Clinton vs. Sanders

[pickle berry]

Originally Posted by BrickaBracka

The hard realization is that regardless of people agreeing with you, the mechanism by which new ideas are pushed into the political machine (elections) is not going to operate the way you've been led to believe it will.

The elite will never let the populace govern or make the rules. The elite make the rules to favor themselves. The early settlers left to get away from Kings and Queens and then over the years the populace created new Kings and Queens that they called politicians.

[Jaglavak]

Originally Posted by pickle berry

The early settlers left to get away from Kings and Queens and then over the years the populace created new Kings and Queens that they called politicians rich people.

The rich are our royalty; politicians are merely their servants.

[hatesfreedom]

Originally Posted by BrickaBracka

The internet and social media make it immediately apparent what's going on behind the curtains nowadays and this is something which in the past wasn't available. We all just assumed that when our candidate didn't win, it was due STRICTLY to a lack of votes. Not a combination of a lack of votes, a corrupt system changing rules in their favor, and a seeming inability of the legal system to enforce the rules which are currently on the books.

In my experience the Internet is more like an echo chamber than anything else, and is better at creating fanatics than it is at bringing people together. Bernie lost from a lack of votes and support for his campaign. Sanders people only talking about with sanders people doesn't change that. It just means they were all in an echo chamber.

Originally Posted by BrickaBracka

So disappointed expectations abound. And every generation is smarter than the one before it - this is the way society has always been. So the decline in political participation is due in large part to people becoming aware, rightly so, that their involvement in the political process isn't going to achieve their goals.

Humans are the same as they've been for many untold thousands of years, they are as smart as they've ever been. I don't have any idea about the decline of political participation but I'm positive it didn't start with Sanders not getting enough votes.

[BrickaBracka]

Originally Posted by hatesfreedom

Humans are the same as they've been for many untold thousands of years, they are as smart as they've ever been. I don't have any idea about the decline of political participation but I'm positive it didn't start with Sanders not getting enough votes.

Of course it didn't start with Sanders inability to sweep the DNC nomination.

However, we do know that the average level of education increases year over year. The shit may get thicker and thicker each year, but the ability of the average person to see through it grows as well.

[Aneurin Bevan]

Originally Posted by BrickaBracka

The hard realization is that regardless of people agreeing with you, the mechanism by which new ideas are pushed into the political machine (elections) is not going to operate the way you've been led to believe it will.

That's what is spirit-breaking. The system of "democratic elections" and "representative democracy" is sold as one thing, but behaves and operates entirely differently.

Except that's not quite the case. Democratic elections have often been corrupted here and elsewhere in the past and even when fairly conducted often failed to bring about meaningful change; at the same time when combined with mass mobilization at the societal level (anti-slavery organizations, labour unions, the civil rights movement, and the like) elections have at particular periods brought about tremendous reforms such as the passage of New Deal legislation in the 1930s and civil rights/Great Society legislation a generation later.

The internet and social media make it immediately apparent what's going on behind the curtains nowadays and this is something which in the past wasn't available. We all just assumed that when our candidate didn't win, it was due STRICTLY to a lack of votes. Not a combination of a lack of votes, a corrupt system changing rules in their favor, and a seeming inability of the legal system to enforce the rules which are currently on the books.

I'm pretty sure cynicism and knowledge about corruption in politics has existed long before the advent of the Internet and social media. Accusations of elections being stolen are old as elections themselves.

So disappointed expectations abound. And every generation is smarter than the one before it - this is the way society has always been. So the decline in political participation is due in large part to people becoming aware, rightly so, that their involvement in the political process isn't going to achieve their goals.

On the contrary, increasing education have tended to bring about great involvement in politics. Not to mention that even political participation has tended to vary-current Presidential election turnouts at least are up from 1996. And again, political participation can achieve goals-the only question is can you mobilize enough support for it?

Society benefits when wise men plant trees the shade from which they know they will never sit in.

I don't think we're at that point yet. People are still ripping up those saplings because they stand in the path between them and the treasure cave everyone's crammed into.

