U.S. Elections - Philadelphia edition

[DunderMifflin]

18 minutes ago, Shryke said:

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.

I never claimed pandering wasn't effective. 

A quasi sort of apology but not really for her past stances isn't exactly convincing me.

[Kalbear]

4 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said:

I never claimed pandering wasn't effective. 

A quasi sort of apology but not really for her past stances isn't exactly convincing me.

Okay, I'll bite - what will convince you? 

She has the support of every AA leader in the community and was overwhelmingly preferred by them. She was supported by BLM leaders in significant amounts. She has multiple policies aimed at helping fix racial inequality, racial injustice and social justice - policy plans with real details that have been vetted by those same community members. She has said that the welfare reform system in the 90s was a mistake due to giving the states too many ways to hose it. 

But that's not enough.

So what is? What is missing there?

[Boris the Blade]

18 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Okay, I'll bite - what will convince you? 

She has the support of every AA leader in the community and was overwhelmingly preferred by them. She was supported by BLM leaders in significant amounts. She has multiple policies aimed at helping fix racial inequality, racial injustice and social justice - policy plans with real details that have been vetted by those same community members. She has said that the welfare reform system in the 90s was a mistake due to giving the states too many ways to hose it. 

But that's not enough.

So what is? What is missing there?

Maybe a penis? Sexism without a doubt plays a big role in why quite a lot of people don't like her. Even after it's been shown she is not the liar that everyone tries make her out to be.

Honestly, I don't really like Clinton because she does come across as pandering, but her policies really aren't too far removed from Sanders' and that being said she is a much better option than what could go into the white house. 

[alguien]

1 hour ago, Maester Drew said:

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?

For example, from Wikipedia: 

Quote

Johnson believes Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and should be overturned because it "expanded the reach of the Federal government into areas of society never envisioned in the Constitution."

Plus, supporting states' rights basically means dismantling 60 years of Civil Rights progress in the South. 

Quote

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.

I'm not sure what your point is? (and also, 1996 doesn't apply, right?). Clinton beat Bush in the electoral college and the popular vote by significant margins. Is having a plurality of over 50% some sort of constitutional requirement? I've never heard of this.  

Quote

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.

<taking deep breath> <trying to pretend that the last 8 years haven't been filled with the most obstructive opposition in the history of the presidency>

Dude. Seriously? Dude. Republicans hate Obama. They hate, hate, HATE him. They scream out "Liar" during his State of the Union. They've done everything in their power to stymie him every, single step of the way. They referred to beating the ACA as "his Waterloo." Obama tried to work with them on numerous occasions and they shut the government down. 

I cannot think of a single thing he could have done to make this happen. The GOP used fearmongering every. single. time. Guantanamo was brought up, turning it into a scare tactic that "Obama wants to release terrorists on our home soil!" (again, Clinton, for the record, urged Obama to do everything he could to shut it down, I can't help but remind you.)

I mean, please, tell me if I'm wrong, or if you can think of an alternative he should deployed. Frankly, given the insanity fueling his opposition, I'm super impressed with what he's managed to get done.   

[Squab]

Here's an email showing the DNC helping out the Clinton campaign against Sanders and checking that they are ok with the wording.

It was always going to be a difficult campaign for Sanders against the money and resources of both Clinton and the DNC.

[Kalbear]

4 minutes ago, Harakiri said:

Maybe a penis? Sexism without a doubt plays a big role in why quite a lot of people don't like her. Even after it's been shown she is not the liar that everyone tries make her out to be.

Honestly, I don't really like Clinton because she does come across as pandering, but her policies really aren't too far removed from Sanders' and that being said she is a much better option than what could go into the white house. 

Well, @DunderMifflinseems to think that none of this is enough to overturn what happened with Bill Clinton in the 90s. I'm asking what more does he want. 

As to pandering, what I see is her actually listening to experts and constituents and attempting to do what she can to help them. That Vox article by Ezra Klein was great  in that regard. I think that her policy is basically that she wants to support certain things in general and then goes out and finds people who know more than she does and asks them what to do. This has the appearance of pandering, but it's not - because she's doing this when she gets into office, not before. And it's very clear that this is a genuine thing. What she doesn't do is say 'I need an economic policy' and gets it. 

