Sellouts to the Left. Sellouts to the Right.


Off-Topic Discussions

401 to 450 of 522 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>

To be honest, I'm so burned out by this election, I just want it to be over. I do care about who wins, but not nearly as much as I just want this crapfest to be over for another four years.


Kolokotroni wrote:
Any system that could allow someone to win with somewhere like 22% of the vote while their opponent gets 88% of the vote (and yes this can happen, even if it is unlikely)

Somehow I doubt that...


Scott Betts wrote:
Kolokotroni wrote:
Any system that could allow someone to win with somewhere like 22% of the vote while their opponent gets 88% of the vote (and yes this can happen, even if it is unlikely)
Somehow I doubt that...

Win the smallest states by exactly one vote from Wyoming to New Jersey. Its less then 25% of the voting population but more then half the electoral votes.

Edit Also I meant 78%, apologies, long day at work.


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

(assuming you mean 12% to 88%) Yes, it's technically possible to win the election 20 votes to 80 million votes if your opponent gets all the votes with high turnout in the 30 states with the lowest population and you get the only vote in the top 20 states (which I assume without calculation gets you to 270). In practice even a flip of 1% is unlikely to happen (Bush/Gore was .5%).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thegreenteagamer wrote:
To be honest, I'm so burned out by this election, I just want it to be over. I do care about who wins, but not nearly as much as I just want this crapfest to be over for another four years.

I can't imagine a third-party supporter ever enjoying an election cycle. It seems like a recipe for consistent disappointment.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kolokotroni wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
Kolokotroni wrote:
Any system that could allow someone to win with somewhere like 22% of the vote while their opponent gets 88% of the vote (and yes this can happen, even if it is unlikely)
Somehow I doubt that...
Win the smallest states by exactly one vote from Wyoming to New Jersey. Its less then 25% of the voting population but more then half the electoral votes.

I was just being a jerk and referencing your 110% popular vote total. ;P


Scott Betts wrote:
Kolokotroni wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
Kolokotroni wrote:
Any system that could allow someone to win with somewhere like 22% of the vote while their opponent gets 88% of the vote (and yes this can happen, even if it is unlikely)
Somehow I doubt that...
Win the smallest states by exactly one vote from Wyoming to New Jersey. Its less then 25% of the voting population but more then half the electoral votes.
I was referencing your 110% popular vote total. ;P

Yea sorry, the point is still valid even if my arithmetic was comically bad


thegreenteagamer wrote:
To be honest, I'm so burned out by this election, I just want it to be over. I do care about who wins, but not nearly as much as I just want this crapfest to be over for another four years.

I wish it was 4 years, the American election cycle is also rather insane. Aside from the fact that we have elections every 2 years, the presidential election nonsense starts way too early also.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thegreenteagamer wrote:
To be honest, I'm so burned out by this election, I just want it to be over. I do care about who wins, but not nearly as much as I just want this crapfest to be over for another four years.

Regardless of whether Trump wins or loses, this will likely be the new normal for the foreseeable future. If the upcoming census doesn't undo at least some of the gerrymandering, it'll likely stay screwed up even longer.

---

So, I think it's time the sane Republicans consider their post-November options. The current GOP can no longer even remotely claim to be "The Party of Lincoln"; it's now the The Party of Trump. So maybe borrow a play from the Tea Party: invade the Libertarian Party en masse and rebuild it into the Republican Party 2.0?

Edit: Heck, a sane Republican Party 2.0 would also likely pull off many conservatives and blue dogs from the Dems too.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
thegreenteagamer wrote:
To be honest, I'm so burned out by this election, I just want it to be over. I do care about who wins, but not nearly as much as I just want this crapfest to be over for another four years.

I'm with you on that. I wish we could limit the entire thing to just 6 months.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

IN THE GRIM DARKNESS OF THE IMMEDIATE FUTURE THERE IS ONLY THE NEXT ELECTION


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You guys panic too much.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

OMG! WE'RE PANICKING TOO MUCH! RUN!!


Kolokotroni wrote:
thegreenteagamer wrote:
To be honest, I'm so burned out by this election, I just want it to be over. I do care about who wins, but not nearly as much as I just want this crapfest to be over for another four years.
I wish it was 4 years, the American election cycle is also rather insane. Aside from the fact that we have elections every 2 years, the presidential election nonsense starts way too early also.

Yes, but senatorial, gubernatorial, mayoral and house congressional races don't get me down as much as presidential. It's uncommon, but not rare, that those aren't the lesser of two evils.

Such is always the case with a presidential election.


Pillbug Toenibbler wrote:
thegreenteagamer wrote:
To be honest, I'm so burned out by this election, I just want it to be over. I do care about who wins, but not nearly as much as I just want this crapfest to be over for another four years.

Regardless of whether Trump wins or loses, this will likely be the new normal for the foreseeable future. If the upcoming census doesn't undo at least some of the gerrymandering, it'll likely stay screwed up even longer.

---

So, I think it's time the sane Republicans consider their post-November options. The current GOP can no longer even remotely claim to be "The Party of Lincoln"; it's now the The Party of Trump. So maybe borrow a play from the Tea Party: invade the Libertarian Party en masse and rebuild it into the Republican Party 2.0?

