U.S. Elections: The Narcissist and the Nineteenth Amendment

[briantw]

42 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I've never understood why labeling someone as a career politician should be viewed as a legitimate smear. 

The problem is that the majority of career politicians in Washington these days seem to be in it to serve themselves, make a ton of money, and support their rich friends and corporate interests rather than the electorate.  

1 minute ago, alguien said:

And if you would have voted for Kasich over Clinton... well you're not a Democrat, to say the least. And you don't care about the Supreme Court, which means you don't care about the civil liberties of LGBTQ community nor the rights for women nor voting rights for minorities nor overturning Citizens United. 

Please.  I said I would have considered Kasich, but that I didn't like him either.  Honestly, the entire Republican candidate pool was pretty godawful.  But I really dislike the Clintons, so voting for Hillary is obviously not something I was interested in if I could avoid it.  Unfortunately, the Republicans haven't seen fit to offer much in the way of a sane, viable alternative.  The closest we've gotten to that in recent years was John McCain, but sadly that was a few years after John McCain went absolutely batshit crazy.

Thankfully, Trump's campaign totally imploding has likely saved me from having to vote for Hillary in the election, which was what I was planning to do when the election was closer.  I'd prefer to just vote for neither of them, as both leave a bad taste in my mouth, but as I live in a battleground state I would have voted Hillary if I thought it might make a difference.

I honestly don't understand why it's so outlandish for a Democrat to dislike Hillary.  She's a crap candidate, and I think she's moving the Democratic Party in the wrong direction.

[Wrl6199]

Well career politicians are always looking out for their best interests. Inherently people will look out for themselves. Most democrats want to vote for her because of the Donald.

[Kalbear]

2 minutes ago, briantw said:

I honestly don't understand why it's so outlandish for a Democrat to dislike Hillary.  She's a crap candidate, and I think she's moving the Democratic Party in the wrong direction.

It's mostly difficult to understand your reasons, given that your reasons are pretty lacking in actual basis of fact. 

As an example: the Clinton campaign this year put forward  the most progressive Democratic platform ever. Ever. Period. And this isn't just random things - this is stuff that she developed policy on, she worked for, and she is currently campaigning on. It's certainly likely it all doesn't get implemented, but it's pretty likely it'll be attempted. And yes, some of that was pushed because of Sanders - which is good - but it doesn't make her support for it any less actually real. Now, I guess you could think that is the wrong direction and you would like the party to be more rightward, but that doesn't make a lot of sense given your support of Sanders.

You've stated she's corrupt, but there's been no actual evidence of this. Ever! You've stated she's in the pocket of corporate interests, but both her platform and her voting record significantly belie that. 

I can see someone - a Democrat - having a hard time voting for Clinton on a number of grounds: her interventionist viewpoint, her lack of truly grand ideas that will mobilize a generation, her general lack of passion, her ties to the 90s and some of the policies that sucked there bigtime, her ties to the Iraq war and legitimate worries that she'll get into another one. I can see you being super upset with her judgment about the email server. I can even see people being upset about her secrecy and general private nature. But corruption? Self-serving? Not progressive enough? That's just tribal litmus tests, those aren't actual reasons.

[Kalbear]

5 minutes ago, Wrl6199 said:

Well career politicians are always looking out for their best interests. Inherently people will look out for themselves. Most democrats want to vote for her because of the Donald.

Don't think that's entirely true.

Most Democrats voted for her in the primary. She has strong support among minorities, and this was long before The Donald. She has strong support from women, and that also was before The Donald. While many other Democrats liked Sanders more, in general most thought Clinton was good. 

I suspect we'll get strong turnout because people are freaked out about The Donald, but in general most Democrats are pretty happy with her. A good way to gauge this is to see what a bump the convention gave her, in spite of the DWS scandal. 

[Ariadne23]

3 hours ago, Ormond said:

Another thing to admire about Michelle Obama:

http://www.npr.org/2016/10/13/497817419/michelle-obama-trump-comments-have-shaken-me-to-my-core

 

 

That got me back to a headspace I'm happier to live in. Thank you for posting it, and thank you to Michelle Obama for providing some real leadership.

[alguien]

12 minutes ago, briantw said:

Please.  I said I would have considered Kasich, but that I didn't like him either.  Honestly, the entire Republican candidate pool was pretty godawful.  

No disagreement that the GOP pool was pretty terrible, but considering Kasich over Clinton is baffling to me, if you agree with any part of the Democratic Party platform. Yes, he was the most sane one in that insane clown car, but he was still a clown. 

Quote

But I really dislike the Clintons, so voting for Hillary is obviously not something I was interested in if I could avoid it.  Unfortunately, the Republicans haven't seen fit to offer much in the way of a sane, viable alternative.  The closest we've gotten to that in recent years was John McCain, but sadly that was a few years after John McCain went absolutely batshit crazy.

