Sellouts to the Left. Sellouts to the Right.


Off-Topic Discussions

151 to 200 of 522 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

That sounds like something a witch 'ould say! Burn him! Burn the 'itch!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Hopefully, that doesn't get tagged for not having the quote for context. :-D


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Jebediah, Puritan Jerk wrote:

Total non-sequitur: I am now wondering what ingredients and variations Puritans would use while making jerk.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

*Looks earlier in the thread*

One thing I'd like to not - if I understand the way things went correctly, Hillary got more actual votes than Bernie. Fair enough. However, if I remember correctly, she got quite a lot of those votes from early voting... y'know, people who cast ballots before campaigning had really started, and they had a chance to consider the alternatives. As Sanders' campaign continued on, it picked up steam. Broadly speaking, the more people heard about Bernie, the more they seemed to like him... so the fact that Clinton got the most votes, while true, isn't the whole picture of how the population felt.

Or so I've been lead to understand, anyway. XD


4 people marked this as a favorite.
MMCJawa wrote:
Arturius Fischer wrote:

MMCJawa: The Republican Party has effectively been nuked from orbit. Now the question is: Are they the survivors of the fallout who will try to rebuild a functioning society with the numbers they have left? Or are they the radioactive mutants who will mindlessly swarm the one they failed to take down before in a bid for vengeance?

There are pretty large swaths of the country that always go Red. So even if the Republicans lose the next presidential election, and lose some seats in the Senate and such, there will be still a pretty big base for them to build upon. So "nuked from orbit" is not at all what I would consider the state of the country. But they are reaching a point where they may now longer be competitive in enough states to win the presidency, and where many traditional battleground states are going to shift to being locked down as Blue states.

The Republicans can definitely still salvage themselves with some rebranding and strong leadership. But the current party leadership seems to still be in shock from Trump getting the nod and other events, while the latter might prove difficult with the amount of control the Tea Party still has on Republican politics.

The thing is the Republicans weren't "nuked from orbit". They did this too themselves. Something like Trump is an inevitable step on a line that leads from the Southern Strategy through Reagan's "nine most terrifying words" through Gingrich's Contract on with America and on to the Tea Party. Now they're locked in a spiral with fewer and fewer but more and more extreme voters. I don't see how that salvage themselves. The party leadership got it basically right in the post-mortem of the Romney loss, but the party leadership doesn't actually control the party. In Congress, the Speaker has to bow to the "Freedom Caucus". The base is still willing to primary anyone showing signs of moderation and they've got the politicians running scared. And with every bit of craziness, more moderate voters abandon the party and its center shifts a little farther over.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Kazuka wrote:

The California one is that they not only have to declare themselves, but it has to be written. Which brings up an interesting question about what happens if California rejects this form from someone.

But, in any case, if you pick someone as a write-in and they haven't submitted that form, your vote simply doesn't count. One of the many interesting ways they've come up with to negate votes. Remember the hanging chads?

Sure. They're negating votes like captain yesterday's for himself. So what. Who cares?

Find me a case where it matters and we'll talk. If we see a case, even in a local election where someone would have won, but they hadn't bothered to fill in the form, then it's worth addressing. Or if they win, but somehow they'd rejected the form.

And there are practical reasons too. If by some miracle John Smith wins on a write in vote, which of the dozen John Smiths who show up at the town hall the next day gets the job? The one who declared himself a write in candidate and filled out the proper form, otherwise how would you know?

There are no cases that meet that standard. Those votes would have to be kept and tracked, and they're not. There's no data because the system isn't set up to generate that data.

If it matters? We honestly don't know. Saying it doesn't and saying it does are both the same thing: Guesses based on a complete lack of information. If that lack of information is a sign that something doesn't matter, then I concede you have a point.

That's the lovely thing about election systems. You can set it up so the results you don't want to happen not only do not happen, but simply don't matter.


Rednal wrote:

*Looks earlier in the thread*

One thing I'd like to not - if I understand the way things went correctly, Hillary got more actual votes than Bernie. Fair enough. However, if I remember correctly, she got quite a lot of those votes from early voting... y'know, people who cast ballots before campaigning had really started, and they had a chance to consider the alternatives. As Sanders' campaign continued on, it picked up steam. Broadly speaking, the more people heard about Bernie, the more they seemed to like him... so the fact that Clinton got the most votes, while true, isn't the whole picture of how the population felt.

Or so I've been lead to understand, anyway. XD

I think that was true in California, less so elsewhere. And early voting didn't necessarily mean, "before campaigning had really started", just sometime before election day. California's was actually pretty long - a month before the primary date. But by that point, campaigning had been going on for months.

It's also worth noting that one of the demographics that was always more pro-Clinton, African Americans, do tend to prefer to vote early, so that's not likely to have changed much.

There's something to what you say, but the changes weren't really that drastic.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

All good reasons on why I'm waiting to seize power until after the emotionally complex sparkly teenage zombie vampire flash apocalypse.

Looks fondly at vault containing hoarded Twinkies.

Soon, I'll have all the bargaining power.


Kazuka wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Kazuka wrote:

The California one is that they not only have to declare themselves, but it has to be written. Which brings up an interesting question about what happens if California rejects this form from someone.

