2016 USA Presidential election thread I: The warm-up

[notorious bum]

I'm not sure how you could come to the conclusion that me and Quicklet are making the same arguments, no offense to Quick. Reading comprehension is key, especially when you are throwing accusations of naivety or ignorance. I thought I was doing good with my OTT delivery, but I guess not.

[Gredival]

It's not a matter of what I believe she wants. It's a matter of what I believe she'll be willing to implement if in office. Obama failed to deliver on a lot of his campaign promises, and I think it's silly to expect Hillary to be able to deliver even a quarter of what she's promising in her platform.

And Bernie can deliver through a stonewall Congress, esp. with the lack of downticket fundraising he's doing?

I don't find her credible on wall street reform, campaign finance reform, or transparency. I don't trust her hawkishness on foreign policy to keep us out of bad wars.

And do you believe Cruz or Trump would be better on any of that? Because if Bernie isn't an option, and if you refuse to vote for the superior of two choices (Clinton), you are effectively saying that you don't believe or don't care in the marginal differences between those choices.

Which is why I said you can't claim to be an ally of progressive causes if you're going to let Trump or Cruz win just because you didn't get Bernie.

I'm waiting for her to address these in a credible way instead of being dismissive about them. A lot of people think the system is broken and can't be fixed with incrementalism. Why should they be expected to buy into the very system they're trying to fix without reasonable assurances their candidate will follow through?

Because there is no other option

Also, Hillary ran to Obama's right in 2008 so I'm not sure that's the benchmark we want to be using here.

Because a good leftist politician only goes as far to the left as they can without alienating the center. See Obama on gay marriage.

Hillary is farther to the left now because she can be.

[Mertron]

PPS. Angels are real: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-nea...eve-in-angels/

george carlin had a good routine on this

"why is it just angels? why don't people believe in goblins anymore?"

[Ksandra]

And do you believe Cruz or Trump would be better on any of that? Because if Bernie isn't an option, and if you refuse to vote for the superior of two choices (Clinton), you are effectively saying that you don't believe or don't care in the marginal differences between those choices.

Which is why I said you can't claim to be an ally of progressive causes if you're going to let Trump or Cruz win just because you didn't get Bernie.

Quoting because it needs to be restated.

Let's take the wallstreet reform since it was mentioned in the list first. Any can apply.

You don't like her policy. I get that. Do you like Cruz or Trump's policy about wallstreet? Who out of the three (or let's face it, two since Trump is pretty much locked in) has the better policy? Do you even know what Trump's statements are regarding wallstreet?

If you think that Clinton's policy is better than Trump's, but decide to vote for Bernie in the general, then you are actually stating you don't actually care about wallstreet not that you don't like Hillary's. Because you are ok with Trump's policy passing.

[Niiro]

george carlin had a good routine on this

"why is it just angels? why don't people believe in goblins anymore?"

Reminds me of another good one from him:

“Tell people there's an invisible man in the sky who created the universe, and the vast majority will believe you. Tell them the paint is wet, and they have to touch it to be sure.”

[Quicklet]

And Bernie can deliver through a stonewall Congress, esp. with the lack of downticket fundraising he's doing?

Most of the policies I'm referencing are set at the administrative level, so the difference matters here.

And do you believe Cruz or Trump would be better on any of that? Because if Bernie isn't an option, and if you refuse to vote for the superior of two choices (Clinton), you are effectively saying that you don't believe or don't care in the marginal differences between those choices.

Which is why I said you can't claim to be an ally of progressive causes if you're going to let Trump or Cruz win just because you didn't get Bernie.

I'm not "letting" anybody win. I'm looking for the candidate that will advance the interests that matter to me, and if I feel like the long-term damage done by a mediocre Clinton administration would outweigh the short-term damage done by a disastrous Trump/Cruz administration, I'm free to send that message with my vote. Your issues aren't more important than mine just because your candidate is winning.

PS. You linked an opinion poll. That doesn't show she's actually not trustworthy.

I'm a little surprised at this, to be honest. This is a silly thing to say and I think you know it is -- trustworthiness and favorability numbers matter for something, particularly when people go to vote. Are you trying to argue that they don't?

I've tried to do a decent job of explaining why some people might still feel that their concerns have not been addressed by Hillary, and the responses have ranged from non sequiturs to strawmen to the lovely "you're a bad/dumb/ignorant person if you don't elect Hillary".

If you think that Clinton's policy is better than Trump's, but decide to vote for Bernie in the general, then you are actually stating you don't actually care about wallstreet not that you don't like Hillary's. Because you are ok with Trump's policy passing.

I don't agree with this assessment. I might believe that the backlash to bad policy from Trump and the Republicans would be a better outcome than backlash to Hillary for not doing enough and having people still struggling economically a few years from now. If I believe both choices are going to result in the same structural economic inequality growing, shouldn't I want the choice that's going to fix it faster?

[Rooney]

For you to be able to vote in this election means that you will be (or are) at least 18. As such you are an adult. If, as a reasonable adult, you cannot realize that the Bush years have caused long term damage to the country, and that a Trump or Cruz presidency would cause far worse damage in less time, then I don't know what to tell you.