[DunderMifflin]

8 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Okay, I'll bite - what will convince you? 

She has the support of every AA leader in the community and was overwhelmingly preferred by them. She was supported by BLM leaders in significant amounts. She has multiple policies aimed at helping fix racial inequality, racial injustice and social justice - policy plans with real details that have been vetted by those same community members. She has said that the welfare reform system in the 90s was a mistake due to giving the states too many ways to hose it. 

But that's not enough.

So what is? What is missing there?

Having 100% of the black vote would not give me any real insurance that brown and black people will be treated like humans, which I assumed was a hyperbolic statement that was meant to say that race issues would significantly improve under Hillary Clinton's presidency. Which is the specific statement I asked about.

And to me personally no just saying things is not nearly enough. 

Racial issues in the USA are extremely difficult and complex problems that go back at least centuries so ill have to beg to be excused for being stubborn in my concerns that we have finally found the savior that will fix these problems in any sort of significant way. 

 

[Kalbear]

Also, @alguien - Obama had a chance to pass a budget with the Republicans and almost had a deal ready to go with Boehner, who agreed - and Boehner couldn't get the rest of his party to buy off on it. Because of the Tea Party. 

Quote

Racial issues in the USA are extremely difficult and complex problems that go back at least centuries so ill have to beg to be excused for being stubborn in my concerns that we have finally found the savior that will fix these problems in any sort of significant way. 

Okay, again I'll ask - what can she actually do to change your mind? Because it sounds like you're going from the stance that Clinton isn't strong on racial issues (which she is, actually, pretty strong on) to the stance that no matter how  strong you are no one can do anything. 

[Shryke]

FYI, when I was talking about DWS not wanting to go earlier, I was quite serious:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/daily-202/2016/07/25/daily-202-with-dws-ouster-on-eve-of-convention-10-questions-for-the-week-ahead-in-philadelphia/57956b5d4acce20505133c10/
 

Quote

 

But the Florida congresswoman did not go quietly or without a fight. It took pressure from the White House – including a phone call with President Obama – to get her to finally see the writing on the wall. Two reliable sources say Wasserman Schultz was trying to make top aides take the fall, rather than take personal responsibility. Until the end, she struggled to understand what a lightning rod she’s become.

“There was a lot of drama,” a Democratic member of Congress involved in the discussions leading up to her resignation told Philip Rucker. “She made this as painful as she could. She did not want to go. ... She wasn’t going to resign until the president called her. She put a lot of people through hell.”

 

 

Also this is a longer but useful read I think:

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/debbie-wasserman-schultz-dnc-226100

Quote

 

Hillary Clinton and her team aren’t thrilled that the head of the Democratic National Committee was forced out on the eve of the nominee’s coronation — but they aren’t exactly distraught to see Debbie Wasserman Schultz booted from the tent.

Several senior Democratic officials with ties to Hillary and Bill Clinton told POLITICO that campaign higher-ups have been trying to replace the oft-off-message Florida congresswoman from the start of Clinton’s campaign late last year.

John Podesta, Clinton’s campaign chairman — and a former top adviser to Barack Obama — broached the idea of replacing Wasserman Schultz as early as last fall, only to be rebuffed by the president’s team, according to two people with direct knowledge of the conversation.
“It came down to the fact that the president didn’t want the hassle of getting rid of Debbie,” said a former top Obama adviser. “It’s been a huge problem for the Clintons, but the president just didn’t want the headache of Debbie bad-mouthing him. ... It was a huge pain in the ass.”

The Obama team — especially 2012 campaign manager Jim Messina — long viewed Wasserman Schultz as a major campaign liability, questioning her fundraising prowess and her tendency to appoint personal aides to positions of authority, prioritizing loyalty over competence and effectiveness as a spokesperson for Democrats.

 

 

[Shryke]

14 minutes ago, Squab said:

Here's an email showing the DNC helping out the Clinton campaign against Sanders and checking that they are ok with the wording.

