U.S. Elections: American Hitler 2016

[The Fallen]

7 hours ago, Dickwad Poster #3784 said:

They have to. It would be party suicide to oppose something that the current POTUS who is a Democrat supports. This isn't news at all. Heck, the language is that this is the case:

And this is also laughable that this is the 'real Hillary'. The Democratic platform that has added a new free tuition option? Or one that added a $15 minimum wage nationally? 

Seriously, now I'm fucking angry. Oh no, it's a HORRIBLE THING that the democratic platform acknowledges that people disagree and there isn't common ground! OMG WHAT A HORRIBLE PERSON CLINTON IS despite this, ya know, being a nod towards Obama's project more than anything. Fuck that. This is not a problem. This is what we should want our politics to actually be more like. 

Why the anger? I'm hardly Hillary's harshest critic. But here I see a politician who started the negotiations for this particular agreement, who had to be forced to take a stand against it due to the agreement's disapproval by her presumptive constituents, now failing to denounce the agreement at the party's convention.

Who cares if it's part of Obama's legacy (some legacy that would be), Obama is no longer running for office. And if she's really against it she'll be bashing it during the general election, so what difference does it make?

Furthermore, you mention her support for the $15 minimum wage, a concession to Bernie Sanders, as if her opposition to the TPP is also a concession. So again, it's fair to ask and wonder if she's really against the TPP or if it was all empty rhetoric. This should go over well with Bernie's supporters. 

What's sad is that Hillary's biggest selling point right now is "I'm not as bad as Trump."

[Fez]

11 hours ago, Shryke said:

Also, looks like Trump is probably gonna go with Mike Pence as his VP:ie - his running mate will probably be the guy who seems to be widely considered the dumbest person in Congress from the past many years

The timing is clearly meant to steal thunder from Sanders endorsement of Clinton.

We'll see. Its pretty clear Trump knows that picking someone like Pence is probably the 'smart' move to make (i.e. the one that party leadership wants) but he also knows the potential value of making a splashy pick and the importance of shaking things up when you're behind by a lot (which I think he has to realize is at least possible; even if he doesn't believe all the polls). I don't think he knows who he'll go with yet, and my prediction is he doesn't make an announcement until next week.

Various Republican operatives will say Pence, because that's who they want Trump to pick, but there's basically no communication between them and Trump. They have no idea either.

The event in Indiana is the same sort of thing Trump's done in recent weeks with Newt, Corker, Ernst, etc.; just trying them out, seeing how they act on the same stage as him. Nothing more, yet. At least, that's my prediction this morning.

[TrackerNeil]

6 hours ago, The Fallen said:

Why the anger? I'm hardly Hillary's harshest critic. But here I see a politician who started the negotiations for this particular agreement, who had to be forced to take a stand against it due to the agreement's disapproval by her presumptive constituents, now failing to denounce the agreement at the party's convention.

Furthermore, you mention her support for the $15 minimum wage, a concession to Bernie Sanders, as if her opposition to the TPP is also a concession. So again, it's fair to ask and wonder if she's really against the TPP or if it was all empty rhetoric. This should go over well with Bernie's supporters. 

What's sad is that Hillary's biggest selling point right now is "I'm not as bad as Trump."

Maybe for you that's her biggest selling point, but for me it's:

- liberal judges

- the Iran treaty

- Affordable Care Act

- EPA activity

Also, you seem to be arguing that it's a mark against Clinton that she's, you know, listening to her party and adjusting her plans accordingly. I suppose you'd admire her more if she stuck to a principle that Democrats didn't like?

[Jace, Extat]

22 hours ago, James Arryn said:

Just you and ty tend to come in hot and hard on any swipe at Hill, but you're quicker. Please, sincerely not a shot, I probably agree with you most of the time, and even if my reasoning was wrong, that's the thought that jumped into my head, followed by trying to remember your new handle. I was not sharing to mock you at all, more happy that I 'know' you, if you get me...I'm alone in an Airbnb room a continent away from home, feeling like crap, and probably wanted to celebrate a sense of community. Really hope I didn't offend. Or over share, now.

 

edit: maybe I'd have been better to pm it.

 

19 hours ago, Dickwad Poster #3784 said:

Didn't take any offense, @James Arryn. Was just curious. These are the sorts of things that people who are seeing you have a much better angle on than you do, at least most of the time. 

