U.S. Elections - Philadelphia edition

[mormont]

1 hour 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).

Recall that you're saying this in an election cycle where one of the main party candidates has found significant success with public statements that are not a million miles away from putting up a 'no blacks' sign.

[The Anti-Targ]

3 hours ago, Shryke said:

 

2) disaffected Sanders' supporters who aren't of the solely-anti-establishment variety who will become turned off participating in the system because their guy lost and they've been convinced it's all because the system is rigged

 

 

It's interesting that this morning on our news radio the narrative from a British reporter (British reporter being interviewed on New Zealand radio) was that this e-mail leak shows that the primary process was rigged. Not merely that there was bias or favouritism in the DNC but that this materially translated to affecting the outcome of the primary. So it seems among ostensibly dispassionate journalists the conclusion has been reached that the DNC did manipulate the primary so that Hillary would win.

[TerraPrime]

6 minutes ago, mormont said:

Recall that you're saying this in an election cycle where one of the main party candidates has found significant success with public statements that are not a million miles away from putting up a 'no blacks' sign.

And try replacing "black" with "hispanic/Latinx/Mexican" or with "Muslim" and see how well that line of thinking goes.

[S John]

23 minutes ago, Shryke said:

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.

I did not say that they influenced the vote tallies or altered the results.  But that the DNC favored Clinton from the outset.  Many people suspected that from the very start, the email leak seems to bolster that claim, with potentially more to come.  Does that favoritism directly sink Sanders?  No, not necessarily.  Is it an unfair disadvantage?  I think most would agree that it is.  

Perhaps in a normal year that isn't that big of a deal.  But this cycle?  Any shred of evidence suggesting that the DNC was in the tank for the 'establishment' candidate all along, and a Clinton no less, will be perceived as a black eye for the Democrats.  And one the party definitely doesn't need.

It is not out and out cheating and the individuals working at the DNC are entitled to their own opinion, but even a whiff of pro-establishment bias is a nasty little barb in this particular election cycle.  The worst one, imo, is the guy suggesting that they try to pin Sanders down as an Atheist to hurt him in the Kentucky and WV primaries.  Particularly damning to Clinton... no, not really.  But it gives a glimpse into the internal thinking of the DNC during the campaign, confirming what many already believed about the leadership, and you can't blame that one on the Russians because the dude apologized for it.    Why were they even having that discussion?

Make no mistake, I want the democrats to win the election.  I will probably vote that way almost no matter what because I am vehemently opposed to Trump.  I am 100% anti-Trump.  But I find this shit worrisome, and not because of the Russians, but because the Dems are looking like the party of cronyism and the establishment while the R's (despite their best efforts to sink Trump) are the party touting the 'outsider'.  Yes that is a dumb reason to pick a president, but that is the climate we find ourselves in.

[alguien]

33 minutes ago, Maester Drew said:

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.

I don't know what that has to do with anything, but Clinton beat Bush by six million votes in 1992 and Dole by 8 million in 1996, with a 5% and 8% voting majority respectively. 

Quote

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

Per Tywin et al two posts in the last thread:

Quote

 

It's important to remember that Senator Franken wasn't sworn in until July 7th, 2009 and Senator Kennedy died on August 25th, 2009. The Democrats only had a filibuster proof majority for 48 days, and Kennedy was barely active during that time period. So it's not like they had this giant window to do whatever they wanted. 

... just had to add that caveat because it drives me nuts when people act like the Democrats had 60 Senators for two years, when in fact, it was for less than 50 days. And that doesn't even take into account the fact that the Senate is usually only in session for a couple of days a week, that Kennedy was by and large absent during that time, the August recess cuts that time in half and that there were a half dozen or so Democratic Senators that were actively working against the party. 

 

Context that matters. Especially when trying to push through historic legislation.  

Quote

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?

I'm still confused. You'd rather vote for someone who'd dismantle your agenda rather than someone who supports it, because the person who'd destroy what minorities and LGBT have worked so hard for over the past 50 years would do so more efficiently because he has experience at governance? 

I'm sorry, I'm not seeing any logic in your decision-making process, just a betrayal of Sanders's principles.

[Squab]

2 hours 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.

Libertarianism is a political philosophy that upholds liberty as its primary objective. Authoritarians are against individual liberty, unless it be their own.

