U.S. Elections - Philadelphia edition

[alguien]

7 hours ago, Maester Drew said:

It's not a matter of nitpicking. I simply don't like anyone generalizing an entire group of people.

The GOP refused to condone that rep, and thus tacitly supported his actions; not to mention that this was the only pushback you had against my list of unprecedented obstructionism, so I'm still going to go with nitpicky here.  

Quote

Depends. She could pull in Sanders supporters that had gone to Trump or even liberal Trump supporters who are dissatisfied with how PC the US has become. And as Kalbear once said, anything's possible in this election. 

If this unicorn of a Sanders supporter went from Sanders to Trump to Stein... well that'd be some awesome weed they were smoking. But I'd seriously question how much of the election election was about actual policy rather than who they thought was just "the coolest."

Quote

Really? I thought it was only the Republican candidates during the primary that said they'd nominate such a justice. I'll check out Johnson's stance on a nominee then.

You should. You should also keep in mind that you're not just voting for president, not just for putting a liberal majority in the SC (which itself is huge), but most likely 3-4 justices--so a HUGE majority. 

Quote

Hmm... maybe he could have made more alliances/friendships with his Republican colleagues during his time as Senator to establish a more solid foundation to work on as president when it came to bipartisan endeavors.

As I recall, they all seemed to like him just fine when he was my Senator. This completely changed after he won. 

But it's interesting you felt that's what Obama should have done. Do you know who actually is famously good at making alliances and friendships across the aisle even in the midst of vicious attacks? (rhymes with Pillary Hinton)

[DireWolfSpirit]

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

My favorite post of the night lol.

 

Michelle (16) Another Homer!

 

Michelle (08) The Classic

Damn I'm gonna miss having this classy First Lady!

[alguien]

5 hours ago, Maester Drew said:

Supporting Hillary would be a betrayal of Sanders' principles.

Not according to Bernie Sanders, himself.

Quote

Supporting Trump would be a betrayal of Sanders' principles. 

This is actually pretty true, I think. 

Quote

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." 

Listen man, if you want to vote 3rd Party, you are certainly welcome to do so, but at least vote Stein. Green Party would not be a betrayal of Sanders's ideals. (it might, however be a vote for those ideals over pragmatism.)

Quote

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

I would not. Though I also don't "love" any politician I vote for. I do, however, admire what their platforms stand for. 

Quote

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.

From what I recall, you've said you're in Texas, yes? It may be that your vote will count for little, but if you're progressive (which I think you are from your posts), support what Bernie stands for, I would suggest you vote for Clinton. If you just can't bring yourself to do it, then I would suggest voting for Stein, which at least would send a message that the country is moving in a more progressive direction. A vote for Gary Johnson does the opposite. Which is totally cool if you really believe in his positions--but then, I don't see how you'd have been a Sanders supporter in the first place. Sanders platform is democratic socialism--pretty much as diametrically opposed to libertarianism as I can think of. 

[The Marquis de Leech]

1 hour ago, Guess who's back said:

So DNC brakes federal law and no one cares? 

I take it you think it needed to accelerate then?

To return to the actual election, I'm honestly not panicking about the polls right now. Let's wait for everything to settle, or even some meaningful state polls.

[DunderMifflin]

I cant say enough how impressed I was with Michelle Obama.  Walked up like a Chief and the Bernie fan boos stopped only to pick back up when she left.

The part where she was like you cant have a child who is prone to temper tantrums in charge of the military and nuclear codes was chillingly convincing.

I really hope she decides to get into politics at some point.

[Tempra]

7 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

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. 

Read the second sentence of the quoted language again.  Citizens United no more authorized unlimited spending by foreign corporations in American elections than Obergefell, the gay marriage case, authorized incest or Heller, the second amendment case, authorized an individual right to nuclear arms.  It's completely disingenuous to take those positions and say, "Well, gee, until we see a test case reach the Supreme Court, we just don't know how far those cases will extend the law." 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

8 hours 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...

The holding in Citizens United is still problematic.  Shareholders and corporations are distinct for a reason.  If Shareholder's rights flow through to the corporate then the legal fiction that the corporation is a seperate and distinct person is shattered.  I keep waiting for someone to use a flow through argument to pierce the corporate veil.

