The 2016 US Election (Part II)

N&P: Discuss governments, nations, politics and recent related news here.

Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital

Locked
User avatar
Ziggy Stardust
Sith Devotee
Posts: 3058
Joined: 2006-09-10 10:16pm
Location: Research Triangle, NC

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part II)

Post by Ziggy Stardust » 2016-03-24 08:26am

Terralthra wrote:Helen Purcell, Maricopa County Recorder, is taking blame for the short lines, but refusing to resign. She is an elected Republican.

And that took like 10 seconds on Google, you lazy fuck. Like Republicans haven't been curtailing public funds and restricting voting for years.
It's not my job to dig up other people's evidence, you smug ass. I asked TRR to provide the evidence for the random claim he spouted, which wasn't justified in the previous article he had posted. One of the damn rules of this site is to provide evidence of your claims, and not make other people do your homework for you. So take your smug attitude and shove it up your ass, or take it up with TRR for being a lazy fuck. Just because it offended your delicate sensibilities that I didn't automatically assume that a Republican was at fault is no reason to start dismissing site rules.
Flagg wrote: Now, now. Don't poke the vendettapath or he'll take random swipes at you for no reason, too. I mean Arizona being the state that elected Jan "stares blankly at camera for 30 seconds during a debate" Brewer for Governor, John "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran" McCain as a Senator, and Maricopa county being the domain of Sheriff Joe "Desert Gulag" Arpaio isn't enough fucking evidence that Republicans control where voting takes place. You need a 700 page dissertation and a bibliography.
How the fuck am I a "vendettapath"? My original post wasn't even fucking directed at you in the first place, it was directed at TRR for making the claim that the article he posted didn't support. I only responded to you when you waded in the middle of that, and somehow that makes me a "vendettapath"? What the fuck is wrong with you?

User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 21319
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part II)

Post by The Romulan Republic » 2016-03-24 08:31am

jwl wrote:
The Romulan Republic wrote:I have no idea. It depends on so many factors.

I think if the Democrats finish their primary badly divided enough (or Clinton is the nominee and then that indictment finally happens), and if he can unite most of the Republicans behind him (both big ifs), he could win. A major recession or terror attack in America between now and election day could also give the Republicans a boost.

If Drumpf is the nominee and nothing major/unexpected/catastrophic happens between now and election day, I think he'll most likely lose. But that might be wishful thinking, and I wouldn't want to bet on it.

Edit: The thing is, while I hate Bernie Sanders/Donald Drumpf comparisons because they are very different men and candidates in a lot of ways, their is this parallel- they have both tapped into a deep well of anti-establishment sentiment and anger in the general public (Drumpf on the Right and the Bern on the Left).

Whereas Hillary Clinton, the fact that she'd be the first female President aside, is pretty much "corrupt establishment" personified. That could drive down her turnout and enthusiasm relative to Drumpf.
This is rather assuming that anything that can go wrong goes wrong for Clinton rather than Trump.
Not at all.

I'm not assuming the worst case scenario will happen, obviously. Merely laying out possible scenarios where Clinton could lose.

It is also possible (and may God/fate/whatever bring it about) that Drumpf fails spectacularly in the general election.
I get the impression that some republican higher-ups are thinking of supporting a third party if Trump or Cruz become the nominee. I can even remember hearing that one of them said they were rooting for Clinton to win the presidency. If they follow through on this it could be bad for Trump.

There's also people in this thread who seem convinced that some of Trump's rhetoric and the violence that may result on this is steps over the line to illegal. If the police are also convinced by this, you might see Trump getting arrested, which would be somewhat unhealthy for his presidential bid.
I very much doubt Drumpf will be arrested unless someone in a position to bring it about somehow gets overwhelming evidence that he's committed a major felony. I'm sure he has the money and lawyers to protect himself, and who will have the balls to risk the tremendous (and violent) backlash to his arrest that would likely occur, and being accused of politically motivated prosecution?

Not to mention that he has a fair amount of support from within law enforcement.

As to Republicans going against him... I don't know. Historically, the Republican party of late has tended to vote in lockstep, but maybe this year will be different. The spectre of a brokered convention to defeat Drumpf is probably the biggest threat to a Republican victory right now.

User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 21319
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part II)

Post by The Romulan Republic » 2016-03-24 08:33am

Ziggy Stardust wrote:
Terralthra wrote:Helen Purcell, Maricopa County Recorder, is taking blame for the short lines, but refusing to resign. She is an elected Republican.

And that took like 10 seconds on Google, you lazy fuck. Like Republicans haven't been curtailing public funds and restricting voting for years.
It's not my job to dig up other people's evidence, you smug ass. I asked TRR to provide the evidence for the random claim he spouted, which wasn't justified in the previous article he had posted. One of the damn rules of this site is to provide evidence of your claims, and not make other people do your homework for you. So take your smug attitude and shove it up your ass, or take it up with TRR for being a lazy fuck. Just because it offended your delicate sensibilities that I didn't automatically assume that a Republican was at fault is no reason to start dismissing site rules.
Flagg wrote: Now, now. Don't poke the vendettapath or he'll take random swipes at you for no reason, too. I mean Arizona being the state that elected Jan "stares blankly at camera for 30 seconds during a debate" Brewer for Governor, John "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran" McCain as a Senator, and Maricopa county being the domain of Sheriff Joe "Desert Gulag" Arpaio isn't enough fucking evidence that Republicans control where voting takes place. You need a 700 page dissertation and a bibliography.
How the fuck am I a "vendettapath"? My original post wasn't even fucking directed at you in the first place, it was directed at TRR for making the claim that the article he posted didn't support. I only responded to you when you waded in the middle of that, and somehow that makes me a "vendettapath"? What the fuck is wrong with you?
I might not have provided evidence initially, so you could call that an oversight on my part, but it seems that I was quite right in my conclusions.

I could go and dig up supporting evidence now, but it would be a rather redundant exercise since the point has already been proved.

Simon_Jester
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 30117
Joined: 2009-05-23 07:29pm

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part II)

Post by Simon_Jester » 2016-03-24 09:45am

The Romulan Republic wrote:I'm not assuming the worst case scenario will happen, obviously. Merely laying out possible scenarios where Clinton could lose.

