The 2016 US Election (Part II)

[Nephtys]

I'm flabbergasted at Bernie-or-Bust.

I understand very much the appeal of Bernie Sanders, and I in fact would prefer him as the candidate. That said, If he does not become the next democratic candidate, then the concept of staying home or a futile 3rd party protest vote is pretty much a half-vote for the fascist demogaugue.

Really, are we comparing what amounts to a normal establishment politician, with a guy who literally has advocated for open violence, rounding up people of specific ethnicities or religions, shutting down the internet, and open war crimes against civilians? He's a symptom of a kind of American political 'thinking' that needs to be crushed as hard as possible through the legal channels of being annihilated in a general election by as big a margin as possible.

[U.P. Cinnabar]

I'll look in the recipe thread; I've got it bookmarked.

And, I didn't even think about the nuisances they are to gardens. Duh, me.

[The Romulan Republic]

I'm flabbergasted at Bernie-or-Bust.

I understand very much the appeal of Bernie Sanders, and I in fact would prefer him as the candidate. That said, If he does not become the next democratic candidate, then the concept of staying home or a futile 3rd party protest vote is pretty much a half-vote for the fascist demogaugue.

Really, are we comparing what amounts to a normal establishment politician, with a guy who literally has advocated for open violence, rounding up people of specific ethnicities or religions, shutting down the internet, and open war crimes against civilians? He's a symptom of a kind of American political 'thinking' that needs to be crushed as hard as possible through the legal channels of being annihilated in a general election by as big a margin as possible.

On top of Donald's loathsomeness, there's the shear counterproductive stupidity of it. Its just about the fastest way I can think of to throw away everything Senator Sanders has fought for, destroy his legacy, and make his supporters even more paraias of the Democratic Party rather than people poised to take control of it over the next generation.

[Raw Shark]

I'll look in the recipe thread; I've got it bookmarked.

I'm pretty sure it's in the survival eating thread, if I remember correctly, and that my all-time best was three in one boring summer day. They're not fantastic in terms of taste or meat quantity, but if you throw in some potatoes and carrots it's enough for stew.

[Adam Reynolds]

It is kind of interesting how liberal commentators have been much better at prognosticating the GOP primary than the conservatives.

This actually happens in every election. Statistician Nate Silver(who created the site 538.org) once did a study on predictions made on the show The Mclaughlin Group and found that predictions like this were literally a coin toss. When asked to predict the 2008 election, only the liberal guest accurately predicted Obama's victory, despite the fact that there was a 95% chance of his victory based on the polls.

[TithonusSyndrome]

I'm flabbergasted at Bernie-or-Bust.

I understand very much the appeal of Bernie Sanders, and I in fact would prefer him as the candidate. That said, If he does not become the next democratic candidate, then the concept of staying home or a futile 3rd party protest vote is pretty much a half-vote for the fascist demogaugue.

Really, are we comparing what amounts to a normal establishment politician, with a guy who literally has advocated for open violence, rounding up people of specific ethnicities or religions, shutting down the internet, and open war crimes against civilians? He's a symptom of a kind of American political 'thinking' that needs to be crushed as hard as possible through the legal channels of being annihilated in a general election by as big a margin as possible.

On top of Donald's loathsomeness, there's the shear counterproductive stupidity of it. Its just about the fastest way I can think of to throw away everything Senator Sanders has fought for, destroy his legacy, and make his supporters even more paraias of the Democratic Party rather than people poised to take control of it over the next generation.

I think the idea is that there's enough #NeverTrump republicans to band together with the democrats and supermajority any dumb thing Trump would ever want to do as president into oblivion, possibly even ending in impeachment within the year, so they feel safe enough letting him run amok in the Oval Office with a limited ability to damage anything in order to make some kind of accelerationist point. From a purely self-interested standpoint, compartmentalizing my compassion for my neighbor nation temporarily in order to explore the point, I can see the value of accelerating America's disgust with all things GOP in the long run in exchange for limited, contained Trump rampages... assuming of course that it'd go off according to plan at all.

Then there's the possibility of a brokered convention and some palatable Republican prevailing like Kasich or god knows what, but I doubt any Bernie-or-Buster wants to play around in hypotheticals with that.