But, in any case, if you pick someone as a write-in and they haven't submitted that form, your vote simply doesn't count. One of the many interesting ways they've come up with to negate votes. Remember the hanging chads?

Sure. They're negating votes like captain yesterday's for himself. So what. Who cares?

Find me a case where it matters and we'll talk. If we see a case, even in a local election where someone would have won, but they hadn't bothered to fill in the form, then it's worth addressing. Or if they win, but somehow they'd rejected the form.

And there are practical reasons too. If by some miracle John Smith wins on a write in vote, which of the dozen John Smiths who show up at the town hall the next day gets the job? The one who declared himself a write in candidate and filled out the proper form, otherwise how would you know?

There are no cases that meet that standard. Those votes would have to be kept and tracked, and they're not. There's no data because the system isn't set up to generate that data.

If it matters? We honestly don't know. Saying it doesn't and saying it does are both the same thing: Guesses based on a complete lack of information. If that lack of information is a sign that something doesn't matter, then I concede you have a point.

That's the lovely thing about election systems. You can set it up so the results you don't want to happen not only do not happen, but simply don't matter.

Do you think think this is really happening? That there are massive underground write-in campaigns winning elections with absolutely no publicity, but getting ignored because no one bothered to fill out a form? It's a rarity when an organized write-in campaign wins. I just don't believe that spontaneous ones ever do.

In most cases, the paper records exist and could be verified if anyone was interested. Nobody looks for this because it doesn't happen.

If you want to obsess about this and think it proves some horrible bias in the system and that elections are being stolen from completely unknown write-in candidates, go right ahead. It's a theoretical problem at worst. There are far more serious issues with our politics than this.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

No. There isn't. I was robbed!

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
KarlBob wrote:
IRV?

Instant Runoff Voting.

Rank candidates in your order of preference. The candidate with the lowest number of 1st rank votes is eliminated and all those voters now move to their second ranked choice. Lets you vote for minor parties without worrying much about spoiler effects.

Thank you. Neat idea.

Coalition governments assembled from several small parties definitely have their problems, but by this time next year, the US might be ready to give it a try.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Arturius Fischer wrote:

The US system is designed on both sides to prevent any 'interlopers' from getting enough votes to really matter. The differing ways various states handle the Electoral College just reinforces this.

As for Sanders, it doesn't matter if he claimed earlier he would support Hillary instead. What he did was reprehensible.

He ran as the Anti-Establishment candidate on the Left and held on long enough for his opponent to be removed for legal reasons--but that ended up not happening (surprising everyone who didn't believe the system was rigged). Afterward, he turned around and threw his support (and all the money he raised from those who believed in him) behind the most Establishment person that has played the game in the past decade and a half. Sure, maybe it was 'working toward his goals' in the best way he could, but believing that the person he's supporting would actually follow through with it? Really?

This may come as a shock to you, but Sanders knows Clinton better than you do. Given the choice between your take on her and Sanders' take on her, I'm much more likely to listen to the guy who spent years working with her.


thejeff wrote:
Kazuka wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Kazuka wrote:

The California one is that they not only have to declare themselves, but it has to be written. Which brings up an interesting question about what happens if California rejects this form from someone.

But, in any case, if you pick someone as a write-in and they haven't submitted that form, your vote simply doesn't count. One of the many interesting ways they've come up with to negate votes. Remember the hanging chads?

Sure. They're negating votes like captain yesterday's for himself. So what. Who cares?

Find me a case where it matters and we'll talk. If we see a case, even in a local election where someone would have won, but they hadn't bothered to fill in the form, then it's worth addressing. Or if they win, but somehow they'd rejected the form.

And there are practical reasons too. If by some miracle John Smith wins on a write in vote, which of the dozen John Smiths who show up at the town hall the next day gets the job? The one who declared himself a write in candidate and filled out the proper form, otherwise how would you know?

There are no cases that meet that standard. Those votes would have to be kept and tracked, and they're not. There's no data because the system isn't set up to generate that data.

If it matters? We honestly don't know. Saying it doesn't and saying it does are both the same thing: Guesses based on a complete lack of information. If that lack of information is a sign that something doesn't matter, then I concede you have a point.

That's the lovely thing about election systems. You can set it up so the results you don't want to happen not only do not happen, but simply don't matter.

Do you think think this is really happening? That there are massive underground write-in campaigns winning elections with absolutely no publicity, but getting ignored because no one bothered to fill out a form? It's a rarity when an organized write-in campaign wins. I just don't believe that spontaneous ones ever do....

Do I really think it's happening? After the Ficus Campaign and a dog being elected mayor that did end up getting covered, I really would not be surprised if there are a lot of elections where organized write-ins for ordinary people have a good chance of winning.

Also, it's indicative of one of the bigger problems: The two-party system controlling the elections. Let's say we have two primary party candidates who pretty much come down to Stalin vs. Hitler as far as how good they'll be for the nation. I mean, you pretty much don't want these people to even remain in the nation, let alone win a political office. But there's this highly popular, non-party guy who would do a good job, but isn't popular with the political parties. What are the chances of Mr. Write-in actually winning?

