2016 USA Presidential election thread I: The warm-up

[notorious bum]

I get it, getting universal healthcare to pass in congress is a hail mary, but I'm pretty sure that is some defeatist bullshit considering that MOST bills introduced to congress don't go anywhere for awhile.

Also, here's a new spin on your socialism boogeyman: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politic...-for-socialism

Interestingly enough, “capitalist” also proved to be a partisan label. While a considerable portion of Democratic Iowa caucus-goers were eager to label themselves socialists, fewer would described themselves as capitalist – only 38 percent.

Again, I would like to highlight the fact that EVEN IN THE MOST CYNICAL OF SCENARIOS, you don't really give a fuck about Bernie being the only candidate who promises to decriminalize marijuana, affecting countless lives in America. Why is this shrug of indifference acceptable here?

[archibaldcrane]

Again, I would like to highlight the fact that EVEN IN THE MOST CYNICAL OF SCENARIOS, you don't really give a fuck about Bernie being the only candidate who promises to decriminalize marijuana, affecting countless lives in America. Why is this shrug of indifference acceptable here?

Because I see it like Obama not being for gay marriage in 2008. The country is obviously heading in that direction, he clearly didn't actually give a shit (just like I don't believe Hillary actually gives a shit about marijuana) and it's smart general election politics to "evolve" on that once you're in the office and popular opinion has overwhelmed the opposition.

[notorious bum]

There's plenty of reason to believe that Hillary will never evolve on the war on drugs, though. She couldn't even be bothered to mention the word "marijuana" once in the last debate. Her response containing a regurgitation of drugs being a "health problem" not only made little sense, but also contradictory with the bit about tossing billions to states who will funnel that into the ATF and etc.

[archibaldcrane]

She couldn't even be bothered to mention the word "marijuana" once in the last debate.

Why would she want to bring up a topic that doesn't win her points against her liberal challenger? Look, the Colorado and Washington experiments are going well, more states will adopt those policies, and pressure and public support (now with data pointing to the success) will build.

It's remarkably like the gay marriage issue. If she was running on a "tough on crime" platform or something, I'd agree with you that it's unlikely she's going to 'evolve' - but I don't see that at all.

“We have to move away from treating the use of drugs as a crime and instead, move it to where it belongs, as a health issue,” said Clinton. “And we need to divert more people from the criminal justice system into drug courts, into treatment, and recovery.”

That doesn't worry me.

[Andalusian girls]

i know the conversation doesn't go much beyond blaze it in youthful liberal circles, and as a classical liberal i am likewise staunchly against marijuana prohibition and mass incarceration, but given the opioid epidemic ravaging middle America and skyrocketing overdose rates (lethal heroin overdoes have quadrupled(!) since 2002), she's absolutely right that drug abuse constitutes a serious and growing health problem in the nation and our present treatment models are being overwhelmed

[Tyrath]

I'm arguing it. Hillary has a better chance of working with a Republican-majority House than Bernie does (or than Obama has). I believe this. Be as cynical as you like "yeah it's because they all are bought by Goldman Sachs" "sure, she's a white Christian capitalist" - I don't care. I still think it's true.

You clearly underestimate the hatred the GOP has for Hillary if you think they will give her any less hell than they give Obama.

[notorious bum]

You have to keep in-mind, that line is the best she can do with providing empty rhetoric, it's essentially the same as "make stuff better." None of that can be taken seriously without taking the very serious problem the criminal justice system has with keeping their number one customers in their cells. Clinton's machine is oiled by the private prison industry, do you think she's going to turn around and bite the hand that feeds her?

[archibaldcrane]

You clearly underestimate the hatred the GOP has for Hillary if you think they will give her any less hell than they give Obama.

Obama merely adopted GOP hate, Hillary was born in it, molded by it. She's under no illusions about what she's up against.

[Tyrath]

Obama merely adopted GOP hate, Hillary was born in it, molded by it. She's under no illusions about what she's up against.

And she won't navigate it any better than Obama does, so your point is moot.

[archibaldcrane]

And she won't navigate it any better than Obama does, so your point is moot.

I already said I disagree with you - we're both throwing out opinions, I'm not sure what going over this again does for the discourse.

[Gredival]

Again, I would like to highlight the fact that EVEN IN THE MOST CYNICAL OF SCENARIOS, you don't really give a fuck about Bernie being the only candidate who promises to decriminalize marijuana, affecting countless lives in America. Why is this shrug of indifference acceptable here?

Because letting any of the GOP nominees replace RGB and put fresh younger versions of Scalia and Thomas in would create far more disastrous legal consequences for decades to come.

I would readily choose to minimize the risk of that even if "countless" people are going to rot in jail for silly marijuana offenses. Especially because in the end even if you are being disproportionately and irrationally penalized for marijuana use, at least it's still a matter of being punished for something you did

[notorious bum]

It just comes down to what you believe is the real impact of money in politics, essentially.

Look at Obama, though, in his last years he can only be bothered to pardon a few cell blocks of non-violent drug offenders to the most extreme degrees of innocence. They rotted in those jail cells for years, while having him in office. Or how about the reduced sentencing of the racist crack:cocaine ratio, he couldn't even be bothered to retroactively include past convictions. This is reality; he can't upset those that contributed to his success, even though Obama clearly has more to gain politically, as our black president, to show that he does give a fuck about his own people.