[Gandalf]

I'm flabbergasted at Bernie-or-Bust.

I understand very much the appeal of Bernie Sanders, and I in fact would prefer him as the candidate. That said, If he does not become the next democratic candidate, then the concept of staying home or a futile 3rd party protest vote is pretty much a half-vote for the fascist demogaugue.

Really, are we comparing what amounts to a normal establishment politician, with a guy who literally has advocated for open violence, rounding up people of specific ethnicities or religions, shutting down the internet, and open war crimes against civilians? He's a symptom of a kind of American political 'thinking' that needs to be crushed as hard as possible through the legal channels of being annihilated in a general election by as big a margin as possible.

People are still grumpy that their guy lost. Give it some time and plenty of them will become "Anybody But Trump" people.

[Purple]

Or trump out of spite people.

[Grumman]

I'm flabbergasted at Bernie-or-Bust.

I understand very much the appeal of Bernie Sanders, and I in fact would prefer him as the candidate. That said, If he does not become the next democratic candidate, then the concept of staying home or a futile 3rd party protest vote is pretty much a half-vote for the fascist demogaugue.

Your vote is always futile - the chances that any vote will come down to 499,999 vs 5,000,000, with your vote making the difference between victory and defeat, are minuscule. You can't use realpolitik to say it is essential that people vote for the second-shittiest candidate to keep the shittiest candidate out of power when it is clearly anything but.

Really, are we comparing what amounts to a normal establishment politician, with a guy who literally has advocated for open violence, rounding up people of specific ethnicities or religions, shutting down the internet, and open war crimes against civilians?

Your "normal establishment politician" made herself complicit in the deaths of a hundred thousand people by voting to start a war despite the clear evidence from the people tasked with investigating Iraq's WMDs that the justification for that war was bullshit. That alone is more than enough reason never to vote for Hillary Clinton.

[The Romulan Republic]

I'm flabbergasted at Bernie-or-Bust.

I understand very much the appeal of Bernie Sanders, and I in fact would prefer him as the candidate. That said, If he does not become the next democratic candidate, then the concept of staying home or a futile 3rd party protest vote is pretty much a half-vote for the fascist demogaugue.

Your vote is always futile - the chances that any vote will come down to 499,999 vs 5,000,000, with your vote making the difference between victory and defeat, are minuscule. You can't use realpolitik to say it is essential that people vote for the second-shittiest candidate to keep the shittiest candidate out of power when it is clearly anything but.

Saying your vote is futile because your vote alone won't decide the result is missing the point. The point is that everyone has a say, and that the result is determined by the collective will of millions of people- but if every one of those people decided their vote didn't matter, then it would bloody well matter.

Something does not become pointless simply because it requires the effort of more than one person to achieve, nor is a person's contribution meaningless because other people had to contribute too.

Saying that a vote is futile because your vote alone won't decide everything, when viewed in that light, is frankly a stunningly narcissistic position. Essentially its saying that you don't see any point to contributing unless you alone dictate the result.

It is also a fundamentally undemocratic attitude.

Your "normal establishment politician" made herself complicit in the deaths of a hundred thousand people by voting to start a war despite the clear evidence from the people tasked with investigating Iraq's WMDs that the justification for that war was bullshit. That alone is more than enough reason never to vote for Hillary Clinton.

The alternative is a man who openly condones bigotry, xenophobia, and political violence. That alone is more than enough reason to vote for Clinton if she has the best chance of stopping him.

[Tanasinn]

Trump is also a political island with no one to further his vile ideas. Clinton, on the other hand, has a long record of making this and other countries worse, and is connected to pretty much every meaningful political establishment in the country.

[The Romulan Republic]

I wouldn't assume that Donald's campaign won't go beyond Donald. He is legitimizing as part of the mainstream some very dangerous ideas, and even if he has no direct allies or successors beyond his campaign, that may have long term negative consequences for American society.

[maraxus2]

Trump is also a political island with no one to further his vile ideas. Clinton, on the other hand, has a long record of making this and other countries worse, and is connected to pretty much every meaningful political establishment in the country.

