U.S. Elections - Philadelphia edition

[BloodRider]

41 minutes ago, Maester Drew said:

@Kalbear Sorry to hear about your son, I hope you and your family will pull through.

Why? From what I understand, libertarianism is about giving as much freedom to individuals, while fascism, neonazism, and xenophobia are about oppressing individuals.

If all you do is read the marketing materials, then yes, it would appear that way.  Also Scientology is all about improving your mood.

[alguien]

11 minutes ago, Maester Drew said:

I'm talking about overall as a leader, not policy point by policy point.

But... but policy is what a leader says they will actually do. 

And what Johnson will actually do is set several of the causes you listed last thread back by generations. 

Don't get me wrong, I chuckled when Johnson called Trump a p*ssy, and am tickled pink that some conservative voters might vote for him instead of Trump, but the decision to go from supporting to Sanders to Johnson seems like an emotional one, not one based on actual facts. 

[Shryke]

28 minutes ago, S John said:

I've said this from the beginning - as bungled as the Republican process has been, the Dem's were incredibly stupid to attempt to coronate Hillary. It seems that among the powers that be there was a sense that it was Mrs. Clinton's 'turn' to be the nominee and that is probably going to bite the Dem's in the ass big time. It felt like a coronation since before the election season and now we have evidence that a coronation is exactly what it was intended to be.  A shining example of crony, entitlement politics in a year when that shit isn't going to fly with the electorate.

Now it's just a question of whether or not enough people will come out to vote for Hillary solely as a better option to Trump, which does not bode well. Among the general population, meaning outside of this board and other liberal internet circles, I think there are very few people who truly believe that she is the best the country could do. Of course Trump is also a tough pill to swallow. I really don't know if we have ever had worse choices going into an election.

Ultimately I'll likely end up biting the bullet and voting for Hillary but... God damn.  What a shitty election cycle.  

Except it wasn't a coronation. She won because, you know, she got the most votes. And the most delegates. By a significant amount. And the questionable email leak doesn't show the DNC doing much of anything to actually make Clinton win.

It was only a coronation in that Clinton was obviously going to run and was very popular at the time and presumably going to win.

[aceluby]

2 minutes ago, Maester Drew said:

No. I mean, isn't it a given that it would be suicide if a company decided to no longer serve black people. Honestly today with how progressive our society has become, no business needs the government to tell them who they can and cannot serve, because they have the consumers to help them with that decision (i.e. face inevitable backlash if they dare refuse service to a black person).

I'm talking about overall as a leader, not policy point by policy point.

He has the executive experience a la his governorship of NM. He isn't embroiled in any scandals (real or imagined). Nor is he a complete idiot like Trump (who also is dealing with his own scandals).

WTF does that even mean?  Hitler was a good leader too if you don't want to go over policy point by point.

Policies matter.

This is what I find so disheartening about this election cycle, almost nobody is willing to actually look at policy, proposals, and actual historical precedence of the candidate; and instead resort to bullshit about 'leadership', 'likeability', and 'trust' that can't be quantified; mostly because those people don't want to quantify and objectively look at the decision.

[Fez]

Anyway, YouGov just came out with a national poll showing Clinton +5 and University of Delaware (I don't know them, though the NYT upshot folks think they're high quality) has a new national poll showing Clinton +4.

So there actually is at least some disagreement about where things stand right now.

Also happening right now, the convention. And the Sanders supporters are being louder than anyone else right now. This better stop by prime time or this actually could go very bad. There was just a 'lock her up' chant even that the Sanders delegates from California tried to get going.

[alguien]

3 minutes ago, aceluby said:

This is what I find so disheartening about this election cycle, almost nobody is willing to actually look at policy, proposals, and actual historical precedence of the candidate; and instead resort to bullshit about 'leadership', 'likeability', and 'trust' that can't be quantified; mostly because those people don't want to quantify and objectively look at the decision.

This. This times like x 5000000000000000000. 

