2016 US Presidential Election Thread IX

[BigMacPhisto]

Clinton's illegal immigration policies are atrocious, but for me it's the whole sending back kids from Central America trying to come here so they don't get murdered that gets to me. She doesn't mind propping up dictators or sending children back to their likely deaths, but hey, Manifest Destiny.

[BigMacPhisto]

As for Irvine's article, nothing about it really says much other than the fact that Bernie was involved in a heated election battle just like any other. Also, the bit at the end about Feingold is an absolute lie as I received an e-mail a couple weeks ago from the Sanders campaign about donating money to him.

To get annoyed at Bernie's heated "burn them all" mentality or the tactics used by his campaign is pretty sad when Clinton herself is guilty of exactly the same (and in many regards, far worse) with her 2008 campaign. Somehow Sanders lobbing a valid political point of attack on Clinton or the DNC is worse than race baiting?

Do I have to bring up that last time Clinton ran her own campaign into millions of dollars of debt to serve her own ego trip that the DNC ended up paying for? So much for helping the party.

I guess the fact that she won this time suddenly makes her a voice of reason, even though the calculated persona hasn't changed.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto

Indeed they are. Because actual progressives believe in actual progressive politics. Clinton deciding that she's a progressive suddenly near the end of 2015 doesn't make her one. Her disappointing track record says otherwise.



Sanders may have tried to co-opt a party he never belonged to, but Clinton has tried to co-opt a part of the political sphere she has never belonged to...at least Bernie can fit in the all encompassing banner of "Democrat" under our two-party system. Clinton's attempts to be a liberal are exceedingly hollow.

The point is made.

[BigMacPhisto]

Originally Posted by BEAL

Start with Trump. He has shown that religion doesn't really take center stage anymore. He beat guys like Cruz, who's as fucking wacko as they come on this subject, and others like Ass Juice and Rubio. So the hope is that future candidates can go more towards the middle, not pander to a dying voter base. Not saying we'll have atheists taking center stage (I wish ), but more focus on policy, and less on a constant reinforcement of belief.

Religion is taking a continual back seat in politics as evidenced by Cruz's own supporters desperately wanting him to tone it down. But the Republicans are only going to stay on the far right because that's what their supporters ultimately want. They can lose every four years because of the built-in demographic disadvantage and there's nothing about them that will change because they actually believed they could win with people like Romney or Trump. Once it becomes apparent that they're going to start regularly losing Presidential elections by 60-40 margins, they'll be only more likely to keep up the conservative purity test as they'll figure it a lost cause to try winning. Better to have a far-right Presidential candidate and have the House/Senate members continue to lean in that direction than move to the rapidly diminishing center for no reason. They love the obstruction.

Democratic party will surely shift to the left. These Sanders voters will soon be joined by much younger (and probably more liberal) compatriots over the next couple decades while almost all of Clinton's most vocal supporters will be dead in the ground. Those wanting to have extremely high office plans in their future, might want to try and take the most liberal route they can in their political journeys...

On the other hand, I think the Democrats are actually the worst of the bunch when it comes to dynasties. If Clinton picks somebody that's not that old, that person will practically be guaranteed to be the nominee in 2024, regardless of their platform. Name recognition and previously holding a higher office works like a charm with this group. Doesn't help that the black vote is now a firm quarter of the primary electorate and whomever they line up behind is pretty much guaranteed to be the nominee. No, their outsized influence isn't the problem. It's the lining up behind the same candidate. Senator Cory Booker would stand a reasonable chance in 2024 (if he's not Clinton's pick to begin with) if he can start with 25% of the vote right out of the gate.

To me, it's like the most anti-Democratic thing imaginable to basically let Clinton pick our next President into 2032 and so forth, but I digress...here's hoping the liberal purity test soon becomes everything and previous job holdings will be irrelevant compared to what you actually stand for.

Otherwise, if a progressive candidate like Bernie doesn't stand a chance, then I never have any interest in Democratic primaries whatsoever. And there's millions like me that feel the same.