The reason why the write-in system even exists is for when the party-backed candidates are pretty much the same shade of terrible. And yet, the system itself is set up to make this option into a joke.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Donations to Jill Stein Explode Nearly 1000% Since Sanders’ Endorsement of Clinton

Also, time for another episode of

Comrades of Mine in the News, Well, CounterPunch

Bernie Sanders Abandons the Revolution by Kshama Sawant


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

Donations to Jill Stein Explode Nearly 1000% Since Sanders’ Endorsement of Clinton

That ten fold figure would be a lot more impressive if the original number hadn't been so dismal.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 16

5 people marked this as a favorite.
KingOfAnything wrote:

Sanders got a lot of what he wanted from the Democratic Platform. He's not so much a sellout as he is demonstrating how democracy is supposed to work - building a majority through reasoned compromise.

Sanders' alternative, the obstinate hold-out approach, would be much less effective at achieving his policy goals.

If I could like this comment a dozen times I would.

Also, as much as Bernie would be my first choice, Clinton is in all honsetly the most qualified person to ever run for president.

And I'm not even that big a fan of hers.


Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

Donations to Jill Stein Explode Nearly 1000% Since Sanders’ Endorsement of Clinton

That ten fold figure would be a lot more impressive if the original number hadn't been so dismal.

$80,000 in 48 or so hours ain't bad for a party that just adapted an anti-capitalist plank in their platform.


KingOfAnything wrote:

Sanders got a lot of what he wanted from the Democratic Platform. He's not so much a sellout as he is demonstrating how democracy is supposed to work - building a majority through reasoned compromise.

Sanders' alternative, the obstinate hold-out approach, would be much less effective at achieving his policy goals.

I would disagree with the value of the Democratic Platform. Or I should say, I don't think Party Platforms are anything more then lies told to fool voters. As far as influencing policy, all Bernie did was add voters to Hillary. She will say a bunch of stuff, but like every candidate in the last couple of decades, she is just going to serve the corporate interests. They paid her, and she works for them. Like Trump paid her,and she went to his third wedding. She isn't going to do a damn thing different once she gets into office, because she doesn't need to. She knows that people will vote for her, despite years of serving the .01%. In terms of policy, Sanders accomplished absolutely nothing.

What he DID accomplish was to make Socialism a possibility in the United States for the first time in half a century. Socialist is no longer a dirty word, and if younger voters are any indication, it has a possible future in politics. This is a MAJOR change, and not something even diehard socialists thought would be possible for years and years to come. Bernie did it in a few months. That is an amazing change, and one that both parties will be fighting against in the future.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Fergie wrote:
I would disagree with the value of the Democratic Platform. Or I should say, I don't think Party Platforms are anything more then lies told to fool voters.

This is far too cynical.

Quote:
As far as influencing policy, all Bernie did was add voters to Hillary. She will say a bunch of stuff, but like every candidate in the last couple of decades, she is just going to serve the corporate interests.

No, probably not.

Quote:
They paid her, and she works for them.

No, she doesn't. Certainly, money in politics is a problem, but it isn't the problem that you seem convinced it is.

Quote:
She isn't going to do a damn thing different once she gets into office, because she doesn't need to.

She does if she wants reelection. And she does if she wants to accomplish anything meaningful. Despite what you've convinced yourself of, Clinton actually is a pretty solid progressive Democrat who has done a hell of a lot to advance causes that you probably personally care about a great deal.

Quote:
She knows that people will vote for her, despite years of serving the .01%. In terms of policy, Sanders accomplished absolutely nothing.

Again, pointlessly cynical. This doesn't reflect reality at all. The party platform has meaning. And, when a party has full control of the government, you can expect very rapid movement on policies outlined in the platform.


Interesting article from Fortune:

Despite What Bernie Sanders Says, The Democratic Party Platform Doesn't Matter

Which I like because it quotes two Dems that have featured in my life--Barney Frank, who apparently helped write the 2012 Platform, saying that he doesn't remember what was in it; and Michael Capuano, who says that he's never read it "[b]ut it's important to some people."

Anyway, it is with some amusement that I read the plank calling for a $15/hr minimum wage. Wasn't too long ago I remember that demand being too radical for all but the most leftie of Paizonian, now it's in the Dem Platform.

Goes to show what a bunch of organized workers and independent socialists can do.

$54.40 an Hour and a Union or Fight!

Vive le Galt!!!


Kazuka wrote:

Do I really think it's happening? After the Ficus Campaign and a dog being elected mayor that did end up getting covered, I really would not be surprised if there are a lot of elections where organized write-ins for ordinary people have a good chance of winning.

Also, it's indicative of one of the bigger problems: The two-party system controlling the elections. Let's say we have two primary party candidates who pretty much come down to Stalin vs. Hitler as far as how good they'll be for the nation. I mean, you pretty much don't want these people to even remain in the nation, let alone win a political office. But there's this highly popular, non-party guy who would do a good job, but isn't popular with the political parties. What are the chances of Mr. Write-in actually winning?

The reason why the write-in system even exists is for when the party-backed candidates are pretty much the same shade of terrible. And yet, the system itself is set up to make this option into a joke.

Joke write in candidates winning is evidence the system is set up to stop write in candidates from winning? I can't follow your logic.

