US Election: Saint Bernard the obstinant

[ThinkerX]

13 minutes ago, mormont said:

Did anyone claim they weren't partisan? The argument RBPL makes appears to me to be explicitly so: that's his whole point, that this decision is harmful to the party Sanders claims to be representing.

And why is it that any criticism of a decision is somehow conflated with making that decision illegal? I mean, are you trying to outlaw RBPL's free speech now, by disagreeing with it? Am I trying to outlaw yours? This idea that criticising someone is anti-free speech is nonsense.

What makes you think I am attempting to suppress free speech?  Quite the opposite.  Trump and Sanders want to debate, let them.  Others do not have the right to suppress or prohibit said debate. 

 

I also note that as recently as a few months ago, quite a few posters on this site thought a Trump/Sanders debate would be interesting. 

[mormont]

16 minutes ago, ThinkerX said:

What makes you think I am attempting to suppress free speech?

Nothing. I don't think RBPL is, either.

Trump and Sanders are not currently experiencing any legal impediment to their free speech and will not do so whether they debate or not. RBPL has no power to 'suppress or prohibit said debate', but he surely has the right to criticise Sanders for agreeing to take part. That's as much an exercise of free speech as the debate itself would be.

Disagreeing with people, criticising them, these things are the bastions of free speech, not a threat to them.

[ThinkerX]

1 minute ago, mormont said:

Nothing. I don't think RBPL is, either.

Trump and Sanders are not currently experiencing any legal impediment to their free speech and will not do so whether they debate or not. RBPL has no power to 'suppress or prohibit said debate', but he surely has the right to criticise Sanders for agreeing to take part. That's as much an exercise of free speech as the debate itself would be.

Disagreeing with people, criticising them, these things are the bastions of free speech, not a threat to them.

That I have no objection too.

 

[DireWolfSpirit]

A little election year memory lane from 2004. 

 

Never was a huge Rev Al Sharpton fan, but at the 2004 Dem Convention the Rev Al delivered a stirring speech, from about 12 minutes on, he absolutely brings down the house.

Also (same convention) Obama gave the Keynote at the convention and pretty much hit a moonshot. 

 

[Bonesy]

Maybe, just maybe Clinton should have KEPT HER WORD and had the final promised debate. I can't imagine why she didn't keep her word.

[Altherion]

3 hours ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

Agreed. Sorry, Bernie, but unless you ran this past Hillary first (and I really doubt you did), this is the height of arrogance and irresponsibility.

This is just such a bizarre thing to say. Off the top of my head, I don't see what good such a debate does him, but why in the world should Sanders consult his competitor prior to acting?

[The Marquis de Leech]

1 hour ago, Altherion said:

This is just such a bizarre thing to say. Off the top of my head, I don't see what good such a debate does him, but why in the world should Sanders consult his competitor prior to acting?

Simple. It's basically ensuring that his actions have the approval of the party he seeks to lead. If Hillary is fine with him debating Trump, then that's OK. Otherwise it's tantamount to sabotaging both the de facto nominee and the wider party. 

[TrackerNeil]

4 hours ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

Agreed. Sorry, Bernie, but unless you ran this past Hillary first (and I really doubt you did), this is the height of arrogance and irresponsibility. 

(To be honest, I'd apply the same reasoning to Hillary debating Trump at this point - it's irresponsible to effectively speak on behalf of your party like that while there is still competition for the nomination. Though at least Hillary would have the excuse of being the de facto nominee).

I agree. The whole thing feels like a stunt, and as Sarah Palin's VP nomination should prove, you don't win the presidency on a stunt.

[mormont]

2 hours ago, Altherion said:

This is just such a bizarre thing to say. Off the top of my head, I don't see what good such a debate does him, but why in the world should Sanders consult his competitor prior to acting?

