Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital
That was the top post on the reddit thread about Sanders not ruling out a 2020 run, where somebody also made this:The Romulan Republic wrote:Saw a good quip on another forum I post on, though I don't know the original source:
"Sanders for President! Because hindsight is 2020!"
Suffice to say that the only definite prediction I am going to make regarding Trump is that he will do whatever he deems profitable, and whatever will tend to aggrandize himself.Crown wrote:Predictions and Trump are dangerous things. We'll leave it here, feel free to save this post to remind me when your predictions come true.Simon_Jester wrote:If my prediction is correct,Crown wrote:No reason for choosing the Governor of Indiana when Trump's victory strategy was to breach the Democratic Blue Wall of which Indiana is smack bang in the middle of and had flipped in 2012? No reason at all, other than to completely reverse his own stated public position on gay issues?
Yeah, Bernie 2020, because Trump needs 4 more years.The Vortex Empire wrote:That was the top post on the reddit thread about Sanders not ruling out a 2020 run, where somebody also made this:The Romulan Republic wrote:Saw a good quip on another forum I post on, though I don't know the original source:
"Sanders for President! Because hindsight is 2020!"
On the upside, maybe he can learn a sentence aside from "Noun verb WALL STREET!"Flagg wrote:Yeah, Bernie 2020, because Trump needs 4 more years.
Assuming he's not in a nursing home.Gandalf wrote:On the upside, maybe he can learn a sentence aside from "Noun verb WALL STREET!"Flagg wrote:Yeah, Bernie 2020, because Trump needs 4 more years.
I'd have actually seriously considered voting for him, because he wasn't the usual doctrinaire D on firearms and he actually understood product liability laws.Flagg wrote:Every single cowardly shit that wants to say "Sanders the Parasite Whore would have won" needs to provide evidence or go back to their room and cry.
For Republicans he would have been a semi-gamble. Sure he's a Democrat (A super fake Democrat per Flagg, remember kids embrace the two party system or else) but Sanders has in the past to do direct tit for tat policies while trying to sell America on the other 80% the Republicans will never do. Something Obama could never do since they did day one obstruction to him. Obama could have forced them back to the table by starting to publicly use the powers of the presidency but instead he waited till he was a lame duck to start using executive orders.MKSheppard wrote:I'd have actually seriously considered voting for him, because he wasn't the usual doctrinaire D on firearms and he actually understood product liability laws.Flagg wrote:Every single cowardly shit that wants to say "Sanders the Parasite Whore would have won" needs to provide evidence or go back to their room and cry.
Per me, and everyone else who despises destructive forces infiltrating organizations they refused to be a member of for decades until he saw an opening. If he was a person with integrity he'd have run on a third party ticket rather than hijack and cause chaos that played a part in costing the non-pedophile psychopath the election.Mr Bean wrote:For Republicans he would have been a semi-gamble. Sure he's a Democrat (A super fake Democrat per Flagg, remember kids embrace the two party system or else) but Sanders has in the past to do direct tit for tat policies while trying to sell America on the other 80% the Republicans will never do. Something Obama could never do since they did day one obstruction to him. Obama could have forced them back to the table by starting to publicly use the powers of the presidency but instead he waited till he was a lame duck to start using executive orders.MKSheppard wrote:I'd have actually seriously considered voting for him, because he wasn't the usual doctrinaire D on firearms and he actually understood product liability laws.Flagg wrote:Every single cowardly shit that wants to say "Sanders the Parasite Whore would have won" needs to provide evidence or go back to their room and cry.
A third party would've *also* been destructive. Worse even- it's a guarantee of spoiler.Flagg wrote: Per me, and everyone else who despises destructive forces infiltrating organizations the refused to be a member of for decades until he saw an opening. If he was a person with integrity he'd have run on a third party ticket rather than hijack and cause chaos that played a part in costing the non-pedophile psychopath the election.
Sorry, I just don't agree.Q99 wrote:A third party would've *also* been destructive. Worse even- it's a guarantee of spoiler.Flagg wrote: Per me, and everyone else who despises destructive forces infiltrating organizations the refused to be a member of for decades until he saw an opening. If he was a person with integrity he'd have run on a third party ticket rather than hijack and cause chaos that played a part in costing the non-pedophile psychopath the election.