Edit: Heck, a sane Republican Party 2.0 would also likely pull off many conservatives and blue dogs from the Dems too.

The problem is, the divide isn't really sane and insane. If anything it's libertarian vs religious. Small government vs family values. Though there's an awful lot of overlap. And then there's the business interests and funders who don't care about either, but will happily use them to lower taxes and cut regulations - or funnel money directly to themselves.

They could split along those lines, but neither would be able to win elections in any but the reddest of districts. Nor would either pull in many Democrats, at least in the short term.

And the structural advantages to being in the existing major party remain huge. All the campaign machinery and resources are there.

Besides, for the moment, Republicans are doing well, other than the Presidential race. They control Congress and most of the states. They'll likely lose the Senate, but stand a good chance of winning it back in the mid-term. Any kind of split dooms it all.

It may happen, but it won't happen yet. Unless the Trump Crash and Burn is even bigger than I expect. Either Republicans will find a way out of the vicious cycle they've got themselves into or they'll implode and be replaced. If they manage to lose the 2018 cycle badly, that's a sign. Otherwise they'll continue.

I really doubt the replacement will look much like the Libertarians though, even if it's officially the Libertarian Party that benefits. Their actual platform isn't mainstream enough. Once things shake out, it'll probably look far more like the Republican party, but with the extremists kicked to the curb - same basic approach, but without so much hate and more willing to compromise.


What does the senate even do? What function does it perform that is not (or couldn't be) performed by the congress? Why is it necessary? Is it even necessary?

I lived all of my life in nations with senates... And I never understood why we have one... Well, in Brazil it's pretty much because we copied the American model... But why does the USA have one? What does it add to the equation?

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

They were intended to represent the States. Not the people, but the states as corporate entities. Partly this was to provide a place where, say Rhode Island had an equal voice to Virginia, but also as a slower, more deliberate body not directly beholden to the people to counter populism and mob rule. That's why they have six year terms and were originally appointed by the state legislatures.


I see... What's their relationnwih the congress, though? If their rulings conflict, which one takes precedence? And aren't senators elected by popular vote nowadays?

Liberty's Edge

Lemmy wrote:
I see... What's their relationnwih the congress, though? If their rulings conflict, which one takes precedence? And aren't senators elected by popular vote nowadays?

The Senate is a part of Congress. In order laws to pass, it has to go though both the House of Representatives and the Senate before being submitted for the President's seal of approval.


Lemmy wrote:

What does the senate even do? What function does it perform that is not (or couldn't be) performed by the congress? Why is it necessary? Is it even necessary?

I lived all of my life in nations with senates... And I never understood why we have one... Well, in Brazil it's pretty much because wd copied the American model... But why does the USA have one? What does it add to the equation?

The Senate is part of Congress, so it's not really instead of Congress.

Basically, it's part of the whole Checks and Balances thing. It changes slower (elections every six years, staggered so some are elected in every two year cycle) and each represents a whole state rather than a narrower district. Originally, they were appointed by the state government and were intended to represent the state's interests while the House represented the people.
They also have specific roles the House doesn't: ratifying treaties, confirming Presidential appointments, maybe other things I'm not thinking of.

It's certainly not necessary, in a reductive sense. You could have a government without one. It's probably a conceptual descendent of the Houses of Lords and of Commons in England.

Liberty's Edge

I may have ninjaed thejeff, but he put it better than I did.


He also scored the 420th post, so he got that, too.


thegreenteagamer wrote:
I just want this crapfest to be over for another four years.

.

.
.
Ted Cruz did not endorse Trump tonight.
Ted Cruz told the Republican Convention "“Vote your conscience, for candidates you believe will be faithful to the Constitution”
Ted Cruz was booed by the audience
Ted Cruz is believed to have launched his 2020 bid for the Republican nomination tonight


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Oh please let him run again. I'll get the meme generator.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

He should pick Rick Scott as his running mate, I'd love to see people try to spin the Zodiac Killer and Voldemort as lesser evils.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
CrystalSeas wrote:
thegreenteagamer wrote:
I just want this crapfest to be over for another four years.

.

.
.
Ted Cruz did not endorse Trump tonight.
Ted Cruz told the Republican Convention "“Vote your conscience, for candidates you believe will be faithful to the Constitution”
Ted Cruz was booed by the audience
Ted Cruz is believed to have launched his 2020 bid for the Republican nomination tonight

I have to admit, a couple months ago if you told me I'd have more respect for Ted Cruz than Marco Rubio, I'd have laughed at you. Apparently, I as wrong. Good for you, Ted.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Pillbug Toenibbler wrote:
So, I think it's time the sane Republicans consider their post-November options.
The problem is, the divide isn't really sane and insane. If anything it's libertarian vs religious.

Except it's not. Trump is neither libertarian, nor is he religious.

As far as I can tell, Trump is nothing except narcissistically antimodernist. He liked the world better in 1955 and so did a lot of other people. He felt more comfortable when everyone around him knew their place and stayed in it, and he campaigns on a promise to put everyone back in their place.

