2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

Suryavarman · 06-07-2016 7:53pm

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Nothing will change without starting by eliminating private political donations. That and term limits for all branches of government.

I don't see elimination of the first amendment being particularly likely, or even desirable for that matter.

AbusesToilets · 06-07-2016 8:24pm

Suryavarman wrote: »

I don't see elimination of the first amendment being particularly likely, or even desirable for that matter.

Current set up is definitely working well. Any further efforts to justify Clinton's actions re: the handling of classified material?

Suryavarman · 06-07-2016 9:56pm

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Current set up is definitely working well. Any further efforts to justify Clinton's actions re: the handling of classified material?

Yes the current setup with regards to political funding is working well. Respecting people's first amendment rights is a good approach to take.

Are you still blathering on about that non-issue?

AbusesToilets · 06-07-2016 10:36pm

Suryavarman wrote: »

Yes the current setup with regards to political funding is working well. Respecting people's first amendment rights is a good approach to take.

"People". Those upstanding, anonymous corporations. Patriots, one and all.

Are you still blathering on about that non-issue?

So you haven't come up with any new excuses for her actions. Shame. I was quite enjoying the creative depths you were plumbing.

Black Swan · 07-07-2016 12:27am

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Current set up is definitely working well. Any further efforts to justify Clinton's actions re: the handling of classified material?

Paul Ryan is soooooooo predictable! The (Republican) Speaker of the House has called for an investigation (Hearings) of the FBI investigation. And if this Hearing/investigation does not produce results that he wants (a drop in Hillary Clinton's poll percentages), he may call for further investigations of the investigations of the FBI investigation. How many investigations did Benghazi have for a reported waste of $7.1 million of taxpayer monies? If the Benghazi multiple investigations were Witch Hunt I, then this is Witch Hunt II, the sequel. I am betting that all the fervor and self-righteous indignation over Hillary's emails will "mysteriously" disappear after 8 November 2016, just like all the fervor and self-righteous indignation over the Ground Zero Mosque "mysteriously" disappeared after another November general election.

AbusesToilets · 07-07-2016 12:44am

Black Swan wrote: »

Paul Ryan is soooooooo predictable! The (Republican) Speaker of the House has called for an investigation (Hearings) of the FBI investigation. And if this Hearing/investigation does not produce results that he wants (a drop in Hillary Clinton's poll percentages), he may call for further investigations of the investigations of the FBI investigation. How many investigations did Benghazi have for a reported waste of $7.1 million of taxpayer monies? If the Benghazi multiple investigations were Witch Hunt I, then this is Witch Hunt II, the sequel. I am betting that all the fervor and self-righteous indignation over Hillary's emails will "mysteriously" disappear after 8 November 2016, just like all the fervor and self-righteous indignation over the Ground Zero Mosque "mysteriously" disappeared after another November general election.

Beyond my personal feelings on the matter, there is no way that the Republicans will stop for one second there assault on Clinton. It will make Obama's tenure look like a golden age of Bi-partisan unity.

InTheTrees · 07-07-2016 12:56am

AbusesToilets wrote: »

"People". Those upstanding, anonymous corporations. Patriots, one and all.

If Hillary Clinton is elected she will appoint a replacement for justice scalia on the supreme court and the partisan nonsense decision of "Citizens united" that decided that corporations had the same rights as people will be soon overturned.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC

Billy86 · 07-07-2016 1:03am

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Beyond my personal feelings on the matter, there is no way that the Republicans will stop for one second there assault on Clinton. It will make Obama's tenure look like a golden age of Bi-partisan unity.

Well if the GOP want to throw away the next eight years - again - then who are we to try go stop them?

InTheTrees · 07-07-2016 1:04am

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Beyond my personal feelings on the matter, there is no way that the Republicans will stop for one second there assault on Clinton.

And thats okay. Look where its got them? Twenty five years of going after the Clintons hasnt really done much for any of them and the democratic party is getting stronger.

And the ultimate joke is that after 25 years the object of their fury is going to end up as President. What losers.