It is also possible (and may God/fate/whatever bring it about) that Drumpf fails spectacularly in the general election...

I very much doubt Drumpf will be arrested unless someone in a position to bring it about somehow gets overwhelming evidence that he's committed a major felony. I'm sure he has the money and lawyers to protect himself, and who will have the balls to risk the tremendous (and violent) backlash to his arrest that would likely occur, and being accused of politically motivated prosecution?

Not to mention that he has a fair amount of support from within law enforcement.

As to Republicans going against him... I don't know. Historically, the Republican party of late has tended to vote in lockstep, but maybe this year will be different. The spectre of a brokered convention to defeat Drumpf is probably the biggest threat to a Republican victory right now.
Trump doesn't have to be arrested for his long history of fraud and bankruptcies to become a major factor in play. Ultimately he's standing for office on his reputation as a 'straight shooter,' when in fact he is a liar . He stands on his reputation as a manager, when he has created numerous enterprises with his name on the door that went down in flames.

To some extent his Republican opponents are trying this on him and it's not working... but frankly, I think that has a lot to do with the level of pro-corporatism the Republicans have cultivated in their party. They can't kick him very hard without getting their feet tangled up in their own past rhetoric, because the Republican Party isn't really designed to express contempt for "rich sonofabitch suits." Even though a lot of their voter base is capable of feeling such contempt, the Party can't air that contempt effectively, unless it can paint the 'suits' in question as liberals.
This space dedicated to Vasily Arkhipov

User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 21319
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part II)

Post by The Romulan Republic » 2016-03-24 09:53am

Are many of his supporters actually going to care?

Its not as if the facts about Drupmf's dishonesty and business incompetence aren't known. But his supporters have bought into the illusion, of the tough, straight-talking strongman. Or they know he's a fucking asshole and buffoon and don't care because they themselves are assholes and buffoons.

They can just write off any unpleasant facts as lies made up by the opposition.

User avatar
Crossroads Inc.
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 8992
Joined: 2005-03-20 06:26pm
Location: Defending Sparkeling Bishonen
Contact:

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part II)

Post by Crossroads Inc. » 2016-03-24 10:19am

So the following is something I had been meaning to write for a while ever since Trumps sweep of states from over a week ago.
Ok, have any of you guys listened to him? I mean, REALLY listened to this guy talk? I spent almost 30min driving home last 'super Tuesday' and forced myself to listen to his 'victory speech'. And holy fuck, it is some scary fucked up shit.

First off, I no longer in any way question why he is so popular. The guy has this hypnotic, folksy, incredibly friendly tone that is so Oily, you could drop a well in it and sell his voice for 30$ a barrel.

In the first 5min you are lured into this state where anything he says MUST Be true, because HE is saying it. And THAT gets to the heart of the matter, what he actually says is truly 'Nothing'.
I listened to the man for almost 30 min. And in that time he promised the following.
He was going to:

Make America Safe and defeat all Terrorists.
Capture and Torture all Terrorists
Make our Economy the best in the world
Make sure every Vet in the nation was taken care of properly.
Ensure that all over sea companies brought their jobs back to America.
Deport all illegal immigrants.
Balance the budget.

In the span of about 30min, at some point or another the man single handily promised EVERYONE of those things! Sometimes more than once! And the thing is, It was always HE that was going to to do it. It wasn't Him, in charge of some group of people, or comity, or organization... NO D-Trump made it clear that he was going to go over and just do these things through the sheer power of his will!!!

I know it's been a bit since that all happened, but listening to him talk last night after the voting reminded me of the event.
For those who have any trouble realize just why this guy is as popular as he is, just listen to him for more than 15min. I know it's hard, but holy FUCK does it drive home the message.a

EDIT: OH, and living in Arizona myself..
4 years ago, we had 200 places to vote.
This year, we had 60.
There are reports the Republican in charge of doing this had been informed by various independent sources that this was going to be a disaster MONTHS ago and refused to do anything about it.

I won't say this was personally done as some part of some evil scheme. But regardless it was stupid as fuck and the bitch has no excuses for not seeing this coming.
Praying is another way of doing nothing helpful
"Congratulations, you get a cookie. You almost got a fundamental English word correct." Pick
"Outlaw star has spaceships that punch eachother" Joviwan
Read "Tales From The Crossroads"!
Read "One Wrong Turn"!

User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 21319
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part II)

Post by The Romulan Republic » 2016-03-24 12:02pm

Sadly, Drumpf's only real talent seems to be convincing people that he's awesome.

In other news, Bernie may be a lot more popular than some would like to believe, at least if you give any credence to polls:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-hillar ... democrats/
Democrats are more than halfway through their nominating process, but voters nationwide are still split over which candidate they want to see in the White House, according to a new Bloomberg Politics poll.

The survey, released Thursday, shows that Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders is the first choice among 49 percent of Democrats who have voted or intend to vote in their primary contests. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, meanwhile, notches 48 percent of support. Three percent of voters say they are unsure.

Clinton has garnered a lead of more than 700 delegates in the primary race so far (including superdelegates) and more than two dozen states have already held their nominating contests. Still, Sanders continues to cultivate enthusiasm from first-time voters, people under the age of 35, men, and independents. Clinton, in contrast, continues to lead Sanders with large advantages among voters over 35, identified Democrats, and women.


Play VIDEO
Clinton targets Trump and Cruz in foreign policy speech
The Bloomberg poll shows the former secretary of state continuing to struggle on issues of trustworthiness, with just a quarter of voters saying Clinton is an honest candidate. Sixty-four percent of voters see Sanders as embodying those characteristics. Nearly 60 percent of voters also say the Vermont senator cares more about people like them.

On the heels of the recent terror attacks in Brussels, however, Clinton could benefit with her foreign policy experience. By more than a 3-to-1 ratio, Clinton was believed to be the candidate who could best combat terrorism.

In the general election, Sanders seemed to perform better than his Democratic rival against potential Republicans. Against Donald Trump, Clinton would lead by 18 points, but Sanders would lead by 24 points. If Cruz were the GOP nominee, Clinton would hold a 9-point edge, but Sanders would lead by 12 points. Clinton would lose to Kasich by 4 percentage points, compared to a Sanders win by the same margin.