[BloodRider]

6 minutes ago, Maester Drew said:

No. I mean, isn't it a given that it would be suicide if a company decided to no longer serve black people. Honestly today with how progressive our society has become, no business needs the government to tell them who they can and cannot serve, because they have the consumers to help them with that decision (i.e. face inevitable backlash if they dare refuse service to a black person).

No it isn't, and there are many examples this year and last of people making $100k+ off of being outright and vocally prejudice.  Where have you been?

[S John]

5 minutes ago, Shryke said:

Except it wasn't a coronation. She won because, you know, she got the most votes. And the most delegates. By a significant amount. And the questionable email leak doesn't show the DNC doing much of anything to actually make Clinton win.

It was only a coronation in that Clinton was obviously going to run and was very popular at the time and presumably going to win.

She got the most votes in a contest where there is now evidence that the DNC itself favored her and potentially undercut Sanders.  That's like your team winning, but they also paid off the refs.  Yea, they won, great.  

Clinton won and very well may have won despite the feelings at the DNC office and her homey DWS.  But it looks bad.  And it looks especially bad this year.  

[Boris the Blade]

1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

I'm volunteering. I'm working to try to join my citizens committee on law enforcement oversight. I'm putting in money.

And with this and my son's cancer and the asshole ex threatening my wife and just ALL THIS FUCKING SHIT..it's just too goddamm much.

That sucks, really sorry to hear about your son. Wish you the best. 

Clinton had a rough month or so. Benghazi and the email thing thanks to a right wing witchhunt is also helping Trump with the post convention bump. After the DNC it should be a bit more clear. The long run projection still has Clinton winning if that is any sort of comfort.

[aceluby]

2 minutes ago, S John said:

She got the most votes in a contest where there is now evidence that the DNC itself favored her and potentially undercut Sanders.  That's like your team winning, but they also paid off the refs.  Yea, they won, great.  

No.... because that's cheating.  She didn't cheat at all.  In fact, there's no evidence as of yet that the Clinton campaign had anything to do with these individuals.

[alguien]

Sorry to hear about your troubles, Kal. Hope things get better soon, man. 

[Maester Drew]

14 minutes ago, alguien said:

And what Johnson will actually do is set several of the causes you listed last thread back by generations. 

Checks and balances. There is a reason why the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches are intrinsically tied to one another. So, even if he tries to do something batshit crazy, Congress can always stop him and the Supreme Court can always find one of his acts as unconstitutional.

15 minutes ago, aceluby said:

 Hitler was a good leader too if you don't want to go over policy point by point.

Oh look, Goodwin's Law at play. 

18 minutes ago, alguien said:

But... but policy is what a leader says they will actually do. 

Not really. I mean, back in 2008, Obama promised to close Guantanamo... eight years later... So what someone says they'll do, is often different from what they actually can do.

18 minutes ago, aceluby said:

bullshit about 'leadership', 'likeability', and 'trust' that can't be quantified

So why do so many analysts put so much stock in favorability ratings? And sure, trust cant be quantified, but it's still tangible. I mean, one of the main issues for the Clinton campaign has been the lack of trust among voters for Hillary.

[alguien]

16 minutes ago, Maester Drew said:

Checks and balances. There is a reason why the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches are intrinsically tied to one another. So, even if he tries to do something batshit crazy, Congress can always stop him and the Supreme Court can always find one of his acts as unconstitutional.

So the vague hope that Johnson would be stopped from doing anything really crazy is how you justify voting for him? Despite the fact that his policies are opposed to yours? Why not vote for Clinton, someone who literally supports and would advance every cause you listed? (who, incidentally, would also be held in check by those balances you mentioned). 

Jill Stein, though I'm troubled by her and see her as Nader 3.0, would at least be ideologically consistent for a Sanders supporter. 

Quote

Not really. I mean, back in 2008, Obama promised to close Guantanamo... eight years later... So what someone says they'll do, is often different from what they actually can do.

