2016 US Election: what happened in Nevada?

[Kalbear]

19 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

If he did that he might as well resign from the Senate, because you can bet he'd be stripped of all his committee assignments. 

This has apparently already been threatened. A politico story goes into it a bit more.

[TerraPrime]

1 hour ago, Bold Barry Whitebeard said:

Considering that between Clinton and Obama the Democrats have put over a million service members out of work says otherwise.  Why would they want to vote for someone who is going to fire you?

Source for this claim? Were those positions eliminated? Or was it just a drop in enlisting? Also, unless you believe in unlimited eternal expansion of our military, at some point after our invasion into Iraq slows down and shrinks in size, we will need to have a smaller armed forces, yes?  Telling me that there are fewer jobs in the military doesn't really convince me that the Democrats are doing something wrong. 

[Altherion]

1 hour ago, Pony Queen Jace said:

Tomorrow will always come, but is it really worth letting the economy crumble to dust as American debt no longer becomes a viable investment? Is it worth the open discrimination that will be faced by Americans who practice Islam? Or any minority for that matter? Is the backwards Republican majority that would reassert control over the Supreme Court with the power to reverse 8 years of painstaking progress worth it?

And all for what? To show the 'establishment' that you're unhappy with an eminently qualified candidate who's morals you find dubious? Who's morals, it's worth pointing out, would very likely not be found in question if not for her gender? Sure, you're not a fan. That's fine, you can hate her personally. But to absolve yourself of the fallout, what could set about the ruin of a nation of 330 million people is beyond irresponsible, it's despicable.

First, you are completely misunderstanding the issue with Clinton. It's not that her morals are dubious (this is true too, but it's true of almost every politician and certainly of Trump) or anything about her personally, it's that she is the establishment candidate. To vote for her is to vote for the status quo, with perhaps a dash of escalation in the Middle Eastern conflicts. Second, I don't think that many people really believe the apocalyptic claims about Trump. It's not plausible that he would destroy the US economy given the damage he would be doing to himself and it's very unlikely that he'd actually be able to implement the more extreme of the things he has said (he has already "evolved" on many of them).

[alguien]

7 minutes ago, Altherion said:

To vote for her is to vote for the status quo, with perhaps a dash of escalation in the Middle Eastern conflicts.

Since the status quo for the past 8 years has been a slow, steady movement to the left, I'm pretty OK with this. 

I do worry about her foreign policy, though as we've discussed before, it won't be anything near the disasters of W, Trump, or any other Neocon administration.

I thought this article did a decent, nuanced job of examining her hawkishness:

4 Things To Know About Hillary Clinton's Approach To Foreign Policy

[Kalbear]

 

Quote

It's not plausible that he would destroy the US economy given the damage he would be doing to himself and it's very unlikely that he'd actually be able to implement the more extreme of the things he has said (he has already "evolved" on many of them).

He opened a mortgage company in 2007 saying that everything was awesome and this was the best time to do it. 

He openly talked about printing money and going into more debt and defaulting on the debt of the entire US economy and described it as 'playing with debt'. 

He has at times been literally without any resources and has been in such major debt that he thought he'd have to flee the country. 

This is not a man who has self-protection as a major characteristic. 

[Altherion]

34 minutes ago, alguien said:

Since the status quo for the past 8 years has been a slow, steady movement to the left, I'm pretty OK with this.

If you are OK with stagnant incomes and with allowing multinational corporations ever more control over the country, Clinton is certainly the candidate for you.

[alguien]

9 minutes ago, Altherion said:

If you are OK with stagnant incomes and with allowing multinational corporations ever more control over the country, Clinton is certainly the candidate for you.

Good thing she's pledged to elect a Supreme Court justice who would overturn Citizens United and raise the minimum wedge then, eh?

ETA: also, coming from a person who would vote for Donald Trump, this is hilarious. 

[Kalbear]

Hey now, Trump wouldn't be for stagnant incomes - he'd be for rapidly dropping incomes. And he'd not allow multinational  corporations ever more control - he'd offer them full control, going so far as to talk to them already about who he should appoint for SC justices and making them parts of his cabinet.

