The 2016 US Election (Part II)

[Raw Shark]

I don't suppose there are any takers on this website?

I'll bet using pubes as currency.

Where would you get them? Stealing is wrong, you know.

[Flagg]

I don't suppose there are any takers on this website?

I'll bet using pubes as currency.

Where would you get them? Stealing is wrong, you know.

I shave them off. Your mom pays good money.

[The Romulan Republic]

More on Drumpf's literally Nazi-esqeu intimidation tactics to win the Republican nomination.

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk ... -fix-is-in

Even before he was a candidate, Trump displayed a rare gift for cultivating the dark power of a crowd.
Even before he was a candidate, Trump displayed a rare gift for cultivating the dark power of a crowd.
CREDIT PHOTOGRAPH BY EDMUND D. FOUNTAIN/THE NEW YORK TIMES/REDUX
More than three months before any ballots have been cast at the Republican convention, Roger Stone, Donald Trump’s on-again, off-again consigliere, has delivered the campaign equivalent of a severed horse head to delegates who might consider denying Trump the nomination. Trump’s supporters will find you in your sleep, he merrily informed them this week. He did not mean it metaphorically.

“We will disclose the hotels and the room numbers of those delegates who are directly involved in the steal,” Stone said Monday, on Freedomain Radio. “If you’re from Pennsylvania, we’ll tell you who the culprits are. We urge you to visit their hotel and find them. You have a right to discuss this, if you voted in the Pennsylvania primary, for example, and your votes are being disallowed,” Stone said.


Over the years, I’ve covered elections in Iraq, Iran, and Burma. Stone’s taunt is every bit as threatening as anything I heard in those places, which have far less experience than America with democracy. Such is the moment we currently inhabit.

By now, we know most of the chapters in Trump’s political playbook: the epithets for “low-energy” Jeb and Lyin’ Ted and Little Marco, and the bombshell provocations—about, say, a nuclear strike in Europe—as a way to draw attention away from unfavorable news and missteps. And, throughout, of course, the mockery of women. But as we approach the growing prospect of a contested convention, in which delegates can make game-time choices about whom they will support, it’s becoming clearer that Trump may seek to shape the outcome by using his most unwieldy weapon of all: the latent power of usually peaceful people.

It’s easy to mock Trump for his thin-skinned fixation on the size of his audiences, but that misses a deeper point: you can’t have a riot without a mob. Even before he was a candidate, Trump displayed a rare gift for cultivating the dark power of a crowd. In his role as the primary advocate of the “birther” fiction, he proved himself to be a maestro of the mob mentality, capable of conducting his fans through crescendos of rage and self-pity and suspicion. Speaking to the Times editorial board, in January, he said, “You know, if it gets a little boring, if I see people starting to sort of, maybe, thinking about leaving, I can sort of tell the audience, I just say, ‘We will build the wall!,’ and they go nuts.”

The symbiotic exchange between a leader and his mob can thrive on what social psychologists call “emotional contagion,” a hot-blooded feedback loop that the science writer Maggie Koerth-Baker describes as “our tendency to unconsciously mimic the outward expression of other people’s emotions (smiles, furrowed brows, leaning forward, etc.) until, inevitably, we begin to feel what they’re feeling.”

When we are exposed to the right energy, even those of us who are not inclined to cross the boundaries from politics to force will do things that we would ordinarily consider reprehensible. Stephen David Reicher, a sociologist and psychologist at the University of St. Andrews, in Scotland, who has studied soccer mobs and race riots, told Wired last month, “People don’t lose control, but they begin to act with collective values.” Recently, he has turned his attention to studying Trump’s crowds. “It’s not your individual fate that becomes important but the fate of the group.”

And therein lies the key to Trump’s ability to introduce menace into the convention: he does not need to call upon his supporters to do anything but protect their newfound sense of identity and purpose. Stone, the political operative and self-described practitioner of “dirty tricks”—a man who (again, no metaphor) has a tattoo of Nixon on his back—has mapped out the fantasy that they will offer to their people, to explain what happens if Trump falls short of the twelve hundred and thirty-seven delegates he needs to secure the nomination. “Either Trump will have twelve hundred and thirty-seven votes, in which case the party will try to throw out some of those delegates in a naked attempt to try to steal this from Donald Trump, or he will be just short of twelve hundred and thirty-seven, in which case many of his own delegates, or, I should say, people in his delegate seats, will abandon him on the second ballot,” Stone said Monday. The convention, he has already told Trump voters, is rigged against them.