File the paperwork. Declare yourself a candidate. Take the one simple little step and the objection goes away. If someone's actually serious about running, even as a write in, there's so much other work to do that one little step is such a trivial hurdle it's not worth worrying about.

As for your hypothetical: If they're really Hitler and Stalin and voters don't actually want Hitler or Stalin - well it's still an uphill battle, but there's nothing in the process to stop the write in from winning. It's just harder to persuade millions of voters that they need to write your name in than to persuade them to check one of the boxes. You're better off trying to get on the ballot as a third party candidate, which in most cases isn't hard for anyone with a campaign that has a chance of winning. If you've got the money, the resources and the support, you'll get on the ballot.
The only real exception would be if for one reason or another you didn't decide to run until too late. Often that's someone who lost a primary wanting a do-over for the general election. In this case I guess we could assume that our Stalin and Hitler didn't tear off the masks and rant about how they were going to destroy the country until well after the primaries - which would explain how they got the nominations without actually having support.

Stepping away from the hypothetical here: The real problem with a candidate like Trump isn't that the system is corrupt and set up for him to win, but that the system is working and far too many people actually like what he's spouting. Throughout the process, the polling pointed to him as the winner. By a plurality of the Republican primary voters, not an actual majority, admittedly. That scares me far more than any problems with the system. There are a lot of people out there who are seriously behind him.

And if you think Hillary is just as bad (or even close to it) then the same should worry you on the other side. Though at least there you can just pretend she's fooled them all into thinking she's not whatever it is you're sure she is. Apparently even Bernie. Either that or the whole Sanders movement was a ploy all along. Since he started by praising her and ending by endorsing her ...


thejeff wrote:
Joke write in candidates winning is evidence the system is set up to stop write in candidates from winning? I can't follow your logic.

You cannot have a system that does not unnaturally restrict candidates without leaving it open to the occasional joke candidate winning an election. The minimum expected percentile of votes for joke candidates ranges depending on the popularity of the available serious candidates, but you can expect at least 5% of the votes to be for candidates that might not be serious, human, sane, or even real. It's expected that, every once in awhile, you will have a case where the serious candidates are so disliked that the joke candidate wins the election. Even if that joke candidate has no idea they were actually running.

That should be enough information to follow the rest of my logic.

Quote:
File the paperwork. Declare yourself a candidate. Take the one simple little step and the objection goes away. If someone's actually serious about running, even as a write in, there's so much other work to do that one little step is such a trivial hurdle it's not worth worrying about.

That's assuming it is the person being voted for who decides they should get votes directed to them. If, say, during this election a large majority of the United States decides to write in Bob From Kansas and Bob didn't even know he was liked that much, it is still the will of the people that Bob ends up President. Of course, Bob is still free to reject the role if he wishes, but it does not change that enough Americans thought him a better idea than Trump or Hillary to secure his win.

That is what the write-in system exists for. Those cases where none of the official candidates are considered worthy enough by the people and enough people can instead think of a better option. Artificially restricting that prevents such a system from working, while the current viewing of it as a joke both restricts it from working and helps keep us trapped within the two-party system.

Quote:
As for your hypothetical: If they're really Hitler and Stalin and voters don't actually want Hitler or Stalin - well it's still an uphill battle, but there's nothing in the process to stop the write in from winning.

I've already linked to one State where this is categorically untrue.

Quote:
The only real exception would be if for one reason or another you didn't decide to run until too late. Often that's someone who lost a primary wanting a do-over for the general election. In this case I guess we could assume that our Stalin and Hitler didn't tear off the masks and rant about how they were going to destroy the country until well after the primaries - which would explain how they got the nominations without actually having support.

Or all of the other prospective candidates were even worse and they really were the cream of the crop. This has happened a few times in real life. I've heard a few people argue that Trump is a case of this in the current election. It boils down to them believing he's not going to even try to fulfill a single campaign promise and is just running for personal entertainment, but all of his opponents both within and without the party were actually serious. That Trump is trolling the entire American political system, pretty much.

Quote:
Stepping away from the hypothetical here: The real problem with a candidate like Trump isn't that the system is corrupt and set up for him to win, but that the system is working and far too many people actually like what he's spouting. Throughout the process, the polling pointed to him as the winner. By a plurality of the Republican primary voters, not an actual majority, admittedly. That scares me far more than any problems with the system. There are a lot of people out there who are seriously behind him.

Here's the scarier thought: The theory that he's just doing all of this to troll the entire American political system, and there's a serious possibility that it might secure him the title of President. At that point, our political system would have degraded to the point of being self-parody. And it's not that far from it now.

Quote:
And if you think Hillary is just as bad (or even close to it) then the same should worry you on the other side. Though at least there you can just pretend she's fooled them all into thinking she's not whatever it is you're sure she is. Apparently even Bernie. Either that or the whole Sanders movement was a ploy all along. Since he started by praising her and ending by endorsing her ...

To be blunt, I think Clinton is a sock puppet. Every time in her professional life I've seen that she's had any really hard pressure on her, she's bent knee. She did it during a certain court case I brought up. She did it as First Lady when advocating for health care reform. She did it again when her husband cheated on her. And by this point, I've established the pattern of behavior.

