've said before that I think Jeff Sessions is a strong pick for Trump -- helps secure a lot of the South, strong Republican with a long history that helps deflect some of that "not a real Republican" criticism, he's got a really close relationship with Trump and he was loved by Reagan. He'd make it harder for Republicans to argue against the party legitimacy of a Trump administration if he was part of the face of it.

I think for Hillary it's extremely likely that someone like Julian Castro is being considered heavily and Tom Perez is also likely. Personally I think that Gary Locke would be excellent -- he's got a very strong list of accomplishments which would strengthen Hillary's energy she runs on of being the most qualified (whereas Castro could weaken that image a bit), he'd be the first Asian American in the White House which would bolster the sense of a Clinton ticket helping minorities, he was an ambassador to China, he has almost no controversy to carry in with him and in general could be a very good choice, especially against someone like Trump who likes to play up his knowledge of Chinese relations.

Jinsai
04-20-2016, 02:37 PM
@Jinsai (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=272) I'm already seeing Bernie fans putting out electorate graphs trying to compare things to Obama in '08 and act like New York wasn't a big loss.

Remaining optimistic in the face of defeat is not at all the same thing as desperately trying to spin a loss into a win.

sick among the pure
04-20-2016, 03:08 PM
Remaining optimistic in the face of defeat is not at all the same thing as desperately trying to spin a loss into a win.
Not to mention how big of a win NY was projected to be for her, and how many fewer people voted for her than in 2008, Hillary only netted 30 delegates as of right now (affidavit ballots, which were filled out in record numbers, will take at least a week to tally. Also, you know how Sanders is still getting delegates from past states? That's going to be happening from NY too in the coming weeks). All Sanders really NEEDS to do is keep it close and continue to show he has Independant support (and Republicans who are crossing the line). There are still 2 huge states coming up in the next week, we aren't backing down.

allegro
04-20-2016, 03:27 PM
Re Sanders and Clinton and LGBT "Establishment," this is an interesting article (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/01/22/bernie-sanders-s-real-beef-with-the-lgbt-establishment.html). So is this (http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2015/10/05/bernie_sanders_on_marriage_equality_he_s_no_longti me_champion.html).

implanted_microchip
04-20-2016, 03:37 PM
All Sanders really NEEDS to do is keep it close and continue to show he has Independant support (and Republicans who are crossing the line). There are still 2 huge states coming up in the next week, we aren't backing down.

He NEEDS more than sixty percent of the remaining delegates and is projected to fail in most upcoming states. For the past month Bernie's been saying how important NY was, and they dramatically under-performed and are now blaming it on the fact that -- shockingly -- people who weren't registered Democrats couldn't vote in a closed Democratic primary. They needed a very large amount of victory in pretty much every contest going forward even pre-New York, and now it's a even slimmer. It's just the math of it, it has nothing to do with opinion anymore.

He'll likely win Oregon and possibly Rhode Island but those really won't mean a ton. If he can't win Pennsylvania, there'll be very minimal justification for him staying in -- he'll have lost Florida, Ohio and Penn., all really important states as far as general elections go. He doesn't have the popular vote, he doesn't have the delegates and he has pretty much none of the really important states and I don't see how there is any compelling argument for him to be the nominee when he is failing by pretty much any standard other than going off of emotions. The basic math does not favor him at all at this point and Hillary is likely to sweep next week.

I have few doubts he'll go all the way to California, just like Hillary drug things out in '08, and it'll be to much the same effect. I do not see a reasonable argument that he can possibly achieve the nomination at this point going by almost any measure of victory. I just do not see it and have yet to hear an argument that has convinced me otherwise.

As far as I'm concerned the guy should stop attacking Hillary like he's a Fox News anchor, start pumping his cash into down ticket candidates, support Tim Canova, and actually do something to help unite Democrats and take back the White House and take back Congress, because the nomination just isn't going to be his, short of a very, very big miracle.