[Kalbear]

48 minutes ago, snake said:

Snopes.com is saying the Russian's did it scenario is 

No, it's saying that there is no credible link to trump colluding with putin. 

[Kalbear]

Also, the only attack ad that trump has to do now is simply play over and over the Sanders quote about "you have to vote for Clinton and kaine" while a chorus of boos goes off.

Easy win.

[Maester Drew]

16 minutes ago, alguien said:

'm still confused. You'd rather vote for someone who'd dismantle your agenda rather than someone who supports it, because the person who'd destroy what minorities and LGBT have worked so hard for over the past 50 years would do so more efficiently because he has experience at governance? 

I'm sorry, I'm not seeing any logic in your decision-making process, just a betrayal of Sanders's principles.

Because you're painting this melodramatic picture that Johnson will dismantle rights and freedoms which is simply not the case. I mean can you give me an example were he says that he'll do so unambiguously?

16 minutes ago, alguien said:

I don't know what that has to do with anything, but Clinton beat Bush by six million votes in 1992 and Dole by 8 million in 1996, with a 5% and 8% voting majority respectively. 

By clear majority, I mean plurality. Sure, in '92 Clinton's lead over Bush was 5% but Clinton still only got 43% of the popular vote -->not a majority.

16 minutes ago, alguien said:

Context that matters. Especially when trying to push through historic legislation.  

I stand corrected. However, even after that filibuster-proof majority ended, Obama could have done more to reach across the aisle and reach a bipartisan agreement to close Guantanamo.

[Inigima]

RE: current polling, don't break out the cyanide capsules just yet. Conventions always give their party a bump, we were always going to see a polling improvement for the GOP following their convention.

[MerenthaClone]

4 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Also, the only attack ad that trump has to do now is simply play over and over the Sanders quote about "you have to vote for Clinton and kaine" while a chorus of boos goes off.

Easy win.

Seriously.  I think I sympathize with the moderate Republicans come the rise of the Tea Party a bit more.  I love seeing the Democratic Party move left, rapidly.  I hate seeing some of the people who helped make it happen shoot the rest of the party in the name of ideological purity.

[Shryke]

I feel this kinda encapsulates the whole "Bernie or Bust" idiots:

A black man stands on stage talking about his struggles and civil rights and a bunch of white people in the crowd scream at him about a trade deal he can't even vote on.

[Larry of the Lawn]

I think the fear of losing the 'sanders' vote is largely overblown.  The only Sanders supporters I know who aren't going to vote for Hillary never would have voted for her.  No matter what Sanders did or didn't do to support her.  Pretty much same goes for Johnson and Stein, the people that vote third party mostly do that every year or don't vote at all.

 

I will vote for Hillary in November and am encouraging my 'Bernie or Bust' friends to do the same.  The future composition of the Supreme Court alone should be enough to get off the couch and not vote for Trump or whatever shitty candidate the GOP sends bumbling through the countryside towards Washington.  

 

I do not like HRC's bellicosity or her general sympathy for big corporations and Wall Street.  I would much rather pull a lever for Elizabeth Warren.  But the alternative is fucking terrible, and I've gotten involved in way too many conversations with friends who are pushing the 'the two parties are the same' bullshit to have any sympathy for any progressive who stays home this year.  Go ahead and vote for whomever you want, but don't tell me that Clinton and Trump are the same.  

I'd still prefer Sanders over Clinton , but that's not an option anymore.  If you were going to vote  for Sanders, and stuff like a woman's right to make decisions about her own body matters to you, or if you'd prefer brown and black people to be treated like humans, please vote for Clinton.  Please think about it.  You might not like her.  But you're vote could prevent life from becoming drastically worse for millions of people.

 

*Falls off soapbox*

 

*drinks beer*

 

*Smokes weeed and drags soapbox back to shanty from whence he came*

 

[Altherion]

16 minutes ago, Inigima said:

RE: current polling, don't break out the cyanide capsules just yet. Conventions always give their party a bump, we were always going to see a polling improvement for the GOP following their convention.