That's why I don't like her for President. If we're going to elect a rubber stamp, how about we elect an actual rubber stamp and save on the costs of paying a person?


Kazuka wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Joke write in candidates winning is evidence the system is set up to stop write in candidates from winning? I can't follow your logic.

You cannot have a system that does not unnaturally restrict candidates without leaving it open to the occasional joke candidate winning an election. The minimum expected percentile of votes for joke candidates ranges depending on the popularity of the available serious candidates, but you can expect at least 5% of the votes to be for candidates that might not be serious, human, sane, or even real. It's expected that, every once in awhile, you will have a case where the serious candidates are so disliked that the joke candidate wins the election. Even if that joke candidate has no idea they were actually running.

That should be enough information to follow the rest of my logic.

I'm not concerned with blocking the joke candidate, especially at the lowest level. And actually you can block at least the weirdest of the joke candidates - it's easy enough to write legislation spelling out minimum qualifications - the dog wouldn't be allowed to be president, for example: Neither 35 years old, nor a natural born citizen (or, to be technical a resident at the time of the adoption of the Constitution.)

Quote:
Quote:
File the paperwork. Declare yourself a candidate. Take the one simple little step and the objection goes away. If someone's actually serious about running, even as a write in, there's so much other work to do that one little step is such a trivial hurdle it's not worth worrying about.

That's assuming it is the person being voted for who decides they should get votes directed to them. If, say, during this election a large majority of the United States decides to write in Bob From Kansas and Bob didn't even know he was liked that much, it is still the will of the people that Bob ends up President. Of course, Bob is still free to reject the role if he wishes, but it does not change that enough Americans thought him a better idea than Trump or Hillary to secure his win.

That is what the write-in system exists for. Those cases where none of the official candidates are considered worthy enough by the people and enough people can instead think of a better option. Artificially restricting that prevents such a system from working, while the current viewing of it as a joke both restricts it from working and helps keep us trapped within the two-party system.

I suppose it's theoretically possible that tens of millions of people spontaneously decide to write in Bob from Kansas, with no political campaign pushing them to do so and Bob himself being completely unaware it's happening. Practically speaking though, it's not going to happen. If someone's going to win an election noticeably larger than the 12 people who elected the dog mayor, there's going to have to be an actual campaign. The press are going to ask Bob. Bob might as well either file the paperwork or say up front he'll refuse.

This is a weird hill to die on. The idea that a spontaneous write in campaign without support from the candidate will save from anything is ludicrous. Even with the candidate working at it, it's an uphill battle. Of all the hurdles with this, the candidate declaring his candidacy is the smallest problem.

And assuming your Bob from Kansas example, what actually happens is that someone else recognizes the groundswell of support for Bob and some other Bob from Kansas files the proper paperwork and takes the seat because he's obviously the one they were voting for. Or all the Bobs in Kansas show up after the election, each claiming to be the victor.

As for Trump, most of his supporters actually like him. I'm sure there are some, as always, who just think the others were worse, but he really does have lots of very enthusiastic supporters. Not a majority, even of the Republican base, but a plurality. Same with Clinton, of course, though I think her support is much broader, but less enthusiastic.

Trump may be trolling, but the vast majority of his supporters don't think so.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Donations to Jill Stein Explode Nearly 1000% Since Sanders’ Endorsement of Clinton
That ten fold figure would be a lot more impressive if the original number hadn't been so dismal.
$80,000 in 48 or so hours ain't bad for a party that just adapted an anti-capitalist plank in their platform.

Does that even cover a single national TV ad?

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kazuka wrote:
TOZ wrote:
You think Satan isn't a lesser evil?

He's more of an average evil.

Now, if you wanted a greater evil, there's always Cthulhu or Putin.

CTHUTIN!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm not from the US, but the reality is the same everywhere: Candidates in campaigns will always portray their opponents (even their political relatives during a primary) in a bad light, because that's sort of required if you are telling the voters they need to vote for you. We can be as rational as we want in deciding how we weigh the different options, but there's a lot of gut and heart in presidential elections.

Doesn't mean I like it (I have a lot of respect for candidates who decide to stick to a clean discourse and fight on the idea level), but societies don't really work that way. Many times, what we internally perceive as very different political options can actually be surprisingly similar, and demonizing the opponent can be politically profitable in situations like these as a way of differentiating the options.

It's ugly, it's nasty, but it's also very easy to sit on a high throne and critizice it from the outside when it's not us who are trying to manoeuvre the turbulent waters of politics. There's a reason idealistic candidates very rarely make it to the top, and usually "lesser evil" really is the best option available; for a serious politician to ignore that would be irresponsible and potentially suicidal.

In that light, I've never been truly able to condemn a candidate who loses a primary and then makes a pragmatic choice to support the remaining one, even after a vicious campaign. Many times, the alternative could spell leaving your party's candidate out in the rain and segmenting the voters. After all, knowing what we know, it would be tremendouslly naive to assume that two candidates from the same political party/coalition who agree to participate in a primary together truly, 100% mean what they say when they paint the other guy as a monster, so lambasting them for sleeping with the aforementioned monster afterward seems kind of frivolous at times.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game, Companion, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Fergie wrote:
KingOfAnything wrote:

Sanders got a lot of what he wanted from the Democratic Platform. He's not so much a sellout as he is demonstrating how democracy is supposed to work - building a majority through reasoned compromise.