It was always going to be a difficult campaign for Sanders against the money and resources of both Clinton and the DNC.

It looks to me like the DNC clearing a press release on Sanders' accusations of "money-laundering" with the Clinton camp since they were also implicated in the accusation.

Also, you know, in May. When Sanders had already well and truly lost.

[snake]

With the latest allegations towards Russia from the DNC, Clinton campaign and soon to be government agencies, the latest in quite a string of Russian intelligence coups, I seen this posted on Twitter and thought it was quite amusing.

 

 

[Maester Drew]

9 minutes ago, alguien said:

Plus, supporting states' rights basically means dismantling 60 years of Civil Rights progress in the South. 

He also said that abortion should be left up to the individuals. I believe I quoted that in the last thread.

10 minutes ago, alguien said:

I'm not sure what your point is?

You fear Stein would be a spoiler candidate for Hillary, so my original point was this: It could turn out to be similar to 1992 and 1996 when Clinton only won the plurality of the popular vote given that Ross Perot received a lot of votes. So, it could just so happen, that this November (hypothetically) Stein could get 3%, Johnson 6%, Trump 44% and Hillary 47% of the popular vote. Even then, she could still win the presidency because all she has to do is reach the magic number of 270 electoral votes.

So as I see it, I think the fear of a spoiler candidate is highly misguided.

17 minutes ago, alguien said:

Dude. Seriously?

That's why I said he could have done more to reach across the aisle. I am well aware that many Republicans have tried to obstruct Obama, however that mostly stems from the Tea Party. Oh, and who is "they"? Because IIRC it was only one person that called out "Liar!" at the State of the Union. And it was my ridiculous Senator that shut down the government, and not even the GOP leadership was happy with that stunt.

[Larry of the Lawn]

10 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said:

Having 100% of the black vote would not give me any real insurance that brown and black people will be treated like humans, which I assumed was a hyperbolic statement that was meant to say that race issues would significantly improve under Hillary Clinton's presidency. Which is the specific statement I asked about.

And to me personally no just saying things is not nearly enough. 

Racial issues in the USA are extremely difficult and complex problems that go back at least centuries so ill have to beg to be excused for being stubborn in my concerns that we have finally found the savior that will fix these problems in any sort of significant way. 

 

Not hyperbolic.  My point was contrasting HRC and the Donald in this regard.  

 

 Also not ok with Bill Clinton's approach to crime in the 90s.  But Hillary Clinton today isnt promoting that and in fact isnt even in the same universe as Trump when it comes to treating anyone like a human.  She might be a politician. But at least she doesn't treat women and minorities like second class citizens.

[Boris the Blade]

6 minutes ago, Maester Drew said:

He also said that abortion should be left up to the individuals. I believe I quoted that in the last thread.

You fear Stein would be a spoiler candidate for Hillary, so my original point was this: It could turn out to be similar to 1992 and 1996 when Clinton only won the plurality of the popular vote given that Ross Perot received a lot of votes. So, it could just so happen, that this November (hypothetically) Stein could get 3%, Johnson 6%, Trump 44% and Hillary 47% of the popular vote. Even then, she could still win the presidency because all she has to do is reach the magic number of 270 electoral votes.

So as I see it, I think the fear of a spoiler candidate is highly misguided.

That's why I said he could have done more to reach across the aisle. I am well aware that many Republicans have tried to obstruct Obama, however that mostly stems from the Tea Party. Oh, and who is "they"? Because IIRC it was only one person that called out "Liar!" at the State of the Union. And it was my ridiculous Senator that shut down the government, and not even the GOP leadership was happy with that stunt.

Yet said it's up to the states to decide whether or not the individual has the right to choose. So he contradicts himself and has a bad policy regarding abortion.

No, it wasn't mostly the Tea Party, is was the entire republican party. He's a black man, they aren't a fan of black men, especially in such a position of power. I can't recall a single president being treated as badly by his own government as Obama has been treated, ever.

Also, he tried to play too nice with them for too long even when they showed themselves to be disrespectful bigots. 