Yes, really. He tried to close Guantanamo.* Multiple times. If he'd had a Congressional majority for more than like 50 days, he might have succeeded. Instead, he chose to spend that window on healthcare--you know, fulfilling the policy goal he stated he would do. 

*You might be interested to know that Clinton's last letter to Obama before she left as SoS was to URGE him to keep trying to close Guantanamo.

[Shryke]

29 minutes ago, S John said:

She got the most votes in a contest where there is now evidence that the DNC itself favored her and potentially undercut Sanders.  That's like your team winning, but they also paid off the refs.  Yea, they won, great.  

Clinton won and very well may have won despite the feelings at the DNC office and her homey DWS.  But it looks bad.  And it looks especially bad this year.  

Show me the evidence they influenced the vote tallies. Show me how they altered the primary results. One of you people who keeps saying this shit show me the fucking proof.

Till this it's a bunch o bullshit based off a fucking russian government leak designed to influence the US election.

[Shryke]

On that front, Vice has another good report on the leak:

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/all-signs-point-to-russia-being-behind-the-dnc-hack

Here's something new I haven't seen before as well:

Quote

 

Second, stolen documents leaked in an influence operation are not fully trustworthy. Deception operations are designed to deceive. The metadata show that the Russian operators apparently edited some documents, and in some cases created new documents after the intruders were already expunged from the DNC network on June 11. A file called donors.xls, for instance, was created more than a day after the story came out, on June 15, most likely by copy-pasting an existing list into a clean document.

Although so far the actual content of the leaked documents appears not to have been tampered with, manipulation would fit an established pattern of operational behaviour in other contexts, such as troll farms or planting fake media stories. Subtle (or not so subtle) manipulation of content may be in the interest of the adversary in the future. Documents that were leaked by or through an intelligence operation should be handled with great care, and journalists should not simply treat them as reliable sources.

 

 

[Shryke]

As for the convention itself, so far Sanders' Delegates are being a bunch of complete assholes:

Yeah, great guys. Push that flagrantly horrible republican meme. That's the stuff.

 

Anyway, at least Sanders is trying to fix the shit he created:

 

[snake]

Snopes.com is saying the Russian's did it scenario is not true.  Link

 

Wikileaks are saying they have more emails to come that are potentially damaging to the Democrats. 

Also, a pro-Clinton Super Pac has spent up to $1 million to attack Clinton naysayers online.  So fess up!! Who here is on the payroll??    JK

[TerraPrime]

I absolutely will back a fascist state over a libertarian state. As long as there is a government structure there we can make changes and alter course. Once a Libertarian succeeds in dismantling the government (save for military and enforcing contracts), there is only a wild world of guns-make-right left to fend for ourselves in.

 

So yes, I will support Trump before I will support Johnson, if we are assessing the ideology.

[MerenthaClone]

Bernie supporters are literally the worst thing about Bernie.  Goddammit. I've been following him for several years now and both his actions after it became clear he had lost the primary and especially his supporters in general have made me lose a ton of respect for him.  

[Maester Drew]

1 minute ago, Shryke said:

Anyway, at least Sanders is trying to fix the shit he created:

How on earth did he create this shit? In any case, I don't see what's wrong with them protesting, after all it is a protected right in the 1^st Amendment.

12 minutes ago, alguien said:

Jill Stein, though I'm troubled by her and see her as Nader 3.0, would at least be ideologically consistent for a Sanders supporter. 

Or maybe Hillary won't get a clear majority among the popular vote, but still have enough electoral votes to win... like her husband back in '92 and '96.

14 minutes ago, alguien said:

If he'd had a Congressional majority for more than like 50 days

There was a democratic majority in the first two years of his tenure. He had the time to work on more policies besides healthcare.

17 minutes ago, alguien said:

Why not vote for Clinton, someone who literally supports and would advance every cause you listed?

I'd vote for Jill Stein (who as you said has almost the same positions as Bernie) before I vote for Hillary. The reason I'm not supporting Jill Stein is because she doesn't have that much political experience. I think the closest she has is a position on a city council?