2016 USA Presidential election thread I: The warm-up

[archibaldcrane]

Archi, your new show has made gawker.com headlines. I haven't watched any legitimate TV news, but I assume Katrina on there is getting some publicity.

Awww yeaaahhh

http://gawker.com/donald-trumps-very...-pi-1768577851

[Fiye]

Grats Archi

Spoiler: show

[Quicklet]

Let me quote another poster.



You have absolutely no evidence. I have just as much evidence to support my claim that Bernie is doing the exact same thing with employees of gun manufacturers. The difference is just that you think it's believable that Hillary would do this because you don't trust her and you trust Bernie.

Which goes back to the point everyone else has. The narrative that Hillary is selling voters short is only believable due to an intense decade long smear campaign by the right that is now being co-opted by the fringe left that supports Bernie.

I guess we're not counting setting up a private server in violation of your own department's/administration's rules on handling sensitive information. Let's not pretend that if this was Condoleeza Rice and she was still relevant to politics, the left wouldn't be apoplectic about it. Saying "they did it too, so it's okay" is completely skirting the issue.

Let's set that aside though. We can start with her high-priced speeches given to Wall Street. If she really has nothing to hide, she can release them to the public so they can see that she's credible on the issue. It's not really any different from candidates being asked to release their taxes, etc., and if the transcripts vindicate what she's been saying then I'm fully willing to admit being wrong, but you're going to have a hard time convincing a lot of people that she got all this money and is going to crack down on Wall Street once she gets into office if you don't have evidence to back that up.

It's a total copout to claim that her issues of trust and believability are the Republicans' fault. It's never a good thing when your best argument for people voting for you is "the other guy is much worse."

Sorry, but Hillary is not as good a candidate as people like to pretend, and she doesn't represent the direction her party and this country is moving in. Nominating her is as much of a crapshoot as nominating Bernie.

[Fiye]

[notorious bum]

I think we're missing a few steps in the logic ladder between money coming from employees of corporations, or even money from corporations, and outright corruption.

Money can buy a politician's ear, but that's no guarantee of anything. Obama received something from both AT&T and Verizon, people thought he appointed Wheeler to be a crony yes-man for them, and instead we got far stronger net neutrality regulations than anyone could have hoped for.

The fact that you don't feel it to be pertinent enough to mention Obama granting retroactive immunity for the warrantless wiretapping by the very telecom companies he received contributions from, immediately after taking office, says a lot.

[notorious bum]

I guess we're not counting setting up a private server in violation of your own department's/administration's rules on handling sensitive information. Let's not pretend that if this was Condoleeza Rice and she was still relevant to politics, the left wouldn't be apoplectic about it. Saying "they did it too, so it's okay" is completely skirting the issue.

Let's set that aside though. We can start with her high-priced speeches given to Wall Street. If she really has nothing to hide, she can release them to the public so they can see that she's credible on the issue. It's not really any different from candidates being asked to release their taxes, etc., and if the transcripts vindicate what she's been saying then I'm fully willing to admit being wrong, but you're going to have a hard time convincing a lot of people that she got all this money and is going to crack down on Wall Street once she gets into office if you don't have evidence to back that up.

It's a total copout to claim that her issues of trust and believability are the Republicans' fault. It's never a good thing when your best argument for people voting for you is "the other guy is much worse."

Sorry, but Hillary is not as good a candidate as people like to pretend, and she doesn't represent the direction her party and this country is moving in. Nominating her is as much of a crapshoot as nominating Bernie.

The irony with this "my team is no more corrupt than their team" rhetoric is that the Clinton's history of corruption goes beyond the lobbyists and super PACs, they deal directly with the very entities that Americans are trying to wrestle power from in order to return to some semblance of democracy. The Clintons profit directly from the financial terrorists on Wallstreet, lucrative weapons deals with dictators, neoliberal capitalists who wish to privatize more infrastructure and get more corporate welfare, spreading fracking all over the world, and disaster capitalism that exploits natural and man-made crisis.