InTheTrees · 07-07-2016 1:15am

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Beyond my personal feelings on the matter, there is no way that the Republicans will stop for one second there assault on Clinton. It will make Obama's tenure look like a golden age of Bi-partisan unity.

There's a very good chance the train wreck of a gop presidential bid will ripple into the congressional races and hand Hillary a Democratic Party majority in the Senate at least.

Who knows what further repercussion the GOP move towards being a party of older white men will have?

AbusesToilets · 07-07-2016 1:38am

InTheTrees wrote: »

There's a very good chance the train wreck of a gop presidential bid will ripple into the congressional races and hand Hillary a Democratic Party majority in the Senate at least.

Who knows what further repercussion the GOP move towards being a party of older white men will have?

Of course, the flip side of that is a Clinton Presidency energizes the Republican masses in time for the Congressional elections, delivering both Houses to the Republicans again.

I've said it before, a Sanders Presidency would better serve the Democratic Party's electoral and legislative plans far better than a Clinton one would.

Black Swan · 07-07-2016 1:59am

InTheTrees wrote: »

Who knows what further repercussion the GOP move towards being a party of older white men will have?

Whether the GOP likes it or not, Donald Trump is NOW their de facto leader, and what his MOUTH says sets the tone and image of the Republican party, both domestically and abroad. If he is elected 8 November 2016, then all that his MOUTH said during the campaign is then reaffirmed as the voice of the party. Such a Trump voice has negatively profiled women and minorities in American society, and may be cause for Republicans in closely contested Senate and House elections to lose their seats in November. With the current large Republican seat lead in the House, even if they lose a few, they will still hold the majority, but in the Senate the small current seat lead may be lost to the Democrats.

If Trump is elected and persists in his current divisive voice for the Republicans, it is conceivable that the Republicans will lose additional seats and their House majority by mid-terms 2 years from now, and Paul Ryan will no longer be Speaker, and Celebrity Apprentice President Trump may be placed in the same dysfunctional position as Obama was with a Congress controlled by the opposition party.

Billy86 · 07-07-2016 2:09am

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Of course, the flip side of that is a Clinton Presidency energizes the Republican masses in time for the Congressional elections, delivering both Houses to the Republicans again.

I've said it before, a Sanders Presidency would better serve the Democratic Party's electoral and legislative plans far better than a Clinton one would.

Nah, they'd have just turned the crosshairs on Sanders the day after the results were in. It's not the person they're attacking after all, it's the letter beside their name. Who the person is, is largely irrelevant.

Ozymandius2011 · 07-07-2016 4:40am

Black Swan wrote: »

Paul Ryan is soooooooo predictable! The (Republican) Speaker of the House has called for an investigation (Hearings) of the FBI investigation. And if this Hearing/investigation does not produce results that he wants (a drop in Hillary Clinton's poll percentages), he may call for further investigations of the investigations of the FBI investigation. How many investigations did Benghazi have for a reported waste of $7.1 million of taxpayer monies? If the Benghazi multiple investigations were Witch Hunt I, then this is Witch Hunt II, the sequel. I am betting that all the fervor and self-righteous indignation over Hillary's emails will "mysteriously" disappear after 8 November 2016, just like all the fervor and self-righteous indignation over the Ground Zero Mosque "mysteriously" disappeared after another November general election.

A Special Prosecutor should investigate these things. Obviously after the Kenneth Starr/Lewinsky/Whitewater saga the Dems don't want that. But if they would answer the question straight it wouldnt be necessary.

It was inappropriate for AG Lynch to meet with the husband of someone her DOJ was investigating. That act will forever leave a cloud over this case. The next GOP House (its pretty certain it will be a GOP House because of gerrymandering) will not let this go I believe.

AbusesToilets · 07-07-2016 5:06am

Billy86 wrote: »

Nah, they'd have just turned the crosshairs on Sanders the day after the results were in. It's not the person they're attacking after all, it's the letter beside their name. Who the person is, is largely irrelevant.

