2016 USA Presidential election thread I: The warm-up

[thetruepandagod]

mi semilla se extenderá mientras se revuelcan en la esterilidad

[Andalusian girls]

la traduccion de Google es una herramienta del diablo

[thetruepandagod]

la traduccion de Google es una herramienta del diablo

Sí, pero yo soy un ángel hermoso

[Xantavia]

As a former Bernie supporter, I eagerly await the ass kissing from Hillary to get my vote.


J/k, I'm totally voting for Hillary.

Good, because she doesn't have to kiss your ass. You just need to vote for her no matter what.

1) It's great to be ideological, but X is too important to take the risk now, so go with the safe vote. Then, in 8 years, you can vote on principle, unless issue Y pops up.
2) Bernie is a dirty candidate who is mudslinging and making up lies about Hillary, while she is above such typical political shenanigans.
3) Except when it comes to financing her campaign. Then she has to get her hands dirty in order to change it. It is ok to compromise in that scenario.

[AidenCarby]

Good, because she doesn't have to kiss your ass. You just need to vote for her no matter what.

1) It's great to be ideological, but X is too important to take the risk now, so go with the safe vote. Then, in 8 years, you can vote on principle, unless issue Y pops up.
2) Bernie is a dirty candidate who is mudslinging and making up lies about Hillary, while she is above such typical political shenanigans.
3) Except when it comes to financing her campaign. Then she has to get her hands dirty in order to change it. It is ok to compromise in that scenario.

Hillary is the only choice right now but you're fucking retarded if you believe this bullshit.

[Gredival]

He's trying to be a sarcastic caricature. Unfortunately he got two key premises wrong about the cynic (i.e. realist) ideology.

1) The fact that there's never a right time to reach for something bigger means it's never okay to do so. There's always a cost benefit analysis and it will almost always advise against overreaching because the cost of losing the WH is so great. You have to kill the 99 to save the 100.

2) Criticism of Bernie is not about Hillary being clean, it's just about being honest that Bernie is as dirty. You will never get the luxury of voting for a non-politician for political office. Them's the breaks.

[Krandor]

Yeah Yeah Foxnews, sue me. If people can link Huffington Post and pretend it's a valid news source, I'll take a gimme on this one since the FBI is keeping quite about email stuff lately.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016...l?intcmp=hpbt1

Big deal in that article

In the process of mining data from the Blumenthal account, Lazar said he came across evidence that others were on the Clinton server.

"As far as I remember, yes, there were … up to 10, like, IPs from other parts of the world,” he said.

The article points out that they have no way to verify his claims at the moment, so disavow if it so pleases you.

[Byrthnoth]

Trump is the Republican nominee. Checkmate, Gred.

[Cantih]

Remember Obama and the birth certificate? How long did he wait?
Sometimes there's an issue of pride in not dignifying stupidity.

Thanks for trying to make a false equivalency by trying to connect the speeches to the ridiculous birth certificate issue so they seem ridiculous too. The certificates were ridiculous because no matter what, he has jus sanguinis.
The speeches are an issue of tying your laces in a melon patch. Considering her aspirations, and the state of things, she should not have given those speeches, to those groups, and especially not for absurd amounts of money.
And keeping mum about the content of the speeches is only making things worse.

And that's not the point at all. The point is that given the fallout for saying something stupid for absolutely no gain, why on Earth would HRC say anything remotely close to controversial? Unless you really believe that both Goldman Sachs and HRC would decide the best place for her to say potentially incriminating things is in a paid speech in front of a bunch of rank and file employees instead of a closed door meeting with high level executives?
This is taking "The absence of evidence is evidence of absence" to a whole new level.

And yet, despite policy (and even law, I swear I remember in the 90's news cycle something about Bill signing into law an e-mail/electronic records thing) and a more recent thing in the news regarding Obama's blackberry, she went and set up a private server for handling communications on matters of her government position. She would have KNOWN that was doing something she shouldn't have, but did it anyway. And again, the speech is only half the issue, the other is the the money. If you want to prove your serious about taking on big money, you DO NOT TAKE MONEY FROM THEM, especially in amounts that are more than the majority of the population makes in a decade of labor. But she did anyway.

"But you have to." No, actually, you don't.

So again, at this moment in time (as well as at the start of the primaries) if you REALLY actually cared about doing something regarding Citizens United, you will sit down and vote the party line.

No, fuck this. You're trying to kill the primary with this line of thought. Get out with this Tammany Hall "do what we tell you" bullshit.