So it's totally different. 

[James Arryn]

1 hour ago, Altherion said:

First, you are completely misunderstanding the issue with Clinton. It's not that her morals are dubious (this is true too, but it's true of almost every politician and certainly of Trump) or anything about her personally, it's that she is the establishment candidate. To vote for her is to vote for the status quo, with perhaps a dash of escalation in the Middle Eastern conflicts. Second, I don't think that many people really believe the apocalyptic claims about Trump. It's not plausible that he would destroy the US economy given the damage he would be doing to himself and it's very unlikely that he'd actually be able to implement the more extreme of the things he has said (he has already "evolved" on many of them).

People voting for someone on the basis that they won't or can't do what they say they'll do amaze me. Trump as the anti-establishment guy is also amazing; inherited wealth/Ivy League/pro sports owner/celeb circle jockey is anti-what establishment?

 

But even if he was, that itself is terrible reasoning for support. Tylenol is not curing my headache! Advil neither! Years i'v wasted on that crap. Fuck that noise, I'm trying decapitation. Other-than has been the basis for some of the world's worst decisions. I'd almost respect the whole racist/sexist/islamiphobic angle more, at least there's meat on the bones. 

 

Lastly, the whole'world's going to hell' narrative is soooooo always eternally forever throw away the key. You can find people saying it with conviction from literally every time in history. From an external evaluation, the current U.S. is pretty pampered and several steps removed from real hell; at least those able to post on a fantasy novel website, anyways. And, yeah, the whole 'That softness IS the door to imminent hell' angle was also stale pre-Christ.

[Shryke]

3 hours ago, Myshkin said:

Bernie doesn't need to drop out. I think he should drop out, because he has no chance at the nomination and I can't see anything positive being accomplished by his staying in. But his not dropping out isn't the problem; his excuses for not dropping out are the problem. He is actively trying to delegitimize Clinton's victories. He is saying that the process itself was rigged and unfair, heavily implying that had the process been fair he of course would have won. He is telling Bhis supporters that Clinton has stolen the nomination. And yeah, that's a fucking problem. It's also the height of entitlement. Bernie Sanders thinks he deserves to be President, and he's willing to burn the whole thing down when the electorate votes otherwise. I've had my problems with Bernie the candidate from the beginning, but I always thought of him as a fundamentally good guy. Now though I think we're starting to get a good look at who he really is, and it's ugly.

The problem for Sanders is simple: He can't answer the question "Why are you still here?"

I mean, he could technically. He could say "Because I want to keep pushing my message" or "Because I want everyone to get a chance to really have a say" or "Because I want to keep amassing delegates to try and push the Democratic Party in the direction of my policy ideas". And these are all perfectly fine goals and honestly I think alot of Clinton supporters wouldn't even have an issue with that.

The problem is none of those answers are ones he can use because they don't generate any support, financial or otherwise, for his run. They are, for all intents and purposes, concessions. They effectively kill his campaign more then it already is right now.

So all he's got is lies and bullshit to keep his campaign going. He's got to pretend he actually has a shot and the numbers are all lies and the process is rigged and that's why everyone is saying he's done for and fuck the DNC. Because that's what gets his people fired up and brings in the money. It's the only real answer he has to the question.

But of course all those answers are either bullshit or contradictory of his previous stances or outright harmful to the political process as a whole and his professed policy positions as well. So we are stuck with him basically trying to burn the place down around himself because he can't do otherwise without admitting defeat and ending his campaign and he wants people to keep voting for him for various reasons.

[Shryke]

7 hours ago, Notone said:

I thought that clusterfuck in Nevada goes a bit further back. Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought there were some problems with the voter registration. Even the DNC came forth and admitted that thing did not go as smoothly as it should have. I agree with the last part though, Sanders and his campaign should really reign in some of his supporters and their vitriol. How fair or unfair the nomination process had been to him, that is another question. I think Clinton has had somewhat of a headstart over the rest of the Democratic field, because of the additional media coverage. Sanders simply had been the lesser known candidate.