What the hell is this!?! Peace? In the politics thread? Nay, I say! Arran has offered offense. Where is your Dickwad pride ser?

No, this will be settled at 10 paces. Be it with sword, pistol, or if you please sers even tomahawk!

[Prince of the North]

27 minutes ago, Pony Queen Jace said:

 

What the hell is this!?! Peace? In the politics thread? Nay, I say! Arran has offered offense. Where is your Dickwad pride ser?

No, this will be settled at 10 paces. Be it with sword, pistol, or if you please sers even tomahawk!

Now, that is truly how duels should be conducted and honor restored!  At 10 paces with swords!  (That way no one gets hurt)

[lacuna]

8 minutes ago, Prince of the North said:

Now, that is truly how duels should be conducted and honor restored!  At 10 paces with swords!  (That way no one gets hurt)

https://i.imgur.com/KWoO5CN.jpg

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

Interesting, long-form article on Vox by Ezra Klein on "Understanding Hillary" and trying to explain the gap between how the public sees Hillary vs. how those who have worked with her (and against her) see her. There's also a companion piece which is Klein's interview with Clinton which just landed today on his podcast, the Ezra Klein show. I haven't listened to the podcast yet. 

It's interesting that Robert Gates, Secretary of Defense for the last years of the Bush presidency and the first years of the Obama presidency, had a lot of praise for Clinton as Secretary of State in his memoir "Duty: Memoir of a Secretary at War." He wrote:

Quote

I had not known Hillary personally, and what views I had were shaped almost entirely by what I had read in the newspapers and seen on television. I quickly learned I had been badly misinformed. I found her smart, idealistic but pragmatic, tough-minded, indefatigable, funny, a very valuable colleague, and a superb representative of the United States all over the world. I promised myself I would try never again to form a strong opinion about someone I did not know. 

 

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

16 minutes ago, NestorMakhnosLovechild said:

Interesting, long-form article on Vox by Ezra Klein on "Understanding Hillary" and trying to explain the gap between how the public sees Hillary vs. how those who have worked with her (and against her) see her. There's also a companion piece which is Klein's interview with Clinton which just landed today on his podcast, the Ezra Klein show. I haven't listened to the podcast yet. 

It's interesting that Robert Gates, Secretary of Defense for the last years of the Bush presidency and the first years of the Obama presidency, had a lot of praise for Clinton as Secretary of State in his memoir "Duty: Memoir of a Secretary at War." He wrote:

 

That makes sense. She's clearly good at the backroom, person to person type of politics, otherwise she wouldn't have been able to basically clear the field of any serious rivals for the 2016 Democratic Presidential nomination, other than Bernie Sanders.

She's pretty good at giving speeches, just from decades of experience and practice, but obviously not as talented at it as Obama or her husband.

[The Fallen]

2 hours ago, TrackerNeil said:

Maybe for you that's her biggest selling point, but for me it's:

- liberal judges

- the Iran treaty

- Affordable Care Act

- EPA activity

Also, you seem to be arguing that it's a mark against Clinton that she's, you know, listening to her party and adjusting her plans accordingly. I suppose you'd admire her more if she stuck to a principle that Democrats didn't like?

The main reason I would vote for her is because of the vacancy on the Supreme Court. And I want her to continue to be against the TPP. The fear is that she's only paying lip service in her stance against the TPP. So this latest development is frightening. 

But my biggest knock against Hillary and the Democrats is their strategy of incremental change, thus leaving the status quo in place. We need real changes. (I'm aware of Republicans and having to negotiate and compromise, but lets shoot for the moon, so that even if we fall short we're still among the stars.)

P.S. I'm aware that the stars are farther than the moon smart-asses.

[IheartIheartTesla]

Looks like Sanders just endorsed Clinton. Not sure what to do with my bumper sticker.

Here in Michigan, she is extremely popular in what i call the 'Hillary corridor' (basically the corridor joining Detroit-Flint-Saginaw). She might be a bit more unpopular elsewhere, but I guess that may be sufficient for her to carry the state.

[Guess who's back]

So what's going to happen with Bernie's donation funds?