To an extent certainly, however Sanders has decades of success in getting bills passed with bi-partisan support. And of course he isn't the Anti-Christ to their eyes the way Clinton is.

Black Swan · 07-07-2016 9:05am

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

It was inappropriate for AG Lynch to meet with the husband of someone her DOJ was investigating. That act will forever leave a cloud over this case. The next GOP House (its pretty certain it will be a GOP House because of gerrymandering) will not let this go I believe.

The meeting was just a convenient excuse. Whether the meeting occurred or not, the Republican Speaker of the House Paul Ryan would have called for more investigations after the FBI investigation had been concluded, because this is an election year, and continued investigations favour the position of the Republicans, and disfavour the Democrats. This is typical partisan politics conducted by the ruling party in Congress, and would have happened no matter what.

Suryavarman · 07-07-2016 2:25pm

AbusesToilets wrote: »

"People". Those upstanding, anonymous corporations. Patriots, one and all.

Corporations aren't entirely inanimate objects. They are made up of people. And people shouldn't be deprived of constitutional rights just because they act as a group.

So you haven't come up with any new excuses for her actions. Shame. I was quite enjoying the creative depths you were plumbing.

I don't need to. The non-partisan FBI has decided that she shouldn't be charged for her crimes. Nothing bad has happened as a result of Clinton's actions apart from huge amounts of time being wasted discussing her actions. The whole subject is a dead horse that I have no interest in beating any further.

alaimacerc · 07-07-2016 2:40pm

Suryavarman wrote: »

Corporations aren't entirely inanimate objects. They are made up of people. And people shouldn't be deprived of constitutional rights just because they act as a group.

Corporate personhood is hardly merely "people acting as a group". So let's guarantee actual constitutional rights of actual people, whether they're acting by themselves or with other, and job done, right?

alaimacerc · 07-07-2016 2:46pm

InTheTrees wrote: »

There's a very good chance the train wreck of a gop presidential bid will ripple into the congressional races and hand Hillary a Democratic Party majority in the Senate at least.

I'd not want to jinx anything by counting chickens. Be either a trainwreck of a presidential bid, or a trainwreck of a presidency, one or the other.

From the bizarre stuff I see from Sandersarians on social media, I'd not rule out replication of the Bush/Gore/Nader scenario. They're sounding less and less like a movement to get a more "progressive" president -- or even presidential candidate -- in any foreseeable lifetime, and more like a mutual support group for ending up with a Trump presidency, but making themselves feel good about it because it's all Clinton's fault, so there.

Black Swan · 07-07-2016 3:23pm

alaimacerc wrote: »

From the bizarre stuff I see from Sandersarians on social media, I'd not rule out replication of the Bush/Gore/Nader scenario. They're sounding less and less like a movement to get a more "progressive" president -- or even presidential candidate -- in any foreseeable lifetime, and more like a mutual support group for ending up with a Trump presidency, but making themselves feel good about it because it's all Clinton's fault, so there.

On our campus you would think it a movement. I have several friends that are stanch Bernie Sanders supporters, mostly university students. They are very vocal in support of their candidate, have attended several Sanders rallies, as well as to protest Trump at his rallies, and markedly upset that Sanders failed to achieve the necessary Democratic delegates to win the convention nomination. Most will not vote for Hillary Clinton 8 November, and laugh when someone suggests that they would vote for Donald Trump as an alternative, Trump being one of the spoiled and arrogant ultra-rich one-percent that Sanders and they do not favour. But if Hillary Clinton was to pick Sanders or Elizabeth Warren as a running mate, they all claim they would bite the bullet with a sour face, and vote for that ticket. Of course this is anecdotal, historically students typically don't vote in high numbers, and not predictive of how an American population of voters may behave 8 November 2016.

alaimacerc · 07-07-2016 3:35pm

Black Swan wrote: »

But if Hillary Clinton was to pick Sanders or Elizabeth Warren as a running mate, they all claim they would bite the bullet with a sour face, and vote for that ticket. Of course this is anecdotal, historically students typically don't vote in high numbers, and not predictive of how an American population of voters may behave 8 November 2016.