Well, I can see the temptation for Sanders: it's his only chance to take on Trump in a debate. But, anyone can see why Trump made the offer and what's in it for Trump. He's going to spend the whole time trying to get Sanders to agree with him, on policy issues to some extent, but mostly on attack lines against Clinton. This 'debate' will be no such thing: it'll be free anti-Clinton publicity for Trump.

So, there's a reason why Sanders should consult Clinton. This 'debate' is going to be about her.

[Altherion]

19 minutes ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

Simple. It's basically ensuring that his actions have the approval of the party he seeks to lead. If Hillary is fine with him debating Trump, then that's OK. Otherwise it's tantamount to sabotaging both the de facto nominee and the wider party. 

First, somebody who seeks approval for personal actions at the level of a debate (i.e. not even policy, but mere campaigning) can hardly aspire to being a leader. More importantly, Clinton is nominally his competitor and he should not be running his decisions past her. If Sanders is genuinely convinced that Clinton is the nominee, then he should stop wasting people's time and money and simply drop out.

[Martell Spy]

Quote

First, somebody who seeks approval for personal actions at the level of a debate (i.e. not even policy, but mere campaigning) can hardly aspire to being a leader. More importantly, Clinton is nominally his competitor and he should not be running his decisions past her. If Sanders is genuinely convinced that Clinton is the nominee, then he should stop wasting people's time and money and simply drop out.

 

Bernie is seeking greater concessions at the Convention is why he is still running. This is not a waste of his supporters time and money, not if it has some lasting effect that they agree with. And Bernie can't actually come and say he knows he has lost, as he'd lose massive support the instant he admitted it. One of those dumb rules of politics.

I don't think this debate will happen. However, if it did happen it'd be treason against the party and be remembered as such by many Democrats, in particular if Clinton lost the election. It would be sidelining the woman who is actually getting the nomination. Everyone knows Bernie has lost, including him. I like Bernie and I"m pretty far left, but this is not something I'd forgive.

[Balefont]

14 minutes ago, Martell Spy said:

 

Bernie is seeking greater concessions at the Convention is why he is still running. This is not a waste of his supporters time and money, not if it has some lasting effect that they agree with. And Bernie can't actually come and say he knows he has lost, as he'd lose massive support the instant he admitted it. One of those dumb rules of politics.

I don't think this debate will happen. However, if it did happen it'd be treason against the party and be remembered as such by many Democrats, in particular if Clinton lost the election. It would be sidelining the woman who is actually getting the nomination. Everyone knows Bernie has lost, including him. I like Bernie and I"m pretty far left, but this is not something I'd forgive.

Agree.

As much as I more closely identify with Bernie's politics (if not necessarily the implementation of them), it would be improper for him to debate Trump prior to being selected as the Dem nominee. 

I can also understand the tremendous pressure from the momentum behind him to stay in the race to the very end.  However, I would prefer it if he and his strategists were working on/executing a pivot plan to start funneling that momentum into influencing Congressional elections - especially in areas that could really make a difference in repairing the mess that is Congress. 

[mormont]

24 minutes ago, Martell Spy said:

 

Bernie is seeking greater concessions at the Convention is why he is still running. This is not a waste of his supporters time and money, not if it has some lasting effect that they agree with. And Bernie can't actually come and say he knows he has lost, as he'd lose massive support the instant he admitted it. One of those dumb rules of politics.

The problem with that has been pointed out before, which is that it means Sanders is offering a false prospectus. It tarnishes his unique selling point, his integrity, if he's not actually being straight with voters about why he's still running.

I'm actually not sure it is why he's still running, to be honest.

[Martell Spy]

 

Quote

 

The problem with that has been pointed out before, which is that it means Sanders is offering a false prospectus. It tarnishes his unique selling point, his integrity, if he's not actually being straight with voters about why he's still running.

I'm actually not sure it is why he's still running, to be honest.