Not sure if you are trying to be Confucius or Plato.

[BrickaBracka]

Originally Posted by Erich von Manstein

Not sure if you are trying to be Confucius or Plato.

Neither. It's a valid point, quote stolen from the internet, because nobody knows where quotes originate from anyway - Abraham Lincoln, 1935

You got a point to make?

[Aneurin Bevan]

Originally Posted by BrickaBracka

Neither. It's a valid point, quote stolen from the internet, because nobody knows where quotes originate from anyway - Abraham Lincoln, 1935

You got a point to make?

Yes, see the rest of the post where I attempt to apply historical evidence to your abstract philosophizing.

[BrickaBracka]

Originally Posted by Erich von Manstein

Yes, see the rest of the post where I attempt to apply historical evidence to your abstract philosophizing.

Bah, take your facts and your historical evidence to somewhere else. I don't come around these parts for no learnin'. I'm here to pontificate and speculate.

[Jaglavak]

Originally Posted by BrickaBracka

Abraham Lincoln, 1935

Wow. you must have really good hearing.

[eleanorigby]

Originally Posted by BrickaBracka

Of course it didn't start with Sanders inability to sweep the DNC nomination.

However, we do know that the average level of education increases year over year. The shit may get thicker and thicker each year, but the ability of the average person to see through it grows as well.

This presupposes that people do not make decisions based on emotions, personal biases, SES and personal perceptions or their vulnerabilities to various methods of persuasion. Just because the "level of education rises every year" (a dubious statement) does not mean the level of intelligence regarding our complex political process rises every year or even at all. Adverts and smear campaigns are done because they work, whether we want to admit it or not.

[BrickaBracka]

Originally Posted by eleanorigby

This presupposes that people do not make decisions based on emotions, personal biases, SES and personal perceptions or their vulnerabilities to various methods of persuasion. Just because the "level of education rises every year" (a dubious statement) does not mean the level of intelligence regarding our complex political process rises every year or even at all. Adverts and smear campaigns are done because they work, whether we want to admit it or not.

Yeah, it's an arms race of no intentional creation. The people get a bit more information, the political machine works harder to obfuscate and manipulate.

And a lot of people do make decisions based on emotions.

But let's not also presuppose that humanity is incapable of advancing beyond these things, albeit slowly and haphazardly.

It's an area where I'm eternally optimistic.

[eleanorigby]

Lucky you.

[AuntiePam]

I've been getting political news from CNN, MSNBC, and FOX, and have been wondering why some of you have been saying that many Bernie supporters won't vote for Hillary over Trump in the general. Because I wasn't hearing that, until today, on NPR. Blew my mind.

I know the status quo isn't good, but four years of Trump is preferable? I just don't get it. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.

[BJMoose]

Same thing happened in '08 when eighteen percent of Clinton's primary supporters said they would not vote for Obama. I suspect a number of them eventually changed their minds. It takes awhile to get over losing.


Now, if Clinton could convince Sanders to be her Attorney General and give him carte blanche, things could get real interesting.

[Pere]

Originally Posted by AuntiePam

...some of you have been saying that many Bernie supporters won't vote for Hillary over Trump in the general. Because I wasn't hearing that, until today, on NPR. Blew my mind.

What did you hear? I doubt it will be many, in the national big-picture sense, even though I'm kind of struggling with the idea myself.

[SmartAleq]

Originally Posted by BJMoose

Now, if Clinton could convince Sanders to be her Attorney General and give him carte blanche, things could get real interesting.

I think being Attorney General kind of requires that you first be an attorney, which Bernie is not.

[Khampelf]

Originally Posted by BJMoose

Same thing happened in '08 when eighteen percent of Clinton's primary supporters said they would not vote for Obama. I suspect a number of them eventually changed their minds. It takes awhile to get over losing.


Now, if Clinton could convince Sanders to be her Attorney General and give him carte blanche, things could get real interesting.

You mean going after bankers and their ilk like RFK took on the Mafia?