[LuckyNumber7]

My question to you, BMP, is whether you felt this way before the primaries, or if you've just fallen in line behind the Sanders campaign?

[BigMacPhisto]

I've always felt this way before Sanders ran his campaign, just like many of Sanders' supporters. Bernie brought me into the fold. I never voted in a Democratic primary before this one* and have been a registered Green or independent my entire political life.

Kucinich, for example, would have been more than good enough. But he wasn't viable in the primaries.




* I should point out that I didn't bother changing my registration and voting for Bernie as I waited until the New York primary results to make that decision as I felt that was the tipping point. Once Bernie lost that one (even a small victory there would have been insignificant), there was no point in changing the registration. Had I been voting in an earlier state, I would have changed my registration and been one of the millions of new Democrats that are now in the party because of Bernie.

For what it's worth, changing your registration is actually insignificant in California because we have a jungle primary. In other words, the only thing you get to vote on within your own party is who will be the Presidential nominee. Everything else is an open system where the top two candidates move on to the general election. We have two Democrats now running for Senate in the fall and no Republican on the ballot. Should be interesting.

[LuckyNumber7]

The thing is, Bernie's positions don't really fully represent the Democratic Party. Honestly, he's moved the Democratic Party in his direction. I love the guy for his honesty and the way he plays politics. However, I don't necessarily agree with everything he says. I like his rhetoric far more than Clinton. But, at the end of the day I still find myself wanting a little bit of both, and not wanting a lot of both.

But senator Sanders needs to quit the crap and get the fuck out of the race. It's ridiculous to think he never stood a chance and nobody like him ever will. Look how many states he carried and look how well he did. And look how he's pulled the democratic platform. But right now he's being a sore loser, and he's not helping the platform. He's dividing the platform. From this point on, it's set. He should be content and bow out, and keep his reputation as a reformer. That doesn't even mean he has to fall in line or back down from his positions and criticisms. He just needs to admit that he's lost.

[womanfish]

Originally Posted by Vlad n U 2

Yes, you've mentioned this quite regularly. What I'm interested in is the difference between the campaign he 'promised' and the one he dished up.

He started as a candidate that wouldn't stoop to any negativity. And, it's probably my fault, but i really felt he was this honest, stand up guy. I used to argue with people that would post articles about his history of anger, and not working well with others. I couldn't believe it.

But then it didn't take long for a string of about 10 things, including a bunch of stating false endorsements, the Clinton server breach, the supporters posing as union workers in Nevada, suing the DNC, releasing the first negative ad... etc...

That was the start of me seeing that he wasn't really walking the talk. And that's fine for a politician, except if your whole persona you are selling is that you walk the talk.

Then came the constant talk about everything being rigged. Any loss was caused by cheating, and corporate conspiracy...
Then the attacks on the Democratic party itself.

Pair this with him never changing his stump speech, never touching a broad range of subjects and not going in depth on any of his narrow view points.

I suppose i expected too much. But the lead up to New York and after, he turned plain nasty. He seemed negative and nasty, and with it you saw this turn in his supporters. It went from yay Bernie to NeverHillary the Shill!! the warmonger.

Definitely NOT the type of campaign i signed up for at the beginning. Clinton has called for more love, understanding and unity of democrats/liberals. We agree on most everything. Maybe in different degrees or means of achieving. But very close.

Sanders seems to want to stoke divisivness just to keep his group of true believers sending in the cash.

[deep]

Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto

* I should point out that I didn't bother changing my registration and voting for Bernie as I waited until the New York primary results to make that decision as I felt that was the tipping point. Once Bernie lost that one (even a small victory there would have been insignificant), there was no point in changing the registration. Had I been voting in an earlier state, I would have changed my registration and been one of the millions of new Democrats that are now in the party because of Bernie.

For what it's worth, changing your registration is actually insignificant in California because we have a jungle primary. In other words, the only thing you get to vote on within your own party is who will be the Presidential nominee. Everything else is an open system where the top two candidates move on to the general election. We have two Democrats now running for Senate in the fall and no Republican on the ballot. Should be interesting.