“So the fix is in,” Stone said on Monday. “If Trump does not run the table on the rest of the primaries and the caucuses, we’re looking at a very, very narrow path in which the kingmakers go all out to cheat, to steal, and to snatch this nomination from the candidate who was overwhelmingly selected by the voters, which is why I have urged Trump supporters: come to Cleveland, march on Cleveland, join us in the Forest City.”

I know that their are strong protections for freedom of expression, and that is as it should be. But seriously, how far does this cunt have to go before I can have the profound satisfaction of watching him marched off to prison?

[The Romulan Republic]

http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-dem- ... oll-221711

Poll: Sanders surges in California
By NOLAN D. MCCASKILL 04/08/16 10:05 AM EDT
Bernie Sanders is surging in California, according to a Field Poll of likely Democratic primary voters released Friday.

Hillary Clinton still leads the Vermont senator in the state, 47 percent to 41 percent with 12 percent undecided, but the former secretary of state has seen only a modest, 1-point uptick since the last survey was conducted in January. Sanders, meanwhile, has jumped 6 percentage points.

Democrats favor Clinton by an 11-point margin, which is nearly equivalent to the 10-point advantage Sanders holds over Clinton among independents. As exit polls have suggested throughout the primary, Sanders also performs best among younger voters. The poll shows Sanders has more support among voters younger than 40, while older voters prefer Clinton, who also has the overwhelming support of African-American voters.

Sanders has a net favorability of +59 percent (75 percent favorable, 16 percent unfavorable), while Clinton’s net favorability is +43 percent (70 percent favorable, 27 percent unfavorable). Clinton supporters, however, view Sanders much more favorably (+35 percent) than his voters see Clinton (+3 percent), which could call into question their willingness to vote for Clinton in a general election should she win the nomination.

The survey of 1,400 likely voters — 584 of whom are likely to vote in the state’s June 7 Democratic primary — was conducted March 24-April 4 via landline and cellphone. The margin of error is plus or minus 4 percentage points.

Still behind, but gaining ground, with two months to go. Even presuming the poll is correct, it is by no means inconceivable that Bernie could win California, albeit probably not by a landslide.

I'm basically of two minds about Bernie's campaign.

Part of me thinks that while he has a decent chance of taking the lead in pledged delegates, the massive super delegate support for Clinton and the popular vote gap (which if not overcome will give them a justification to keep backing Clinton, as previously discussed) mean that he likely has a very poor chance of getting the nomination and it would probably be better if he had dropped out, rather than risk a divisive convention.

Another part of me feels it would be absurd to expect Sanders to drop out when he's doing this well and that, while I maintain that it would be foolish to assume the Democrats can't lose, the Republican side is enough of a cluster fuck that maybe the Democrats can afford to take a few risks. And I sort of want to see this play out, see just how far Sanders can go.

Also, their is that looming question: "What if Clinton is indicted?"

In any case, I am grateful that it isn't a coronation and that Clinton is actually having to work to earn the nomination, even if a lot of her supporters still seem to think she's entitled to it.

[Purple]

In any case, I am grateful that it isn't a coronation and that Clinton is actually having to work to earn the nomination, even if a lot of her supporters still seem to think she's entitled to it.

Why is that any good? I mean sure, she has to work to make more fake promises than she usually would. But that's about it.

[The Romulan Republic]

Well, two main things:

1. I just object to the idea that Clinton is inevitable on principle, like its a coronation instead of an election with choices.

2. I don't believe for a moment that Hillary Clinton is particularly sincere, but she is pragmatic, in a self-interested way. If she feels enough pressure from the Left, she'll probably be a more left-wing candidate and President if it comes to that (albeit not as good as Bernie). Unless she wants to lose or get primaried in four years, anyway.

[Lord MJ]

Turns out Paul Krugman is repeating the narrative I described a few weeks ago, that Sanders not dropping out is racist because he's not respecting the wishes if black voters.

It's a particularly loathsome line because it implies that major issues such as money in politics, and the risk of special interests having free reign over the government should just be ignored because black people voted Hillary.