And you missed the point of that bit. The change isn't going to come from getting legislation through a GOP congress, but the citizenry. And that won't be through money for down ticket races to get seats, but changing the minds of the populace.
You've said before that during the election season isn't the time to educate voters, but during the other three years they have far, far less attention. So when is it? Probably never.
The simple fact of the matter is, in order to fix the things that need fixing in the timeframe necessary, we have to exorcise McCarthy's ghost now. And Sanders does that better than Clinton, because he gives more of a shit about it than Clinton, and having the bully pulpit of the presidency would make him even more effective.
And last I checked the calendar, it is not June 7th yet, nor has the convention happened. While Sanders getting the nomination with the path needed is improbable, I am quite aware, the race is not over. So quite kindly stow it until the 8th of next month.

There IS a super-PAC supporting Bernie and while he doesn't necessarily like his super-PAC the same way Hillary loves her own, the rules of campaign finance mean both campaigns have completely equal amounts of communication and cooperation with their respective PAC.

Looking into the details, this is bullshit. The super-PAC that is doing it does not have Sanders support or blessing, and it's a different kind of beast than the type the other candidates have. His is an actual independent entity that decided to support him, not an "independent entity, wink wink nudge nudge". I'm not even sure Sanders could stop the PAC supporting him even if he went legal on them, let alone how fighting someone not to support you would look in this case.

I'm not sure what the ask here is?

It's not a serious ask, Sath picked up what I was putting down, read the back and forth between me and him.

You never sacrifice appeal to the center to unify your fringe. Look at what happened to all the Tea Party Senate candidates - Angle, Akin, McDonnell. Those were all winnable races for the GOP, but the Tea Partiers got clobbered, even during the low Democrat turn-out midterms, because they totally alienated the center. It's the classic case of what happens when the primary blinders are on.

While you have said that Sanders can't implement, I've never heard you say he was wrong. Where as with the Tea Partiers, and the GOP establishment, the ideals they support are wrong, sometimes in part, but often in whole.
As I said a moment ago, out with McCarthy's ghost. When the problem isn't the the solution, but simply peoples unreasonable fear of the solution, the fault is on them, and that's where the change has to happen.

And since I can see something coming in reply..
Yes, Sanders is wrong on nuclear. Yes, his view needs to be changed.
But lay out the facts, make the case for necessity to him, and I think you have a decent chance of bringing him around. Because it's right, not because of public and political winds and temperature.

[archibaldcrane]

Wait, are we still talking about Bernie in here?

Lol, why? What's next, preaching the virtues of Marco Rubio or something?

[Aelfinn]

Wait, are we still talking about Bernie in here?

Lol, why? What's next, preaching the virtues of Marco Rubio or something?

because reality is a very sad thing.

[Andalusian girls]

Wait, are we still talking about Bernie in here?

Lol, why? What's next, preaching the virtues of Marco Rubio or something?

the prince that was promised

[Gredival]

Thanks for trying to make a false equivalency by trying to connect the speeches to the ridiculous birth certificate issue so they seem ridiculous too. The certificates were ridiculous because no matter what, he has jus sanguinis.

First, one speech. We have video of the other if you haven't forgotten.

Second, it's not a false equivalency. You are assuming that the refusal to produce is because there is something nefarious being hidden JUST like how birthers assume that Obama's failure to produce was because he was hiding that he was Kenyan born. Instead of just assuming that, like any famous figure that can earn money for speaking, she gave commencement style pep talk.

You're literally scraping at any potential for wrongdoing as wrongdoing when Bernie flat out couldn't point to a single example of how HRC has supposedly had her judgment compromised because she's taken donations from bank employees in the past.

The speeches are an issue of tying your laces in a melon patch. Considering her aspirations, and the state of things, she should not have given those speeches, to those groups, and especially not for absurd amounts of money.
And keeping mum about the content of the speeches is only making things worse.

So we're finally at the heart of the matter. It's not about whether or not she said anything out of line. It's the fact that you believe that any relationship with an investment bank is toxic. She's impure for that fact she has any interaction with them besides publicly calling for their dismantlement twice per five minutes of airtime.

Whether her judgment is compromised, whether she made untoward promises, etc. is all irrelevant. In the end, you treat it as a character issue.

Which gets back to my earlier point. This isn't about her platform, her Wall St. policy, the issues; you're voting on nothing but assumption about character.