You don't burn a house to the ground just because one window is 6" to the right of where the plan says it should be. That costs twice as much and means you don't have a house for even longer. How is that possibly a good solution?

[Ksandra]

If I believe both choices are going to result in the same structural economic inequality growing, shouldn't I want the choice that's going to fix it faster?

How is voting for someone in the general election as a write-in a choice that is going to fix it faster?


A private jet would get me to work much faster than a car. Doesn't mean it makes sense for me to walk to work (which would take me five hours btw) because I can't afford one.

[kisada]

maybe even less reasonable is ignoring how getting a conservative justice anointed is somehow only short term as well.

[Greatguardian]

Most of the policies I'm referencing are set at the administrative level, so the difference matters here.

I don't find her credible on wall street reform, campaign finance reform, or transparency. I don't trust her hawkishness on foreign policy to keep us out of bad wars.

Wall street reform (whatever that means specifically) is handled at the executive level? The president now has the power to overturn supreme court decisions relating to campaign finance? The executive branch declares war? Yeah, okay.

I'm not "letting" anybody win. I'm looking for the candidate that will advance the interests that matter to me, and if I feel like the long-term damage done by a mediocre Clinton administration would outweigh the short-term damage done by a disastrous Trump/Cruz administration, I'm free to send that message with my vote. Your issues aren't more important than mine just because your candidate is winning.

It takes a colossal amount of privilege to be able to look at the state of our nation, declare that everything is not alright, and then turn around and say "It's okay, guys. We'll just let things go to hell for 4 years. Maybe then people will understand that we were right all along." That's a fucking terrible attitude. And the worst part? There's no guarantee a Republican administration would actually be bad for the economy. Your blind faith in the correctness of your worldview absolutely discounts the possibility that a Trump administration could actually be pretty okay on the economic front, despite the fact that it will almost certainly be disastrous on the social front where 50% of America isn't going to stop disagreeing with you any time soon.

I'm a little surprised at this, to be honest. This is a silly thing to say and I think you know it is -- trustworthiness and favorability numbers matter for something, particularly when people go to vote. Are you trying to argue that they don't?

Saying that random people in polls don't trust someone only means that decades of coordinated attacks have been mildly successful. It does not significantly reflect on the character of the individual or the performance of their duties in office. If you want an assessment of those qualities, look for the things people she's worked with say about her - not Johnny B. Uninformed's opinion on her "slanty eyes" or "fake smile."

[archibaldcrane]

I'm not "letting" anybody win. I'm looking for the candidate that will advance the interests that matter to me...

Your issues aren't more important than mine just because your candidate is winning.

I have never seen such cowardice on the Internet in my life.

Your issues must be really important to you lol, you're afraid to identify them on a message board.

[archibaldcrane]

maybe even less reasonable is ignoring how getting a conservative justice anointed is somehow only short term as well.

Bernie 2020 will definitely be able to overturn Citizen's United when the Supreme Court is 6-3 conservative kisada.

[Byrthnoth]

ZombieBernie 2020 will definitely be able to overturn Citizen's United when the Supreme Court is 6-3 conservative kisada.

ftfy.

Everyone is old this election. Actuarial tables do not look kindly on this crop.

[Quicklet]

maybe even less reasonable is ignoring how getting a conservative justice anointed is somehow only short term as well.

Control of SCOTUS is probably the best argument one can make, although I'm not sure how much it really would help if Dems lose in 2020 anyway.

Wall street reform (whatever that means specifically) is handled at the executive level? The president now has the power to overturn supreme court decisions relating to campaign finance? The executive branch declares war? Yeah, okay.

DoJ, SEC, the Treasury Department, and the Fed all have huge impacts on the direction of monetary policy and enforcement against crimes, and all involve appointments made by the president. Hillary's much more likely to nominate insiders to those posts who will continue favorable treatment of wall street.

Campaign finance is probably the one the executive has the least impact on while in office, but Hillary, her surrogates, and the DNC have already shown that they're willing to stretch the rules when it suits their purposes.

As far as war goes, have you not been paying attention to foreign policy for the past year or two? We have troops in Syria on the basis of an AUMF from 15 years ago intended to fight a different group in a different country. A lot of this is on Congress because they've essentially abdicated their responsibility (what else is new?), but yes, in a lot of ways the executive branch has de facto assumed a lot of the powers that traditionally Congress was meant to exercise.

There's no guarantee a Republican administration would actually be bad for the economy.

Wouldn't that be a pretty significant win then? I mean, shouldn't we be happy if the country is doing better, regardless of whether we like the president or not? For a lot of people the economy is more pressing than social issues.

Saying that random people in polls don't trust someone only means that decades of coordinated attacks have been mildly successful. It does not significantly reflect on the character of the individual or the performance of their duties in office.