More, he should've run in the Democratic primary- as he did. That, in fact, was fine. Made great debates! Helped both look good at first IMO (we didn't need as many debates as we got IMO, they've got diminishing returns, but the first couple were nice). And then, when it was clear he was losing, resign then (The writing on the wall was clear after Super Tuesday). Or bare minimum, concede when the last state is done, and without turning to a 'rigged' narrative first.
His sour grapes hurt. Enough to change the picture? Hard to say since he *did* come around, but dragging things out just let bad vibes sink in and helped get people into the mindset to buy the 'rigged' narrative.
(That said, if it wasn't for Comey's last minute BS, all that'd be water under the bridge and I'd be fine with giving Bernie a handshake for his later support)
I don't think he had a chance, one way or another. But the only way for him to find out is if he was in the Democratic primary and see if he could win it (he couldn't), and running third party is just bad all around.... Bernie absolutely shouldn't form a third party because the US system doesn't work that way... oh, except in Maine from now on, where they just introduced ranked voting for state offices! 3rd Ps will finally be able to prove themselves without spoiler effect... outside of Presidential at least.Flagg wrote: But to those fuckwits (since Mr "no spellcheck" Bean wanted to namedrop me, I'll return the favor) who bitch about the 2 party system in a failed attempt to defend D.B. Sanders' hijacking of the Democratic primary, why don't you bitch at the Sanders suckers for not saying from the start that he should form his own party? Oh right, because you wanted the Vermont Methuselah to have a chance at winning.
The real left in America is a failure, the social left of center and economic right of center, which is what every Democrat to take the Whitehouse since Reagan has been, is more successful. And that's by American standards. By European/Canadian standards both parties are to the right.K. A. Pital wrote:Trump hijacked the Republican primary with great success, let us not forget.
The American left is simply a failure. Moderate left, radical left, centrist sellouts like Banker Buddy Clinton - all a failure, deep total utter abject failure.
VP picks have never really had much of an effect in a Presidential race. Even Palin, who was chosen to try and give McCain's campaign a boost since he was losing badly in the polls only provided a temporary bump that went down long before we all realized she was a result of the McCain camp shitting the bed. So I don't think picking anyone else would've made much if any difference.Q99 wrote:I don't think he had a chance, one way or another. But the only way for him to find out is if he was in the Democratic primary and see if he could win it (he couldn't), and running third party is just bad all around.... Bernie absolutely shouldn't form a third party because the US system doesn't work that way... oh, except in Maine from now on, where they just introduced ranked voting for state offices! 3rd Ps will finally be able to prove themselves without spoiler effect... outside of Presidential at least.Flagg wrote: But to those fuckwits (since Mr "no spellcheck" Bean wanted to namedrop me, I'll return the favor) who bitch about the 2 party system in a failed attempt to defend D.B. Sanders' hijacking of the Democratic primary, why don't you bitch at the Sanders suckers for not saying from the start that he should form his own party? Oh right, because you wanted the Vermont Methuselah to have a chance at winning.
Anyway, to shift topics a bit- Tim Kaine. I like him. He's a good senator. My senator, even. He was not the most aggressive choice here. He brought no baggage but perhaps what we needed was more gas.
Is there a VP pick anyone thinks could've pushed us over the edge?
We don't really need a big difference... I'm just thinking a hispanic candidate may have helped push us over or something....Flagg wrote: VP picks have never really had much of an effect in a Presidential race. Even Palin, who was chosen to try and give McCain's campaign a boost since he was losing badly in the polls only provided a temporary bump that went down long before we all realized she was a result of the McCain camp shitting the bed. So I don't think picking anyone else would've made much if any difference.
You need to provide a reason for your hostility towards Sanders and everyone who supports him other than "Waaahhhh, he's not a real Democrat!" I can't recall you ever once doing so. Besides ageist insults, I mean.Flagg wrote:Assuming he's not in a nursing home.Gandalf wrote:On the upside, maybe he can learn a sentence aside from "Noun verb WALL STREET!"Flagg wrote:Yeah, Bernie 2020, because Trump needs 4 more years.
Every single cowardly shit that wants to say "Sanders the Parasite Whore would have won" needs to provide evidence or go back to their room and cry.