[TrackerNeil]

3 hours ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

To return to the actual election, I'm honestly not panicking about the polls right now. Let's wait for everything to settle, or even some meaningful state polls.

Agreed. It's been a rough few days, but let's not start preparing for a Trump presidency yet. Obama had some rough days back in '08, and in the summer McCain's numbers matched his, for awhile. Steady on, Democrats.

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

5 hours 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? 

I'm sure many members of the DNC and Clinton campaign drove faster than the speed limit last week as well.

[Fez]

Following up on the Utah stuff, it seems Bill Clinton is going to be campaigning there in August. Trump doesn't have the resources or organization to make doing a head-fake worthwhile; the data folks must really think that the state is in play. Going to be real interesting to see what ends up happening there. 

[Altherion]

15 minutes ago, Fez said:

Following up on the Utah stuff, it seems Bill Clinton is going to be campaigning there in August. Trump doesn't have the resources or organization to make doing a head-fake worthwhile; the data folks must really think that the state is in play. Going to be real interesting to see what ends up happening there. 

But... why? The odds of Utah being the state that tips the election for the Democrats are minuscule. Trump almost certainly needs Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania to win, but if he can manage all of those, Utah will almost certainly vote for him as well.

[The Marquis de Leech]

10 minutes ago, Altherion said:

But... why? The odds of Utah being the state that tips the election for the Democrats are minuscule. Trump almost certainly needs Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania to win, but if he can manage all of those, Utah will almost certainly vote for him as well.

It screws up Trump's path to 270. If Clinton wins Utah (and dear god, that felt strange to type), Clinton can lose Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and all the Romney states, and still win. Alternatively, Clinton can lose Florida, Ohio, Iowa, Wisconsin, New Hampshire, and all the Romney states and still win.

The more paths to 270 Clinton has, the more headaches for Trump.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

16 hours ago, Shryke said:

Yes. The FBI director for some reason felt the need to come out, in a large national public press conference, and say "Clinton did nothing illegal, there will be no charges. But let me, well you are all here, tell you just how bad all the shit she did was anyway. Cause it was so bad."

The FBI director should not be sticking his fingers into a fucking election trying to influence the outcome in a way that has absolutely nothing to do with his job. His duties ended with whether charges would be laid or not. The rest is abusing his position to editorialise. 

Oh my, these are the sourest of the sour grapes! There are two different issues here that you've conflated together. The first is whether Comey provided a fair analysis of what Clinton and her team had done while as Secretary of State. I've never seen a reasonable argument otherwise, although I have seen an incredible amount of misrepresentation here about what the FBI's findings against Clinton showed. It's perfectly reasonable to say "there's no crime because Clinton and her staff lacked the appropriate level of intent, but the behavior they engaged in was negligent, careless and could have exposed classified information to hackers" if that's what the facts show, and in fact, that is what the facts showed. His claim was truthful, and based on the information provided, the analysis apt.

As to the second issue - whether or not it was appropriate to call a press conference to announce his findings - the answer is of course yes. Not only does the FBI routinely give press conferences, but this is something he was publicly charged with investigating. It's a matter of public importance and interest.  It's a matter that's been investigated with some publicity in other venues. And perhaps most importantly, two additional facts (i) just a few days earlier Loretta Lynch went on the record and made a public statement about the case and how she would defer to Comey's recommendations and (ii) Comey knew that he would be giving public testimony about this issue as part of a Congressional hearing.  There was no keeping this "private." It's good form for him to publicly announce the finding to the Washington Press Corps so that there would be some background information about the findings before he went into the Congressional hearing to investigate. It was a smart way to break up the information in manageable pieces so that the press could report on the initial findings first, and then the updates after the hearing. 

I get that you're butthurt about the FBI's findings - but that is 100% Clinton's fault, and the fault of her State Department, for being so sloppy with her email system and the sending of confidential communications. To suggest that this was a "hitjob" is partisan whining at its worst. 

[Fez]

21 minutes ago, Altherion said:

But... why? The odds of Utah being the state that tips the election for the Democrats are minuscule. Trump almost certainly needs Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania to win, but if he can manage all of those, Utah will almost certainly vote for him as well.