The Bloomberg poll, conducted between Mar. 19-22, surveyed 1,000 adults with a margin or error of 3.1 percentage points. It included a subgroup of 311 Democrats who have voted or are likely to vote in the Democratic nominating contests, with a margin of error of 5.6 percentage points. A subset of 815 likely voters in the general election had a margin or error of 3.4 percentage points.

Win or lose, he clearly has a great deal of influence now.

Also, I'm loving those numbers for the general election, though in practice I think it'll likely be closer.

Edit: Fixed link.

Simon_Jester
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 30117
Joined: 2009-05-23 07:29pm

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part II)

Post by Simon_Jester » 2016-03-24 12:39pm

The Romulan Republic wrote:Are many of his supporters actually going to care?

Its not as if the facts about Drupmf's dishonesty and business incompetence aren't known. But his supporters have bought into the illusion, of the tough, straight-talking strongman. Or they know he's a fucking asshole and buffoon and don't care because they themselves are assholes and buffoons.

They can just write off any unpleasant facts as lies made up by the opposition.
Thing is, the people supporting him now are a distinct minority of the country even if they're a plurality (maybe majority) of the Republican Party.

The question is how well he'll play with the people who aren't already supporting him in the Republican primary.

If you're thinking in terms of Trump's invincible popularity among his current supporters, you're thinking along the wrong lines. Look at the poll results among the general public for how Trump does in a face-off against the candidates he'd actually be running against (Clinton or Sanders).

He's a fraud. He's a bigot. He's a womanizing, misogynistic pig. All these are things of public record. That doesn't matter to the people who are supporting him now, but it may well turn out to matter a lot with a lot of people who aren't voting in Republican primaries.

Now I'll grant his amazing level of oily fast-talking, and that is a very serious problem for whoever runs against him... but he has major liabilities that are masked by the nature of the competition he's in, and the nature of the primary voter-base he's appealing to.
This space dedicated to Vasily Arkhipov

User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 21319
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part II)

Post by The Romulan Republic » 2016-03-24 01:06pm

Well, I figure that whatever the current divisions, if he gets the nomination most Republicans will probably vote for him and most Democrats won't.

The question is weather independents will fall for his scam.

Edit: And which side can mobilize the bigger turnout.

User avatar
Flagg
CUNTS FOR EYES!
Posts: 12797
Joined: 2005-06-09 09:56pm
Location: Hell. In The Room Right Next to Reagan. He's Fucking Bonzo. No, wait... Bonzo's fucking HIM.

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part II)

Post by Flagg » 2016-03-24 01:14pm

Ziggy Stardust wrote:
Terralthra wrote:Helen Purcell, Maricopa County Recorder, is taking blame for the short lines, but refusing to resign. She is an elected Republican.

And that took like 10 seconds on Google, you lazy fuck. Like Republicans haven't been curtailing public funds and restricting voting for years.
It's not my job to dig up other people's evidence, you smug ass. I asked TRR to provide the evidence for the random claim he spouted, which wasn't justified in the previous article he had posted. One of the damn rules of this site is to provide evidence of your claims, and not make other people do your homework for you. So take your smug attitude and shove it up your ass, or take it up with TRR for being a lazy fuck. Just because it offended your delicate sensibilities that I didn't automatically assume that a Republican was at fault is no reason to start dismissing site rules.
Last I checked you don't have to provide evidence for the fucking obvious. Like if I say "water is wet" and you demand a source I can laugh at you.
Flagg wrote: Now, now. Don't poke the vendettapath or he'll take random swipes at you for no reason, too. I mean Arizona being the state that elected Jan "stares blankly at camera for 30 seconds during a debate" Brewer for Governor, John "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran" McCain as a Senator, and Maricopa county being the domain of Sheriff Joe "Desert Gulag" Arpaio isn't enough fucking evidence that Republicans control where voting takes place. You need a 700 page dissertation and a bibliography.
How the fuck am I a "vendettapath"? My original post wasn't even fucking directed at you in the first place, it was directed at TRR for making the claim that the article he posted didn't support. I only responded to you when you waded in the middle of that, and somehow that makes me a "vendettapath"? What the fuck is wrong with you?
You keep just taking swipes at me from nowhere describing my comments incorrectly. Like claiming how I'm somehow "Hyperventilating" when I point out the bedrock of dishonesty the Bernie Sanders democratic primary campaign is built on.
We pissing our pants yet?
-Negan

You got your shittin' pants on? Because you’re about to
Shit. Your. Pants!
-Negan

He who can,
does; he who cannot, teaches.
-George Bernard Shaw

User avatar
jwl
Jedi Master
Posts: 1137
Joined: 2013-01-02 04:31pm

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part II)

Post by jwl » 2016-03-24 01:28pm

Simon_Jester wrote:I can see why a number of Republicans would split from the party if Trump won the nomination, because he's trying to take the party in a direction significantly different from the one it's been on.

But what about Cruz?
Apparently a lot of Republican higher-ups really, really hate him personally. There's apparently also the feeling that if Trump becomes president the establishment can get the party back afterwards; but if Cruz wins him and his wing are taking over the party permanently.
The Romulan Republic wrote:
I get the impression that some republican higher-ups are thinking of supporting a third party if Trump or Cruz become the nominee. I can even remember hearing that one of them said they were rooting for Clinton to win the presidency. If they follow through on this it could be bad for Trump.

There's also people in this thread who seem convinced that some of Trump's rhetoric and the violence that may result on this is steps over the line to illegal. If the police are also convinced by this, you might see Trump getting arrested, which would be somewhat unhealthy for his presidential bid.
I very much doubt Drumpf will be arrested unless someone in a position to bring it about somehow gets overwhelming evidence that he's committed a major felony. I'm sure he has the money and lawyers to protect himself, and who will have the balls to risk the tremendous (and violent) backlash to his arrest that would likely occur, and being accused of politically motivated prosecution?

Not to mention that he has a fair amount of support from within law enforcement.

As to Republicans going against him... I don't know. Historically, the Republican party of late has tended to vote in lockstep, but maybe this year will be different. The spectre of a brokered convention to defeat Drumpf is probably the biggest threat to a Republican victory right now.
Couldn't you say the same about Hillary if for whatever reason she ends up in trouble with the law? I mean, she's not as rich as Trump, but google searches of her's and Bill Clinton's wealth come in the tens of millions.