There were issues in Nevada during the caucus I believe, though not near as bad as elsewhere as I remember. But none of that has anything to do with the clusterfuck that went down there last week.

The clusterfuck was all about Sanders' people there not knowing or understanding the rules and also getting pissed off their attempt to game the system in Sanders' favour got shot down in favour of going with how the voter's voted in the initial caucuses.

[Shryke]

3 hours ago, Kalbear said:

 

He opened a mortgage company in 2007 saying that everything was awesome and this was the best time to do it. 

He openly talked about printing money and going into more debt and defaulting on the debt of the entire US economy and described it as 'playing with debt'. 

He has at times been literally without any resources and has been in such major debt that he thought he'd have to flee the country. 

This is not a man who has self-protection as a major characteristic. 

That's not even the worse. The idiot recently made comments about "refinancing the US debt" that should scare the ever loving shit out of you. We're talking like apocalytic levels of stupidity there.

The best one can hope for with Trump is that he doesn't mean what he says and/or can't actually accomplish it. Because if he does, he would absolutely destroy the US economy. And a whole host of other things too, given his other policy positions.

 

But then, Altherion has always been the prototypical Trump supporter, projecting his own beliefs onto the man and ignoring everything he actually says.

[The Marquis de Leech]

5 hours ago, Myshkin said:

 I've had my problems with Bernie the candidate from the beginning, but I always thought of him as a fundamentally good guy. Now though I think we're starting to get a good look at who he really is, and it's ugly.

Bernie in 2016 is no worse than Hillary was in 2008. I don't think either are particularly ugly (beyond having the sort of ego you need to get to that level of politics), but Bernie is just going through a prolonged denial stage. I think the guy started to believe he could actually pull this off, and started to believe his own spin. Which is simply a very human thing to do. 

[ThinkerX]

And again, the complaints levied by Clinton supporters against Sanders and his followers seem very much like the complaints made by establishment republican types against Trump and his supporters.  'Just in it to cause havoc.'  'Not real party members.' 'We don't need that sort of voter.' 'Unrealistic.'   Especially true of several posters here. 

[Myshkin]

1 minute ago, ThinkerX said:

And again, the complaints levied by Clinton supporters against Sanders and his followers seem very much like the complaints made by establishment republican types against Trump and his supporters.  'Just in it to cause havoc.'  'Not real party members.' 'We don't need that sort of voter.' 'Unrealistic.'   Especially true of several posters here. 

If that's all you've gotten out of these threads then I posit that you haven't actually been listening. 

[Shryke]

Yeah, that doesn't seem to bear any resemblance to what most people are saying here.

[ThinkerX]

30 minutes ago, ThinkerX said:

And again, the complaints levied by Clinton supporters against Sanders and his followers seem very much like the complaints made by establishment republican types against Trump and his supporters.  'Just in it to cause havoc.'  'Not real party members.' 'We don't need that sort of voter.' 'Unrealistic.'   Especially true of several posters here. 

 

18 minutes ago, Myshkin said:

If that's all you've gotten out of these threads then I posit that you haven't actually been listening. 

 

6 hours ago, Kalbear said:

This has apparently already been threatened. A politico story goes into it a bit more.

 

1 hour ago, Shryke said:

There were issues in Nevada during the caucus I believe, though not near as bad as elsewhere as I remember. But none of that has anything to do with the clusterfuck that went down there last week.

The clusterfuck was all about Sanders' people there not knowing or understanding the rules and also getting pissed off their attempt to game the system in Sanders' favour got shot down in favour of going with how the voter's voted in the initial caucuses.

3 hours ago, Shryke said:

The problem for Sanders is simple: He can't answer the question "Why are you still here?"

I mean, he could technically. He could say "Because I want to keep pushing my message" or "Because I want everyone to get a chance to really have a say" or "Because I want to keep amassing delegates to try and push the Democratic Party in the direction of my policy ideas". And these are all perfectly fine goals and honestly I think alot of Clinton supporters wouldn't even have an issue with that.

