Purple wrote:The Romulan Republic wrote:My feelings regarding Trump are not blind, but based on observing his words and actions, and considering how much worse he might become, especially when his bullying ego mania was backed up by the full power of the Presidency.
Out of curiosity, do you follow the guys speeches and stuff? Because I am probably lacking one huge piece of the puzzle here because to me he sounds mostly sensible with the occasional bout of mania. Where as you describe him as being all insane all the time.
Like for example his speech yesterday on the whole shooting thing. I came into it expecting to hear him talk about death camps for all Muslims the way you guys online hype him out. Instead I found it to be perfectly sane, sensible and thought out. He raised a valid point, proposed reasonable action, performed a well executed political attack on his opposition and packaged it in a dose of charisma.
So what am I missing here?
I've watched some of his speechifying, and its actually rather boring. Even the man's voice grates. Though every now and then he'll say something outrageous. My view is also based on his comments via twitter, his policy proposals (thin and contradictory though they are), as well as accounts of him from those who know him, interviews from before he ran for President (like the infamous one where he sexually objectified his infant daughter), and the history of legal cases (Trump University first and foremost) involving him.
But if you think he's reasonable, then that speaks more to your sympathy for his values than to the reasonableness of Trump. The border wall (payed for by Mexico
), the Muslim ban, Trump University... these are not obscure points which would require in-depth research to uncover. They're common knowledge to anyone who has even slightly been following this election.
Correct me if I am wrong but is that in your political system not equivalent to not voting at all?
Pretty much, yeah, that's how it usually works. Their are rare exceptions in history, where a new party arose (i.e. the Republicans rising and the Whigs falling in the mid-19th. Century), or a candidate runs a strong (if ultimately failed) independent/third party campaign (Teddy Roosevelt, Ross Perot).
In essence, I'm describing a hypothetical scenario under which I would find both major candidates so intolerable that I'd have no choice but to just say fuck it and sit it out. In that case, it would be a three-way toss up for me between writing in the Bern, voting Green (at least an actual party and candidate, even if I don't agree with them on everything), or writing in Buffy the Vampire Slayer for the Lols.
But its all hypothetical, of course.
Now for some actual election news:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-e ... SKCN0Z0205
Hackers believed to be working for the Russian government broke into the Democratic National Committee's computer network, spied on internal communications and accessed research on presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, the committee and security experts said on Tuesday.
Two separate groups entered the DNC's system, and one read email and chat communications for nearly a year before being detected, according to the committee and CrowdStrike, the cyber firm that helped clean up the breach.
Russian spies also targeted the networks of Trump and Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, as well as the computers of some Republican political action committees, the Washington Post quoted U.S. officials as saying, although details were not available.
A Clinton campaign official said there was no evidence the campaign's information systems had been hacked.
A Russian government spokesman denied involvement in the breach.
"I completely rule out a possibility that the (Russian) government or the government bodies have been involved in this," Dmitry Peskov, a Kremlin spokesman, told Reuters in Moscow.
The intrusion is emblematic of the sophistication of Russian hackers, who intelligence officials have long viewed as the most talented of U.S. adversaries in cyberspace.
The Democratic Party had been aware of efforts to hack Trump material for two months, and U.S. intelligence agencies were involved in efforts to find out who was behind the hacking, a source familiar with Trump opposition research said.
The source said Democratic Party operatives believed the hacking was conducted by the Russian government. The research includes material on Trump's business efforts in Azerbaijan, Georgia, Serbia and Russia, according to information made available to Reuters.
Also, today is the DC Primary, marking the end of the Democratic Primary calendar (and honestly, I'm glad the shit show is over, even if I don't like that we've ended up with Clinton as presumptive nominee).
And Bernie is pushing for sweeping reforms in the Democratic Party:
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-el ... ty-n592326
Bernie Sanders on Tuesday laid out a list of reforms he plans to fight for in the coming weeks, including new leadership at the Democratic National Committee, the elimination of superdelegates, and passing the "most progress" platform ever at next month's convention in Philadelphia.
Sanders remarks, which came on the final day of the Democratic nominating contest and hours before he is to meet with Hillary Clinton, provided the most complete picture yet for what he will likely prioritize before pledging support for the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee.
Throughout his upstart campaign, Sanders clashed with many in the Democratic party establishment. Notable among those is DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who Sanders' campaign tried to pressure into sanctioning more primary debates.
"We need a person at the leadership of the DNC who is vigorously supporting and out working to bring people into the political process," Sanders said. "Yeah, I know political parties need money. But it is more important that we have energy."
Sanders also called for electoral reform, including the elimination of superdelegates who have overwhelmingly pledged to support Clinton. He also called for open primaries, which would allow more of the independent voters who supported Sanders to vote in Democratic primaries, and same day voter registration.
"We need an electoral process that is worthy of the Democratic party," Sanders said.
The Vermont senator will meet with Clinton in Washington Tuesday night in a summit that Democrats hope will unify the party after a hard fought primary. Though he has indicated his campaign is winding down, he has yet to clearly state he will back his rival.
"As you all know I will be meeting with Secretary Clinton this evening, and I look forward to that meeting very, very much," Sanders said when asked if Clinton still needed to win his vote.
No doubt their will be much anger at Sanders for not simply shutting his mouth and disappearing, but as long as he ultimately (hopefully fairly soon) endorses Clinton and urges his supporters to choose her over Trump unequivocally, I'm actually glad that he's still going to be pushing for what he believes in, rather than just quietly following the official line.
Parties have internal disagreements. That's a good and healthy thing. And the Democratic Party does need to change. As long as we ultimately recognize the need to unite against the likes of Trump, this could lead to a healthier, more democratic Democratic Party.
Certainly, I never expected Sanders to abandon his life long cause because he lost the nomination. He was a progressive trying to push the country Left before he ran, and he will be after, only now he'll be higher profile.
Although I will say that, in the interests of democracy, he should push for the end of caucuses as well as the end of super delegates, regardless of weather caucuses benefited him at times. I'm not saying he isn't or won't- the article simply doesn't mention it. But its something I'd like to see.
One thing this primary has taught me is that we should have a nation-wide semi-open primary decided by popular vote, and be done with it. Or at least get as close to that as we can.