I don't have to do anything.The Romulan Republic wrote:You need to provide a reason for your hostility towards Sanders and everyone who supports him other than "Waaahhhh, he's not a real Democrat!" I can't recall you ever once doing so. Besides ageist insults, I mean.Flagg wrote:Assuming he's not in a nursing home.Gandalf wrote:
On the upside, maybe he can learn a sentence aside from "Noun verb WALL STREET!"
Every single cowardly shit that wants to say "Sanders the Parasite Whore would have won" needs to provide evidence or go back to their room and cry.
Probably not my first choice, but I could live with DNC chair O'Malley.Since the election, I have been approached by many Democrats who believe our party needs new leadership. I'm taking a hard look at DNC Chair because I know how badly we need to reform our nominating process, articulate a bold progressive vision, recommit ourselves to higher wages and a stronger middle class, and return to our roots as a nationwide, grassroots party.
Flagg wrote:I don't have to do anything.The Romulan Republic wrote:You need to provide a reason for your hostility towards Sanders and everyone who supports him other than "Waaahhhh, he's not a real Democrat!" I can't recall you ever once doing so. Besides ageist insults, I mean.Flagg wrote: Assuming he's not in a nursing home.
Every single cowardly shit that wants to say "Sanders the Parasite Whore would have won" needs to provide evidence or go back to their room and cry.
How am I supposed to explain my dislike of Sanders when the reason I dislike him has been declared off limits?Alyrium Denryle wrote:Flagg wrote:I don't have to do anything.The Romulan Republic wrote:
You need to provide a reason for your hostility towards Sanders and everyone who supports him other than "Waaahhhh, he's not a real Democrat!" I can't recall you ever once doing so. Besides ageist insults, I mean.
Actually you do. I and the other mods are getting sick of your bullshit, including your nuisance reports, which are dangerously close to violating board rules.
I do not have the patience for your shit right now Flagg. Be an adult, or Get The Fuck Out of My Threads.
Same here, and for the same reason.MKSheppard wrote:I'd have actually seriously considered voting for him, because he wasn't the usual doctrinaire D on firearms and he actually understood product liability laws.Flagg wrote:Every single cowardly shit that wants to say "Sanders the Parasite Whore would have won" needs to provide evidence or go back to their room and cry.
Now, I have decidedly mixed feelings about this. As much as I loath and dread the thought of a Trump Presidency, I believe I've made my feelings on faithless electors quite clear, and that doesn't change simply because they're faithless in my side's favour. Even if technically legal (although some states have penalties against it), I can't really condone this. At best, it would be the right outcome achieved the wrong way. I also think that it would set a very dangerous precedent of having electors ignore election results en mass, and almost certainly lead to a severe violent backlash from enraged Trump supporters (not that we should let fear of terrorism dictate our actions).The election of Donald Trump as president is a bitter pill to swallow for millions of Americans — and some are backing a quixotic campaign to reverse that outcome.
As of Friday afternoon, more than 2.4 million people had signed a petition to the U.S. Electoral College, urging its members to ignore their states’ votes and cast their ballots for former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
“Mr. Trump is unfit to serve. His scapegoating of so many Americans, and his impulsivity, bullying, lying, admitted history of sexual assault, and utter lack of experience make him a danger to the Republic,” wrote Elijah Berg, who launched the petition on Change.org.
Berg, of North Carolina, argued that the Electoral College can award the White House to either candidate and should use its own “most undemocratic” institution to ensure a “democratic result.”
Berg continued: “24 states bind electors. If electors vote against their party, they usually pay a fine. And people get mad. But they can vote however they want and there is no legal means to stop them in most states.”
Protesters against president-elect Donald Trump march peacefully through Oakland, Calif., on Nov. 9, 2016. (Photo: Noah Berger/Reuters)View photos
Protesters against President-elect Donald Trump march peacefully through Oakland, Calif., on Nov. 9, 2016. (Photo: Noah Berger/Reuters)
More
Another petition on Faithlessnow.com similarly calls for more than 160 Republican electors to set aside their votes in states that don’t have laws binding them to do so: Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Utah and West Virginia. The petition has assembled a list of the relevant electors.
Clinton is the first presidential candidate since 2000 to win the popular vote while losing the White House. In that year, Al Gore lost the Electoral College to George W. Bush. While Americans were still waiting to see whether Gore or Bush had won Florida’s 25 electoral votes, Clinton, the first lady at the time, called for the college to be disbanded so that no one would ever have to doubt again whether his or her vote counted.