Even if Clinton wins the primaries those problems wont just go away, nor should they be ignored. If I were Sanders if in the event I can't win the nomination I would shift my focus to at least fighting on those core issues, otherwise no endorsement and no support from my voters (though they are grown adults, they can make their own decisions). But I guess I would be racist is I took that course of action.

[The Romulan Republic]

Racist, no, but Sanders will and must endorse Hillary Clinton if she is the nominee, because Drumpf or Cruz would be far more damaging for, and opposed to, everything he stands for.

It sucks, but there it is.

That said... Hillary Clinton does not get a blank check from me. I'm not going to say "give us what we want or I don't vote for you", because the stakes are too high now. But I might very well say "give us what we want or I'll support a primary challenge against you in four years."

[Lord MJ]

Racist, no, but Sanders will and must endorse Hillary Clinton if she is the nominee, because Drumpf or Cruz would be far more damaging for, and opposed to, everything he stands for.

It sucks, but there it is.

That said... Hillary Clinton does not get a blank check from me. I'm not going to say "give us what we want or I don't vote for you", because the stakes are too high now. But I might very well say "give us what we want or I'll support a primary challenge against you in four years."

I guess it's a good thing for the Democratic party that I am not Bernie Sanders. Because if I was Bernie Sanders before the convention I would say something like this to both Hillary and the Democratic establishment :

"Lets put the facts on the table here plainly and candidly, there is a large vocal population that is fed up with the political establishment (the establishment being the donors the pols that represent them). If you want their support there are changes you will need to make. And you need to make some believable assurances that those changes will be made. If you don't make them then we run the risk of having Trump or Cruz as President which I can not allow to happen. And I doubt you do either. So you really have two choices. Reform or Hillary will have to decline the nomination. The third option of no reform and Hillary being put forth as the nominee anyway is off the table for me. The choice is yours."

In that scenario if the Democratic party decides to proceed full speed ahead and thus Trump or Cruz become president, the blame will be solely with them and not Bernie Sanders.

Unfortunately (or fortunately) Bernie is not that kind of guy.

[Lord MJ]

More on the controversy.

So Hillary implied Sanders was unqualified due to New York Daily News interview. Bernie responds by saying maybe Hillary is unqualified by accepting Wall St money and voting for the Iraq War. So now what is the controversy?

The controversy is.... Bernie Sanders is sexist for saying Hillary is unqualified.

There are new articles saying "Is Bernie Sexist for Calling Hillary Unqualified?"

I'm done... Why is our politics so stupid? How is our politics so stupid?

[Omega18]

More on the controversy.

So Hillary implied Sanders was unqualified due to New York Daily News interview. Bernie responds by saying maybe Hillary is unqualified by accepting Wall St money and voting for the Iraq War. So now what is the controversy?

The massive difference is Hillary didn't actually say Sanders was unqualified while there was no maybe in Sanders' statement about Hillary being unqualified which is a significantly different type of statement. (He has since outright backed down from the claim.)

[The Romulan Republic]

Ah, Omega18 defending the Clinton party line that Sanders is sexist for criticizing Hillary Clinton. How surprising.

Clinton didn't outright say it, just imply it? So she's better because she's manipulative and passive aggressive while Sanders says it outright, in your opinion?

And how the fuck does it make Sanders sexist? He's very clearly not saying that she's unqualified because she's a woman. Nor is he questioning her qualifications in terms of knowledge and experience. From what I'm reading, he's responding to an attack in kind and making a point about her lack of judgement and character.

You know. Campaigning.

Edit: And while we're on the subject, I find it deeply offensive that Hillary Clinton's campaign uses accusations of sexism as a bludgeon to discredit her opponents. Victims of actual sexism have a hard enough time getting taken seriously without asshats throwing false accusations around for personal gain.

[Omega18]

Ah, Omega18 defending the Clinton party line that Sanders is sexist for criticizing Hillary Clinton. How surprising.

Clinton didn't outright say it, just imply it? So she's better because she's manipulative and passive aggressive while Sanders says it outright, in your opinion?

Sanders said it twice while Hillary didn't when you get down to it and its a big difference in what degree of negative attack you're talking about. Saying someone is unqualified flatly implies by implication you're attacking their experience unless you outright say otherwise with the same statement for that matter. I didn't say Sanders was actually sexist (or actually even specifically imply it in my post), but Sanders did walk into somewhat of a minefield in how he handled that statement. (The accusations of sexism appeared to mostly come from the press rather than Hillary's campaign.)