Sanders' alternative, the obstinate hold-out approach, would be much less effective at achieving his policy goals.
I would disagree with the value of the Democratic Platform. Or I should say, I don't think Party Platforms are anything more then lies told to fool voters. As far as influencing policy, all Bernie did was add voters to Hillary. She will say a bunch of stuff, but like every candidate in the last couple of decades, she is just going to serve the corporate interests. They paid her, and she works for them. Like Trump paid her,and she went to his third wedding. She isn't going to do a damn thing different once she gets into office, because she doesn't need to. She knows that people will vote for her, despite years of serving the .01%. In terms of policy, Sanders accomplished absolutely nothing.

I agree that a platform is a far cry from policy, but it is not nothing. Politifact, for instance, lists and rates the President's promises as Kept, Broken, Compromised, etc. It is a tool for measuring progress, and something to point to when lobbying for action.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

For example, Obama's got six pages of broken progressive promises.

Promise Broken rulings on The Obameter

But, I'm sure Hillary will be different.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Kathleen Hall Jamieson speaking at the Westminster Town Hall forum. An extremely well-educated person who studies politicians. One of the things she talks about is that politicians actually have a pretty good track record of doing what they say, or trying to do what they say. They follow through about 80% of the time.

Also, when two opposing candidates agree on an issue, it's close to guaranteed that it will be policy when one of them is in office.

Anyways, the link above is very interesting to listen to and I recommend it. She's talking about how to listen to a candidate and analyze what they're saying in order to make predictions about how they will respond to unexpected events.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Selling your soul and getting something good for your constituents, not yourself, is the best you can hope for from a politician.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
For example, Obama's got six pages of broken progressive promises.

... as well as seven pages of compromises achieved and twelve pages of promises kept.

If you're going to show numbers, please show all of them. 50% success, 25% partial success, and 25% failure isn't actually a bad record.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game, Companion, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

For example, Obama's got six pages of broken progressive promises.

Promise Broken rulings on The Obameter

But, I'm sure Hillary will be different.

I think we are approaching this with different measures of success. You are suggesting that a politician should achieve 90-100% of what they set out to do. I'm not happy that Obama failed at 1 in 5 things he set out to do, but I do appreciate the other 4 things that have been achieved, or have seen some progress.

I do think Clinton will be different. She is much more of a deal maker, and I expect her compromise tally will be much higher and her Promise Broken tally lower than Obama's. And when she's making deals to pass legislation, I'd rather she compromise from $15/hr than from $12. I'll thank Bernie's effort for that.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
For example, Obama's got six pages of broken progressive promises.

... as well as seven pages of compromises achieved and twelve pages of promises kept.

If you're going to show numbers, please show all of them. 50% success, 25% partial success, and 25% failure isn't actually a bad record.

Certainly better than the corresponding GOP congressional record on the same site.

Also keep in mind that the 'broken promises' list includes many things which Obama tried to do which were blocked by Congress or the Supreme Court.


KingOfAnything wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

For example, Obama's got six pages of broken progressive promises.

Promise Broken rulings on The Obameter

But, I'm sure Hillary will be different.

I think we are approaching this with different measures of success. You are suggesting that a politician should achieve 90-100% of what they set out to do. I'm not happy that Obama failed at 1 in 5 things he set out to do, but I do appreciate the other 4 things that have been achieved, or have seen some progress.

I do think Clinton will be different. She is much more of a deal maker, and I expect her compromise tally will be much higher and her Promise Broken tally lower than Obama's. And when she's making deals to pass legislation, I'd rather she compromise from $15/hr than from $12. I'll thank Bernie's effort for that.

There's also a difference between Promise Broken because the politician betrayed it and tried to do something completely counter and Promise Broken because the politician couldn't accomplish the goal.

The very first entry in those six pages is headlined "Obama has no luck getting tax proposals past Congress." With the comment at the end "Since the Obameter rates tangible progress rather than presidential intentions, we rate this a Promise Broken."

Sure, I fully expect Clinton to have plenty of Broken Promises. Likely some in each category. Had Sanders won the election, he'd probably have more - since he was promising more extreme things.

Edit: Best way to do well by that metric is not to Promise much.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
For example, Obama's got six pages of broken progressive promises.

... as well as seven pages of compromises achieved and twelve pages of promises kept.

If you're going to show numbers, please show all of them.

No.

In the five minutes that I looked after Citizen Everything mentioned it, I read on the Promises Kept page things like "Extend Bush Tax Cuts" and "Send Two More Brigades to Afghanistan."

Those aren't progressive promises.


Anyway, I don't see how discussion of the Party Platform led to Promises, Broken or Kept, but I try to follow along and chime in when I can.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
For example, Obama's got six pages of broken progressive promises.

... as well as seven pages of compromises achieved and twelve pages of promises kept.

If you're going to show numbers, please show all of them.

No.

In the five minutes that I looked after Citizen Everything mentioned it, I read on the Promises Kept page things like "Extend Bush Tax Cuts" and "Send Two More Brigades to Afghanistan."