Being a fellow Californian in a heavy GOP dominant area (Newport Beach) all my elected officials are GOP. I wonder if Loretta Sanchez can beat Kamala Harris for Boxer's Senate seat. I think GOP would slightly prefer her over Harris.

Of course Hillary will win CA. The only question is can Trump win PA. OH Mich, those states are what it will take. It will be a bit of an uphill battle for him. But, it could break his way. Or a pretty easy win for Hillary.

Good chance 2016 winner will be a one term president. I don't think the economy will rebound strongly. It will get a bit worse under Hillary and she will be out. Then a more traditional conservative could win. Perhaps a Rubio or that type. If Trump gets in it will be rocky, and most likely he will be out in 2020, the Dems could get a more progressive candidate like Warren or someone of that flavor and win. Just my thoughts, at this point in time,

Kucinich, for example, would have been more than good enough. But he wasn't viable in the primaries.

I have been thinking about him because of Sanders, he had bad timing and Bernie had good timing. I wonder if they had switched running times if Kucinich would have beat Hillary. Bernie had more baggage (age, socialist) to over come than a Kucinich or Dean. Hillary is a truly weak and flawed candidate, thank god she has the woman card to play and a wild card like Trump to go against.

[BEAL]

Maybe spin it this way

Hillary saved a lot of heartbreak from the diehard Bernie supporters and Bernie himself.

Bernie was gonna need a lot more $$$ for the general election. He was going to be invoked with SuperPACS (or his campaign). He was going to need to shift to the center a lil bit (every candidate does).

And let's just say he would have been elected, how upset would his base be when nothing gets done? Or worse, his staff has to compromise ?

We saw some of this backlash against Obama when he didn't fulfill all his promises.

Now Bernie can stay in the position he's always felt more comfortable, which is an outsider yelling and screaming about the flaws of everything.

He comes out of this flawless.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[LuckyNumber7]

Oh my lord, can you stop already? You act like you've it all figured out.

[BEAL]

The answer is 42


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[PhilsFan]

[Bluer White]

Will be interesting to hear DT's reaction to the Tel Aviv shootings.

[dazzledbylight]

Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto

Again, just not true. A ton of Bernie supporters were those that wanted nothing to do with the Democratic party in general, hate corporatism, and would usually vote in the general for someone like Jill Stein, if at all.

Bernie's not the problem, it's Clinton's continual insistence on making bad decisions for decades. I'm not sure why you think anybody on the far left needs to suck it up and vote for Clinton. Socialism and Capitalism are nowhere near the same thing, my friend.

First what do you consider the differences between being left and far left?

Second since there are several types of socialism as far as I understand it...

I can see the benefits of the Nordic Style of Democratic Socialism. I don'tt like other types as far as I've encountered them (newspapers, a rare verbal discussion).

I'm proud to say I'm aliberal, progressive Democrat even if, at times they've made me wince pretty badly. In the tradition of FDR & Eleanor, Paul Wellstone, Edward Kennedy...

I also vote on the Working Families party line in Local & State elections, a more progressive party since it was formed here in NYS.

[dazzledbylight]

Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto

Especially when she's giving speeches on inequality while wearing $12,495 Armani jackets.

I was middle, middle class into my early 40's when difficulties sent me down unto being poor, not destitute, but poor.

I don't have problems with rich people who genuinely earn their money through their various kind of efforts that don't trample on other people in general, and especially on the lower rungs if the economic & social ladders. Especially also in the lower end of the multimillion $ ladder

Where I have problems are with uncaring, unenpathetic, cruel rich people (particularly higher end multimillionaires, billies & trillies) who don't pay their fair share and a bit more because no one makes it totally on their own. They make use of local, state, and federal structures and infrastructures, to pay their part in that .

And cruelty bothers me a lot. To let people go hungry, have bad or no medical care, live in horrible housing, to eat poorly grown food in the USA is indefensible!

And I'd like to see some basic decent housing, health care & food (and water) for everyone around the world.