And I think that's what Toenibbler means. Trump represents a new strand of Republican "thought" that is explicitly and by design unsuited to the modern world, because it is a rejection of the modern world. For that matter, it will by its very nature be a failure -- you can't unring a bell, unscramble an egg, pick your favorite clichéd metaphor -- but it can do a lot of damage to the brand in the process of that failure.

So the groups that are at least prepared to deal with changing reality instead of ignoring it will need to find a way to rework their message.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Pillbug Toenibbler wrote:
So, I think it's time the sane Republicans consider their post-November options.
The problem is, the divide isn't really sane and insane. If anything it's libertarian vs religious.

Except it's not. Trump is neither libertarian, nor is he religious.

As far as I can tell, Trump is nothing except narcissistically antimodernist. He liked the world better in 1955 and so did a lot of other people. He felt more comfortable when everyone around him knew their place and stayed in it, and he campaigns on a promise to put everyone back in their place.

And I think that's what Toenibbler means. Trump represents a new strand of Republican "thought" that is explicitly and by design unsuited to the modern world, because it is a rejection of the modern world. For that matter, it will by its very nature be a failure -- you can't unring a bell, unscramble an egg, pick your favorite clichéd metaphor -- but it can do a lot of damage to the brand in the process of that failure.

So the groups that are at least prepared to deal with changing reality instead of ignoring it will need to find a way to rework their message.

You may be right about it being different from libertarian or religion, but it's not new. It's the Sarah Palin wing. It's the angry wing. It's built off the racism of the Southern Strategy and the religious bigotry that came in with Reagan's embrace of the religious right - not religious per se.

I don't think it's nearly so well defined as "a new strain of Republican thought". It's not new and it's not thought. It's just the same strategy of riling voters up, stripped of it's veneer.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:


I don't think it's nearly so well defined as "a new strain of Republican thought". It's not new and it's not thought. It's just the same strategy of riling voters up, stripped of it's veneer.

I disagree (obviously); while it certainly has roots, the implicit nihilism is something new. Sarah Palin, for all her flaws, was pretty obviously a creation of the Tea Party wing of the party and outlined a clear set of policies that she favored. That's one of the reasons that the thinly disguised racism worked so well for the various Republicans historically -- they could claim that the votes they were getting from the racists and such were actually votes in favor of whatever destroy-the-middle-class policies they wanted to do.

Trump has ripped that particular facade away. Trump -- and his supporters -- aren't actually for anything. They're not for the Constitution, for civil rights, for small government, for anything. The party platform bears no relationship to what Trump has been campaigning on (and I'm not the only one who has noticed that; check any of the recent political columnists).

Trump and his supporters are against. They're against Mexicans, against blacks, against women's rights, against liberals and most of all, against Clinton. (Again, I'm not the only one who's noticed this. See Christie's witch-hunt speech, or Cain's speech explicitly calling Clinton a tool of Satan.)

Basically, the new strategy is riling voters up. Prior to this cycle, you riled voters up for a purpose. You whipped them into a frenzy so that they would do something, so that you had support for what you wanted to do. Trump has stripped that down. He wants to be elected, and that's as far as his ambitions go. He has no policy ambitions, no plans, no path forward. And his supporters are, in the rather prophetic words of Meat Loaf, "all revved up with no place to go."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
thejeff wrote:


I don't think it's nearly so well defined as "a new strain of Republican thought". It's not new and it's not thought. It's just the same strategy of riling voters up, stripped of it's veneer.

I disagree (obviously); while it certainly has roots, the implicit nihilism is something new. Sarah Palin, for all her flaws, was pretty obviously a creation of the Tea Party wing of the party and outlined a clear set of policies that she favored. That's one of the reasons that the thinly disguised racism worked so well for the various Republicans historically -- they could claim that the votes they were getting from the racists and such were actually votes in favor of whatever destroy-the-middle-class policies they wanted to do.

Trump has ripped that particular facade away. Trump -- and his supporters -- aren't actually for anything. They're not for the Constitution, for civil rights, for small government, for anything. The party platform bears no relationship to what Trump has been campaigning on (and I'm not the only one who has noticed that; check any of the recent political columnists).

Trump and his supporters are against. They're against Mexicans, against blacks, against women's rights, against[i/] liberals and most of all, [i]against Clinton. (Again, I'm not the only one who's noticed this. See Christie's witch-hunt speech, or Cain's speech explicitly calling Clinton a tool of Satan.)

Basically, the new strategy is riling voters up. Prior to this cycle, you riled voters up for a purpose. You whipped them into a frenzy so that they would do something, so that you had support for what you wanted to do. Trump has stripped that down. He wants to be elected, and that's as far as his ambitions go. He has no policy ambitions, no plans, no path forward. And his supporters are, in the rather prophetic words of Meat Loaf, "all revved up with no place to go."

Maybe I'm just more cynical. The facade was always a facade. The purpose remains the same: Get me into office.