Those aren't progressive promises.

Have you checked that all the Promises Broken are progressive?

Same argument. But yeah, I'm sure Progressive issues are harder to get through. That's not really a surprise.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game, Companion, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
In the five minutes that I looked after Citizen Everything mentioned it, ...

Hah. Thank you, Comrade.

The fact that Obama's stated goals were solidly moderate is a point in favor of Bernie pulling Clinton and the Democratic platform to the left. When we measure the success of Hilary's time in office, it will be against a more progressive rubric.


I'm not a policy wonk, but everything on the first page registers as "progressive" to me, but I admit I might not understand things like "Create a mortgage interest tax credit for non-itemizers."


Woops, Citizen Anything. My bad.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

When did my centrist, pro-third-party thread turn into Comrade Andklebiter's Socialist Overflow Thread?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

How anyone can consider either major party in the U.S. to be responsible when it comes to spending is beyond me.

Neither party is serious about balancing the budget, because balancing the budget is going to be painful. Much easier to kick the can.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
thegreenteagamer wrote:
When did my centrist, pro-third-party thread turn into Comrade Andklebiter's Socialist Overflow Thread?

Just curious, do you consider the complete dismantling of all forms of welfare to be centrist?

Centrist gets thrown around a lot. A lot of Americans seem to consider themselves in the middle, center, moderate, etc, but in reality, they aren't centrist on even most issues, taking a stand that's either left or right on numerous issues.

Being to the left on things like gay marriage and to the right on government finances doesn't make you a centrist. It makes you to the left on one thing and the right on another.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thegreenteagamer wrote:
When did my centrist, pro-third-party thread turn into Comrade Andklebiter's Socialist Overflow Thread?

That's what happens when you take a nap, the whole place becomes infested with Goblin Foot Fetishists. :-)

Just be glad no one's opened up the can of smurfs. Then you're in trouble, they'll infest your walls and drink all your schnapps. :-/


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Saw this on FB:

Random Starnger on the Interwebs wrote:


FAQ time:
Q. Why did Bernie endorse Hillary now?
A. They threatened to completey shut him out of the convention if he didn't.
Q. Couldn't he have said screw them and go and fight at the convention anyway?
A. No. Hillary has more delegates, Superdelegates, and supporters on the DNC rules committee. They would have voted down every one of our platforms, denied Bernie the opportunity to speak, and basically shut him out of the entire process. All the leverage he has gained up to this point would be gone.
Q. So wait, Bernie DIDN'T quit today?
A. No. He had to say she won the primary, he endorses her and will help the party defeat Trump, yadda yadda but he DID NOT concede. There is a very big and important difference. Had he conceded, all of his delegates would go to Hillary and he would no longer be an option for nominee.
Q. So Bernie can actually still win??
A. YES. And if he wasn't still TRYING to win, he would have conceded. The ONLY option he had to get to the convention with his delegates behind him and have a chance to still win was to do what he did today. He is not a traitor. He didn't sell us out. He did the only possible thing he could have done to keep fighting for the nomination.
Q. So how can Bernie still win if he's losing the delegate count and he just said he will help Hillary win the election?
A. By far the most important thing to the DNC, even more important than making sure Hillary beats Bernie, is making sure the Democratic nominee beats the Republicans in November. They scrutinize every poll, every opinion of the public, every event to judge whether a candidate is strong enough to win in November. There are A LOT of things going on right now that show how weak of a general election candidate Hillary Clinton is:
-66% of the country sees her as untrustworthy
-60% thinks she should have been indicted for the email scandal
-A lot of Bernie supporters won't vote for her
-Congress has requested the Department of Justice investigate her for lying under oath about the email scandal
-There's a possibility more emails will be leaked by wikileaks or hackers further proving her guilt
-Many believe the FBI is secretly investigating the Clinton Foundation
-Her "wins" during the primary havr been tainted with accusations of fraud, suppression, lawsuits, and investigations
And then there's Bernie. An honest candidate people trust and whose approval rating and trustworthy rating crushes Clinton's. This is the argument Bernie will make at the convention. With all his 1,900 delegates inside arguing this case and 100,000 supporters outside arguing this case, we hope the DNC realizes he's the only choice. He CAN win the convention, but he has to get there first. That's why he endorsed her today.
Q. So it's still important that all of his delegates go to the convention and we all still March on it like we planned?
A. It's more important now than it ever was before.
Q. What if the DNC still refuses to nominate him at the convention? Can he still run third party now that he endorsed her?
A. Yes. In fact, running third party has never been an option until AFTER the convention. We need to stick with Bernie and see this through to the convention. He's led us this far. Do not abandon him now.
Q. What if he loses at the convention and doesn't run third party, but instead endorses Hillary 100% and asks us to vote for her?
A. Then our revolution continues without him and we continue to fight against Hillary Clinton and the DNC all the way up to November and beyond by voting for someone like Jill Stein or writing Bernie in. But the time for that is NOT here yet.
#StillSanders #BernieOrBust #OurRevolution

Does any of this even look feasible?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kazuka wrote:
To be blunt, I think Clinton is a sock puppet. Every time in her professional life I've seen that she's had any really hard pressure on her, she's bent knee. She did it during a certain court case I brought up. She did it as First Lady when advocating for health care reform. She did it again when her husband cheated on her. And by this point, I've established the pattern of behavior.