[BigMacPhisto]

Would you say Clinton genuinely earned her money by giving speeches to the toxic cesspool that is Goldman Sachs or by giving favorable state department contracts to people that donated to the Clinton fund?

[BigMacPhisto]

Originally Posted by deep

Being a fellow Californian in a heavy GOP dominant area (Newport Beach) all my elected officials are GOP. I wonder if Loretta Sanchez can beat Kamala Harris for Boxer's Senate seat. I think GOP would slightly prefer her over Harris.

I prefer Sanchez myself as she's less tied into the Democratic machine despite her long history with the party. This anointing of Kamala Harris as Senator in 2016 and Gavin Newsom as Governor in 2018 just makes my skin crawl. That in the nation's largest state we're giving our top political jobs to people five years or more in advance. Ugh.

And you can bet Gavin Newsom will make a run for President in 2024 against Clinton's appointed candidate (her VP) and a black guy like Cory Booker (if Clinton's VP isn't black). Fun. In a nation of like 330,000,000 we get to choose between two or three hand selected candidates every eight years.

[Vlad n U 2]

Originally Posted by PhilsFan

Did you see that Sady Doyle has moved on to writing fan fiction about Clinton?

I would prefer not to know what Sady Doyle or her counterparts are saying. Knowing she writes Hillary fanfiction only reinforces that preference.

Originally Posted by Irvine511

and, really, the members of "the far left" are the best judges of these sort of things.

She really isn't that progressive, and that should hardly be controversial. There are some similarities between Clinton and Malcolm Turnbull, neither are 'leftist' by any stretch of the imagination and both supposedly progressive socially. The latter's case is different as he is drawn into the conservative wing of his party despite being a moderate and as such has more or less abandoned this social progressivism.

Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto

Clinton's illegal immigration policies are atrocious, but for me it's the whole sending back kids from Central America trying to come here so they don't get murdered that gets to me. She doesn't mind propping up dictators or sending children back to their likely deaths, but hey, Manifest Destiny.

I don't remember this even really being discussed in this thread. Which is a bit disappointing.

Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7

Oh my lord, can you stop already? You act like you've it all figured out.

I think BEAL may be working on a political post generator, type in "Hillary is good" and "Bernie is bad" - churn it out 5 times a day. You're all good.

[Vlad n U 2]

Originally Posted by PhilsFan

Says it all, really. This is not just a small 'mistake'.

Originally Posted by dazzledbylight

First what do you consider the differences between being left and far left?

Second since there are several types of socialism as far as I understand it...

I can see the benefits of the Nordic Style of Democratic Socialism. I don'tt like other types as far as I've encountered them (newspapers, a rare verbal discussion).

I'm proud to say I'm aliberal, progressive Democrat even if, at times they've made me wince pretty badly. In the tradition of FDR & Eleanor, Paul Wellstone, Edward Kennedy...

I also vote on the Working Families party line in Local & State elections, a more progressive party since it was formed here in NYS.

It always surprises me when people still go on and on about "Nordic socialism", especially when so much has changed in recent decades, that the same Scandinavia some speak of doesn't quite exist as it did in the 50s/60s/70s. And that the conditions that lead to the creation of social democracy throughout Scandinavia may not be applicable to the US.

Originally Posted by dazzledbylight

I was middle, middle class into my early 40's when difficulties sent me down unto being poor, not destitute, but poor.

I don't have problems with rich people who genuinely earn their money through their various kind of efforts that don't trample on other people in general, and especially on the lower rungs if the economic & social ladders. Especially also in the lower end of the multimillion $ ladder

Where I have problems are with uncaring, unenpathetic, cruel rich people (particularly higher end multimillionaires, billies & trillies) who don't pay their fair share and a bit more because no one makes it totally on their own. They make use of local, state, and federal structures and infrastructures, to pay their part in that .

And cruelty bothers me a lot. To let people go hungry, have bad or no medical care, live in horrible housing, to eat poorly grown food in the USA is indefensible!

And I'd like to see some basic decent housing, health care & food (and water) for everyone around the world.

I'm interested to hear what you mean by this.