[AuntiePam]

Originally Posted by Pere

What did you hear? I doubt it will be many, in the national big-picture sense, even though I'm kind of struggling with the idea myself.

I heard young Bernie supporters saying they'd vote for a third party candidate, like the Green or Libertarian, or they'd write in Bernie's name.

Shades of 2000 -- which these kids obviously don't remember.

They must be trusting the polls -- that Hillary will win in a "landslide" -- and that their votes will be seen as some kind of mandate for change, like they'll mean something.

[SmartAleq]

Bernie is bringing in a lot of independents (which comprise something like 45% of eligible voters) and is bringing in newly registered voters by the truckload. These people are highly unlikely to just say "Oh well, better vote for Hillary now!" if Bernie doesn't get the nomination. Many of them might stay home on election day, or support downticket races and write in Bernie for prez or support Stein instead. Anyone who thinks 110,000 Oregonians switched party to Democratic before the April 26th deadline in order to vote for Hillary is delusional.

[Aneurin Bevan]

Originally Posted by SmartAleq

Bernie is bringing in a lot of independents (which comprise something like 45% of eligible voters) and is bringing in newly registered voters by the truckload. These people are highly unlikely to just say "Oh well, better vote for Hillary now!" if Bernie doesn't get the nomination. Many of them might stay home on election day, or support downticket races and write in Bernie for prez or support Stein instead. Anyone who thinks 110,000 Oregonians switched party to Democratic before the April 26th deadline in order to vote for Hillary is delusional.

Because Sanders and Clinton agree roughly on 80-90% of the issues-certainly Sanders is closer ultimately to Clinton then to Stein. I'm sure there'll be special snowflakes who'll refuse to vote Clinton but Sanders is going to give a strong, unequivocal endorsement of her once he drops out and most young voters will fall in line behind her.

[Aneurin Bevan]

Originally Posted by BJMoose

Same thing happened in '08 when eighteen percent of Clinton's primary supporters said they would not vote for Obama. I suspect a number of them eventually changed their minds. It takes awhile to get over losing.


Now, if Clinton could convince Sanders to be her Attorney General and give him carte blanche, things could get real interesting.

Nah, Sanders is best off staying in the Senate where with a much heightened national profile, can function as the Loyal Left Opposition to President Clinton.

[BJMoose]

Originally Posted by SmartAleq

I think being Attorney General kind of requires that you first be an attorney, which Bernie is not.

Yeah, but I don't know as that actually is required. After all, one does not have to be a lawyer to sit on the Supreme Court, though I don't know of that ever happening (but I read recently that some Prez asked a non-lawyer buddy if he wanted an appointment to the bench. The guy wisely demurred.)

[Pere]

Clintonista assaults a couple of Sanders backers.

This is bunk.

[McNutty]

Originally Posted by Pere

This is bunk.

Golf clap

[AuntiePam]

Originally Posted by McNutty

Golf clap

Omar: Indeed.

[Muskrat Love]

I'm voting for Donald Trump in the general election because I hate Clinton, and since I live in Texas my vote doesn't matter except to show the DNC that there are Trump voters who vote straight-ticket Democratic down ballot.

[Fenris]

Originally Posted by AuntiePam

I heard young Bernie supporters saying they'd vote for a third party candidate, like the Green or Libertarian, or they'd write in Bernie's name.

Shades of 2000 -- which these kids obviously don't remember.

Nope--according to a few at the Durp, Nader's run (and in 1992, Perot's run) didn't change ANYTHING because reasons. Had Nader/Perot not run, everything would have turned out exactly the same.

[BrickaBracka]

OK So it's super difficult to accept "Unbiased Journalism" from any of these outlets who have decided to call the nomination for HRC before the polls even opened up this morning.

It's plainly obvious that after today neither HRC or Bernie would have the required number of pledged delegates to clinch the nomination, it is riding entirely on the superdelegates. Yes they've expressed support for HRC in the past (something they should keep quiet on until the race is done) but they haven't voted yet.