@allegro (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=76) what do you think you're doing here with your articles and sources

Your Name Here
04-20-2016, 05:50 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYcYV0FQiFw

Mantra
04-20-2016, 07:23 PM
Personally I think that his campaign was poorly set up in terms of longevity -- I really don't believe they at first expected to make it this far at all and it's really impressive that they have, I have felt for a while that Bernie was an issues candidate who saw the surprisingly large support and went with it

I definitely think this is true for both Bernie as well as his supporters. At first he seemed like the same kinda candidate we've so many times before: some dude with "principles and integrity" but zero chance of winning shit. These types of people show up every election, on all sides of the political spectrum, and they basically just run for symbolic reasons, to make a statement or whatever, not because they actually expect to win. But then something changed, and his campaign, at least for a bit, seemed like it might actually have a chance, which was kinda crazy. And I think this really fucked with everyone's head. I suspect it fucked up Bernie Sanders himself, and I know it made all the lefties go a nuts. It's almost like we all became drunk on the sense of possibility.

I count myself among this group. Sometimes I vote, sometimes I don't, but either way, I never truly feel "represented" in any meaningful sense of the word. I vote, because why the fuck not, but it means nothing to me. The people I've voted for do not speak for me and they share very few of my values. I just did it to "stop the bad guys." Which is fine. I'm glad we had Obama and not McCain, and the ACA is certainly better than what nothing. But still, I've never felt like I had an actual "voice" in electoral politics. For people like me, we find our voice in local politics, activism, writing, etc. Bernie was probably the first time in my entire life where, for once, I felt like someone at the presidential level was advocating for my shit. That was a fucking weird feeling, something I've literally never experienced before.

I think a lot of people felt this way, and I think what's happening now is that people are bummed out at the idea of going back underground. That's why you basically see Bernie people falling into two camps today: those in denial, and those who have accepted the outcome and are now grieving. From here on out it's back to business as usual. It's depressing, but what are you gonna do? That's the nature of this country. All these devastated Bernie people made the mistake of forgetting that this is NOT a strong left wing country. These people today are coming to terms with that fact that this country is not filled with people just like them.

Really, this is just a fucking INSANE country. We got Trump people, Bernie people, religious zealouts, armed militias, marxist academics. We got freaks in every direction as far as the eye can see, except for the mediocre status quo in the middle that ultimately manages to dominate everything. My advice is to get drunk and learn to enjoy the horrible insanity of it all!

thevoid99
04-20-2016, 07:27 PM
Does anyone here watch Real Sports with Bryant Gumbel? I saw their most recent episode where they did a follow-up on a golf course Trump wants to create in Scotland as the project has now stalled due to a local and some environmentalists as the people of Scotland now wants anything that has to do with Trump out of the country. Especially to the point that the man who was Trump's biggest supporter went to Parliament in wanting to create a petition to ban Trump from the United Kingdom. Oh, and Trump did sue Scotland.... and lost. What a shit-head.

Sarah K
04-20-2016, 07:53 PM
This is the first time I have ever switched my vote. Last year, I donated money to Sanders, and was 100% on board. Within the last two months or so, I switched over, and ended up voting for Clinton in the end. I'm glad that I can still remain objective and examine everything, even though I thought for SURE I'd be voting for Sanders at one point in time.

Also the people are blowing the voter thing way out of proportion. I was one of the names that wasn't on the list in Brooklyn. They offered the affidavit to me, and it took about three minutes to fill out. We knew it was going to be a problem before we got there, so everyone should have been prepared. People are acting like this is why Sanders lost, or that it is unfair that he won more counties, but got less delegates. I'm sad to see so many folks on the left turn into conspiracy theorists. Might as well write in Ron Paul.

implanted_microchip
04-20-2016, 08:33 PM
Sarah K I find that a lot of Sanders' fans are doing the job of Fox News now. It's sad to witness. For ages places like Fox have done all they can to demonize and be terrified of Hillary and now people on the left find her too conservative and compare her to Reagan or Bush? Please. It's so absurd. And god, I can't stand how every time Bernie loses his fans call conspiracy yet Hillary never raises that rabble over losing. I feel like largely Bernie's attracted the libertarian vote more than anything at this point and it's so Paul-esque online it's ridiculous.

allegro
04-20-2016, 08:42 PM
My husband told me about Elizabeth Warren's awesome Ted Cruz Twitter beatdown (http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/elizabeth-warren-ted-cruz-twitter_us_5716ac90e4b06f35cb710fc0?).