User avatar
Elheru Aran
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 12879
Joined: 2004-03-04 01:15am
Location: Georgia

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part II)

Post by Elheru Aran » 2016-03-24 01:33pm

jwl wrote: Couldn't you say the same about Hillary if for whatever reason she ends up in trouble with the law? I mean, she's not as rich as Trump, but google searches of her's and Bill Clinton's wealth come in the tens of millions.
Minor note. IIRC, the actual amount of money that Trump has on hand is very much open to debate since it's dispersed very widely across quite a bit of various resources, properties, and other investments. The Clintons' money is a little more 'real' in that it's mostly (IIRC) in the Clinton Foundation, not so spread out that it's hard to keep track of.

Clinton has more to risk from being indicted than Trump does, as for Trump, well, he can treat it as more or less "business as usual, the government is conspiring to stop me because they're scared of me, etc" while Clinton stands to lose her entire campaign-- she can't really spin being investigated for security breaches as "the government is out to get me" as she was part of that very government, and theoretically, still supports it.
It's a strange world. Let's keep it that way.

User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 21319
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part II)

Post by The Romulan Republic » 2016-03-24 01:34pm

True, but nonetheless, I'm skeptical Clinton will be indicted too.

User avatar
Flagg
CUNTS FOR EYES!
Posts: 12797
Joined: 2005-06-09 09:56pm
Location: Hell. In The Room Right Next to Reagan. He's Fucking Bonzo. No, wait... Bonzo's fucking HIM.

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part II)

Post by Flagg » 2016-03-24 01:46pm

The Romulan Republic wrote:True, but nonetheless, I'm skeptical Clinton will be indicted too.
I'm beyond skeptical. To the point of "I'll believe it when I see it". There were supposed to be aaaallllll of these indictments ready to send Scott Walker up the river that never materialized and there were actual people who went to prison in that case. Here it's "Any day now!!!" "FBI investigation!!!" And any day now has been for months, and FBI investigations can clear or just not materialize enough evidence to charge a person.
We pissing our pants yet?
-Negan

You got your shittin' pants on? Because you’re about to
Shit. Your. Pants!
-Negan

He who can,
does; he who cannot, teaches.
-George Bernard Shaw

User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 21319
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part II)

Post by The Romulan Republic » 2016-03-24 02:49pm

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-m ... story.html
Some people are baring their tops, if not their souls, for the Bern.

Outside Sen. Bernie Sanders' rally Wednesday evening in Los Angeles, two women were arrested on suspicion of indecent exposure, police said.

The two women, both ages 20 to 25, had "disrobed" outside the Wiltern Theatre, revealing a slogan scrawled on their bodies: "Feel the Bern," said LAPD Officer Mike Lopez.

The three-word statement has become shorthand for the fervent adulation toward the 74-year-old Democratic senator from Vermont.

Police were concerned that the women's breasts were on view outside the packed theater, located in Koreatown at Western Avenue and Wilshire Boulevard.

Bernie Sanders rocks the Los Angeles faithful in a rally at the Wiltern
Bernie Sanders rocks the Los Angeles faithful in a rally at the Wiltern
"We asked them to put their clothes on and they refused," Lopez said.

Both women were expected to be booked on a misdemeanor charge of indecent exposure. Their names were not given. If the women provide the proper identification, they will probably be cited and released, Lopez said.

It's not the first time a partly unclothed Sanders supporter caused a stir.

At an Arizona rally last weekend, a Los Angeles woman interrupted Sanders' speech with "Stop Fascism" etched on her back, the Washington Post reported. She had "Free the Nipple" stickers on her body, referring to the movement advocating for the right of women to be topless in public.

See the most-read stories this hour >>
It's unclear if the women arrested by the LAPD were connected with the Free the Nipple movement. As the women were arrested, shouts could be heard including, "My body, my choice" and "Free the nipple," according to video of the incident obtained by KABC-TV Channel 7.

Earlier in the day, Sanders told the Los Angeles Times during a meeting with the editorial board that he would be making several visits to the Golden State.

"You're going to see me here more than you feel comfortable with," Sanders said about his strategy for winning the state's June 7 primary. "We think we have a path to victory and that path absolutely has to come through California."

At his rally inside the Wiltern Theatre, Sanders said that his campaign sought to encourage Americans to "think outside the box."
This seems to be becoming the latest thing.

So...

Go to a Drumpf rally, you might get randomly assaulted.

Go to a Sanders rally, their might be some nudity. :lol:

User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 21319
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part II)

Post by The Romulan Republic » 2016-03-24 09:17pm

http://www.cbc.ca/news/aboriginal/berni ... -1.3504078
Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders received a Coast Salish name during a campaign visit in Seattle on March 20.

In the video posted to YouTube, former Tulalip councillor Deborah Parker presents Sanders with the Lushootseed name dxʷshudičup (pronounced dooh-s-who-dee-choop).

"We say it four times that carry [it] in the four directions. We name you this name … in the Lushootseed language the translation is, the one lighting the fires for change and unity," said Parker in the video.


"That is a wonderful honour you bestow on me, I accept it with deep appreciation," Sanders said in response to the name.

Sanders has focused considerable attention on indigenous issues during his campaign, visiting communities including the Meskwaki territories in Iowa and the Navajo territories in Arizona. He has also appointed Tara Houska, from Couchiching First Nation in Ontario, as his Native American adviser.

Couchiching First Nation's Tara Houska advises Bernie Sanders on First Nation issues
On the official YouTube channel for Sanders's campaign, he addresses indigenous voters in a video called "We are Listening to Native Americans."

"This campaign is listening to a people who never get listened to, and that is our Native American brothers and sisters," said Sanders.

"For hundreds of years treaties have been broken, they have been lied to, together we are going to change that and treat Native Americans with the respect and dignity that they deserve."

Coast Salish people are from the Pacific Northwest, and live in British Columbia and south of the border in the states of Washington and Oregon.
Nice.

Wonder what they'd call Drumpf?