I'm afraid the peeps I get into that little world is already saying Warren's a "traitor" for even thinking of consorting with Clinton, and that Sanders should throw any involvement back in her face. I really hope they're not predictive or representative of anything, but the social media echo chamber effect is going to tend to intensify people entertaining such notions, however marginal it is.

It saddens me that the "optimistic" scenario is that their votes end up not mattering. And the alarming one is that "vote Stein to punish the DINO establishment!" ends up with a Trump presidency. And perhaps an even more right-wing Democratic party, as they chase a receding "centre", if they can't even get the "left" to vote for them.

Billy86 · 07-07-2016 3:43pm

AbusesToilets wrote: »

To an extent certainly, however Sanders has decades of success in getting bills passed with bi-partisan support. And of course he isn't the Anti-Christ to their eyes the way Clinton is.

Neither was Obama, if I recall... then he became if anything 'worse' than Clinton in the eyes of the GOP. Right up until a little after he won his second term, then their focus switched a little.

Standard fare that does themselves absolutely no good, at least in terms of attaining the presidency.

Billy86 · 07-07-2016 3:54pm

Suryavarman wrote: »

Corporations aren't entirely inanimate objects. They are made up of people. And people shouldn't be deprived of constitutional rights just because they act as a group.

I would have to agree with the ceramic abuser on this one to be honest, the concept of 'corporations are people too, my friend' is very dangerous and is used in quite nefarious ways.

It's an unrealistic pipe dream at this point to be honest and probably nothing short of a civil war or MAJOR scandal (I'm talking 50% or so of all elected officials being arrested and the FBI/CIA acting above the government, if that's even possible) would change it in my opinion because of how deep routed a cancer it is at this stage, but the extent of lobbying, SuperPACs, private and shady donations on the scale seen in the US (and many countries to be honest, but the US has to be the gold standard in it from what I know), etc are horrendous for politics and really need to stop.

Not going to happen though, especially since it occurs so heavily on both sides of the aisle in a two party system without even any 'little big' party like Labour/Lib Dems/even eejits like AAA-PBP to try and make noise about it. It suits everyone, Clinton and Trump fully included.

One of the only groups it tends not to suit, is the general populace. But they don't really matter as far as either the Democrats or Republicans are concerned (as blocs of course, obviously there are good politicians who do care in both).

I don't need to. The non-partisan FBI has decided that she shouldn't be charged for her crimes. Nothing bad has happened as a result of Clinton's actions apart from huge amounts of time being wasted discussing her actions. The whole subject is a dead horse that I have no interest in beating any further.

And this one I agree with you on, the pathetic desperation of the GOP is becoming more and more evident with each passing week it seems. The only people who wouldn't see straight through what they are trying at this point are people who were going to be voting for them absolutely no matter what.

Suryavarman · 07-07-2016 4:20pm

AbusesToilets wrote: »

To an extent certainly, however Sanders has decades of success in getting bills passed with bi-partisan support. And of course he isn't the Anti-Christ to their eyes the way Clinton is.

Getting a pair of post offices renamed isn't decades of success by any stretch of the imagination.

alaimacerc wrote: »

Corporate personhood is hardly merely "people acting as a group". So let's guarantee actual constitutional rights of actual people, whether they're acting by themselves or with other, and job done, right?

Corporations are just people acting as a group. Corporations can't exist without the people that make them.

Billy86 wrote: »

I would have to agree with the ceramic abuser on this one to be honest, the concept of 'corporations are people too, my friend' is very dangerous and is used in quite nefarious ways.

It's an unrealistic pipe dream at this point to be honest and probably nothing short of a civil war or MAJOR scandal (I'm talking 50% or so of all elected officials being arrested and the FBI/CIA acting above the government, if that's even possible) would change it in my opinion because of how deep routed a cancer it is at this stage, but the extent of lobbying, SuperPACs, private and shady donations on the scale seen in the US (and many countries to be honest, but the US has to be the gold standard in it from what I know), etc are horrendous for politics and really need to stop.