[The Romulan Republic]

The context (referencing the Iraq War and her financial support from Wall Street) suggests that he is talking about judgement and character, not experience. Everyone knows Hillary Clinton has the resume to end all resumes in politics. That's not the problem.

Was it a clumsy and ill-advised choice of words? Perhaps. But I think the charge of sexism is very tenuous from what I've read.

[Gaidin]

I think the point is that it's always one thing to say that you're running against someone from your own party because you think they shouldn't be in the White House for X, Y, Z transgressions or political stances but not because they're UNQUALIFIED. Because the latter closes doors for your voting masses no matter how hard you try to reel it back.

Especially if you want to provide a front against someone like Ted Cruz or Donald Trump later if you have to.

And Clinton played it beautifully just laughing it the fuck off making him look like he tripped on his face and gave him the opportunity to get the fuck up.

Face it, Bernie lost his god damn temper to the papers for about three days there, minimum. The former allows you to play a subtle hard game whatever kind of politics you want to play. One he's doing a lot better job at now, throwing obstacles in Clinton's way instead of just coming out swinging as hard as he can.

So do yourself a favor and stop acting like it's really about the Iraq War and Wall Street and whatever. That's not what the "Unqualified" issue is about. That's not what people were dropping their jaws about. He'd been throwing those her way for god knows how long. You don't run against someone in the Primary because they're unqualified. You run because you disagree with them. Hell, even Cruz at this point is starting to try to unite the party in spite of previous tactics.

Trump? Well, Trump will be Trump.

[The Romulan Republic]

I think the point is that it's always one thing to say that you're running against someone from your own party because you think they shouldn't be in the White House for X, Y, Z transgressions or political stances but not because they're UNQUALIFIED. Because the latter closes doors for your voting masses no matter how hard you try to reel it back.

Certainly, attacking too harshly could cause issues in the general election. And Clinton would do well to keep that in mind as well, with her campaign's charges of sexism and racism.

Oh, but her victory's inevitable, so it doesn't matter how hard she attacks Bernie because she'll never have to worry about supporting him in the general election, I suppose.

Especially if you want to provide a front against someone like Ted Cruz or Donald Trump later if you have to.

Well, I think whatever words are exchanged now, these two will probably be on the same side against Cruz or Drumpf. Though admittedly it would be better to have a less divisive primary.

But let's be fair here- Clinton and her campaign have been making vicious attacks on the character of Bernie and his supporters for a while now, with Clinton even going so far as to try to tie Sanders to supporting brutal oppression by communist dictators and supporting racist Right wing vigilantes in a recent debate. And then their are the sexism accusations. And so on.

So having people whine when Sanders says something far less nasty is evidence of a blatant double standard.

And Clinton played it beautifully just laughing it the fuck off making him look like he tripped on his face and gave him the opportunity to get the fuck up.

Yeah, that doesn't sound like a biased interpretation at all.

Face it, Bernie lost his god damn temper to the papers for about three days there, minimum. The former allows you to play a subtle hard game whatever kind of politics you want to play. One he's doing a lot better job at now, throwing obstacles in Clinton's way instead of just coming out swinging as hard as he can.

Funny, I've been seeing people say for forever that Bernie needs to be more aggressive, that he's too nice.

And when he does strike hard, he's accused of sexism, losing his temper, and endangering the general election.

So do yourself a favor and stop acting like it's really about the Iraq War and Wall Street and whatever. That's not what the "Unqualified" issue is about. That's not what people were dropping their jaws about. He'd been throwing those her way for god knows how long. You don't run against someone in the Primary because they're unqualified. You run because you disagree with them. Hell, even Cruz at this point is starting to try to unite the party in spite of previous tactics.

Were you intending to imply dishonesty on my part? Because it sure sounds like it to me, calling my argument "acting".

It certainly appears to me, from what I've read of the comments and the context, that Sanders was questioning Clinton's qualification on the basis of her character and judgement, citing Iraq and Wall Street as specific examples. Which is basically what I said before.

Now, you can certainly argue that "unqualified" was a poor choice of words, for a number of reasons. However, it all sounds to me as if he wasn't really calling her unqualified so much as simply making a point that if she calls him unqualified, he could do the same to her.

And if you're comparing Sanders' campaigning unfavourably to Ted Cruz's...