The liberal elites have given their marching orders to Hillary pundits to explain away the legalized bribes and corruption legacy that work so effectively, that we have all been desensitized to this revolving door of corporate plutocracy.

[ringthree]

Everybody has to draw their own line in the sand where they think change can start. For me, winning at all costs is not worth it. You continue to play by the old rules to win, I think it is likely you will continue to play by the old rules once you are in office. Telling everybody to fall in line and play it safe undermines those who want to see things shaken up. It hides how much support a certain idea had at the end because people were convinced not to "waste" their vote on it.

People that think exactly like this got W elected.

[ringthree]

Wheeler is the exception rather than the norm though.

This goes beyond just fundraising, but it infects practically every major level of federal elected/appointed government, and for all the things Obama has done right during his presidency, he has done so very much that is wrong and needs to be fixed to avoid catastrophe in the future. For a lot of people, it's not sufficient to say "well we're making strides on the social issues, so that's good enough" when ignoring the other issues could put all of that in jeopardy.

As far as the fundraising semantics, I think it's disingenuous to focus on the employee aspect and downplay having lobbyists bundling large amounts of contributions together. Individual low-level employees are not putting in hundreds of thousands of dollars into the system, so when a politician plays dumb with the voters they shouldn't be surprised to be called out on it. At the very least, if someone is going to argue that you have to play the game to win, they need to be transparent enough to convince the skeptics that they're on the level. Telling them "I know better than you, so just trust me" is not going to fly in 2016.

What in the name of fuck did Obama do that could even be close to be considered to cause a catastrophe? This is fucking republican level hyperbole.

[Xantavia]

People that think exactly like this got W elected.

I'm still naive enough to believe that if things get really bad, people might finally wake up and see what is going on around them.

Spoiler: show

I'm kidding. They'll always find some group to blame it on, and if we just get rid of X, things will work out for them.

[Fiye]

Shits going to get worse somehow before it gets better.

[Quicklet]

The Democrats are setting themselves up for failure if they think they can just tread along and luck into an economic boom without putting in actual work to fix the system.

The political system is not being fundamentally reformed. If anything it has gotten much worse. Breaking down of the system will inevitably result in Republicans winning back the presidency once they get their shit together and realize if they would just nominate someone personable like a Rubio or Kasich they can tap into people's dissatisfaction with the economy/system. Then many of the social reforms get wiped away because Democrats didn't take economic and systemic reforms seriously enough. Obama is a great politician but the Democratic party got routed in both of his midterms, not just federally but at the state and local level. If you think this is hyperbole, there are a lot of working-class people who are still struggling and would like a word with you. Don't be blinded by Republican ineptitude to the reality that Democrats are not in as strong a position as some would like to believe.

Failure to prosecute the people who orchestrated the financial collapse is a big deal. It sets us up for a new crisis at some point because while there's been some deleveraging due to the mild reforms instituted, all the bad actors have just moved onto a less regulated area.

A terrible record on transparency and chilling treatment of whistleblowers and journalists is not something to write home about either. These things have real consequences for government accountability that transfer into future administrations. Secrecy over government surveillance and the drone program can become even more insidious when you don't have someone as responsible in the office.

The social wins mean jack shit (politically) in the long run if you're just going to lose midterms and state/local offices because people are still hurting economically and your party is unable to adapt.

[Marootsoobutsu]

Shits going to get worse somehow before it gets better.

It took me a long time to realize Cenk wasn't associated with The Onion.

[Seha]

Do people not realize that nothing he's saying is novel and that she's survived literally all of these baseless attacks before?

If I may.
One thing is when she is attacked from the republican side, because no matter what you'll be hard pressed to convince a progressive voter to suddenly chose a conservative candidate(and the opposite is true too ofc); another story is when you're offering a liberal alternative, in that case even minor things can weigh on people's decisions.