User avatar
FaxModem1
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 7662
Joined: 2002-10-30 06:40pm
Location: In a dark reflection of a better world

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part II)

Post by FaxModem1 » 2016-03-24 11:38pm

Huffington Post
Bernie Sanders Is Currently Winning the Democratic Primary Race, and I’ll Prove It to You
03/23/2016 09:33 am ET | Updated 1 day ago
13 K

Seth Abramson
Assistant Professor of English at University of New Hampshire; Series Co-Editor, Best American Experimental Writing

GEORGE FREY VIA GETTY IMAGES
Nobody cares how well a politician does at the ballot box when he or she is running for an office unopposed. What matters is how a politician performs in contested primaries and general elections, as when it really matters — like it will, for instance, this November — you can be certain of a contested election.

With that said, let’s make an important observation: Bernie Sanders has tied or beaten Hillary Clinton in a majority of the actively contested votes this election season.

You doubt it? Okay, let me explain.

Bernie Sanders has terrible name recognition in states where he hasn’t advertised or campaigned yet; meanwhile, Hillary Clinton has universal name recognition everywhere. Realizing this, the Clinton camp pushed hard to rack up the early vote in every state where early voting was an option. They did this not primarily for the reason we’ve been told — because Clinton performs well among older voters, and older voters are more likely to vote early than other age demographics — but rather because they knew that early votes are almost always cast before the election season actually begins in a given state.

That’s right — in each state, most of the early primary voting occurs before the candidates have aired any commercials or held any campaign events. For Bernie Sanders, this means that early voting happens, pretty much everywhere, before anyone knows who he is. Certainly, early voting occurs in each state before voters have developed a sufficient level of familiarity and comfort with Sanders to vote for him.

But on Election Day — among voters who’ve been present and attentive for each candidate’s commercials, local news coverage, and live events — Sanders tends to tie or beat Clinton.

In fact, that’s the real reason Sanders does well in caucuses.

It’s not because caucuses “require a real time investment,” as the media likes to euphemistically say, but because caucuses require that you vote on Election Day rather than well before it.

Consider: in North Carolina, Hillary Clinton only won Election Day voting 52% to 48%. Given the shenanigans in evidence during the live voting there — thousands of college students were turned away from the polls due to insufficient identification under a new voter-suppression statute in the state — it wouldn’t be unfair to call that 4-point race more like a 2-point one (51% to 49% for Clinton).

Consider: on Super Tuesday 3, because early voting is always reported first, Clinton’s margins of victory were originally believed to be 25 points in Missouri, 30 points in Illinois, and 30 points in Ohio. Missouri, which doesn’t have conventional early voting, ended up a tie. Illinois ended up with a 1.8% margin for Clinton (after being a 42-point race in Clinton’s favor just a week earlier) and Ohio a 13.8% margin.

Any one of us could do the math there. And yet the media never did.

Consider: in Arizona yesterday, the election was called almost immediately by the media, with Clinton appearing to “win” the state by a margin of 61.5% to 36.1%. Of course, this was all early voting. CNN even wrongly reported that these early votes constituted the live vote in 41% of all Arizona precincts — rather than merely mail-in votes constituting a percentage of the total projected vote in the state — which allowed most Americans to go to bed believing both that Clinton had won Arizona by more than 25 points and that that margin was the result of nearly half of Arizona’s precincts reporting their live-voting results. Neither was true.

In fact, as of the time of that 61.5% to 36.1% “win,” not a single precinct in Arizona had reported its Election Day results.

Indeed, more than two and a half hours after polls closed in Arizona, officials there had counted only 54,000 of the estimated 431,000 Election Day ballots.

That’s about 12%.

So how did Bernie Sanders do on Election Day in Arizona?

As of the writing of this essay (2:45 AM ET), Sanders was leading Clinton in Election Day voting in Arizona 50.2% to 49.8%, with just under 75,000 votes (about 17.3% of all Election Day votes) counted.

So imagine, for a moment, that early votes were reported to the media last rather than first. Which, of course, they quite easily could be, given that they’re less — rather than more — reflective of the actual state of opinion on Election Day. Were early votes reported last rather than first, Arizona as of 2:45 AM ET would have been considered not only too close to call but a genuine nail-biter. In fact, only 400 or so Election Day votes were separating the two Democratic candidates at that point — though the momentum with each new vote counted was quite clearly in Sanders’ favor.

So the question becomes, why does any of this matter? Does the point being made here — that Bernie Sanders is as or more popular than Hillary in both all the states he won and many of the states he didn’t — gain Sanders a single delegate? Does it move him one inch closer to being President?

No.

What it does do is explain why the Clinton-Sanders race is a 5-point race nationally — just a hair from being a statistical tie, given the margin of error — despite the media treating Clinton’s nomination as a foregone conclusion.

What it does do is explain how Clinton is “beating” Sanders among American voters despite having a -13 favorability rating nationally, as compared to Sanders’ +11 rating. That dramatic difference is possible because in favorability polling, pollsters only count voters who say they know enough about a candidate to form an opinion. That eliminates the sort of “early voters” who cast ballots for Hillary Clinton before having much of a handle on who Bernie Sanders is.

And what it does do is explain why Sanders outperforms Clinton against Donald Trump in nearly every state where head-to-head general-election polling data is available. While some of this is undoubtedly due to the fact that Sanders beats Clinton by between 30 and 40 points among Independents — itself a major warning sign for a Clinton candidacy this fall — the rest is explained by the fact that when voters come to know Bernie Sanders as well as they already know Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, they tend to prefer him to these two by clear margins.

The Hillary camp, and Hillary supporters, are justly excited about how their candidate is performing in the delegate horse-race. The problem is that that excitement is quickly becoming the sort of arrogance that will in fact endanger Hillary’s candidacy for President. Both she and her team — including all her millions of supporters — should consider the fact that Hillary does not, outside the deep-red Deep South, do particularly well among voters when they’re given any other reasonable alternative. The fact that early voting statutes and media reporting of elections in America favors the maintenance of the illusion that Hillary remains popular when voters become familiar with other credible options does not excuse ignorance of the reality; certainly, it won’t help Democrats in November.

And given that a demagogue like Donald Trump is the likely Republican nominee, that’s a scary thought for many Americans. Sanders voters should want — and most do want — a Clinton campaign that understands its weaknesses sufficiently to ameliorate them in a general election, should Clinton be the Democratic nominee. Right now that’s clearly not happening, and the national media is unfortunately enabling the persistence and expansion of these troubling blind-spots.