Just curious, but why do you dislike them? They're no saints, but they've consistently worked to enact positive social change in the US and abroad. My problem with Hillary is that she's a bit hawkish for my tastes, but compared to McCain, even at his sanest, she's a total peacenik. And her domestic policy is pretty great.  

Quote

Thankfully, Trump's campaign totally imploding has likely saved me from having to vote for Hillary in the election, which was what I was planning to do when the election was closer.  I'd prefer to just vote for neither of them, as both leave a bad taste in my mouth, but as I live in a battleground state I would have voted Hillary if I thought it might make a difference.

To me, this is a really dangerous attitude. There's still weeks left in this horrid election cycle. Your vote absolutely makes a difference. Not voting in whatever battleground state you live in increases the likelihood of a president who makes Dubya look like FDR. 

Quote

I honestly don't understand why it's so outlandish for a Democrat to dislike Hillary.  She's a crap candidate, and I think she's moving the Democratic Party in the wrong direction.

Honestly, I don't think it matters whether or not you personally like her. It matters whether you think she could get the job done (or in this case, elect Supreme Court Justice(s) that will protect the correct causes) She did a decent job as secretary of state, did a decent job as senator for New York, even did a decent job as first lady. 

From her policy platforms on her website, she is generally moving the democratic party in a liberal direction, but perhaps that's not something you're happy with? Or is it that she's not moving it fast enough?  

[Maester Drew]

40 minutes ago, alguien said:

And if you would have voted for Kasich over Clinton... well you're not a Democrat, to say the least. And you don't care about the Supreme Court, which means you don't care about the civil liberties of LGBTQ community nor the rights for women nor voting rights for minorities nor overturning Citizens United. 

By that argument, are Republicans that vote for Clinton over their own nominee no longer Republicans? That's ridiculous.

People, even if they are affiliated with a specific party, can and do vote for candidates regardless of party lines. I mean, a famous example of this are the Reagan Democrats. Should we assume that since they voted for Reagan, they are no longer Democrats?

And a personal example: I will be voting for my US Congressman, Mac Thornberry. He's a Republican, but that doesn't mean I am too.

[OldGimletEye]

1 minute ago, Maester Drew said:

People, even if they are affiliated with a specific party, can and do vote for candidates regardless of party lines. I mean, a famous example of this are the Reagan Democrats. Should we assume that since they voted for Reagan, they are no longer Democrats?

I don't know. Is it possible to belong to any party once you've been buried in the Macomb County Cemetery?

[Kalbear]

The serbian story gets weirder and weirder.

[alguien]

6 minutes ago, Maester Drew said:

By that argument, are Republicans that vote for Clinton over their own nominee no longer Republicans? That's ridiculous.

People, even if they are affiliated with a specific party, can and do vote for candidates regardless of party lines. I mean, a famous example of this are the Reagan Democrats. Should we assume that since they voted for Reagan, they are no longer Democrats?

And a personal example: I will be voting for my US Congressman, Mac Thornberry. He's a Republican, but that doesn't mean I am too.

If I'd been arguing that in order to qualify as a Democrat, you must always vote for whomever the Democratic candidate is, in every election, in every position, forever, then you might have a point. 

It's a good thing I'm not. 

I'm saying that, hypothetically, voting for Kasich over Clinton would be voting for a candidate who is antithetical to the Democratic party over one who pretty much represents everything Democrats stand for (and who was elected to represent the party by a sizeable majority of said Democrats).  

So if you wanted to say that you're still a Democratic after voting for a candidate who is against womens' rights, LGBTQ rights, voting rights for minorities and wants to keep Citizens United intact, you're welcome to cling to whatever party affiliation you wish.

But I would very much disagree that you're part of the Democratic party by making that choice. 

 

[Maester Drew]

5 minutes ago, alguien said:

If I'd been arguing that in order to qualify as a Democrat, you must always vote for whomever the Democratic candidate is, in every election, in every position, forever, then you might have a point. 

It's a good thing I'm not. 

Fair enough.

7 minutes ago, alguien said:

 

But I would very much disagree that you're part of the Democratic party by making that choice.

Well it's a damned good thing I've never been a Democrat. I've been an Independent since I was eighteen.

9 minutes ago, alguien said:

So if you wanted to say that you're still a Democratic after voting for a candidate who is against womens' rights, LGBTQ rights, voting rights for minorities and wants to keep Citizens United intact, you're welcome to cling to whatever party affiliation you wish.

Can you please clarify, are you speaking of Kasich or another candidate?

[BloodRider]

1 hour ago, Liffguard said:

Threats to assassinate the spouses and children of suspected terrorists. Insinuations of purging the military of officers who won't participate in war crimes.