I was going to mention this originally but figured I shouldn't have to -- just because someone doesn't find Hillary honest or trustworthy doesn't mean they've bought into Republican talking points. Even so, perception is reality in politics. You could be the greatest wonk in the world, but if that doesn't translate to voter perceptions it doesn't help you when they go to the polls.

Your issues must be really important to you lol, you're afraid to identify them on a message board.

Seriously dude, I just mentioned a bunch in response to you. I don't know why you're latching onto this though. My original point was that each person is entitled to advocating for their issues, whatever they are, and if they want to be a single-issue voter or protest voter, there's nothing stopping a candidate from courting them on that issue if they're such a needed constituency.

[archibaldcrane]

You don't find her credible - meaning you don't believe her when she tells you her platform, so...what exactly do you want her to do, again? Once more with feeling?

[Greatguardian]

DoJ, SEC, the Treasury Department, and the Fed all have huge impacts on the direction of monetary policy and enforcement against crimes, and all involve appointments made by the president. Hillary's much more likely to nominate insiders to those posts who will continue favorable treatment of wall street.

Campaign finance is probably the one the executive has the least impact on while in office, but Hillary, her surrogates, and the DNC have already shown that they're willing to stretch the rules when it suits their purposes.

As far as war goes, have you not been paying attention to foreign policy for the past year or two? We have troops in Syria on the basis of an AUMF from 15 years ago intended to fight a different group in a different country. A lot of this is on Congress because they've essentially abdicated their responsibility (what else is new?), but yes, in a lot of ways the executive branch has de facto assumed a lot of the powers that traditionally Congress was meant to exercise.

The SEC and DOJ enforce laws written by the legislature. Got laws that don't correspond with Bernie's core values? Good luck telling the SEC not to enforce them. Ditto for enforcing ideals that don't actually exist as law.

Wouldn't that be a pretty significant win then? I mean, shouldn't we be happy if the country is doing better, regardless of whether we like the president or not? For a lot of people the economy is more pressing than social issues.

This statement makes no sense. How are you defining "not bad for the economy"? It's very possible to increase GDP and decrease unemployment without actually addressing systemic income inequality or tightly regulating the financial sector. In fact it's possible to do this while actively damaging progress on both fronts. The former is all most people care about, yet the latter seem to be your core issues. How is that a good thing for you or progressives as a whole? You're exactly right that most people would chalk that up as a win, though. That's why they'll vote Trump 2020.

I was going to mention this originally but figured I shouldn't have to -- just because someone doesn't find Hillary honest or trustworthy doesn't mean they've bought into Republican talking points. Even so, perception is reality in politics. You could be the greatest wonk in the world, but if that doesn't translate to voter perceptions it doesn't help you when they go to the polls.

Perception is arguably as important as reality in elections, but certainly not in governance. All the polls in the world won't make Ted Cruz the Zodiac killer. No number of petitions will make Barrack Obama a Kenyan. And no amount of liberal paranoia will make Hillary Clinton a GOP Wall St darling.

[Gredival]

I'm not "letting" anybody win.

Bzzzt.

Go to jail. Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200.

I'm looking for the candidate that will advance the interests that matter to me,

Multiple choice test. Instructions are best answer, not the right answer. And Bernie isn't an answer.

and if I feel like the long-term damage done by a mediocre Clinton administration would outweigh the short-term damage done by a disastrous Trump/Cruz administration, I'm free to send that message with my vote.

Sure, if that's your logic that's valid.

But your logic is flawed. Doesn't matter if you think that Clinton will be "ignoring" the issues you care about, Cruz/Trump would actively worsen them and the galvanizing effect on the left won't make up for it. See Bush 43 and add in how Congress buries every anything that isn't the GOP's agenda.

Your issues aren't more important than mine just because your candidate is winning.

No one said that.

But they are irrelevant. The only thing that ever matters when it comes to voting (now, in November, and when the primaries started) is the totality of consequences. You choose the best possible world, regardless of whether that world will address what you care about or not.

[kisada]

i keep reading posts like that and being like "now THAT should end it all. that HAS to make sense to them, right?"

yet somehow the ignorance somehow continues to get stronger and stronger. it's fascinating

[Sho]

But they are irrelevant. The only thing that ever matters when it comes to voting (both now, in November, and when the primaries started) is the totality of consequences. You choose the best possible world, regardless of whether that world will address what you care about or not.

After reading the last few pages, I'm beginning to understand Quick's worldview, but honestly this is the conclusion any serious, politically conscious person (I assume most of us here takes out politics seriously, regardless of where we land on the spectrum) should have arrived to if they are trending left and progressive/liberal, once Bernie was out.

Unless of course, Quick's issues are more economically oriented than social.

In that instance, Obama is still leaving us with a better America economically, a status which a Clinton administration should maintain.

Which should leave Quick simply disliking Clinton and her sense of morality, and unable to come to terms with her inevitability as candidate.

I am high as shit.

[notorious bum]

Maybe Quick will move on towards socialist/communist/anarchist studies? The world is our oyster, one dost not need to waste a healthy disdain for electoral politics, capitalism, and political status quo by converting to a submissive voter.