Trump? Well, Trump will be Trump.

Indeed.

[Gaidin]

I'm not comparing Sanders' campaign to Cruz, I'm more observing what Cruz is doing as a stage in the primaries. He's talking to people that he wasn't before. Cajoling parties of voters he wasn't before. Let's not accuse me of things and read shit into this that isn't there. Don't smell what you're stepping in and accuse me of shitting in the yard.

[The Romulan Republic]

You're very clearly pointing to Ted Cruz as an example of something a candidate should be doing in the primary, while criticizing Sanders for supposedly doing differently. On this point, at least, you seem to feel that Cruz is doing it right and Sanders is doing it wrong.

Its not me reading in something that isn't their or falsely accusing you if the message is obvious for all to see.

Sanders has actually been doing just what you said about winning over new voters. He's been actively campaigning for the black and latino vote for months, albeit with limited success. He's been pushing to narrow the gap in states where he was behind. His campaign has been talking about winning over super delegates too (and getting accused of hypocrisy for it).

[Gaidin]

I'm not saying he hasn't. In fact I would say he has by his likeability numbers alone. But your accusations of saying their campaigns are alike are total bullshit and I will continue to call you on it and say you're shitting in your own yard.

[Gaidin]

And a ghetto edit for the record, I've never considered winning over super delegates hypocrisy but necessity. In Bernie's case it's more irony given his statements early in the campaign. In close races they've always been hilariously necessary. Even friggin' Obama needed them in 2008. Hell, he needed them MORE than Hillary is shaping up to need them by the numbers. So I'm not going to deny him his campaigning needs. But if he thinks he's really going to turn them from her without actually winning key facets of the race like popular vote count and delegate count, I've got some laughter coming.

[Raw Shark]

Clinton's support for Wall Street, the Iraq War, and the Patriot Act are major factors in my personal opposition to her. I'd like to see a woman, even a centrist non-progressive, in the White House on principle and had some actual respect for her before that.

[The Romulan Republic]

Yes. I can think of a number of women in American politics who would potentially make an excellent President (Elizabeth Warren and Tulsi Gabbard both come to mind), but Hillary Clinton is not and shall never be one of them, except insofar as she will almost certainly be the least hideous option if she gets the nomination.

[Raw Shark]

Yes. I can think of a number of women in American politics who would potentially make an excellent President (Elizabeth Warren and Tulsi Gabbard both come to mind), but Hillary Clinton is not and shall never be one of them, except insofar as she will almost certainly be the least hideous option if she gets the nomination.

Yeah, I disagree with Clinton on grounds that have absolutely nothing to do with her possession of a vagina, and I object to any implication from fake-Democrat partisans otherwise. She actually gets a +1 in my book because of wimminess, but still fails hard on all other counts besides, as-noted, huge experience in beltway politics, which is certainly not to be ignored.

[Lord MJ]

I think the point is that it's always one thing to say that you're running against someone from your own party because you think they shouldn't be in the White House for X, Y, Z transgressions or political stances but not because they're UNQUALIFIED. Because the latter closes doors for your voting masses no matter how hard you try to reel it back.

You're being too kind to Hillary Clinton here.

We have a situation of money in politics that is an existential threat to our Democracy.

When confronted about it, Hillary not only doesn't indicate she is going to do anything about it, but she considers issues regarding her campaign contributions to be personal attacks.

That means one of two things:

1. Hillary knows what's going on and chooses instead to consider raising issues about her campaign contributions to be personal attacks because she just wants to be President.

2. Hillary honestly thinks that raising issues about campaign contributions are personal attacks against her, meaning that she is completely clueless about the issue of money in politics.

Either one of those things (especially # 2) make her UNQUALIFIED to be President. Not with the current issues we face.

If stating that makes it untenable for her general election campaign, well then she shouldn't be running in the general election. It's really that simple. And I so wish Bernie Sanders would make a statement to that regard anytime someone from the Democratic party complains that what Bernie Sanders is saying hurts her in the general. "If what I'm saying is hurting her general election chances, she is welcome to step aside."

[Gaidin]

You're being too kind to Hillary Clinton here.

And you're acting like I wouldn't say the same thing about Hillary if she said that Bernie wasn't out and out "Unqualified" for the office. Please don't. It's annoying. I'm going by what was said. Not by what you want to pretend what was said and what you want to think it means.