And yet, despite policy (and even law, I swear I remember in the 90's news cycle something about Bill signing into law an e-mail/electronic records thing) and a more recent thing in the news regarding Obama's blackberry, she went and set up a private server for handling communications on matters of her government position. She would have KNOWN that was doing something she shouldn't have, but did it anyway.

Oh what was that about false equivalency?

I point out that it's obviously stupid to say something in front of hundreds, if not thousands of witnesses, where if the goal was to exchange some backroom deal... and your counter is that because she's done things she shouldn't have before (e-mail server) clearly she would have done something stupid here?

So let me go for the easy reach justified by your own logic. I've proven that Bernie has sacrificed principle for political favoritism before (supporting the military industrial complex when it was good for VT), so clearly he would sell out to Wall St. if he got something in return.

Am I doin it rite?

And again, the speech is only half the issue, the other is the the money. If you want to prove your serious about taking on big money, you DO NOT TAKE MONEY FROM THEM, especially in amounts that are more than the majority of the population makes in a decade of labor. But she did anyway.

And that completely negates her Wall St. plan, which is more thorough than Bernie's (because it's more than "BREAK UP THE BANKS BANKS ARE BAD"), that also passed muster from Warren?

Again this comes your personal criteria about you wanting to elect some champion that you think Bernie is and HRC isn't.

"But you have to." No, actually, you don't.

It is so tactically advantageous to do so that refusing to do so would be moronic.

Oh and your simple "NO IT ISN'T" one liner denial didn't address any of the points I actually spelled out before.

No, fuck this. You're trying to kill the primary with this line of thought. Get out with this Tammany Hall "do what we tell you" bullshit.

1. Primary is already over.
2. Just because you say "no" doesn't make it true. You can either support Hillary or take any number of possible actions where you don't support her (be it staying home, voting Stein, writing in Bernie, or however you want to help Trump). At the end of the day the action most likely to actually lead to the most good being done is supporting her. And it doesn't matter if you say NO IT ISN'T in an angrier more defiant tone, that won't change reality.

And you missed the point of that bit. The change isn't going to come from getting legislation through a GOP congress, but the citizenry. And that won't be through money for down ticket races to get seats, but changing the minds of the populace.

ROFL AND HERE IT IS, THE POLITICAL REVOLUTION ARGUMENT.

So I'm going to do exactly what I promised, and copy-paste you every single argument I've made against this grass roots fantasy that has NEVER been answered by a single ignorant Bernie Bro. this entire thread.

And by the way, you don't even have your own candidate's position correct. Bernie himself has said that change comes from the citizenry pressuring Congress into submission and winning down ticket races. See the words from his own mouth in the second block below:

"Bernie can’t hold together the 'Obama coalition,' much less pick up the disaffected whites or irreligious Republicans who would give him the mandate for revolutionary change. We remain a deeply divided country... which is a YUGE problem for Bernie more than anybody since his theory of the case is that voters will overwhelmingly rise to help him pressure Congress into submission .... After many speeches and debates, I see no “revolution” coming in the poll results. Bernie’s support comes from educated white males, young white women, Ta-Nehisi Coates, and the Screen Actors Guild. That’s not a political revolution, that’s the check out line at Whole Foods." http://www.atlredline.com/i-m-with-h...ess-1769742021

Oh look, more drivel from Bernie about political engagement as a "revolution" that will somehow change magically change things.

"if I win, it will mean that millions of people now want to be involved in the political process in a way that has not previously existed. Every item that I am talking about on my agenda is, I believe, supported by the majority of the people in this country. My major job is to mobilize the American people to demand that Congress listen to them and their needs rather than just the big money interests. That's how you make change take place. For example, as you know, I've talked about the need to make public colleges and universities tuition-free. Do I believe we can deliver on that? Absolutely, because I believe that millions of young people and their parents understand that that's what we should be doing right now. And I think if Republicans or some Democrats want to vote against it, they will pay a very heavy political price. "

Because everyone who votes against it will somehow be vulnerable to the wrath of Bernie's millennials concentrated in urban cities?

"Okay. People say to me, "Well, Bernie, how are you going to bring about change?" You've got Mitch McConnell or Paul Ryan or whatever it is. Are they going to do the things you want? And the answer is no. But the way change happened in Burlington is we had tremendous opposition. By the way, I ran as an independent...it was mostly Democrats who opposed me at that point. We rallied the people in the city, the grassroots organizations. A year later, we won more seats on the city council to give us veto power. And mostly the Democrats understood that the sentiments were changing. They started working with me. That's what I'm talking about. What I'm talking about is millions of people. "

So his model for translating local success to the national stage relies on winning more seats. Yet he's the one hamstringing the Democrats by criticizing Clooney type fundraisers for the DNC and for state Democratic Parties while he is funding only himself.