“We are a very different country than we were 200 years ago,” she said then. “I believe strongly that in a democracy, we should respect the will of the people and to me, that means it’s time to do away with the Electoral College and move to the popular election of our president.”
And in a deep twist of irony, Trump has also called for the Electoral College to be abandoned. On the eve of the 2012 election, between President Obama and Republican challenger Mitt Romney, Trump called the Electoral College “a disaster for a democracy.”
After that election, in a tweet he has since deleted, Trump said, “The phoney [sic] electoral college made a laughing stock out of our nation. The loser one! [sic]” Trump tweeted this at a time when he thought Romney would win the popular vote, which ultimately was not the case.
The last time Gallup checked to see whether Americans would vote for a law to abolish the Electoral College was in 2013 — and 63 percent said they would.
So what is the Electoral College, exactly? American citizens did not in fact elect a president on Nov. 8; they chose electors. On Dec. 19, the 538 electors of the Electoral College will cast their ballots for a candidate and ultimately decide the next resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
The authors of the Constitution established this system for two reasons.
First, the founding fathers intended the Electoral College to serve as a buffer between the electorate and the presidency. They feared that a tyrant or someone incompetent would be able to manipulate the population and that better-informed, judicious electors could prevent this from happening. In other words, the Electoral College is supposed to act as a check on the citizenry, should it be hoodwinked by a demagogue.
The Signing of the Constitution of the United States, with George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson at the Constitutional Convention of 1787; oil painting on canvas by Howard Chandler Christy, 1940. The painting is 20 by 30 feet and hangs in the United States Capitol building. (Photo: GraphicaArtis/Getty Images)View photos
“Scene at the Signing of the Constitution of the United States,” with George Washington, Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson, at the Constitutional Convention of 1787; oil painting on canvas by Howard Chandler Christy, 1940. The painting is 20 by 30 feet and hangs in the United States Capitol building. (Photo: GraphicaArtis/Getty Images)
More
Founding father Alexander Hamilton articulated this view in the Federalist Papers: “A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations. It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder.”
The Electoral College was also created as a result of compromises with smaller states, to ensure that they would not be overlooked. Each state has the same number of electoral votes as it has congressional representatives. Voters in smaller states thus have more influence than those in larger states, because every state, no matter how small, has two U.S. senators.
But some historians point to slavery as another driving factor in the formation of the Electoral College. Southerners were worried that direct democracy — one person, one vote (in actuality, one white, male landowner, one vote) — would give Northern states greater sway in political affairs. But if the South had been allowed to include its slave population in determining the numbers of representatives and electors, it would have greater political power. This resulted in the infamous Three-Fifths Compromise, in which slaves were counted as three-fifths of a person.
The writer Joyce Carol Oates and others have argued that this system will always benefit rural, more conservative voices at the expense of urban, more liberal ones.
The Change.org petition is part of a growing trend of petitions prompted by Trump’s election. Many are directed explicitly at the president-elect and urge him to rethink his policy positions or behavior on the campaign trail. A voter in Virginia is calling for Trump to meet with SpaceX CEO Elon Musk to learn about the reality of climate change. A Californian mother of two children with chronic illnesses is urging Trump to protect the commitment enshrined in the Obamacare legislation that forbids discrimination based on pre-existing conditions. Another woman in California is asking for Trump to condemn hate crimes that his supporters commit in his name.
But these petitions for Trump to re-examine specific policies or actions have not yet resonated with the public as strongly as the petition to the Electoral College calling upon its members to stop Trump from entering the Oval Office. Many supporters have been promoting the Change.org petition on social media.
from the funny-how-that-works dept
I get that this is how politics works, but this is just a pretty stark and extreme example. A big part of Donald Trump's pitch to the public was about getting rid of the "corruption" in DC, that was sure to follow with Clinton, and her close connections to various lobbyists and Wall Street in particular. Here's what Trump campaign CEO (and, apparently, lead candidate for White House Chief of Staff) Steve Bannon told Bloomberg this week about the campaign:This was most clearly put forth with the phrase "drain the swamp," which the public was told was about "removing corruption and greed in local and federal government."“Those elites [Trump rails against] are represented in Washington by a bevy of lobbyists,” says Bannon. “Crony capitalism has gotten out of control. Trump saw this. The American people saw this. And they have risen up to smash it. Ordinary people want to make sure we have an evenhanded system that’s transparent and accountable and takes their interests into mind. And they want to share in the rewards.”