It is the Tea Party wing, which was never really very coherent about what it wanted, just about what it opposed. Trump's just taken that to the extreme and dropped the pretense. He's likely to find out why more successful politicians kept the pretence up: You need the facade to appeal to voters you need in the general election.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:


Basically, the new strategy is riling voters up. Prior to this cycle, you riled voters up for a purpose. You whipped them into a frenzy so that they would do something, so that you had support for what you wanted to do. Trump has stripped that down. He wants to be elected, and that's as far as his ambitions go. He has no policy ambitions, no plans, no path forward. And his supporters are, in the rather prophetic words of Meat Loaf, "all revved up with no place to go."

Maybe I'm just more cynical. The facade was always a facade. The purpose remains the same: Get me into office.

Go a level deeper. "Get me into office" is motivation for the candidate, but not his backers. That's why all of the Republican candidates have historically danced to the tune their big backers (e.g., Rupert Murdoch, the Koch brothers, and so forth) have called [and why Democratic candidates have danced to the tunes the unions called]. I mean, that's how politics is supposed to work; I vote for the candidate who best represents my interests and who will implement the policies I want.

Trump is different because he has no policies he will implement, which is part of why he's had so much trouble with the big donors. I understand why Trump wants to be in office, but why should Murdoch want him there? (The best argument they've been able to come up with is "he's not Hilary.")

Ordinarily the lack of support from the plutocrats would have damned his candidacy from the start, but he has three advantages they couldn't neutralize. First, he's a plutocrat in his own right. (Perhaps Murdoch could run for the presidency himself, but I'm sure he doesn't want the job. He doesn't want to be the president, just to own him.) Second, he's a reality TV star and has a tremendous telepresence. Third, he can work the media, especially social media, to get his message out, without needing to spend millions of dollars of donor money.

And that's what's new. Normally, by this level, a candidate is so covered in pocket lint that he's got a fairly clear-cut set of policies he owes his donors. Trump doesn't owe anyone anything, so he can continue to run on a purely nihilist platform.


Kolokotroni wrote:
The truth of the matter is 3rd parties will never work unless we change our voting system. The raw mathematics of first past the post voting makes 3rd parties a non-starter. That isn't because people are ignorant or because they are lazy, its because our actual system that we use to elect executive and representatives is fundamentally bad, and by its very nature drives us to 2 parties.

Yes, this is true. The Problems with First Past the Post Voting Explained.

If you are against Trump and/or Pence, it's got to be whoever's leading amongst Clinton, Stein and Johnson in order to fight the Trump/Pence ticket.

I used to be so angry, so angry at all the "A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush" talk back in the 00:s but... it's math!

And there could be voting systems that don't have that problem (where you'd rank your candidates so a libertarian that hates Trump/Pence could vote Johnson, Stein, Clinton, Trump and a hippie that hates Trump/Pence could vote Stein, Clinton, Johnson, Trump.)

But that's not how it is yet. We need election reform but until we've got that, tactical voting is a necessity. And, it's absolutely horrible that that's how it's set up but when people started inventing democracy they didn't know the maths.

I think Clinton has done a lot of concessions to the Sanders camp and I think she's a good enough candidate to vote for. Is it the lesser evil? Yeah, she wouldn't have been my first choice for sure but I'm so terrified of Mike Pence in power. And of course Trump.

We here in Europe also need election reform badly (+ we have... other issues also.)


Orfamay Quest wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:


Basically, the new strategy is riling voters up. Prior to this cycle, you riled voters up for a purpose. You whipped them into a frenzy so that they would do something, so that you had support for what you wanted to do. Trump has stripped that down. He wants to be elected, and that's as far as his ambitions go. He has no policy ambitions, no plans, no path forward. And his supporters are, in the rather prophetic words of Meat Loaf, "all revved up with no place to go."

Maybe I'm just more cynical. The facade was always a facade. The purpose remains the same: Get me into office.

Go a level deeper. "Get me into office" is motivation for the candidate, but not his backers. That's why all of the Republican candidates have historically danced to the tune their big backers (e.g., Rupert Murdoch, the Koch brothers, and so forth) have called [and why Democratic candidates have danced to the tunes the unions called]. I mean, that's how politics is supposed to work; I vote for the candidate who best represents my interests and who will implement the policies I want.

Trump is different because he has no policies he will implement, which is part of why he's had so much trouble with the big donors. I understand why Trump wants to be in office, but why should Murdoch want him there? (The best argument they've been able to come up with is "he's not Hilary.")

Ordinarily the lack of support from the plutocrats would have damned his candidacy from the start, but he has three advantages they couldn't neutralize. First, he's a plutocrat in his own right. (Perhaps Murdoch could run for the presidency himself, but I'm sure he doesn't want the job. He doesn't want to be the president, just to own him.) Second, he's a reality TV star and has a tremendous telepresence. Third, he can work the media, especially social media, to get his message out, without needing to spend millions of dollars of donor money.

And that's...

I don't know if Murdoch does want him there. You're right about those advantageous, plus the fact that the media loves controversy and crazy and anything that boosts the ratings. That may have been more important than anything else as far as media coverage went.