Finally, we’d be remiss if we didn’t talk about super-delegates. These are folks who are supposed to be supporting whichever candidate has the best chance of winning in November. We already know, per head-to-head general-election polling, that the better candidate to run against Donald Trump is Bernie Sanders; however, many super-delegates (and most of the media) dismiss general election polling this early on, even though Sanders’ commanding lead over Trump is clearly statistically relevant. (This is especially true given that his name recognition lags well behind Trump’s.)

But what about the argument, implicitly being made to super-delegates now, and likely to be made to them explicitly in Philadelphia this summer, that Bernie Sanders has, broadly speaking, out-performed Hillary Clinton in Election Day voting? Given that Election Day voting in the spring is the very same sort of high-information voting that will occur in November, you’d think super-delegates would be quite interested to know that, in live voting, Bernie Sanders beats Hillary Clinton more often than not.

Seth Abramson is the Series Editor for Best American Experimental Writing (Wesleyan University) and the author, most recently, of DATA (BlazeVOX, 2016).
I'd like this to be true, but I doubt it.
Image

User avatar
Flagg
CUNTS FOR EYES!
Posts: 12797
Joined: 2005-06-09 09:56pm
Location: Hell. In The Room Right Next to Reagan. He's Fucking Bonzo. No, wait... Bonzo's fucking HIM.

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part II)

Post by Flagg » 2016-03-24 11:51pm

The Romulan Republic wrote:http://www.cbc.ca/news/aboriginal/berni ... -1.3504078
Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders received a Coast Salish name during a campaign visit in Seattle on March 20.

In the video posted to YouTube, former Tulalip councillor Deborah Parker presents Sanders with the Lushootseed name dxʷshudičup (pronounced dooh-s-who-dee-choop).

"We say it four times that carry [it] in the four directions. We name you this name … in the Lushootseed language the translation is, the one lighting the fires for change and unity," said Parker in the video.


"That is a wonderful honour you bestow on me, I accept it with deep appreciation," Sanders said in response to the name.

Sanders has focused considerable attention on indigenous issues during his campaign, visiting communities including the Meskwaki territories in Iowa and the Navajo territories in Arizona. He has also appointed Tara Houska, from Couchiching First Nation in Ontario, as his Native American adviser.

Couchiching First Nation's Tara Houska advises Bernie Sanders on First Nation issues
On the official YouTube channel for Sanders's campaign, he addresses indigenous voters in a video called "We are Listening to Native Americans."

"This campaign is listening to a people who never get listened to, and that is our Native American brothers and sisters," said Sanders.

"For hundreds of years treaties have been broken, they have been lied to, together we are going to change that and treat Native Americans with the respect and dignity that they deserve."

Coast Salish people are from the Pacific Northwest, and live in British Columbia and south of the border in the states of Washington and Oregon.
Nice.

Wonder what they'd call Drumpf?
Not a big fan of the Tulalip tribe's management (not that I have or should have any say in what they do. But their giant Casino makes the Wal-Mart parking lot on tribal land less than safe and tribal police don't do shit about it. Especially the aggressive pan-handling and harassment. One time I was ahead of my mom a good 30 feet and 2 tweakers came up to her and were asking for money/food and were even trying to take shit out of the grocery bags until I walked up with my trench knife out and they split.), but that is neat.
We pissing our pants yet?
-Negan

You got your shittin' pants on? Because you’re about to
Shit. Your. Pants!
-Negan

He who can,
does; he who cannot, teaches.
-George Bernard Shaw

User avatar
Flagg
CUNTS FOR EYES!
Posts: 12797
Joined: 2005-06-09 09:56pm
Location: Hell. In The Room Right Next to Reagan. He's Fucking Bonzo. No, wait... Bonzo's fucking HIM.

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part II)

Post by Flagg » 2016-03-24 11:52pm

FaxModem1 wrote:Huffington Post
Bernie Sanders Is Currently Winning the Democratic Primary Race, and I’ll Prove It to You
03/23/2016 09:33 am ET | Updated 1 day ago
13 K

Seth Abramson
Assistant Professor of English at University of New Hampshire; Series Co-Editor, Best American Experimental Writing

GEORGE FREY VIA GETTY IMAGES
Nobody cares how well a politician does at the ballot box when he or she is running for an office unopposed. What matters is how a politician performs in contested primaries and general elections, as when it really matters — like it will, for instance, this November — you can be certain of a contested election.

With that said, let’s make an important observation: Bernie Sanders has tied or beaten Hillary Clinton in a majority of the actively contested votes this election season.

You doubt it? Okay, let me explain.

Bernie Sanders has terrible name recognition in states where he hasn’t advertised or campaigned yet; meanwhile, Hillary Clinton has universal name recognition everywhere. Realizing this, the Clinton camp pushed hard to rack up the early vote in every state where early voting was an option. They did this not primarily for the reason we’ve been told — because Clinton performs well among older voters, and older voters are more likely to vote early than other age demographics — but rather because they knew that early votes are almost always cast before the election season actually begins in a given state.

That’s right — in each state, most of the early primary voting occurs before the candidates have aired any commercials or held any campaign events. For Bernie Sanders, this means that early voting happens, pretty much everywhere, before anyone knows who he is. Certainly, early voting occurs in each state before voters have developed a sufficient level of familiarity and comfort with Sanders to vote for him.

But on Election Day — among voters who’ve been present and attentive for each candidate’s commercials, local news coverage, and live events — Sanders tends to tie or beat Clinton.

In fact, that’s the real reason Sanders does well in caucuses.

It’s not because caucuses “require a real time investment,” as the media likes to euphemistically say, but because caucuses require that you vote on Election Day rather than well before it.

Consider: in North Carolina, Hillary Clinton only won Election Day voting 52% to 48%. Given the shenanigans in evidence during the live voting there — thousands of college students were turned away from the polls due to insufficient identification under a new voter-suppression statute in the state — it wouldn’t be unfair to call that 4-point race more like a 2-point one (51% to 49% for Clinton).

Consider: on Super Tuesday 3, because early voting is always reported first, Clinton’s margins of victory were originally believed to be 25 points in Missouri, 30 points in Illinois, and 30 points in Ohio. Missouri, which doesn’t have conventional early voting, ended up a tie. Illinois ended up with a 1.8% margin for Clinton (after being a 42-point race in Clinton’s favor just a week earlier) and Ohio a 13.8% margin.