The situation in Utah is very different from any other state and is entirely based around the fact that almost all Mormons absolutely despise Trump. Most of them also hate Clinton, but if enough of them decide vote for Johnson so that Clinton can with with 38% of the vote, than that's going to happen regardless of how the traditional battleground states play out. 

So might as well make the play for it and send in Bill for a weekend of events, or whatever it'll end up being.

 

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

11 hours ago, DunderMifflin said:

I wish Michelle Obama was running I'd give her my support immediately

That seems a little extreme, but for my money, she gave the best speech at any of the conventions so far. It was so good I look forward to a Republican stealing it for their next convention! 

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

I was also quite touched by Anastasia Somoza's speech - the disability rights activist who has cerebral palsy and spastic quadriplegia. She spoke a little earlier, when people were still loudly booing at the mention of Clinton's name, but you really just couldn't boo over her speech, and the crowd was unified in support of her. 

One of the strengths of the DNC is undoubtedly their diversity of their speakers. I look at both conventions and the DNC looks like like my neighborhood and the RNC looks like I got stuck at a particularly angry bar association event. 

[DunderMifflin]

27 minutes ago, NestorMakhnosLovechild said:

That seems a little extreme, but for my money, she gave the best speech at any of the conventions so far. It was so good I look forward to a Republican stealing it for their next convention! 

When I look at Build a Wall and Crooked H, it's not all that extreme.

I'll count her 8 years in the white house as political experience 

[lokisnow]

45 minutes ago, Altherion said:

But... why? The odds of Utah being the state that tips the election for the Democrats are minuscule. Trump almost certainly needs Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania to win, but if he can manage all of those, Utah will almost certainly vote for him as well.

 

1 hour ago, Fez said:

Following up on the Utah stuff, it seems Bill Clinton is going to be campaigning there in August. Trump doesn't have the resources or organization to make doing a head-fake worthwhile; the data folks must really think that the state is in play. Going to be real interesting to see what ends up happening there. 

Heh. I don't think it's the data folks, I think the Clinton campaign wants the trump campaign to believe the Clinton campaign believes Utah is viable. Make them panic and fight a multi front war.

 

If trump gets to define the rust belt as the only part of the country worth contesting, then it is logical to open sorties on different flanks where the rust belt tactics won't apply and may backfire.

 

***

trumps silence regarding obamas speech is deafening. Know why he didn't tweet his response? I think it's because she never said his name. So he was on his phone, fiddling, and since he never heard his name he never paid attention, literally could not hear it if it wasn't explicitly saying, "trump trump trump". Brilliant.  Elizabeth warren for all I loved her speech, had a "trump trump trump" chorus built in, so if you weren't paying attention the only thing you heard was the word trump repeated over and over again. That's the sort of reason that there is "no such thing as bad publicity" on the other hand, Michelle Obama put forth persuasive rhetoric that is the opposite of this strategy and was an incredibly effective direction from which to engage the country about the danger of Trump while in the context of a speech that stands outside the boundaries of Trump/Clinton he-said/she-said because it's about the context of the moral leadership in regards to our country's children.

a really brilliant speech, it gives trump no oxygen and persuades the middle without triggering their your team my team reaction.

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

23 minutes ago, NestorMakhnosLovechild said:

That seems a little extreme, but for my money, she gave the best speech at any of the conventions so far. It was so good I look forward to a Republican stealing it for their next convention! 

Are you saying that you're not a fan of the preacher who was sweating profusely while SCREAMING AT THE CROWD?!?!?!?!?!?!?

[aceluby]

9 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said:

When I look at Build a Wall and Crooked H, it's not all that extreme.

I find it ironic that 'crooked Hillary' is what he's calling her given the mountain of legal trouble Trump has been in, and is currently being investigated for.  I mean you have everything from ripping people off, strong ties to the mob, fake companies and get rich quick schemes, multiple bankruptcies for profit, hiring undocumented workers.... and fucking RAPE.

I mean the gall people have to call her 'crooked' with a straight face while supporting trump is remarkable.