To some extent yes, but not all of it is due to the convention. FiveThirtyEight has an article about it:

Quote

It isn’t straightforward to measure Trump’s convention bounce because he was already gaining ground on Clinton heading into the conventions, narrowing what had been a 6- to 7-point national lead for Clinton in June into roughly a 3-point lead instead. For instance, the CNN poll shows a massive 10-percentage-point swing toward Trump, but its previous poll was taken in mid-June, at a high-water mark for Clinton. By contrast, CBS News shows Trump gaining only 1 percentage point, but its previous poll was conducted earlier this month, shortly after the controversy over Clinton’s email scandal resurfaced.

So relative to June, roughly half of Trump's gains are due to the convention bounce and the other half is from something else. If this analysis is correct, then Clinton should have roughly a 4-5% lead after the end of the Democratic convention. It will be interesting to see if the DNC emails have any impact at all -- there is no evidence connecting this to Clinton, but it might rub off on her in any case.

[Shryke]

1 hour ago, Maester Drew said:

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.

Sanders told them Clinton and the Democratic party were the enemy, that he was totally gonna win this even when he had no chance, that anyone telling them otherwise was a liar, that the system was rigged against him, etc, etc.

And then it turns out his supporters believed him. And now when he tries to tell them "No, vote Clinton" they boo him. Cause that's what he taught them.

 

Thankfully, they are a vocal, if stupid, minority since most polling I see still shows like 90% of Sanders' people switching over.

[DunderMifflin]

24 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

I think the fear of losing the 'sanders' vote is largely overblown.  The only Sanders supporters I know who aren't going to vote for Hillary never would have voted for her.  No matter what Sanders did or didn't do to support her.  Pretty much same goes for Johnson and Stein, the people that vote third party mostly do that every year or don't vote at all.

 

I will vote for Hillary in November and am encouraging my 'Bernie or Bust' friends to do the same.  The future composition of the Supreme Court alone should be enough to get off the couch and not vote for Trump or whatever shitty candidate the GOP sends bumbling through the countryside towards Washington.  

 

I do not like HRC's bellicosity or her general sympathy for big corporations and Wall Street.  I would much rather pull a lever for Elizabeth Warren.  But the alternative is fucking terrible, and I've gotten involved in way too many conversations with friends who are pushing the 'the two parties are the same' bullshit to have any sympathy for any progressive who stays home this year.  Go ahead and vote for whomever you want, but don't tell me that Clinton and Trump are the same.  

I'd still prefer Sanders over Clinton , but that's not an option anymore.  If you were going to vote  for Sanders, and stuff like a woman's right to make decisions about her own body matters to you, or if you'd prefer brown and black people to be treated like humans, please vote for Clinton.  Please think about it.  You might not like her.  But you're vote could prevent life from becoming drastically worse for millions of people.

 

*Falls off soapbox*

 

*drinks beer*

 

*Smokes weeed and drags soapbox back to shanty from whence he came*

 

I see this repeated a lot but what actual plans are there? I question how important this issue is to her, being that I normally only see her talk much about them in a pandering way in front of minority audiences. I still remember Hillary Clinton in the 90s in high support of the harsh legislations of the "war on gangs and drugs" that minorities are still suffering from today.

I don't think not saying as many racist things as Trump is any sort of ringing endorsement for being enlightened about race issues.

I would love to see her talk about this at the DNC in a significant way other than "yeh, it sucks and it's a problem". I know the DNC is mostly for cheerleading your talking points but I'd like her to at least mention something in the way if how she plans to combat race issues. It would go a long way with me personally.

I'd never vote for Trump, but I might vote Hillary if she would speak more about issues I care about. I don't think Democrat = automatically improving race issues

 

 

[Shryke]

1 minute ago, DunderMifflin said:

I see this repeated a lot but what actual plans are there? I question how important this issue is to her, being that I normally only see her talk much about them in a pandering way in front of minority audiences. I still remember Hillary Clinton in the 90s in high support of the harsh legislations of the "war on gangs and drugs" that minorities are still suffering from today.

I don't think not saying as many racist things as Trump is any sort of ringing endorsement for being enlightened about race issues.

I would love to see her talk about this at the DNC in a significant way other than "yeh, it sucks and it's a problem". I know the DNC is mostly for cheerleading your talking points but I'd like her to at least mention something in the way if how she plans to combat race issues. It would go a long way with me personally.