[notorious bum]

Because letting any of the GOP nominees replace RGB and put fresh younger versions of Scalia and Thomas in would create far more disastrous legal consequences for decades to come.

I would readily choose to minimize the risk of that even if "countless" people are going to rot in jail for silly marijuana offenses. Especially because in the end even if you are being disproportionately and irrationally penalized for marijuana use, at least it's still a matter of being punished for something you did

This is all I needed to hear. Thanks.

[Byrthnoth]

Unless I'm mistaken, executive actions are basically just policy notes for agencies when their mission isn't explicitly specified by congress. They can't even be relied on within the term if you get pushback from Congress, because congress can cut funding to an agency contingent on their policies (see: can't research gun violence). So King Bernie would need to avoid having a republican controlled congress/house in order for his executive actions to have any effect even within his own term, and there's no guarantee we wouldn't get a pushback republican president that reverses course on all of his declarations anyway.

So even if you do believe that Bernie would disregard almost 300 years of precedence and use the presidency as a throne, it still isn't likely to make any long term difference and might not even make a short term difference. Implementing and then reversing all of his policies would probably just be a massive bureaucratic masturbatory exercise of incompetence and waste.



Clinton is likely to do less, but the changes she makes are unlikely to be immediately repealed. Incremental, lasting success or potential large, transient changes. You get to choose!

[notorious bum]

I don't know what executive orders you're referring to, but that wouldn't be the case for removal of marijuana from scheduled drug list.

https://www.change.org/p/president-b...edule-of-drugs

[Fiye]

I didn't know we elected a president for black america.

Turns out, if you want to change the policy on crime for drugs change needs to happened on all levels of the government. Local, State, and Federal. Elect your judges, pick your representatives, and vote motherfuckers out.

One man, no matter his or her race, religion, or beliefs will completely change the system. Its all fine and dandy we don't want a GOP in office because conservative-as-fuck (white) judges will be put into the supreme court so fast our heads will spin, but we can't stop there. Barack can't fucking move mountains by himself and not much is going to get done with a clusterfuck of a congress that can't even agree on how to set a fucking budget.

[Sho]

I think the conversation going in here in here misses the fact that Sanders has a worse off chance than Hilary because he is very liberal, vs Clinton being a general moderate (with a hawkish bent).

Though this upcoming election is VERY different (mainly because of Trump politics), people tend to eventually elect moderates either both sides as their primary picks -- Obama, Bush Sr & Jr (yes, I said Jr), Clinton, Ford, McCain, Gore, Romney, Dole, & Kerry were all moderates from in their respective parties. The only one in recent history who deviates from this is Reagan, who was a moderate Democrat turned conservative Republican (hence the reason why the current swath of GOP hopefuls trying to embrace his legacy as theirs).

The reality is that people generally love being entertained by far left and far right rhetoric during primary season, but eventually vote closer to the middle, especially when the Independent vote is included. However, Donald Trump really has turned this election cycle on it's ear with the shit he's spewing out, so it may be a very different outcome than the last 30+ years. Cruz would have never had a chance at Iowa/New Hampshire, if not for Trump. Walker, Kasich and Bush, the three who actually are supposed to be doing well, aren't, because of Trump.

The Trump Effect ("telling it like it is, straight talk". anti-goverment) can very well can extend to Sanders too, but it's more doubtful because the Clinton machine is stronk, post 2008.

[notorious bum]

You give Trump way too much credit, this circus shit-show's momentum started way before he ever even announced. We're just seeing it embraced fully by all major channels of our irresponsible and depraved media outlets this past year. Extremist ideology is disproportionately amplified, while populist ideology is silenced, by design.

[archibaldcrane]

I don't know what executive orders you're referring to, but that wouldn't be the case for removal of marijuana from scheduled drug list.

https://www.change.org/p/president-b...edule-of-drugs

Taking weed off schedule is only a small part of nationwide decrim.

[Marootsoobutsu]

That being said, the idea that being a parent makes a person more Republican doesn't square with the idea that "free" healthcare and "free" college (Democratic ideas) appeal precisely to parents.

(that doesn't mean it's wrong, but if right it means being a parent makes you really stupid lol)

Free college is aimed more at the 18-24 crowd than to their parents.

Free health care isn't free, and parents who are living paycheck to paycheck kind of dread how much more expensive "free" healthcare will be come April 15th.

You clearly underestimate the hatred the GOP has for Hillary if you think they will give her any less hell than they give Obama.

Oh please. The GOP hated Bill. The question isn't whether they will work with Hillary; it's whether Hillary will work with them. Obama flat out didn't talk with GOP leaders for a LONG time in office (probably because the Democrats in 2006 refused to talk to Bush, though Bush deliberately consulted with their leaders from 2001-2006); that, more than anything else, lead to their extraordinary obstructionism: he presumed to speak for them when negotiating (and did a very poor job of it).

Hillary WILL talk to the Republicans, because while Obama is a brilliant campaigner, he's frankly a subpar-to-awful politician. Hillary is a VERY good politician, and knows how to play the Washington game. The Republicans won't give her everything she wants (nor should they), but they will work with her far better than they did with Obama-- largely because she will work with them far better than Obama did. Denying that is ignoring both her past and the Republican perspective... which really doesn't surprise me.