By calling it for HRC before a single vote is cast the voters are being influenced. The well is poisoned.

This election is just horrible at maintaining any semblance of democratic integrity.

She has more votes, yes. Will we ever know how many more votes she has due to people bandwagon jumping on the one who was called the winner before the race started?

We now officially have the choice between a giant douche and a turd sandwich.

[BJMoose]

I agree that they shouldn't do this, but given the way they got burned in 2000, I can't imagine anyone making this call unless it is a virtual certainty. (And, of course, one can also imagine Sanders supporters turning out in force just to prove the media wrong.)

[BrickaBracka]

The results of the California primary were never going to change the vote totals by enough to give Bernie the nudge to 2383 delegates. It was about sending the message of support for his candidacy when his opponent is so embroiled in controversy.

By declaring her a winner of the NOMINATION, before the final primary votes have even commenced, when it is demonstrably true that neither one has won, is tipping the hand of the media. They've decided who they want to win. Honestly though, if it were about ratings, they'd have been talking about Bernie's chances and what his path to the nomination is, and talking about Hillary's scandals and depositions and emails and whatnot. That would be some interesting TV. Conspiracy theories, whacky plots, classified emails, Sanders' wife tanking that university a while ago, etc.

It's not about ratings. They're ignoring everything that would bring in ratings. They're just shining the spotlight on the one they chose a while ago.

[BJMoose]

Sanders is gonna need a lot more than a nudge.

[BrickaBracka]

He's out of the race for all legitimate intents and purposes, the only way he's considered is if Clinton is removed from running for legal reasons or she dies.

Ignorance is truly bliss. This whole 'democractic process' ...

[SmartAleq]

I think a lot of the muckety mucks are starting a walkback on Clinton--that indictment hanging over her head isn't going away, not with the FBI director taking such a personal interest. Thing is, the least of the charges she's likely to get hit with, mishandling of documents, is so open and shut it's ridiculous (three months as SoS using a private server that's sending unencrypted email, not to mention an explicit order to a subordinate to remove headers from classified docs and send them in clear--not good) and one of the penalties is not being eligible to hold any government office which would require handling of sensitive documents. How the fuck can the president function without being able to read classified docs? Legal nightmare no matter how you slice it. Impeachment hearings start the day after inauguration.

[SurlyOldBroad]

Originally Posted by BrickaBracka

She has more votes, yes. Will we ever know how many more votes she has due to people bandwagon jumping on the one who was called the winner before the race started?

I wish the AP hadn't broken the news as well; it has already instilled much butthurt and furthered the paranoia of Sanders fans, and I fear it will make Clinton voters feel complacent.

But what path to the nomination did Sanders have before yesterday? Hillary was slated to win NJ by a wide margin, and CA by a much slimmer one. Had Sanders won CA, he still would have been behind by millions of votes and hundreds of pledged delegates. That is, of course, assuming he didn't sweep 85% of the state, which I'm gonna go ahead and assume because I'm a gambler.

[BrickaBracka]

Originally Posted by SurlyOldBroad

I wish the AP hadn't broken the news as well; it has already instilled much butthurt and furthered the paranoia of Sanders fans, and I fear it will make Clinton voters feel complacent.

But what path to the nomination did Sanders have before yesterday? Hillary was slated to win NJ by a wide margin, and CA by a much slimmer one. Had Sanders won CA, he still would have been behind by millions of votes and hundreds of pledged delegates. That is, of course, assuming he didn't sweep 85% of the state, which I'm gonna go ahead and assume because I'm a gambler.

None, because this bullshit of calling the race before its begun has been going on since the primaries started. It's normal for a campaign to be confident unto itself, to declare it will be the winner. It is not normal, or appropriate, for our nationwide media outlets to also express confidence one way or the other. It is a violation of journalistic integrity to be so blatantly biased.