The problem is none of those answers are ones he can use because they don't generate any support, financial or otherwise, for his run. They are, for all intents and purposes, concessions. They effectively kill his campaign more then it already is right now.

So all he's got is lies and bullshit to keep his campaign going. He's got to pretend he actually has a shot and the numbers are all lies and the process is rigged and that's why everyone is saying he's done for and fuck the DNC. Because that's what gets his people fired up and brings in the money. It's the only real answer he has to the question.

But of course all those answers are either bullshit or contradictory of his previous stances or outright harmful to the political process as a whole and his professed policy positions as well. So we are stuck with him basically trying to burn the place down around himself because he can't do otherwise without admitting defeat and ending his campaign and he wants people to keep voting for him for various reasons.

6 hours ago, Kalbear said:

If he did that he might as well resign from the Senate, because you can bet he'd be stripped of all his committee assignments. 

And so on...

[The Marquis de Leech]

31 minutes ago, ThinkerX said:

And again, the complaints levied by Clinton supporters against Sanders and his followers seem very much like the complaints made by establishment republican types against Trump and his supporters.  'Just in it to cause havoc.'  'Not real party members.' 'We don't need that sort of voter.' 'Unrealistic.'   Especially true of several posters here. 

Well, I for one would prefer Bernie over Hillary. Purely at a personal level.

I can, however, do maths. Hillary is going to be the Democratic nominee. Bernie cannot win from here (for me, the deciding moment was 15th March - Sanders really needed Ohio). 

Given that, anyone on the Left who is attacking Hillary is basically doing the job of the Republicans. Which, as anyone who can remember 2000 knows, is a really, really bad thing. I think Hillary will be a perfectly OK President (she's further Left than she was in 2008, for a start), but even if you dislike her, she's the only thing standing between Donald Trump and the White House. And if Trump wins 2016? Playing russian roulette with the entire world is not remotely funny.

[Myshkin]

4 minutes ago, ThinkerX said:

 

 

 

And so on...

None of these quoted, nor those that you didn't quote, are the unsupported one-line arguments you seem to be proposing they are. Further, getting back to your original point, are the "establishment" republicans making those arguments against Trump wrong?

[Altherion]

4 hours ago, James Arryn said:

People voting for someone on the basis that they won't or can't do what they say they'll do amaze me. Trump as the anti-establishment guy is also amazing; inherited wealth/Ivy League/pro sports owner/celeb circle jockey is anti-what establishment?

The political establishment comprised of the vast majority of donors and politicians of both the Democrat and Republican parties. They really, really disliked him, although many of the Republican ones are now desperately trying to do an about-face after getting thoroughly thrashed at the polls. He is certainly a part of the ruling class (he was born to it), but they equally certainly had no intention of letting him get this close to the presidency.

Quote

But even if he was, that itself is terrible reasoning for support. Tylenol is not curing my headache! Advil neither! Years i'v wasted on that crap. Fuck that noise, I'm trying decapitation. Other-than has been the basis for some of the world's worst decisions. I'd almost respect the whole racist/sexist/islamiphobic angle more, at least there's meat on the bones.

Again, the apocalyptic scaremongering is getting tiresome. A Trump presidency is a roll of the dice, but the worst case outcome is not much worse than with Clinton and the best case one is better.

Quote

Lastly, the whole'world's going to hell' narrative is soooooo always eternally forever throw away the key. You can find people saying it with conviction from literally every time in history. From an external evaluation, the current U.S. is pretty pampered and several steps removed from real hell; at least those able to post on a fantasy novel website, anyways. And, yeah, the whole 'That softness IS the door to imminent hell' angle was also stale pre-Christ.

Sure, but it doesn't mean that there are no problems. Most societies continually encounter problems which, if left unchecked over a sufficiently long term, would lead to the end of the society. Successful societies generally address these problems long before the latter become critical.