Your Name Here
04-20-2016, 08:48 PM
................

Sarah K
04-20-2016, 08:50 PM
She is also too conservative for my liking, too. But I feel like Sanders has good ideas that I'm totally on board with for domestic issues. Unfortunately, that's about where it ends. He has yet to evolve those ideas into actual plans. The Sanders supporters are honestly the first thing that caused me to question my standing. I couldn't tolerate it anymore.

allegro
04-20-2016, 08:51 PM
I fucking love her I wish she was running for president.

She's just not interested. She knows she can get lots more done where she is at right now.

sick among the pure
04-20-2016, 10:34 PM
I find that a lot of Sanders' fans are doing the job of Fox News now. It's sad to witness. For ages places like Fox have done all they can to demonize and be terrified of Hillary
I'm sorry, but criticizing a politician and pointing out their faults is not demonizing. Supporting another candidate does not make someone akin to Fox News.

allegro
04-20-2016, 10:43 PM
I think he was saying Fox News demonized Hillary? (Which they nearly did, far beyond mere criticism. They do the same to Obama. Demonize means portraying as evil, which is a little too heavy-handed but Fox News certainly lays a lot more blame on Clinton and Obama than what is truly there, ignoring other realities.)

This shit re Hillary's email, for instance. She did not personally set up an email server, she did not use email for Secretary of State business (she used confidential phone connections, wires, meetings). But where is the FBI not under anyone's strict scrutiny when its Office of Personnel Management (OPM) unencrypted server was hacked by China, which contained SECURITY CLEARANCE data for over 20.5 million Federal employees that included Social Security Numbers and over 10 million FINGER PRINTS?? This was an FBI fucking server. And the director of the CIA's EMAIL WAS HACKED on a "secure" government server. So I want to fucking punch these assholes saying that Hillary risked "secret data" by not being on a government server. BULLSHIT. IT WAS MORE AT RISK ON A GOVERNMENT SERVER.

But when I see a post about Hillary on WaPo's Instagram feed, honest to God, some recent comments have said:

"She is a lying cunt #feelthebern"

That's when I see the shit behind the curtain.

sick among the pure
04-20-2016, 11:05 PM
"She is a lying cunt #feelthebern"

That's when I see the shit behind the curtain.

Yeah, people like that exist no matter who they support for president. I call out any Bernie supporter who talks shit like that about any candidate. That's not what we're about, and it makes Bernie and every one of us look bad. If you don't like Bernie simply because some of his supporters are as much of a douche as any other candidate's supporter, how can you like NIN? Trent has some of the douchiest fans in the music world.

allegro
04-20-2016, 11:09 PM
Yes but Bernie is attracting a lot of these males solely in opposition of Hillary. And that's unfortunate because Bernie is a feminist. But Bernie isn't exactly setting the record straight, either.

Look, Obama did two elections based on this whole "individual donor" thing. Especially in '08 when he was a Jr Senator and had zero support but was able to collect millions in tiny individual donations as a relative nobody. We were excited about that. It was a grassroots movement, mostly via the internet and social media. His opponent was ... Hillary Clinton. And I didn't see ANY of this "cunt" business.

Sarah K
04-20-2016, 11:11 PM
If NIN fans constantly shit out streams of misogyny, conspiracy theories, and just plain incorrect information, I wouldn't hang around here, either.

allegro
04-21-2016, 12:23 AM
Good article in The Atlantic: The Socialist Case Against Bernie: Eugene Puryear explains why Sanders isn’t revolutionary enough (http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/05/the-socialist-case-against-bernie/476409/)

Your Name Here
04-21-2016, 12:37 AM
................