[Anacanapuna]

Originally Posted by SmartAleq

I think a lot of the muckety mucks are starting a walkback on Clinton--that indictment hanging over her head isn't going away, not with the FBI director taking such a personal interest. Thing is, the least of the charges she's likely to get hit with, mishandling of documents, is so open and shut it's ridiculous (three months as SoS using a private server that's sending unencrypted email, not to mention an explicit order to a subordinate to remove headers from classified docs and send them in clear--not good) and one of the penalties is not being eligible to hold any government office which would require handling of sensitive documents. How the fuck can the president function without being able to read classified docs? Legal nightmare no matter how you slice it. Impeachment hearings start the day after inauguration.

They weren't classified at the time. The removal of headers was a half-assed attempt to be somewhat secure; later, it was decided that, yes, maybe they should have been classified, so now they're classified. If you knew some of the bullshit that gets classified just to cover other people's asses, you wouldn't be nearly as excited about "classified documents."

My prediction: At the end of the day, James Comey wants no part of this.

[SmartAleq]

It doesn't matter what I or you or anyone else thinks about the rules of classified documents, the fact remains that every person at State, including Clinton, filed a piece of paper saying they will NOT fuck about with classified documents and spelling out what the penalties are. Saying "it doesn't matter" is saying that Snowden has no reason to remain where he is because what he did was totes okay because everybody does it and nobody cares and the rules are too strict and blah blah blah.

[BrickaBracka]

Originally Posted by Anacanapuna

They weren't classified at the time. The removal of headers was a half-assed attempt to be somewhat secure; later, it was decided that, yes, maybe they should have been classified, so now they're classified. If you knew some of the bullshit that gets classified just to cover other people's asses, you wouldn't be nearly as excited about "classified documents."

My prediction: At the end of the day, James Comey wants no part of this.

That is the defense her supporters often turn to. "It wasn't classified at the time".

It doesn't wipe away the fact she operated against established rules, established laws, regarding the handling of information. And for an obvious reason too, to dodge future investigations into the information.

Are we expected to believe that the Secretary of State was not handling information that was worthy to keep out of enemy hands? No, in fact we all agree the information the Secretary of State works with is important. That's why there's rules and laws about how communications are handled within that office.

Rules and laws Hillary ignored for her own convenience. "I don't know how to use X, so I'll just use my own." Or, more likely, "I don't want the american public knowing what exactly I intend to do with my new overseas contacts. I don't want them to draw the obvious lines between my various conflicts of interest with the Clinton Foundation and foreign donations. I won't allow anyone to know how I operate and to whom I owe favors."

Maybe I'm just salty today, but honestly, I'm sick and tired of being fed a line of shit by her and her supporters about her true nature.

All politicians are fuckbags; yours isn't special. Some are ENORMOUS fuckbags.

[Argument Clinic]

Originally Posted by BrickaBracka

Ignorance is truly bliss. This whole 'democractic process' ...

Yeah terrible that whole thing about your preferred candidate not getting as many votes in actual proper voting.

Really anti democratic....

(oh wait, no it's not, it's really very democratic, what's not democratic is crybaby complaints on losing)

Originally Posted by SmartAleq

I think a lot of the muckety mucks are starting a walkback on Clinton....

Yeah you think a lot of things after a few hits. Doesn't make it rational.

Originally Posted by BrickaBracka

... It is not normal, or appropriate, for our nationwide media outlets to also express confidence one way or the other. It is a violation of journalistic integrity to be so blatantly biased.

Blatantly biased to using basic math and doing some basic reporting, like say, tallying up intentions.... Same thing as exit polling and calling elections on projections - it's totally normal

Jesus what a fucking crybaby.

Bernie-Bros, entitled white Lefty whiners who are bad at math, bad at basic politics and complete fabulists who are loud-fucking-mouthed complainers up the wazoo.

[BrickaBracka]

Originally Posted by Argument Clinic

Yeah terrible that whole thing about your preferred candidate not getting as many votes in actual proper voting.

Really anti democratic....

(oh wait, no it's not, it's really very democratic, what's not democratic is crybaby complaints on losing)



Yeah you think a lot of things after a few hits. Doesn't make it rational.