Elizabeth Warren, one of her mentors and critics would disagree with you. As it's clear from her 2004 interview with Bill Moyers it shows how much of a force she was as First Lady, bucking even her husband herself on a bill he was ready to sign up on.

The rest of the video is pretty educational on the process.


Irontruth wrote:
thegreenteagamer wrote:
When did my centrist, pro-third-party thread turn into Comrade Andklebiter's Socialist Overflow Thread?

Just curious, do you consider the complete dismantling of all forms of welfare to be centrist?

Centrist gets thrown around a lot. A lot of Americans seem to consider themselves in the middle, center, moderate, etc, but in reality, they aren't centrist on even most issues, taking a stand that's either left or right on numerous issues.

Being to the left on things like gay marriage and to the right on government finances doesn't make you a centrist. It makes you to the left on one thing and the right on another.

What does make you a centrist, if being a mixture of left and right doesn't, then? Because some things, there is no "midline" option. You're either okay with something or you're not, particularly social issues.

Anyway, I meant the overall tone of the thread being centrist, not libertarians in general. I'm not really a libertarian myself, but of the options left on the table, it's the closest I align myself to. I'm definitely not a fan of Johnson's attitudes about corporate tax rates, for example. But he's considerably more qualified than Trump and has a better ethical record than either major party candidate, and I think I came up with about an 85% agreement on iSideWith.com for him.


captain yesterday wrote:

Damn, gotta find where my wife put Fear and Loathing on The Campaign Trail '72.

Seems like the perfect summer reading this year. :-)

I just read it a few months ago and this cycle feels similar to that one. Except Sanders was McGovern while Humphrey was Clinton. The Super Delegates were created to ensure that a McGovern type could not get voted in over the Democratic establishment favorite again. Seems to be working...

Origins of the Super Delegate

Liberty's Edge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
bugleyman wrote:

How anyone can consider either major party in the U.S. to be responsible when it comes to spending is beyond me.

Neither party is serious about balancing the budget, because balancing the budget is going to be painful. Much easier to kick the can.

Requiring a 'balanced federal budget' is itself inherently 'irresponsible'. You need to be able to borrow to deal with economic slowdowns, natural disasters, wars, et cetera.

At that, so long as the economy is growing faster than loaned interest you are better off using debt to leverage growth.

All that being said... for the past ~50 years Democrats have consistently decreased the deficit while Republicans have consistently increased it. Thus, claims of no difference between the parties on this issue fly in the face of the data.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kryzbyn wrote:

Saw this on FB:

Random Starnger on the Interwebs wrote:


FAQ time:
Q. Why did Bernie endorse Hillary now?
A. They threatened to completey shut him out of the convention if he didn't.
Q. Couldn't he have said screw them and go and fight at the convention anyway?
A. No. Hillary has more delegates, Superdelegates, and supporters on the DNC rules committee. They would have voted down every one of our platforms, denied Bernie the opportunity to speak, and basically shut him out of the entire process. All the leverage he has gained up to this point would be gone.
Q. So wait, Bernie DIDN'T quit today?
A. No. He had to say she won the primary, he endorses her and will help the party defeat Trump, yadda yadda but he DID NOT concede. There is a very big and important difference. Had he conceded, all of his delegates would go to Hillary and he would no longer be an option for nominee.
Q. So Bernie can actually still win??
A. YES. And if he wasn't still TRYING to win, he would have conceded. The ONLY option he had to get to the convention with his delegates behind him and have a chance to still win was to do what he did today. He is not a traitor. He didn't sell us out. He did the only possible thing he could have done to keep fighting for the nomination.
Q. So how can Bernie still win if he's losing the delegate count and he just said he will help Hillary win the election?
A. By far the most important thing to the DNC, even more important than making sure Hillary beats Bernie, is making sure the Democratic nominee beats the Republicans in November. They scrutinize every poll, every opinion of the public, every event to judge whether a candidate is strong enough to win in November. There are A LOT of things going on right now that show how weak of a general election candidate Hillary Clinton is:
-66% of the country sees her as untrustworthy
-60% thinks she should have been indicted for the email scandal
-A lot of Bernie supporters won't vote for her
-Congress has requested the Department of
...

No. It doesn't look feasible at all. In theory, if Clinton was actually arrested or something drastically horrible came out, that would be his chance. But people have been waiting for decades for Clinton (Bill or Hillary) to be arrested for the latest overhyped scandal.

Other than that, the pledged delegates are bound to vote, mostly for Hillary. If he wants to change that, he needs to convince the superdelegates he's been attacking as corrupt, establishment hacks that he's their best chance. He tried that publicly earlier and got nowhere. An impassioned plea on the convention floor won't change that.

And Bernie's smart enough to know it. He's done. He's backing Hillary. Like he said he would, from the beginning.
Barring some unexpected outside change in the situation, he's not going for a convention fight. He's not going to run as a third party. He's backing Hillary Clinton.

151 to 200 of 522 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Sellouts to the Left. Sellouts to the Right. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.