Any one of us could do the math there. And yet the media never did.

Consider: in Arizona yesterday, the election was called almost immediately by the media, with Clinton appearing to “win” the state by a margin of 61.5% to 36.1%. Of course, this was all early voting. CNN even wrongly reported that these early votes constituted the live vote in 41% of all Arizona precincts — rather than merely mail-in votes constituting a percentage of the total projected vote in the state — which allowed most Americans to go to bed believing both that Clinton had won Arizona by more than 25 points and that that margin was the result of nearly half of Arizona’s precincts reporting their live-voting results. Neither was true.

In fact, as of the time of that 61.5% to 36.1% “win,” not a single precinct in Arizona had reported its Election Day results.

Indeed, more than two and a half hours after polls closed in Arizona, officials there had counted only 54,000 of the estimated 431,000 Election Day ballots.

That’s about 12%.

So how did Bernie Sanders do on Election Day in Arizona?

As of the writing of this essay (2:45 AM ET), Sanders was leading Clinton in Election Day voting in Arizona 50.2% to 49.8%, with just under 75,000 votes (about 17.3% of all Election Day votes) counted.

So imagine, for a moment, that early votes were reported to the media last rather than first. Which, of course, they quite easily could be, given that they’re less — rather than more — reflective of the actual state of opinion on Election Day. Were early votes reported last rather than first, Arizona as of 2:45 AM ET would have been considered not only too close to call but a genuine nail-biter. In fact, only 400 or so Election Day votes were separating the two Democratic candidates at that point — though the momentum with each new vote counted was quite clearly in Sanders’ favor.

So the question becomes, why does any of this matter? Does the point being made here — that Bernie Sanders is as or more popular than Hillary in both all the states he won and many of the states he didn’t — gain Sanders a single delegate? Does it move him one inch closer to being President?

No.

What it does do is explain why the Clinton-Sanders race is a 5-point race nationally — just a hair from being a statistical tie, given the margin of error — despite the media treating Clinton’s nomination as a foregone conclusion.

What it does do is explain how Clinton is “beating” Sanders among American voters despite having a -13 favorability rating nationally, as compared to Sanders’ +11 rating. That dramatic difference is possible because in favorability polling, pollsters only count voters who say they know enough about a candidate to form an opinion. That eliminates the sort of “early voters” who cast ballots for Hillary Clinton before having much of a handle on who Bernie Sanders is.

And what it does do is explain why Sanders outperforms Clinton against Donald Trump in nearly every state where head-to-head general-election polling data is available. While some of this is undoubtedly due to the fact that Sanders beats Clinton by between 30 and 40 points among Independents — itself a major warning sign for a Clinton candidacy this fall — the rest is explained by the fact that when voters come to know Bernie Sanders as well as they already know Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, they tend to prefer him to these two by clear margins.

The Hillary camp, and Hillary supporters, are justly excited about how their candidate is performing in the delegate horse-race. The problem is that that excitement is quickly becoming the sort of arrogance that will in fact endanger Hillary’s candidacy for President. Both she and her team — including all her millions of supporters — should consider the fact that Hillary does not, outside the deep-red Deep South, do particularly well among voters when they’re given any other reasonable alternative. The fact that early voting statutes and media reporting of elections in America favors the maintenance of the illusion that Hillary remains popular when voters become familiar with other credible options does not excuse ignorance of the reality; certainly, it won’t help Democrats in November.

And given that a demagogue like Donald Trump is the likely Republican nominee, that’s a scary thought for many Americans. Sanders voters should want — and most do want — a Clinton campaign that understands its weaknesses sufficiently to ameliorate them in a general election, should Clinton be the Democratic nominee. Right now that’s clearly not happening, and the national media is unfortunately enabling the persistence and expansion of these troubling blind-spots.

Finally, we’d be remiss if we didn’t talk about super-delegates. These are folks who are supposed to be supporting whichever candidate has the best chance of winning in November. We already know, per head-to-head general-election polling, that the better candidate to run against Donald Trump is Bernie Sanders; however, many super-delegates (and most of the media) dismiss general election polling this early on, even though Sanders’ commanding lead over Trump is clearly statistically relevant. (This is especially true given that his name recognition lags well behind Trump’s.)

But what about the argument, implicitly being made to super-delegates now, and likely to be made to them explicitly in Philadelphia this summer, that Bernie Sanders has, broadly speaking, out-performed Hillary Clinton in Election Day voting? Given that Election Day voting in the spring is the very same sort of high-information voting that will occur in November, you’d think super-delegates would be quite interested to know that, in live voting, Bernie Sanders beats Hillary Clinton more often than not.

Seth Abramson is the Series Editor for Best American Experimental Writing (Wesleyan University) and the author, most recently, of DATA (BlazeVOX, 2016).
I'd like this to be true, but I doubt it.
'Desperation' isn't just a bad novel by Stephen King, apparently. :lol:
We pissing our pants yet?
-Negan

You got your shittin' pants on? Because you’re about to
Shit. Your. Pants!
-Negan

He who can,
does; he who cannot, teaches.
-George Bernard Shaw

User avatar
FaxModem1
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 7662
Joined: 2002-10-30 06:40pm
Location: In a dark reflection of a better world

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part II)

Post by FaxModem1 » 2016-03-25 12:09am

Lindsay Graham says choosing between Trump and Cruz is like choosing between a bullet and poiso: USA Today
Picking Cruz or Trump like 'being shot or poisoned,' Lindsey Graham says
Josh Hafner, USA TODAY 5:01 p.m. EST January 21, 2016
46 Shares facebook sharetwitter shareemail shareemail share
Then-candidate Lindsey Graham talks during a CNBC Republican
Then-candidate Lindsey Graham talks during a CNBC Republican presidential debate in October. (Photo: Robyn Beck, AFP/Getty Images)
South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham lambasted his Republican Party's presidential front-runners Thursday, telling reporters at the Capitol that nominating Donald Trump or Ted Cruz could prove fatal for his party.

"It's like being shot or poisoned. What does it really matter?" Graham said.

Graham, who ended his bid for the GOP nomination in December, has since endorsed Jeb Bush.

On Thursday, he laid out his criticisms of the candidates left in what he called "an election cycle that is beyond strange.”