So, how's that going? Well, as soon as the victory was announced, with it came the news that basically his entire transition team was made up of top influence peddling lobbyists. The NY Times has an article about how old lobbyists and power brokers in DC are practically giddy in being able to shape the new administration. They're even out there mocking the "drain the swamp" phrase already:
Yeah, suuuuuuuuuuuuuure. The best way to "drain the swamp" is to hand it over to the alligators who make it their home and who have gotten fat off the swamp? The swamp sure is pretty crowded too:“Trump has pledged to change things in Washington — about draining the swamp,” said Mr. [Trent] Lott, who now works at Squire Patton Boggs, a law and lobbying firm. “He is going to need some people to help guide him through the swamp — how do you get in and how you get out? We are prepared to help do that.”That swamp is looking mighty damp. And this doesn't touch on the fact that top execs from Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan have been floated as Trump's Treasury Secretary. Draining that swamp, huh? Remember Bannon's quote about how people were sick of Clinton's ties to Wall Street? Should we remind you that Bannon used to work at Goldman Sachs himself?— Cindy Hayden of tobacco company Altria is in charge of Homeland Security.
— Steve Hart, the chairman of Williams & Jensen, is in charge of Labor. His clients include Visa, the American Council of Life Insurers, Anthem, Cheniere Energy, Coca-Cola, General Electric, HSBC, Pfixer, PhRMA and United Airlines. He worked at the Labor Department in the Pension Welfare Benefits Program and on the Office of Management and Budget's ERISA Reorganization Task Force under Ronald Reagan.
— For the Energy Department, Michael McKenna of MWR Strategies lobbies for Engie (formerly GDF Suez), Southern Company and Dow Chemical.
— For Interior, David Bernhardt of Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck lobbies for the Westlands Water District and used to represent Freeport LNG Expansion and Rosemont Copper Company. He was the Interior Department's solicitor, deputy solicitor, deputy chief of staff, counselor to the secretary of the Interior and director of the Office of Congressional and Legislative Affairs under George W. Bush.
— Michael Torrey, who has the Agriculture portfolio, has his own firm representing the American Beverage Association and the Crop Insurance and Reinsurance Bureau.
— Mira Ricardel, tasked with defense, isn't a registered lobbyist but is a consultant for Federal Budget IQ, a government research firm. Until recently she worked for Boeing.
— Dan DiMicco, overseeing the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, serves on Duke Energy's board and represents steel company Nucor (of which he used to be CEO) on the U.S. Council on Competitiveness and the Coalition for a Prosperous America.
— Paul Atkins, though not a lobbyist, is CEO of advisory firm Patomak Global Partners and charged with independent financial agencies.
— Ken Blackwell, in charge of domestic issues, isn't a lobbyist but is a senior fellow of the Family Research Council, which does lobbying.
Anyway, let's just address two responses I'm sure will likely appear in the comments below -- perhaps by people so furious that we're insulting "their guy" that they won't read this far: Yes, Clinton would have brought in probably just as many lobbyists. Just as President Obama campaigned on stopping the power of lobbyists in DC... and then went ahead and brought a bunch into his administration, it's almost certain that Clinton would have done the same. But the Trump campaign's explicit claim was that it would be breaking away from lobbyists, crony capitalists and close ties to Wall Street at the very time it was bringing those people into the campaign.
Yes, these lobbyists do have some expertise. This was the main pushback when I jokingly tweeted about these Wall St. execs' names being tossed around for Treasury Secretary. It's true that they have experience and knowledge of how the system works. And it's also (frankly) why I think when people get all worked up about "lobbyists" they are totally missing the point. There are reasons why lobbyists do what they do and it's because they know the system. That has both good sides and bad sides. But, a true leader is one willing to admit that and explain that, rather than flat out lying about it. Don't say "drain the swamp" and promise an end to special interests, lobbyists and crony capitalists and then immediately bring a metric ton of them into your administration. That's called lying to the public. Which, I guess, is also something that many lobbyists have some experience with.