And what has Bernie said he'll do to overturned CU? He talks about the need to get money out of politics but he's got no more of a plan for doing than than she does. All he does is talk about the power of the American people and a grass roots revolution.

Sorry the American people can't will CU away nor can they change the political system just because they want to.

The reason nothing gets done is because of the obstructionist power the minority can wield in Congress (particularly the Senate). Mobilizing the American people does squat in light of this. Those obstructionists are insulated because they are serving constituents who want obstruction. They hate Obama, they hate the left, they hate progressive legislation. They are happy to re-elect Representatives/Senators who's only agenda is to say no the a Democratic administration or to help the next Republican roll back as much of Obama's accomplishments as possible.

Also this revolution denies history. Obama had passionate volunteers on a massive scale, won the White House on a vision of hope and change where Washington would work together. He had a movement far broader than anything Sanders has done. But he couldn't keep his volunteers engaged throughout his presidency because they got tired of getting no where. And they got no where because the Republicans stone-walled him. It took every ounce of his political capital to get the ACA through, and what he ended up with was cut off at the knees.

So why would Bernie’s grassroots revolution, changing politics by using the will of the American people, succeed where Obama could not?

If the argument is that political system no longer empowers voters, how can the solution be to use the people's power?

One of my favorite quotes ever was what HRC told BLM activists: "I don't believe you change hearts. I believe you change laws, you change allocation of resources, you change the way systems operate."

BLM activists and others on Bernie's side see this quote as the pinnacle of what's wrong with HRC.

I see this quote as powerful evidence of why she's the absolute best choice for President. It shows that she understands how to build change.

The only way you fix the system is from the inside. That's literally how it is designed. And the only way you get to do that is by winning. Winning is priority number one. Then you enact gradual changes, not even foot by foot but inch by inch. Sometimes things you may want to do you may not be able to, because you have to keep your eyes on the polls. But if you don't make those sacrifices now, you will never get opportunities in the future.

Case in point: Obama and gay marriage. Obama clearly supported gay marriage from the start, but he took the whole "civil union" stance because it was more moderate (therefore less offensive) than being for marriage equality. Then when the opportunity came, later down the road, he was able to come out in support of it. And it is no coincidence that it was during his Presidency that gay marriage became the law of the land in all 50 states.

Gay rights activists were furious with him at the start for being too "scared" to take a stand. What about now?

And as I point out every time this fantastical political revolution by the "voters" gets brought up, they have no power. All those evil politicians that prop up corporations and oppose social change that you hate are there because they come from districts and states where the majority of voters there support such politics.

The left simply does not have a critical mass to enact the change Bernie wants in the way he wants it.

And that's the problem with the Bernie snake oil. He has you believing you can change things about politics that you can't and losing sight of what this will cost you.

But is this a difference that amounts to Bernie being able to accomplish something where Obama didn't?

The point is that geopolitical realities of modern America (gerrymandering, GOP representatives/senators insulated from liberal/moderate backlash, filibuster power) make getting a liberal agenda through nearly impossible regardless of any mandate from the voters. And for Bernie to say that this will change just because of some "political revolution" is delusional at best, disingenuous at worst.

And that's the take-away from the Vox article imo. Bernie supporters want to say that the Hillary and the DNC are part of some defeatist/pessimistic establishment that is either complicit, or outright in bed with, various special interests and have sold out voters and progressive values in a way that makes them no better than the GOP. But even putting aside the fact that the gap between the parties is so wide that even the most moderate, establishment, money Democrat (let's say Schumer) would still be a superior President (by liberal standards) to the most moderate Republican (Kasich, Huntsman), it's actually Bernie who is selling voters short. He's peddling "hope" and "change" - snake oil that wins elections but never works. Hillary at least is being honest about the reality of the world, even though it's something no one wants to hear.

That's why Obama, who won on hope and change and tried (and failed) to deliver, now recognizes his naivete and why Hillary was right in 2008. That's why his camp admires the spirit of Bernie's campaign, but are all backing Hillary.

So are we finally going to have a Bernie bro. try defend this fantasy?

You've said before that during the election season isn't the time to educate voters, but during the other three years they have far, far less attention. So when is it? Probably never.