They're really not horrendous for politics. Political campaigns need to be funded and Super Pacs et al. help to do that. They also allow people to exercise their first amendment rights which is a good thing.

AbusesToilets · 07-07-2016 5:02pm

Suryavarman wrote: »

Corporations are just people acting as a group. Corporations can't exist without the people that make them.

That's a specious claim, even for you. Corporations don't act upon the will of their constituent workers, nor do they use their money. They act on the decisions made by their boards of directors, usually in accordance with what will net them the greatest profit and satisfy their shareholders (if they have them). The level financial weight that they can bring to bear on a political race is exponentially greater than that of the average person.

They're really not horrendous for politics. Political campaigns need to be funded and Super Pacs et al. help to do that. They also allow people to exercise their first amendment rights which is a good thing.

There are mechanisms for funding campaigns utilising public money as you well know. You seem to be in favor of the post Citizens United landscape, where anonymously funded SuperPacs can pour billions of dollars into campaigns, with the public having no idea who is buying the candidates or what their intentions are.

It's grand though, I look forward to meeting whatever candidates the Koch brothers or Soros are pushing every new election cycle. They have certainly shown themselves to be champions of liberty.

AbusesToilets · 07-07-2016 5:06pm

Suryavarman wrote: »

I don't need to. The non-partisan FBI has decided that she shouldn't be charged for her crimes. Nothing bad has happened as a result of Clinton's actions apart from huge amounts of time being wasted discussing her actions. The whole subject is a dead horse that I have no interest in beating any further.

The "non-partisan" FBI that revealed she broke the law, repeatedly and lied about it, repeatedly? Just as the 'non-partisan" AG, who coincidentally happened to meet the suspects husband, prior to the announcement of whether charges would be pursued. Totes legit.

Quite the triumph, that a candidate for the Presidency has avoided being indicted on felony charges. High fives all around!

Black Swan · 07-07-2016 5:20pm

alaimacerc wrote: »

I'm afraid the peeps I get into that little world is already saying Warren's a "traitor" for even thinking of consorting with Clinton, and that Sanders should throw any involvement back in her face. I really hope they're not predictive or representative of anything, but the social media echo chamber effect is going to tend to intensify people entertaining such notions, however marginal it is.

Once again (and only anecdotally), that's not my read on the Sanders and Warren advocates that I know face-to-face. Yes, they do NOT like compromising with Hillary Clinton to get on the ticket, but they also see a trade-off by forcing Hillary to concede and move a bit more away from the middle-of-the-road-nothing to a bit more progressive. They know that they cannot affect change overnight, and should a Clinton-Sanders or Clinton-Warren ticket win 8 November 2016, either Sanders or Warren can continue to spread the progressive message from the 2nd highest podium in the land, whereas not on the ticket or voting for a losing 3rd party position will mean a return to obscurity after the 8 November General Election. Plus, if it is a Clinton-Warren ticket that wins, Warren is still young enough to run in 4 years or 8, with an increased likelihood of winning the 1st office in the land, and really have a podium to spread the message in America.

As for all the noise in social media, your observation appears to have merit as to the controversy between progressives about a Warren ideology compromise if placed on the Clinton ticket (i.e., being a betrayal), but when the rubber meets the voting road 8 November 2016, voting for a 3rd party candidate can give Trump the presidency, allowing that arrogant and spoiled little rich kid to win for 4 years of experientially incompetent and Republican Party controlled Executive. And when combined with a Republican controlled House and perhaps Senate, as well as Republican stacking of the Supreme Court (beginning with the current vacancy), the backwards steps that will be taken (in their progressive view) would be terrible.

