U.S. Elections - Philadelphia edition

[Boris the Blade]

That chanting is so god damn annoying.

[Tempra]

I bet 99% of the people in that Convention Hall, and Democrats in general, don't even know the holding of Citizens United.  Heck, Obama embarrassed himself during the SOTU talking about Citizens United and he was a law professor...

[Jaxom 1974]

Okay...Bernie's seemed to swing this around giving his supporters what they want to hear, but couching it in a way to, hopefully, help them see that he and Hillary weren't actually far apart on a lot of things...

[Tempra]

1 minute ago, Triskan said:

Can you elaborate on this? 

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/jan/27/barack-obama/obama-says-supreme-court-ruling-allows-foreign-com/

[Fez]

Ended up being a pretty solid primetime night I think. Hopefully the media focuses on that rather than on what was happening this afternoon and evening (likely; that's the way last week went too) and hopefully the ratings were high. 

[Jaxom 1974]

Arrrgghh...just watched a Bernie supporter who stated she, "Would trust Bernie if he told her to do something" but she wouldn't actually vote for Clinton...even though he just gave an impassioned speech on what he wanted his supporters to do...

[all swedes are racist]

Far be it for me to call comment without any legal education, but "Embarrassed himself" with "a reasonable interpretation" seems a bit of a stretch....

[DunderMifflin]

I thought the crying was a bit creepy, it's not like Kim Jong died or something.

[The Anti-Targ]

29 minutes ago, Tempra said:

I bet 99% of the people in that Convention Hall, and Democrats in general, don't even know the holding of Citizens United.  Heck, Obama embarrassed himself during the SOTU talking about Citizens United and he was a law professor...

Quote

They said Obama was correct that the ruling could open the door to foreign companies spending on American campaigns, given the general direction of the majority's opinion. But because the majority justices didn't actually strike down the existing barriers on foreign companies -- in fact, they explicitly wrote that it fell beyond the boundaries of their decision -- our experts agreed that Obama erred by suggesting that the issue is settled law. Until test cases proceed and further rulings are handed down, Obama's claim about foreign campaign spending is a reasonable interpretation, and nothing more.

How is that Obama embarrassing himself? "Obama was correct that the ruling could open the door" and "Obama's claim...is a reasonable interpretation."

Seems like they are actually saying Obama was on to something, at least in principle. 

[MerenthaClone]

Michelle Obama's speeches have now absolutely killed it in both conventions this year.  That's got to be unprecedented.

[Durckad]

1 hour ago, Maester Drew said:

Supporting Hillary would be a betrayal of Sanders' principles. Supporting Trump would be a betrayal of Sanders' principles. 

Look one of the things many on this forum have explained to me, is that we all must make compromises in life, even in elections. While Johnson certainly isn't anywhere near my favorite politician, I compromised: If not Bernie, than it'll be Johnson. Yet, now me compromising is to be considered a "betrayal of Sanders' principles." 

Honestly, I feel if I were to shout, "I love Hillary Clinton!" someone would find some fault with it.

 

However, be that as it may, I never indicated that it would be a guarantee that I'd vote for him in November. All I said was I'll most likely do so. Who knows, the first Tuesday of November, I'll either write in Bernie or vote for Johnson. The likelihood for which one will of course fluctuate between now and then.

Dude, if you can't see that Gary Johnson is pretty much 100% opposed to everything Bernie Sanders believes in, then I don't know what to tell you. They are pretty much at diametric ends of the political spectrum. Voting for Hillary or Jill Stein would be 'compromising' as, while their positions are different on some issues, they are comparable more often than not. Voting for Gary Johnson would be like if you can't get a 100% electric car you decide to 'compromise' and buy a hummer instead while burning a barrel of oil and dumping toxic chemicals in a river.

But hey, if you agree with his positions and beliefs, that's a good reason to vote for him, but just because him and Bernie are 'anti-establishment' doesn't mean they are one in the same or in any way interchangeable.

Please look at the issues before you vote.

[Squab]

Integrity in modern politics (by no means the worst example):

1. DNC Chair works to support Clinton in primaries against Sanders;
2. Resigns when emails leaked;
3. Clinton hires former DNC Chair.

[Guess who's back]

So DNC brakes federal law and no one cares? Hillary gets away again. Who taught it was a good idea to bring illegal immigrants on the stage? 

[Boris the Blade]

8 minutes ago, Guess who's back said:

So DNC brakes federal law and no one cares? Hillary gets away again. Who taught it was a good idea to bring illegal immigrants on the stage? 

There is no proof that Clinton did anything. 

[Guess who's back]

9 minutes ago, Harakiri said:

There is no proof that Clinton did anything. 

She definitely knew about this and used them as tool to get votes. 

edit: Are pictures disabled again?

[Fragile Bird]

23 minutes ago, Guess who's back said:

So DNC brakes federal law and no one cares? Hillary gets away again. Who taught it was a good idea to bring illegal immigrants on the stage? 

What law was broken?  Please link.

[Boris the Blade]

5 minutes ago, Guess who's back said:

She definitely knew about this and used them as tool to get votes. 

edit: Are pictures disabled again?

Again, no proof.

[Guess who's back]

9 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

What law was broken?  Please link.

http://dennismichaellynch.com/dnc-breaks-federal-law-at-convention-violation-of-section-8-u-s-code-§-1324/

https://www.justice.gov/usam/criminal-resource-manual-1907-title-8-usc-1324a-offenses

[alguien]

6 hours ago, Swordfish said:

You're reaching.  Neither of those even approaches the territory of serious challenges, or as the OP put it, 'overturning roe v wade'.  These are squabbles in the fringes, nothing more.

I think my point is that it starts with squabbles, chipping away at these things, until one side can get enough justices (and this presidential cycle could see 3-4) where you could take that big step. Pro-life legislation is being pass through state legislatures all the time, and with the right court, they'd be giddy at the prospect of moving it up the ladder. 

[Fragile Bird]

2 minutes ago, Guess who's back said:

http://dennismichaellynch.com/dnc-breaks-federal-law-at-convention-violation-of-section-8-u-s-code-§-1324/

https://www.justice.gov/usam/criminal-resource-manual-1907-title-8-usc-1324a-offenses

Your first mistake is quoting far right wing nuts.

Your second mistake is being unable to read a statute.

If you think speaking to a person who is an undocumented alien, or asking a person who is an undocumented alien to speak to a group of people is

alien smuggling, domestic transportation of unauthorized aliens, concealing or harboring unauthorized aliens, encouraging or inducing unauthorized aliens to enter the United States, and engaging in a conspiracy or aiding and abetting any of the preceding acts. Subsection 1324(a)(2) prohibits bringing or attempting to bring unauthorized aliens to the United States in any manner whatsoever, even at a designated port of entry. Subsection 1324(a)(3).

I have some land in Florida I'd like to sell you.