No I said that a campaign based on educating voters is ALWAYS doomed to fail. We move left as the (voting) population's natural drift left allows us to. (Case in point: gay marriage).

I have absolutely no faith in the ability to progress faster than that; hell not even that, I think it's a dangerous fool's errand.

The simple fact of the matter is, in order to fix the things that need fixing in the timeframe necessary, we have to exorcise McCarthy's ghost now. And Sanders does that better than Clinton, because he gives more of a shit about it than Clinton, and having the bully pulpit of the presidency would make him even more effective.

Okay so you really honestly believe that there's a timeframe deadline for us to get a "true" progressive in the White House before everything goes to shit? Let's not even debate that. Let's assume you're right.

In that event what I'm going to tell you the country is doomed. There is no fixing it before we crash. I retain my position and argue that at least my way the suffering will be less until we hit midnight on the clock vs. the imminent catastrophe should we let someone like Trump get elected.

And last I checked the calendar, it is not June 7th yet, nor has the convention happened. While Sanders getting the nomination with the path needed is improbable, I am quite aware, the race is not over. So quite kindly stow it until the 8th of next month.

So what, you're collapsing down to the position that it's okay for me to tell you to shut up and vote the party line next month? If that's all it takes, ok see you in a month.

Looking into the details, this is bullshit. The super-PAC that is doing it does not have Sanders support or blessing, and it's a different kind of beast than the type the other candidates have. His is an actual independent entity that decided to support him, not an "independent entity, wink wink nudge nudge". I'm not even sure Sanders could stop the PAC supporting him even if he went legal on them, let alone how fighting someone not to support you would look in this case.

And I already acknowledged that Sanders has a different attitude regarding his PAC. That doesn't matter.

Campaign finance laws mean that he is coordinating with his PAC as much as HRC is coordinating with hers. So Bernie can say he doesn't have Super PAC all he wants, the reality is that his ad hoc alliance of pro-Sanders groups functions under the same rules as Super PACs and are allowed to raise and spend unlimited sums of money just like HRC's.

And while we're on the subject of dirty money, I like how Bernie talks about how he's not beholden to special interests and Wall St. like Clinton, except that since he arrived in the Senate and continuing all through last summer, Sanders has regularly hosted the DSCC’s retreats on Martha’s Vineyard and in Palm Beach, Fla., for wealthy donors and lobbyists.

Remember, I don't dislike Bernie for any of this. I think it's part of being a politician. I'm just here to remind the rest of you that he IS a politician and that he's being just as hypocritical as Hillary trying to sell you snake oil that he isn't.

While you have said that Sanders can't implement, I've never heard you say he was wrong. Where as with the Tea Partiers, and the GOP establishment, the ideals they support are wrong, sometimes in part, but often in whole.
As I said a moment ago, out with McCarthy's ghost. When the problem isn't the the solution, but simply peoples unreasonable fear of the solution, the fault is on them, and that's where the change has to happen.

And here's the difference. In my political development, I'm past caring about right and wrong. I care about doing the best with what's given to me, and if that means killing 99 to save 100 then it's the obvious logical choice.

[Dimmauk]

I'm sure if Bernie was the nominee, all the HillHoes would have no problem voting for Bernie. Id vote for a Giant Douche over Trump.

[Dotsudoku]

I have a very difficult time imagining any Hillary supporter voting outside of their party in the event of a lost nomination. Disagree with them as you will, but they're pragmatists, and would act accordingly

[Gredival]

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...97587418247168

Translation: Look at this taco bowl. It's YUGE! I love hispanics. I've got the best hispanics. You know, if this taco bowl wasn't on my plate, I might be dating it. Who knows?

[Minions]

What the hell.... lol... "I LOVE HISPANICS"

[Silenka]

I think many Berniebros might vote Trump just because they see any anti-establishment candidate as better than Hilary, no matter how bad the platform or policies involved.

[Krandor]

I LOVE *legal HISPANICS

That sad, Trump claiming that anywhere in the NE has better Mexican food then California (or more specifically San Diego) is just awful

[dasva]

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...97587418247168

Translation: Look at this taco bowl. It's YUGE! I love hispanics. I've got the best hispanics. You know, if this taco bowl wasn't on my plate, I might be dating it. Who knows?

Should see the next tweet

"Bernie Sanders has been treated terribly by the Democrats—both with delegates & otherwise. He should show them, & run as an Independent."