As a side note to this, it'll be very interesting to see how Fox News changes with Ailes there. That could be as big a deal as any political changes.
That he was able to self-fund (with a loan!) his primary bid and get by with free & social media certainly plays into how he was able to win without big backers, but doesn't really have anything to do with a new philosophy. He's now having trouble raising funds as I understand it - though some is coming from the not-Hillary angle. Mostly, I expect, the big funders have written him off and will focus on down ticket candidates.

OTOH, the policies the big funders want and base their decisions on aren't necessarily the policies the candidate is openly running on. If you're relying on a few mega-donors, you can make your policy commitments to them behind closed doors and then run on whipping the base into a frenzy. The backers however, been sane and politically savvy realize that only wins you the primary and kills you in the general. They're perfectly happy with you lying to the people, but they want practical lies.

So you're right about how this played out, but I still don't see it as a Republican philosophy or anything like that. Trump was just a candidate who could take advantage of what's been growing in the party for decades.
They won't have to deal with it directly, unless they get another candidate who can run like Trump did.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thegreenteagamer wrote:
captain yesterday wrote:
Yeah, I don't see how Bernie is selling out.
You spend months bashing someone else and immediately jump on their bandwagon the minute you lose? Exactly as much of a sellout as Rubio with Trump.

Sorry, I know I'm late to this particular party and the thread has moved on, but as a flag-wavin' member of the #NeverHillary crowd, I just really want to weigh in that Bernie didn't sell out.

Firstly, he endorsed - which is exactly what he said he would do at the beginning. I don't think it could rightly be called selling out to do exactly what you said you would do before you became a household name.

I know a lot of others will argue with me that he shouldn't be held to that word since the primaries were often unfair and there was certainly a rewriting of rules to favor Clinton when her delegates couldn't be bothered to show up. (Nevada still infuriates me.) But what could he do? It was pretty well established the DNC was firmly in Clinton's camp and it was obvious he wouldn't get a fair shake in the media. So he could make a ruckus, placate a few fans, and be banned from the convention and have all of his delegates forfeited to Hillary.

Which brings us back to the endorsement - he endorsed, he didn't concede. That's a small but important distinction. By not conceding he keeps his delegates and will have them at the Convention next week. And it allowed him to keep his delegates while drafting the platform (who, it should be noted, are the ones responsible for the $15 minimum wage and got narrowly voted down on fracking and TPP). If he'd conceded, I'd grant you he sold out. But he endorsed - like he said - and, while he's definitely out of the running for president, is using what leverage he does have to push the Democratic candidate on policy.

Will it be enough for me to vote for Hillary? Probably not. But as much as my refusal to vote for Hillary will be lambasted as an obsession with 'purity,' I never thought Bernie was perfect. But he was a candidate close enough that I could, in fairly good conscience, vote for him - even if that conscience had to wrestle with the use of drones and refusal to use the word 'apartheid' no matter how much the treatment of Palestinians calls for it. But Hillary has just done too much and falls far too short. (BTW, you can stop with the 'Voted the same 93% of the time' statistic. Most votes are symbolic or roll call votes - they're utterly meaningless. Ideologically speaking, they're pretty far apart as a neoliberal and a Social Democrat, even if they're nearer than Trump and Sanders.)

But it doesn't matter, anyway - it seems highly unlikely that Trump will win, and even if he does, he was going to win my state either way. Which is the case for MOST of the people who are talking about voting 3rd party so typically your moralizing about how they're going to wreck the country by not voting for the candidate you prefer is - well, it's kind of ironic, all things considered.


Belulzebub wrote:
it seems highly unlikely that Trump will win

It isn't at all unlikely. So far, the polls are showing that he has a fairly good chance of pulling ahead of her in the next month or so.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
CrystalSeas wrote:
Belulzebub wrote:
it seems highly unlikely that Trump will win
It isn't at all unlikely. So far, the polls are showing that he has a fairly good chance of pulling ahead of her in the next month or so.

Let's also not forget that was what every Republican was saying for months, as well...


Belulzebub wrote:
thegreenteagamer wrote:
captain yesterday wrote:
Yeah, I don't see how Bernie is selling out.
You spend months bashing someone else and immediately jump on their bandwagon the minute you lose? Exactly as much of a sellout as Rubio with Trump.

Sorry, I know I'm late to this particular party and the thread has moved on, but as a flag-wavin' member of the #NeverHillary crowd, I just really want to weigh in that Bernie didn't sell out.

Firstly, he endorsed - which is exactly what he said he would do at the beginning. I don't think it could rightly be called selling out to do exactly what you said you would do before you became a household name.

I know a lot of others will argue with me that he shouldn't be held to that word since the primaries were often unfair and there was certainly a rewriting of rules to favor Clinton when her delegates couldn't be bothered to show up. (Nevada still infuriates me.) But what could he do? It was pretty well established the DNC was firmly in Clinton's camp and it was obvious he wouldn't get a fair shake in the media. So he could make a ruckus, placate a few fans, and be banned from the convention and have all of his delegates forfeited to Hillary.