[TrackerNeil]

58 minutes ago, The Fallen said:

But my biggest knock against Hillary and the Democrats is their strategy of incremental change, thus leaving the status quo in place. We need real changes. (I'm aware of Republicans and having to negotiate and compromise, but lets shoot for the moon, so that even if we fall short we're still among the stars.)

I'd say that's less a strategy and more a concession to reality. The Affordable Care Act would have been much more expansive had there not been endless Republican opposition to *anything* the Democrats wanted to do. The compromised in that case because they had to, full stop.

For those who think the ACA, or Dodd-Frank, or ARRA, do not qualify as "real change"...well, I'd wonder just what does.

[alguien]

1 hour ago, NestorMakhnosLovechild said:

Interesting, long-form article on Vox by Ezra Klein on "Understanding Hillary" and trying to explain the gap between how the public sees Hillary vs. how those who have worked with her (and against her) see her. There's also a companion piece which is Klein's interview with Clinton which just landed today on his podcast, the Ezra Klein show. I haven't listened to the podcast yet. 

It's interesting that Robert Gates, Secretary of Defense for the last years of the Bush presidency and the first years of the Obama presidency, had a lot of praise for Clinton as Secretary of State in his memoir "Duty: Memoir of a Secretary at War." He wrote:

 

Thoughtful article. Thanks for sharing it. Never considered that Clinton's listening was what made her different than other candidates--and beloved by many of her staff. I particularly enjoyed this bit:

Quote

In each case, Clinton is contacted by somebody who’s smart and credible but doesn’t have a ton of political clout. In each case, the message is that the policy her husband is either administering or making is flawed in some very technical way. And rather than ignore that message, or become defensive about it, she listens. She dives into the details — details that would numb many professional policy staffers, to say nothing of most politicians.

Still, as the article points out, there can be a weakness to her approach, particularly if the wrong person is listened to, or if too many people have your ear. Still, I think it might make her better at getting things done with a GOP House than Obama, at least domestically.

On the whole, it makes me glad that she's the Democratic nominee. 

[Fez]

28 minutes ago, Guess who's back said:

So what's going to happen with Bernie's donation funds?

Presumably they'll be used to pay down remaining campaign debt and settle FEC complaints that won't be processed for months still. The entity that is the Sanders campaign won't fully wind down for at least a couple years, if not longer.

He'll likely still have funds leftover after that, Sanders was always adamant that the campaign keep a surplus at all times; which is one of the reasons they never really started advertising in California the way one might expect. I know he can't transfer the money to his Senate campaign, and I don't think he can transfer it to other campaigns either. He could transfer it to Democratic party entities though (DNC, DSCC, DCCC, etc.) or he could refund it to donors (which would be almost, although not quite, unprecedented).

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

7 minutes ago, Fez said:

Presumably they'll be used to pay down remaining campaign debt and settle FEC complaints that won't be processed for months still. The entity that is the Sanders campaign won't fully wind down for at least a couple years, if not longer.

He'll likely still have funds leftover after that, Sanders was always adamant that the campaign keep a surplus at all times; which is one of the reasons they never really started advertising in California the way one might expect. I know he can't transfer the money to his Senate campaign, and I don't think he can transfer it to other campaigns either. He could transfer it to Democratic party entities though (DNC, DSCC, DCCC, etc.) or he could refund it to donors (which would be almost, although not quite, unprecedented).

Unless the laws have changed since I last studied this, I believe the bolded section is inaccurate. He can't transfer the money to his own Senate campaign if they are occurring in the same cycle (i.e. if he's running for two offices at the same time), but I'm pretty sure he can at a later point (say for his 2018 reelection bid). And while he can't full scale transfer the money unless he retires, he can use the funds from his war chest to give max campaign contributions to other candidates until he hits the limit in a given cycle. 

[Kalbear]

1 hour ago, The Fallen said:

The main reason I would vote for her is because of the vacancy on the Supreme Court. And I want her to continue to be against the TPP. The fear is that she's only paying lip service in her stance against the TPP. So this latest development is frightening. 

But my biggest knock against Hillary and the Democrats is their strategy of incremental change, thus leaving the status quo in place. We need real changes. (I'm aware of Republicans and having to negotiate and compromise, but lets shoot for the moon, so that even if we fall short we're still among the stars.)

P.S. I'm aware that the stars are farther than the moon smart-asses.