 

 

 

I don't really blame him. The rules of politics bind him into this bit of dishonesty. His other choices are to quit now, and lose a lot of his power at the Convention, but remain honest, or keep running and admit that he knows he's not getting the nomination, and yet again remain honest. Both of these choices would bury his movement and he'd be another footnote in history, like Howard Dean.

[Centrist Simon Steele]

15 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Welfare reform...ugh. Well, a lot of it happened under Bill Clinton, and at the time it was considered good. The problems came about because too much of who gets funded and where the funds come from are at the discretion of the states, and as it turned out many of the states told the welfare recipients to go fuck themselves. 

One horrific result of this is that a huge amount of people have gone on permanent disability. And the reason is obvious - the fed won't fund welfare regularly, but it absolutely will fund anyone on disability, so states have private organizations whose job it is to sign up people on welfare to go on disability instead. 

If you're into listening, Marketplace has a really good series on welfare and what it's like now. And why it's a problem. The tl;dr version from the second cast there is that welfare currently requires people to either be actively searching for a job or doing volunteer work of some kind - and both of those things are both significantly harder for mothers to do, and significantly curtail the ability to actually get a job that makes more than what welfare can provide. 

ETA: here's a written version of part of the podcast.

3

Thank you, I'll check it out--I like podcasts so I'll definitely give this a try. Living in Colorado and hearing horror stories about Kansas right now, I worry about welfare and the direction it could head under right wing leadership. I hadn't given much thought to the status quo of it on the left. Thanks. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

15 hours ago, Kalbear said:

What other lies are you talking about other than those?

Let's start with the fact that she has said several times that she would fully cooperate with both the FBI and State Department's investigations. And by fully cooperate, she meant refuse to meet with the IG, as did several of her senior staffers. And what makes this look even worse is that Kerry, Rice, Powell and Albright all agreed to sit down with the IG.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

13 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Note that using a private server is not a violation of the rules in the state department either. 

Actually, it can be. Per Poltifact:

Quote

However, in 2005 (before Clinton took office), a State Department manual said information that is "sensitive but unclassified" -- a broad category that covers anything from meeting schedules, to visa applications, to ordinary emails to other federal agencies -- should be emailed through servers authorized by the department.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/mar/12/hillary-clintons-email-did-she-follow-all-rules/

[Centrist Simon Steele]

7 hours ago, Lightysnake88 said:

At this point, quite honestly? Fuck Sanders. This is just the most irresponsible move he's pulled yet.

How so? People want him to lay off Hillary, so let him go after Trump.

[The Fallen]

Bernie has stated that he's fighting an uphill battle and that it will be really tough to get the nomination. What's dishonest about that?

Also, his supporters know the deal. I don't think they're delusional. They, including myself, want Bernie to continue to keep Hillary Clinton honest, and hey, you never know what could happen. To use Hillary's reasoning in 2008 when she was battling Obama, "we all remember what happened to Bobby Kennedy in June?"

I think we progressives blew it. Sanders looks like a better bet to defeat Trump than Hillary. I don't have as much faith in Hillary's new positions as you guys. Will she really be tough on Wall St after receiving millions of dollars from them? I doubt they pay her to show up and castigate them. 

And I wouldn't want Bill at the helm of the economy. He deregulated banks and derivatives, which led to the 2007 economic meltdown. Sadly, Obama selected those same guys to head the economy, and no doubt Hillary will do the same. So much for progress.

[Centrist Simon Steele]

16 hours ago, Notone said:

So Bernie the unlikely might get crowned without the necessary delegates afterall?

Relax Clinton supporters, that was a joke. We all know, that if Clinton gets shot down by the FBI before the convention, Biden is eagerly waiting in his stable to run the victory lap. 

Relax Bernie bros, that was also a joke. As we all know, it will be hail president Trump last President of the United States of America.

Ok, panic, now!

 

What would happen if Hillary was shot down by the supposed scandals? Aside from it being hugely divisive and problematic, I think even worse would be throwing out someone like Biden and throwing Sanders out completely who definitely has the most votes is succession.