[Inigima]

2 minutes ago, Maester Drew said:

That's why I said he could have done more to reach across the aisle. I am well aware that many Republicans have tried to obstruct Obama, however that mostly stems from the Tea Party. Oh, and who is "they"? Because IIRC it was only one person that called out "Liar!" at the State of the Union. And it was my ridiculous Senator that shut down the government, and not even the GOP leadership was happy with that stunt.

You are delusional. If anything Obama tried way too long to make nice, well after it became clear that Republicans wouldn't so much as piss on him if he were on fire. The man defined bipartisanship and he got nothing but spit on for his trouble.

[Kalbear]

3 minutes ago, Maester Drew said:

That's why I said he could have done more to reach across the aisle. 

How?

Obama put out the ACA which was a copy, literally, of Mitt Romney's plan. Not a single Republican voted for it. He had a budget deal that cut medicare and social security, and that was turned down. And that was the 'best' of the times. Since then he has had his court nominees sit in committee longer than any other president (SC or otherwise), had budget bills that were held hostage, and could not pass a single piece of legislation. What precisely was he going to do?

[DunderMifflin]

10 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Not hyperbolic.  My point was contrasting HRC and the Donald in this regard.  

 

 Also not ok with Bill Clinton's approach to crime in the 90s.  But Hillary Clinton today isnt promoting that and in fact isnt even in the same universe as Trump when it comes to treating anyone like a human.  She might be a politician. But at least she doesn't treat women and minorities like second class citizens.

Yes thank you, this is why I specifically responded to you because I didn't get a sense that I'd be treated as being unreasonable simply for asking or indirectly implied as being sexist.

Ill be watching her speech, there's definately a possibility that I won't stay home on voting day if she can really convince me in more detail about her plans to "reform" the criminal justice system from now until then. I'd like her to come out as in favor of complete decriminalization of all drugs, or at least weed.

[Swordfish]

7 hours ago, sologdin said:

why is everyone freaking about people wanting to feel the johnson?  won't that split the rightwing vote?

Some people simply cannot stop carrying the water, no matter what.

I'm convinced at this point that footage could turn up of a DNC sponsored bacchanalia involving mass murder ritualistic sacrifice of children, and some posters would find a way to blame it on GOP efforts to ban abortion, or reduce funding for child care, and of course,  Bernie Sanders.

 

 

[alguien]

3 minutes ago, Maester Drew said:

He also said that abortion should be left up to the individuals. I believe I quoted that in the last thread.

But if he were president, he'd be appointing the next Supreme Court Justice, and he'd appoint someone who'd overturn Roe v Wade. Like it's great that he said it should be up to individuals but his policies would eliminate that right. 

(along with a whole host of others)

Quote

So as I see it, I think the fear of a spoiler candidate is highly misguided.

I hope you don't mean you think Stein would pull from Trump? That's... an interesting theory. In any event, no, when I see multiple comments in political articles of "Jill, Not Hill!" I think the comparison to Nader is pretty apt and far more relevant then the Clinton elections. 

Quote

That's why I said he could have done more to reach across the aisle. I am well aware that many Republicans have tried to obstruct Obama, however that mostly stems from the Tea Party. Oh, and who is "they"? Because IIRC it was only one person that called out "Liar!" at the State of the Union. And it was my ridiculous Senator that shut down the government, and not even the GOP leadership was happy with that stunt.

The collective "they" in this case, which is a pretty common rhetorical device. If your response is going to devolve into nitpicking, then I don't know where we can go from here. 

In any event, I'm still not hearing from you what more Obama could have done to reach out to the GOP, aside from caving into their demands--which would have made the hard left scream even louder than they have been doing. 

[Kalbear]

2 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said:

Ill be watching her speech, there's definately a possibility that I won't stay home on voting day if she can really convince me in more detail about her plans to "reform" the criminal justice system. I'd like her to come out as in favor of complete decriminalization of all drugs, or at least weed.

As it turns out, decriminalizing all drugs won't do a lot about helping racial inequality or mass incarceration.