But that's the thing - Clinton isn't the one at these conversations for the platform. Neither is Sanders for that matter It's some of her delegates, and some of Sanders' delegates, and some of Obama's delegates. And the end result isn't her platform - it's the party's platform. Her opinion of TPP is directly against Obama's at this point, but she's not going to piss off the most powerful man in the world and the most popular Democrat in America to alter the platform to specifically state they're against TPP. 

Because that won't work. It doesn't help shut down TPP if that's what is desired, it doesn't help her win the election or unify democrats, and it doesn't ultimately solve anything other than an ideological need to be pure. So they changed the wording to actually illustrate what is truth - which is that Democrats are divided on whether or not TPP is a good idea. And you're getting pissy because of them saying true things. 

As to shooting for the moon - what, pray tell, would you have them change? Have you read  the party platform? What, precisely, is there that you want to be more aspirational? Most of Sanders' aspirations have been added as either direct Clinton planks (the free college one, the Glass-Steagall act revision, climate change goals) or DNC goals ($15 national minimum wage, single payer, Fed regulatory committee being staffed by non wall street cronies). The things that aren't there are a ban on fracking, removal of TPP and NAFTA, and maybe if you squint the idea that we should destroy the entire banking industry. 

What else were you looking for? 

I also will say this - Sanders did a very successful campaign. He pulled Clinton and the entire DNC to the left. I think he could have potentially been less of an asshole doing so, but as an asshole who cares more about results than methods I have to commend him on getting the entire party to move closer to his goals and have good conversations about things. It's also great that Clinton embraced it so well - the policies that came out as a result are both significantly more realistic and significantly more likely to actually be done in my lifetime without them destroying the overall concept. Clinton and Sanders make a good team in that regard - Sanders has good ideas but very little concept of implementation or compromise, and Clinton is super wonky but not nearly as creative.

[Jaxom 1974]

It's odd.  I see far too many folks decrying that there hasn't been enough change from the Left, while the Right keeps having kittens over how much change there has been.  Right there that tells me that, even if it isn't all the kinds of progressive change that some want, it's absolutely change in the right direction. 

I'm not one to generally challenge, or even discuss politics, on something like Facebook, but I saw someone today try to tell a young man (a former employee of mine) that Obama had set the country back 20 years, especially in terms of race relations.  This student is of a Jewish background raised in a Republican house, who generally espoused Republican ideals (if only out of a lack of experience to make his own choices up until he got to college) until Trump's rise made him look at things.  He's actively agitated against Trump as a young Republican.  He's not been shy about being anti-Trump.  I really wish I was stronger in confronting political trolls, because the views this older gentlemen was espousing were so reprehensible on their face...but then, that's social media too, right? 

 

 

ETA: This was in response to something Tracker said above.  For some reason, the quote didn't go along with the comment...

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

13 minutes ago, Jaxom 1974 said:

He's actively agitated against Trump as a young Republican.  He's not been shy about being anti-Trump. 

Not surprising really. I have a ton of Republican friends, ages 25-35, and they all hate Trump. Practically all of them have said they'll either vote for Johnson, maybe Clinton or won't even bother going to the polls.

[Fez]

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

Unless the laws have changed since I last studied this, I believe the bolded section is inaccurate. He can't transfer the money to his own Senate campaign if they are occurring in the same cycle (i.e. if he's running for two offices at the same time), but I'm pretty sure he can at a later point (say for his 2018 reelection bid). And while he can't full scale transfer the money unless he retires, he can use the funds from his war chest to give max campaign contributions to other candidates until he hits the limit in a given cycle. 

Oh, right. Yeah, he can do the $2,700/$54,000 stuff (I think those are the limits now; but maybe not? There was a SCOTUS case follow-up to Citizens United that dealt with this, I don't remember the details); but he can't just transfer $3 million to Clinton's campaign or whatever.

You might be right about the in-cycle difference, that's a distinction I'm not sure of.

[IheartIheartTesla]

1 hour ago, Fez said:

He could transfer it to Democratic party entities though (DNC, DSCC, DCCC, etc.) or he could refund it to donors (which would be almost, although not quite, unprecedented).

He just sent Shia Labeouf a check back since he exceeded the $2700 limit (I think he donated $6000 or so). The Sanders campaign will also have to send back money to many donors who went above that limit.

Almost makes you want to forgive Shia for Indy IV. Almost......