Soliciting donations and bribes from foreign governments, encouraging and condoning foreign cyber intrusions, calling for the retrial of proven innocent suspects, a gold standard fetish, a stated desire to ignore NATO while Putin recovers satelite states, cf bribes above.  A stated desire to trash trade treaties

[Dr. Pepper]

Has the Trump campaign made any statement about all of the #repealthe19th coming from his likely voters?  That seems likely something they'd want to step in front of, even with something very Trumpesque like "I love the 19th, I have tremendous support for the 19th, when I'm prez the 19th is going to be yuge."

[Kalbear]

5 minutes ago, BloodRider said:

Soliciting donations and bribes from foreign governments, encouraging and condoning foreign cyber intrusions, calling for the retrial of proven innocent suspects, a gold standard fetish, a stated desire to ignore NATO while Putin recovers satelite states, cf bribes above.  A stated desire to trash trade treaties

Repeal of many parts of the first amendment, specifically the right to a free press, repeal of the 19th amendment, repeal of a large amount of due process laws and rulings

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

 Lou Dobbs doing his part to help out...

  

 

[Kalbear]

He did later apologize, but still...when one group of Republicans openly ask 'why didn't they come forward sooner' and this shit happens? COME ON MAN

[BloodRider]

1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

Here's the main issue I have with this idea: Clinton has a massively huge history of supporting a large amount of people in every single situation she has been in, often in ways that were absurdly unexpected. There was no need for her to do something like the switch on passports to support transgendered people, but she supported it and did it as SecState. The notion that she stood up with Bernie Sanders in the 90s to try and get UHC done implies that she is serving herself but Sanders is one of the people is frankly complete garbage too. We have countless small stories of individuals who have been directly helped by Clinton without any specific political aim, either. It really is an argument without particular merit, unless you believe all career politicians are in it for themselves - in which  case Sanders is right there, too. 

I think Sanders and Clinton are different in their methodologies, but not particularly different in their goals. Clinton is very, very pragmatic, and Sanders is very, very idealistic. This means that Clinton compromises more on things. It also means she gets more things done. But both have had a long history of supporting very progressive viewpoints. 

I really think the key to understanding Clinton is her defeat of UHC in the 90s. Before that she really truly believed that she could do UHC because it was a stupid no-brainer, and she had a lot of political support...until the insurance industry stepped in. At that point, the way she approached things changed tremendously. After that she went after things by first determining if she had the support for it, and then announced it. It meant less exciting initiatives, but it also meant she wasn't promising things she couldn't deliver. It means she's willing to hedge on shoot the moon things (with a couple of exceptions) and not be gung ho on it, because she knows that being gung ho can be used against you later when you want to get things done. 

Yup.  You can read that in her Wiki-leaks emails.  This is exactly what she was saying with her while private public thing.  Obama says it too.  If you make your goals public, your opposition feels like they have to fight it.  If you keep it private during negotiations there may be some hope.

[DanteGabriel]

3 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

He did later apologize, but still...when one group of Republicans openly ask 'why didn't they come forward sooner' and this shit happens? COME ON MAN

Jesus Christ, how did that ever seem like a good idea? When was the last time Lou Dobbs was worth a damn? Time to put the hidebound bigot out to pasture. He can go back to chasing undocumented immigrants away from everywhere except his own domestic staff.

[BloodRider]

1 hour ago, briantw said:

The problem is that the majority of career politicians in Washington these days seem to be in it to serve themselves, make a ton of money, and support their rich friends and corporate interests rather than the electorate.  

Please.  I said I would have considered Kasich, but that I didn't like him either.  Honestly, the entire Republican candidate pool was pretty godawful.  But I really dislike the Clintons, so voting for Hillary is obviously not something I was interested in if I could avoid it.  Unfortunately, the Republicans haven't seen fit to offer much in the way of a sane, viable alternative.  The closest we've gotten to that in recent years was John McCain, but sadly that was a few years after John McCain went absolutely batshit crazy.

Thankfully, Trump's campaign totally imploding has likely saved me from having to vote for Hillary in the election, which was what I was planning to do when the election was closer.  I'd prefer to just vote for neither of them, as both leave a bad taste in my mouth, but as I live in a battleground state I would have voted Hillary if I thought it might make a difference.

I honestly don't understand why it's so outlandish for a Democrat to dislike Hillary.  She's a crap candidate, and I think she's moving the Democratic Party in the wrong direction.

Its not outlandish for a Dem to dislike Clinton.  But you said she was evil and corrupt beyond redemption.   That is not dislike.  Don't soft pedal it now.

[Kalbear]

Also, as @lokisnow hypothesized, the Podesta leaks have made it abundantly clear that Veep is by far the most accurate portrayal of American politics in the history of ever.