Surveying the Democratic field, Graham called Bernie Sanders “by far the most liberal person" to seriously run for president and Hillary Clinton "dishonest".

He predicted Trump's unpreparedness and Cruz' divisiveness, combined with both candidates' rigid stances on issues such as immigration, would ensure either man a defeat by Clinton in a general election.

"Here's my take: Dishonest, which is Hillary Clinton in the eyes of the American people, beats crazy. I think Donald Trump’s domestic and foreign policy is gibberish.

I think Ted Cruz has a reputation of being ideological to a fault, and that when it comes to problem solving, he will have a very difficult time proving that he is a problem solver."

Anyone but Cruz or Trump would prove better, Graham stressed.

"So let’s just pick somebody out of the phone book if we have to," he said. "We can win this election unless we lose it."
Pick the Republican candidate out of the phone book? Well, it does sound like a better option than what they got right now.
Image

User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 21319
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part II)

Post by The Romulan Republic » 2016-03-25 12:21am

Eh... any random Republican would likely share a lot of the views of Drumpf and Cruz, just with less political experience. The whole party's rotten.

User avatar
Flagg
CUNTS FOR EYES!
Posts: 12797
Joined: 2005-06-09 09:56pm
Location: Hell. In The Room Right Next to Reagan. He's Fucking Bonzo. No, wait... Bonzo's fucking HIM.

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part II)

Post by Flagg » 2016-03-25 02:33am

You know reading more of that article about the indigenous peoples, there's an issue (other than reigning in Wall-street) that I can actually agree with him on vehemently that no politicians fucking talk about. Now, I find it odd that his advisor is from Ontario, but Vermont borders Quebec in an area not far from the capital in Ontario so that makes sense since the tribes' borders don't fall along the same national/provincial borders before we genocided them and stole their land.

So that said, while my overall distaste towards the Sanders campaign remains, I respect him a lot on this issue and he's 100% right that the issues effecting natives are not just largely, but pretty much totally ignored on a national level. And it's really sad. Growing up in central FL there were no reservations close by, though we had a large native population and we frequently went to large and small pow wow events.

But after moving up here to Washington north of Seattle, I can see the Tulalip reservation from the corner of my street 3 houses south (and on a clear day, Russia). But it's jarring when you go onto the reservation because the roads suddenly get much better. Unfortunately about every 100 feet on average (and sometimes on sharp curves and intersections as few as 10 feet) there's a sign that says "Please Don't Drink and Drive" and below, smaller long rectangular signs that list the names of the people killed in DUI accidents. Many signs are themselves dented or have the poles bent from new DUI crashes. So there is obviously a serious fucking problem on the reservations that allowing the operation of massive Casino Resorts, sale of tax-free cigarettes &a alcohol, and illegal (off the res) fireworks isn't going to solve.
And the animosity of many white people here towards the natives is atrocious. I can understand (but sure as fuck not agree with or condone) some of it, as unfortunately when you come from a culture/civilization that was systematically undermined and destroyed you may not see many options so criminal activity often appears to be the only way to get ahead (but it still doesn't give the people who later settled on the stolen land a right to discriminate and make bigoted statements) so it does creat a rift.

So it's good to know there is a nationally known democratic ( :roll: ) primary candidate talking and focusing on these people and the problems facing their community. So that's 1 for Sanders. I don't have high hopes, but maybe Clinton will pick up and run with this issue and give it exposure.

For my part, I'd love to see the varied Sioux tribes get the Black Hills back one day and reface(?) Mt. Rushmore considering how IIRC every POTUS carved onto the side of that once lovely cliff face played a part in the genocide.
We pissing our pants yet?
-Negan

You got your shittin' pants on? Because you’re about to
Shit. Your. Pants!
-Negan

He who can,
does; he who cannot, teaches.
-George Bernard Shaw

User avatar
Dominus Atheos
Sith Marauder
Posts: 3777
Joined: 2005-09-15 09:41pm
Location: Portland, Oregon

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part II)

Post by Dominus Atheos » 2016-03-25 02:55am

Flagg, would you prefer it if Sanders ran 3rd party this election? The First Past The Post method the US uses makes independent candidates very dangerous to the party they have the most in common with. You're crazy if you are complaining about an independent running for the nomination of that party.

User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 21319
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part II)

Post by The Romulan Republic » 2016-03-25 03:08am

The way I see it, Sanders, as far as I know, never pretended to be anything other than what he was- an independent who switched to the Democrats out of political necessity.

And the DNC allowed him to do it, and they're hardly Sanders partisans, by and large.

So I don't see what their is to complain about.

User avatar
Flagg
CUNTS FOR EYES!
Posts: 12797
Joined: 2005-06-09 09:56pm
Location: Hell. In The Room Right Next to Reagan. He's Fucking Bonzo. No, wait... Bonzo's fucking HIM.

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part II)

Post by Flagg » 2016-03-25 04:54am

Dominus Atheos wrote:Flagg, would you prefer it if Sanders ran 3rd party this election? The First Past The Post method the US uses makes independent candidates very dangerous to the party they have the most in common with. You're crazy if you are complaining about an independent running for the nomination of that party.
I'd rather he join the party for longer than it takes to jump in and run. So this turn, I rather he not run at all. He has no comprehensive ideas beyond WALLSTREET that he campaign on and single payer and a few more things never getting through a Senate without a supermajority let alone a non-dem controlled house, neither of which is likely (though there IS talk of the house flipping, nothing I've heard suggests at least 60 Senate votes) so even if he wins POTUS, there are enough blue dogs that would gut both single payer and Wall Street reform leaving us in the same situation we're in now without the Republicans having to lift a finger.

Now I didn't want a fucking Clinton coronation, if someone to the left of her within the party became viable I'd be the first one there. But we don't need gate crashers like Sanders that might actually get the nomination or rough up the one who does to the point where there's an actual party split. I don't like the Democrats myself, but if they can keep a heel on the GOP, making it a regional party and thus it wither on the vine, a real, powerful liberal movement can begin and push the Democrats left, or become a viable party in its own right.
We pissing our pants yet?
-Negan

You got your shittin' pants on? Because you’re about to
Shit. Your. Pants!
-Negan

He who can,
does; he who cannot, teaches.
-George Bernard Shaw

Locked