Blatantly biased to using basic math and doing some basic reporting, like say, tallying up intentions.... Same thing as exit polling and calling elections on projections - it's totally normal

Jesus what a fucking crybaby.

Bernie-Bros, entitled white Lefty whiners who are bad at math, bad at basic politics and complete fabulists who are loud-fucking-mouthed complainers up the wazoo.

Well, there's two for my ignore list. I have not seen one post from you that is worth the effort to respond to, let alone read. I have no problem disagreeing with anyone; no problem discussing those disagreements and either changing my view or agreeing to disagree.

But you sir can get fucked - with a rusty spoon.

[Wolf Larsen]

Clinton's at 2755, so it's over. Sanders ran a much better campaign that I would have expected. Now the big question is do the Sanders supporters vote for Clinton? If not, I think Trump wins it.

[Argument Clinic]

Originally Posted by BrickaBracka

Well, there's two for my ignore list. I have not seen one post from you that is worth the effort to respond to, let alone read. I have no problem disagreeing with anyone; no problem discussing those disagreements and either changing my view or agreeing to disagree.

But you sir can get fucked - with a rusty spoon.

Yes, Bricky the sulking child who didn't get his toy, so he's going to ignore the adults and pout about how unfair life is....

Democratic obviously means to Bricky "I get my way or obviously there is some kind of corruption" (which of course is not democracy, it's the opposite).

Goddamn whiner.

(And I'm not a Hillary person for the record, dislike her intensely, but in a world of her or Trump, her it is.)

[DrWas]

Anyone denying the profound corruption of this election is a fool, not to be taken seriously.

[Argument Clinic]

What "profound" corruption?

The fools are the immature losers who think the mere fact money is spent is "corruption" and who are too immature to accept that their fringe politics simply is not that popular.
(and think some platonic ideal of politics not involving actual human beings is actually a real-world objective).

[SurlyOldBroad]

Have you noticed there was only "corruption" and "fraud," etc in states Bernie lost? So Bernie won everything fair and square, and his losses were due to some kind of scheme that someone will prove someday, but haven't yet.

[Argument Clinic]

Yes, just like it is all about "democracy" except when the Bernie bros win via undemocratic Caucuses and the like or when they want to use the Supers to overturn their losing streak.

Over-entitled white-radical losers whining because in the end their guy was not very competent at insurgency (unlike Obama) and basically proved to be the perennial aged Campus radical professional protester / excuse maker he's always been, fuming that the Coloreds have False Consciousness and the Man is preventing the Revolution from happening! All about the Struggle!

Fucking lames.

Obama, a black guy with a weird ass name pulled it off because he had skills and wasn't and isn't a whiny-ass professional protesting excuse maker.

[Simple Dog]

Originally Posted by SurlyOldBroad

Have you noticed there was only "corruption" and "fraud," etc in states Bernie lost? So Bernie won everything fair and square, and his losses were due to some kind of scheme that someone will prove someday, but haven't yet.

My favorite proof of fraud is that when some Berners sued a couple of states over their conspiracy theories, the states defended themselves against the suit!!! If they was innocent, they woulda admitted guilt!

[Argument Clinic]

The Politico profile on the bitter of Protester Bern piles on the damning as to his general political incompetence (and bad instincts - this guy is in many ways no better than a Trump).

No fraud, just long series of bad calls based on complete tone-deafness outside of the Movement echo-chamber.

Unlike that black dude with the weird ass name who pulled it off.

[BrickaBracka]

Originally Posted by SurlyOldBroad

Have you noticed there was only "corruption" and "fraud," etc in states Bernie lost? So Bernie won everything fair and square, and his losses were due to some kind of scheme that someone will prove someday, but haven't yet.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFxF...ature=youtu.be



Totally coincidence, right?

[Khampelf]

I hear that President Obama met with Sanders for several hours, then came out endorsing Hillary. No word from the Sanders camp that I've heard. Is Bernie going to jump into the funeral pyre of party divisiveness?