I'd never vote for Trump, but I might vote Hillary if she would speak more about issues I care about. I don't think Democrat = automatically improving race issues

 

 

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/racial-justice/

Clinton's appeal is far from just "I'm less racist then Trump". She didn't dominate the black vote for nothing.

And while the whole 90s tough on crime shit turned out real bad, it does one well to remember it had support from those minorities at the time.

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

1 minute ago, Shryke said:

Clinton's appeal is far from just "I'm less racist then Trump". She didn't dominate the black vote for nothing.

That would be enough for me, though.

[Kalbear]

2 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said:

I see this repeated a lot but what actual plans are there? I question how important this issue is to her, being that I normally only see her talk much about them in a pandering way in front of minority audiences. I still remember Hillary Clinton in the 90s in high support of the harsh legislations of the "war on gangs and drugs" that minorities are still suffering from today.

To be fair, everyone thought crime was a major issue then, and it was. But let's get past that. Per her website and what she's campaigned on:

• Focus more on prevention and rehabilitation of drug addicts, including reforming justice system.
• Put $1bn into funding better training and education of police officers
• End privatizing of prisons
• Give voting rights back to convicted felons who have done their time
• Fix the voting rights act and add automatic voter registration
• Create a $125bn initiative to add jobs for youths, small businesses and formerly incarcerated

There's a lot more at her website, but those are some of her goals. 

 

 

 

[Shryke]

1 hour ago, S John said:

I did not say that they influenced the vote tallies or altered the results.  But that the DNC favored Clinton from the outset.  Many people suspected that from the very start, the email leak seems to bolster that claim, with potentially more to come.  Does that favoritism directly sink Sanders?  No, not necessarily.  Is it an unfair disadvantage?  I think most would agree that it is.  

Perhaps in a normal year that isn't that big of a deal.  But this cycle?  Any shred of evidence suggesting that the DNC was in the tank for the 'establishment' candidate all along, and a Clinton no less, will be perceived as a black eye for the Democrats.  And one the party definitely doesn't need.

It is not out and out cheating and the individuals working at the DNC are entitled to their own opinion, but even a whiff of pro-establishment bias is a nasty little barb in this particular election cycle.  The worst one, imo, is the guy suggesting that they try to pin Sanders down as an Atheist to hurt him in the Kentucky and WV primaries.  Particularly damning to Clinton... no, not really.  But it gives a glimpse into the internal thinking of the DNC during the campaign, confirming what many already believed about the leadership, and you can't blame that one on the Russians because the dude apologized for it.    Why were they even having that discussion?

Make no mistake, I want the democrats to win the election.  I will probably vote that way almost no matter what because I am vehemently opposed to Trump.  I am 100% anti-Trump.  But I find this shit worrisome, and not because of the Russians, but because the Dems are looking like the party of cronyism and the establishment while the R's (despite their best efforts to sink Trump) are the party touting the 'outsider'.  Yes that is a dumb reason to pick a president, but that is the climate we find ourselves in.

If it was an unfair disadvantage, how was it an unfair disadvantage? What specifically did they do to disadvantage Sanders?

I mean, the most I've seen even a suggestion of is the debate schedule, which was clearly bullshit but didn't actually end up hurting anyone. And that's not even in this email leak. So I still have no idea what you people think happened that disadvantaged Sanders.

 

That whole "ask Sanders about his faith" thing is basically a microcosm of the entire problem with this argument. People keep bringing it up like it's meaningful. Except, you know, they didn't do that. Some guy apparently suggested it in an email and then nothing was ever done on that front. It was literally meaningless to the entire primary. So what exactly is there to this story beyond "Well, that one guy there is a goddamn moron"? He voiced an opinion. But the DNC did nothing.

 

 

1 hour ago, The Anti-Targ said:

It's interesting that this morning on our news radio the narrative from a British reporter (British reporter being interviewed on New Zealand radio) was that this e-mail leak shows that the primary process was rigged. Not merely that there was bias or favouritism in the DNC but that this materially translated to affecting the outcome of the primary. So it seems among ostensibly dispassionate journalists the conclusion has been reached that the DNC did manipulate the primary so that Hillary would win.

Then I'm sure you could tell me how they went about manipulating the primary.