For all practical purposes, Donald Trump has promised his Angry Joe the Plumber voter base a return to the 1950's Ozzie and Harriet days, when women and minorities were forced to accept 2nd class citizen roles in American society. What good will it do for the progressives to vote for a 3rd losing party, only to increase the likelihood that they will take 2 steps backward for every one step forward, while at the same time shaking their self-righteous ideological middle fingers at the Democrats, blaming them for the progressive 3rd party vote. It seems as counter-productive as shooting yourself in the foot, and then blaming others?

alaimacerc · 07-07-2016 5:25pm

Suryavarman wrote: »

Corporations are just people acting as a group.

Excellent, corporate personhood abolished at a stroke! A great day's work, ad o mistake. High-fives all round.

Corporations can't exist without the people that make them.

Make sure you bend at the knees, not with the back; that's some heavy-duty goalpost-shifting you're trying, there. Perhaps we need to review the distinction between necessary and sufficient conditions?

eire4 · 07-07-2016 5:29pm

alaimacerc wrote: »

I'm afraid the peeps I get into that little world is already saying Warren's a "traitor" for even thinking of consorting with Clinton, and that Sanders should throw any involvement back in her face. I really hope they're not predictive or representative of anything, but the social media echo chamber effect is going to tend to intensify people entertaining such notions, however marginal it is.

It saddens me that the "optimistic" scenario is that their votes end up not mattering. And the alarming one is that "vote Stein to punish the DINO establishment!" ends up with a Trump presidency. And perhaps an even more right-wing Democratic party, as they chase a receding "centre", if they can't even get the "left" to vote for them.

I would say that the claim that a vote for Jill Stein and the Green Party is the height of arrogance really. The Democratic Party is already a corrupted Party beholden to and bought and paid for. There are many people who loook at the Green Party and see that their positions on a wide range of issues are actually those of the majority of Americans and will vote accordingly. Congress is a broken corrupted joke at this point. The GMO label bill that is being pushed through with bi partisan support is another classic example. Over 90% of Americans support GMO labels and that law has just gone into effect in Vermont. Already there is a strong bi partisan effort to push through a new bill that would be national and would effectively kill GMO labels despite the fact that 90% of Americans want said labels.This Democratic claim and fear mongering regarding to having to vote for them or else is gradually begining to wear thin as some people see and realise that the Democartic and Republican parties are both corrupt and neither has the best interests of the vast majority of Americans at their core but rather the wealth and major corporations is who they serve.
Now I fully understand that the vast majority of Americans who actually do vote this November will be hoodwinked into voting for the 2 corrupt parties that have a cartel on power in Washington DC but there is a small but growing number of Americans who can see the Democrats and Republicans for the corrupt parties that they currently are and will vote otherwise or sadly won't vote at all.

alaimacerc · 07-07-2016 5:40pm

eire4 wrote: »

I would say that the claim that a vote for Jill Stein and the Green Party is the height of arrogance really.

I'm thinking this is maybe missing part of the key subordinate clause here, regarding exactly what the "claim" might be. Let me guess, it's the part where the "claim" is asserted to be one I wasn't actually making?

The Democratic Party is already a corrupted Party beholden to and bought and paid for. There are many people who loook at the Green Party and see that their positions on a wide range of issues are actually those of the majority of Americans and will vote accordingly. Congress is a broken corrupted joke aat this point. The GMO label bill that is being pushed through with bi partisan support is another classic example. Over 90% of Americans support GMO labels and that law has just gone into effect in Vermont. Already there is a strong bi partisan push to push through a new bill that would be national side and effectively kill GMO labels despite the fact that 90% of Americans want said labels.

That'll be fine and dandy once people are voting remotely in line with these assertions. Not while it's in a 2.1 party system -- and isn't even the 0.1.

If one really believes there's no difference between President Trump and... well, pretty much any Null Hypothesis "anyone but Trump" scenario, actually, and one believes there's a strong benefit to voting Green -- or any vague approximation to this situation, indeed -- then doing so makes perfect sense. If one is in the group of "I wanted to vote Sanders, but now he's not getting the nomination, I'm going to sulk, claim who's president this cycle doesn't actually matter, and punishment-vote third party to make myself feel better"... then not so much.

2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

Comments