Which brings us back to the endorsement - he endorsed, he didn't concede. That's a small but important distinction. By not conceding he keeps his delegates and will have them at the Convention next week. And it allowed him to keep his delegates while drafting the platform (who, it should be noted, are the ones responsible for the $15 minimum wage and got narrowly voted down on fracking and TPP). If he'd conceded, I'd grant you he sold out. But he endorsed - like he said - and, while he's definitely out of the running for president, is using what leverage he does have to push the Democratic candidate on policy.

Will it be enough for me to vote for Hillary? Probably not. But as much as my refusal to vote for Hillary will be lambasted as an obsession with 'purity,' I never thought...

I enjoyed this post.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

If enough Bernie supporters stay home because "Trump probably won't win", than Trump is very likely TO win...


thegreenteagamer wrote:
CrystalSeas wrote:
Belulzebub wrote:
it seems highly unlikely that Trump will win
It isn't at all unlikely. So far, the polls are showing that he has a fairly good chance of pulling ahead of her in the next month or so.
Let's also not forget that was what every Republican was saying for months, as well...

As I've said, again and again, the Republicans were saying for months "It's all going to change. The polling is wrong or people will come to their senses or when candidates drop the anti-Trump vote will consolidate". All of it boiling down to The data is wrong.

Now we've got Clinton with a clear lead, nationally and in swing states. Narrower than I'd like, but real. The people saying "Trump will confound the experts again" are going against the data this time.

I'm not at all sure what polls CrystalSeas is looking that purport to show what'll be happening in a couple months.
I know the "Who do you think will win" question, which is usually more accurate this far out is strongly in favor of Clinton, as are the prediction markets.
Normally, we'd expect Trump to get a bounce in the polls from the convention, though this one's been rocky, so who knows. But that's likely followed by Clinton getting a bounce from the Democratic convention. After that things stabilize and any changes in direction start to be more meaningful. For now, I'm with the markets, which have had Clinton at between 65 and 75% for months.


MMCJawa wrote:
If enough Bernie supporters stay home because "Trump probably won't win", than Trump is very likely TO win...

They won't.

While I do like to encourage people to vote, if Belulzebub is in a solid red state it won't make any real difference. I will say, go vote down ticket though, even if you can't stomach a vote for Clinton.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Belulzebub wrote:
Which brings us back to the endorsement - he endorsed, he didn't concede. That's a small but important distinction. By not conceding he keeps his delegates and will have them at the Convention next week.

So, no.

Yes, he endorsed Clinton. Enthusiastically.

No, he didn't concede.

No, that isn't an important distinction.

No one ever concedes during a primary contest. Typically, they simply suspend their campaign - a tacit acknowledgement that they have lost, while still allowing them to conduct campaign business.

What Sanders did in not conceding wasn't meaningful in any way. It's exactly what everyone else does.

If you think that Sanders endorsed just so he could keep his delegates, you never understood Sanders at all. He endorsed Clinton because he genuinely wants her to become President.

Quote:
And it allowed him to keep his delegates while drafting the platform (who, it should be noted, are the ones responsible for the $15 minimum wage and got narrowly voted down on fracking and TPP).

This was taken care of before his endorsement. If what you said were true, he could have conceded when he endorsed and everything would have been fine.

Quote:
If he'd conceded, I'd grant you he sold out.

Why? Conceding wouldn't have changed anything in terms of what he could accomplish policy-wise. And besides, no one concedes.

Quote:
Will it be enough for me to vote for Hillary? Probably not. But as much as my refusal to vote for Hillary will be lambasted as an obsession with 'purity,' I never thought Bernie was perfect. But he was a candidate close enough that I could, in fairly good conscience, vote for him - even if that conscience had to wrestle with the use of drones and refusal to use the word 'apartheid' no matter how much the treatment of Palestinians calls for it. But Hillary has just done too much and falls far too short. (BTW, you can stop with the 'Voted the same 93% of the time' statistic. Most votes are symbolic or roll call votes - they're utterly meaningless. Ideologically speaking, they're pretty far apart as a neoliberal and a Social Democrat, even if they're nearer than Trump and Sanders.)

Nonsense.

A 93% voting record alignment is remarkable. In fact, no two candidates for President during the 2015/16 election cycle who served in the Senate had a voting alignment closer than Clinton and Sanders did.

OnTheIssues.org rates both Clinton and Sanders as "Hard-Core Liberals." No, they aren't in perfect agreement, but the reality is that they both want the country to move in the same direction. The only difference is that one of them wants the magnitude of that movement to be larger.

You shouldn't just be voting for Clinton - and yes, even you in your safely Red State - you should be campaigning for her.

Quote:
Which is the case for MOST of the people who are talking about voting 3rd party so typically your moralizing about how they're going to wreck the country by not voting for the candidate you prefer is - well, it's kind of ironic, all things considered.

This has literally happened in our lifetime. So, no. Not ironic at all.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The former Bush II voter railing against third party voters sixteen years later? Still ironic.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
The former Bush II voter railing against third party voters sixteen years later? Still ironic.

Twelve years ago. I wasn't of age for the 2000 election. But thanks so much for remembering!