Now sure, those things are repetitive. Honestly all of these guys are repetitive in what they say, but I think a big reason for this is also cause these primaries last forever!

Spoiler: show

first time adventuring in a politics debate here on bg, let's see how fast I regret it!

[notorious bum]

https://www.rt.com/usa/338075-bernie-sanders-std-sign/

[Gryffes]

The DC Madam gag order review is now on the docket at the supreme court.

I'd laugh so hard if it ends up being lesbian prostitutes for hillary or some shit, rather than cruz or donald as everyone assumes.

[Xajii]

I guess we're not counting setting up a private server in violation of your own department's/administration's rules on handling sensitive information. Let's not pretend that if this was Condoleeza Rice and she was still relevant to politics, the left wouldn't be apoplectic about it. Saying "they did it too, so it's okay" is completely skirting the issue.

Let's set that aside though. We can start with her high-priced speeches given to Wall Street. If she really has nothing to hide, she can release them to the public so they can see that she's credible on the issue. It's not really any different from candidates being asked to release their taxes, etc., and if the transcripts vindicate what she's been saying then I'm fully willing to admit being wrong, but you're going to have a hard time convincing a lot of people that she got all this money and is going to crack down on Wall Street once she gets into office if you don't have evidence to back that up.

It's a total copout to claim that her issues of trust and believability are the Republicans' fault. It's never a good thing when your best argument for people voting for you is "the other guy is much worse."

Sorry, but Hillary is not as good a candidate as people like to pretend, and she doesn't represent the direction her party and this country is moving in. Nominating her is as much of a crapshoot as nominating Bernie.

sorry im just still over here waiting for evidence. any evidence. anyone? no?

[Quicklet]

I just gave you multiple examples. Flouted department/administration rules on sensitive info because she's too good for FOIA, and refuses to release transcripts to Wall Street that likely would show she's not as serious about getting tough on Wall Street as she claims.

[Xajii]

Your problem is you're jumping to conclusions that you let other people make for you because you want it to be true.

You're concluding with absolutely zero evidence on any of this that:

1. Hillary hid e-mails on purpose to avoid FOIA (despite that the content of the since-released e-mails doesn't back this up AT ALL)

2. Hillary's Wall Street transcripts have anything at all to deal with regulations or would include anything remotely close to corruption.

I don't even wanna touch the first point because the second point is the one that is really makin' me laugh. I'm having trouble not asking you outright - how old are you and what have you done as a career?

Because do you really, really think that Hillary would give a speech to hundreds - if not thousands - of employees at a major corporation and say anything even remotely close to the effect of "Don't worry I won't make things harder for you!"? Are you really that out of touch with A) reality and B) what a paid speech is to corporate?

Politicians, celebrities, athletes... these people get paid to give speeches about their lives, their success, etc. They get paid a lot, because it's an effective way for a company to "give back" to its people, even though the content is pretty fluff.

You'll ask: "So why won't she release them?" Because fuck you, that's a ridiculous request, that's why! Of course she's not going to give in to such a stupid demand! You're holding her to a higher standard than literally any other politician before her, because - ding ding ding - that's what the GOP has to do to even break the skin. I find it so ironic that the same generation of people who are up in arms about their privacy are expecting Hillary to release a transcript to prove she didn't secretly tell a ton company employees that she was gonna go easy on 'em.

I could go on, and there are many other more qualified people who have written extensively on the subject. But jesus christ I couldn't hold myself back when I ask for evidence and you come in with that. I could do a better job playing your side for you, lmao.

[Quicklet]

We're at an impasse then.

A candidate shouldn't expect voters to flock to them if they're not willing to address their concerns and when their actions are inconsistent with their statements.

[Fiye]

They get paid a lot, because it's an effective way for a company to "give back" to its people, even though the content is pretty fluff.

Yes, paying someone hundreds of thousands of dollars to talk for an hour is an effective way of giving back to its people.