Sell outs to the right of me.

And the republicans.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm just going to answer Scott Bett's post in point by point paraphrasing because the quote tags get ridiculous with a post that long.

Point 1: Bernie endorsed Hillary enthusiastically and it makes no difference.

Enthusiasm is largely a matter of opinion, and some Hillary backers would disagree with your assessment. But the point is that leading up to the endorsement they were still battling over rules in the platform and he will continue to push her even so - he endorsed Obama in 08 and still remained a gadfly.

But ultimately, my only point is that an endorsement is not selling out - I could be wrong in my assessment of the relationship at play here, but he said he'd endorse, and he endorsed. I don't think we actually have an argument about whether that was somehow selling out, even though you seem to have backed Hillary from the beginning, anyway, so we're coming at it from very different perspectives.

Point 2: Hillary and Bernie are similarly liberal and their voting records show that.

No two candidates in the 2015/16 election cycle had a closer voting record - you know what they say about lies, damn lies, and statistics, right? You're comparing specifically SENATORS who ran for president in this election cycle - which gives us Clinton, Cruz, Sanders, Paul, Webb (kind of), and Chaffee (kind of) and Rubio. Take out the outliers - very "red" Democrats like Webb and the libertarian Paul - and you're left with 4 traditional Senators to compare.

As for her being 'hardcore liberal,' that REALLY depends on the issues. Abortion? Kind of. Intelligence/Surveillance? Definitely not. Student loans? Not surprisingly, not really. Gender equality? Surprisingly not great! But looking at the email leaks and her attitude on foreign policy it gets really stark . . . her bloodthirst for Syria and unequivocal support for Israel and its rightwing Likud party is seriously scary. What she did in Haiti and Honduras is unequivocally terrible. She's Pro-TPP, pro-fracking, takes money from private prisons (even as she promises to shut them down), takes money from banks, from defense contractors, is appealing to Bush donors, and has the admiration of Dick freaking Cheney. And that 7% difference included the vote for Iraq - which I'm going to circle back to.

Point 3: I'm going to break my rules here and quote because it calls for it:

Scott Betts wrote:
Belulzebub wrote:
Which is the case for MOST of the people who are talking about voting 3rd party so typically your moralizing about how they're going to wreck the country by not voting for the candidate you prefer is - well, it's kind of ironic, all things considered.
This has literally happened in our lifetime. So, no. Not ironic at all.

I'm going to reiterate the part you apparently glossed over because it provides important context:

Quote:
...he was going to win my state either way. Which is the case for MOST of the people who are talking about voting 3rd party...

Even buying the Nader argument (I don't, obviously, but that's a discussion for another thread) no, see, never in our lifetime has a 3rd party candidate in a heavily Red or Blue state made any difference whatsoever. I live in Indiana. Trump will win here, handily. There's not even a question mark about it. You apparently did read this part, because you reference me being in a red state elsewhere in your post, but somehow conveniently left it off your retort?

People in swing states who decide to vote strategically --- look, I get it. As always, I don't agree, but I get it and I will understand why. But when you go on these long tangents against people in Indiana or New York or Wyoming or Oregon, what good does it do? Only a handful of states really will make a difference, and the candidates know this, which is why they spend all of their time there.

So the irony is that we get flamed by party loyalists who lament our dedication to purity and feeding our egos when what we do won't actually result in a victory . . . while basically arguing against people whose votes really aren't going to make a huge difference to assuage your egos and feel like the only adults in the room who can be reasonable about all this pesky 'morality' business.

EDIT: Almost forgot to circle back to Iraq!

It's not really in response to any point, but Dems like to throw around Nader as a precautionary tale about voting 3rd party and how it'll get us another Bush. But the absolute WORST piece of the Bush legacy - the Iraq War - Hillary voted for. And now she's gearing up to get us involved in another quagmire just like it. All of the WORST thing's about Bush's presidency had the seal of approval from way too many Democrats so this attitude that if we'd only elected Democrats we'd all be spared another disaster is preposterous, short sighted, and the kind of black-and-white thinking that leads to things getting progressively worse and worse as we let more slide because, "Well, the other side is just pure EVIL!"

And finally - breaking my no quote rule again, but it's thejeff this time so I'm going to officially pardon myself:

thejeff wrote:
MCCJawa wrote:
If enough Bernie supporters stay home because "Trump probably won't win", than Trump is very likely TO win...

They won't.

While I do like to encourage people to vote, if Belulzebub is in a solid red state it won't make any real difference. I will say, go vote down ticket though, even if you can't stomach a vote for Clinton.

That'll unfortunately still be a hard sell. The Indiana Democratic Party is an enormous mess that was running a proven loser even before they knew Pence was going to be leaving and when I voted in the primaries for my district, most of the Dem candidates didn't even bother creating websites or publishing a platform. The Dems have been hanging by a thread at the state and congressional level for a while now and the 2014 midterms were pretty much the death knell. Unless we get another implosion like Richard Mourdock, it's hard for me to see the Dems winning anything here.


Too late to edit my previous post now, but Hillary's VP pick should put to rest once and for all the notion that she's even a fraction of the progressive candidate Bernie Sanders would have been.


I saw a tweet that said Bernie's continued support of Hillary in the face of the latest Wikileaks can only be explained by him either being bought off or fearing for his very life. Seemed a bit overdramatic, but considering Cruz didn't endorse Trump, it would have been nice to see him just shut his mouth when asked his opinion on her, rather than re-upping his selling-out ensuring his future position as a cabinet member of the next Clinton regime losing all his credit as someone fighting the establishment support of her.

Meanwhile, this is making my brain hurt:
I have a half-Mexican cousin that I just found out is a Trump supporter. Not, like, long-distance Mexican descent; his dad is first generation born in this country, and he was raised with his Mexican immigrant grandparents just down the street, and is totally bilingual...the whole shebang.

...and he's posting Trump memes on Facebook.

I don't know where else to share my sheer whatthef%%%edness of this situation. Honestly...I kinda wonder how many times my aunt dropped him on his head as a kid, or if he really, really hates his father or something.

I mean, he's from Texas, so the Republican in him is just stereotypical, but still... I mean, Trump supporter. Half Mexican. PROUD of his heritage. Trump supporter.

I need to stop thinking about this before I have an aneurysm.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Given the way this presidential race seems to be shaping up, I suggest taking the quick, painless way out with the aneurysm. :P


It amuses me to see that both candidates' potential term of office being referred to as a regime. I think the Commie goblins of the boards would be proud. Or equally bemused. ;)


7 people marked this as a favorite.
thegreenteagamer wrote:
I saw a tweet that said Bernie's continued support of Hillary in the face of the latest Wikileaks can only be explained by him either being bought off or fearing for his very life.

Bernie Sanders recognizes two things that you are either ignorant of or are willfully ignoring:

1. Whatever you think about the delagate process, Clinton got more actual votes. Bernie Sanders believes that in a democracy, the person who gets the most votes should win.
Did the DNC try to rig the delegate process? Yes, they did. But in this particular election, the DNC's rigging didn't change the outcome: the person with the most votes from ordinary citizens won. Sanders respects Clinton's legitimate win in votes in spite of her also getting some extra delegates unfairly.

2. Bernie Sanders places actual policy issues above personality or other factors when deciding who to support. Sanders and Clinton agree on most major policy issues, and Sanders and Trump agree on no issues whatsoever. Sanders said on Meet the Press today that Clinton is "on virtually every issue superior to Trump." That's what Sanders cares about. Not some mystical "trustworthiness gap." Not how "likable" Clinton is or isn't. Not how much she did or didn't criticize her husband for stuff he did or didn't do. Policy issues. That's what matters to Sanders, and that's why he's endorsing Clinton. People who said they supported Sanders but are totally opposed to Clinton didn't understand what Bernie Sanders' campaign was all about.

Now, I don't know you personally, thegreenteagamer, I only know what you put forwards on this website. Based on your recent posting history in this thread, though, I gather that you don't put much stock in whether candidates agree with you on major issues. I am basing that conclusion on the fact that you have expressed political opinions in opposition to those of Gary Johnson on a majority of major issues, yet you still say you support Johnson. That's fine: it is perfectly within your rights as a voter to base your voting decisions on whatever criteria you want. You have to understand, though, that Sanders isn't deciding who to vote for in the same way you are (unless I've grossly misunderstood your political beliefs, which I'll admit is possible). Sanders doesn't give a fly's rear-end about email-gazi or how 'spontaneous' Clinton is or isn't, or what the meaning of is is. It's all irrelevant to him (and to a lot of Clinton supporters).
Sanders decided who to endorse by asking the following questions:
1. Which candidate(s) supports raising the minimum wage? Answer: Clinton, but not Trump.
2. Which candidate(s) supports fighting climate change? Answer: Clinton (Trump thinks climate change is a hoax.)
3. Which candidate(s) supports tuition-free state universities? Answer: neither, but Clinton comes closer than Trump.
4. Which candidate supports regulating Wall Street? Answer: Clinton
5. Which candidate supports overturning Citizens United? Answer: Clinton (and the easiest way to do so would be for Clinton to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court.)
6. Which candidate supports equal rights for people of all gender identities and sexual orientations? Neither candidate is great, but Clinton is better than Trump, and Pence is much worse.

Sanders looked at some variation of those questions and answers, and picked the candidate who most closely matched himself. That is the beginning and end of why Sanders is supporting Clinton.

Once again, some voters do take other factors into account when deciding who to vote for, and that is their right. In a democracy, voters can use whatever criteria they want in deciding who to vote for. I personally use a mix of how much they agree with me on issues and what skills and governing experience they have (I think I would be a terrible president due to lacking governing skills, even though I agree with myself on 100% of all policy issues). Other people view lack of experience as a positive, while other voters take "likability" into account. None of them are wrong, because that's how democracy works. Bernie Sanders just isn't one of those people: he bases his endorsement entirely on issues. He has a right to do so, just as you and I have the right to base our vote on stuff other than pure policy issues.

401 to 450 of 522 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 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.