You mean apart from the House GOP? If he gets elected, it won't matter that he has extremely fuzzy views on things; Congress will be in the driver's seat and Congress, particularly the House, is about as right-wing as you can feasibly get in this country. And we can see where letting a right-wing legislature can lead us. Just look at Kansas. Or North Carolina.

There are things far far worse than a Clinton Presidency, and we can see them in more than half of the states.

Your "normal establishment politician" made herself complicit in the deaths of a hundred thousand people by voting to start a war despite the clear evidence from the people tasked with investigating Iraq's WMDs that the justification for that war was bullshit. That alone is more than enough reason never to vote for Hillary Clinton.

The "normal establishment politician" also has some pretty good ideas on domestic policy, which is (to my mind anyway) far more important than her less than stellar foreign policy positions.

How that shakes out for a voter is really a value judgment, not something you can objectively measure. LBJ had one of the most progressive terms of any American president, and was certainly the best on civil rights, despite spending literally his entire political career opposing them. I'm not sure that the vicious and murderous war in Vietnam negates that.

[Simon_Jester]

Clinton is complicit in the Iraq War but there's no sign she would have started it. I mean, seriously, we forget that at the time the war began, Bush's actions had approval by an overwhelming majority of Americans. Was it a mistake, yes. But to act as though Clinton is somehow a specially bad war criminal for supporting the war is just historically illiterate. And illiterate about recent history, at that.

If we're so busy pooh-poohing literally everyone who supported the Iraq War in 2002-3 that we choose to ignore the very real threat posed to civil liberties, functional government, and investment in the future of America by right-wing radicals...

...Frankly we deserve to lose. Because that's just grossly stupid.

[Grumman]

Clinton is complicit in the Iraq War but there's no sign she would have started it. I mean, seriously, we forget that at the time the war began, Bush's actions had approval by an overwhelming majority of Americans.

Clinton's opponent isn't the Median American, it's Bernie Sanders, who made the right call when Clinton didn't.

If we're so busy pooh-poohing literally everyone who supported the Iraq War in 2002-3 that we choose to ignore the very real threat posed to civil liberties, functional government, and investment in the future of America by right-wing radicals...

...Frankly we deserve to lose. Because that's just grossly stupid.

If you're so worried about right-wing radicals, why would you choose a champion who served as the right-wing radicals' useful idiot when it mattered most?

[Simon_Jester]

I can no longer tell whether you're commenting on Clinton as compared to Sanders or Clinton as compared to Trump. It's not really worthwhile to engage with you if you dance back and forth between those questions.

[Block]

Clinton is now courting Bush donors. I have zero confidence that she won't be just as bad as Dubya was.

[maraxus2]

^something tells me you don't recall the Bush years terribly clearly then. Who is she courting, exactly?

[bilateralrope]

Clinton is now courting Bush donors. I have zero confidence that she won't be just as bad as Dubya was.

She doesn't need to be better than Bush to be worth voting for in the presidential election. She only needs to be better than Trump.

[Block]

Clinton is now courting Bush donors. I have zero confidence that she won't be just as bad as Dubya was.

She doesn't need to be better than Bush to be worth voting for in the presidential election. She only needs to be better than Trump.

For you maybe. I'd rather have a blithering psychotic who gets zero done, which I think is what'd happen with Trump than Bush v3. She is every bit the chicken hawk that Cheney is.
She's been reaching out to the big donor lists from W and Jeb's campaigns selling herself as the best one to represent their interests. Fuck that.

[maraxus2]

For you maybe. I'd rather have a blithering psychotic who gets zero done, which I think is what'd happen with Trump than Bush v3. She is every bit the chicken hawk that Cheney is.
She's been reaching out to the big donor lists from W and Jeb's campaigns selling herself as the best one to represent their interests. Fuck that.

He said, while providing no evidence. Which donor lists? Who is on them? Do you have specifics? This seems to run counter to her overall campaign strategy, which is to not tell the GOP to go fuck themselves, but not spend any significant time courting their vote either.

[Soontir C'boath]

I'm flabbergasted at Bernie-or-Bust.

I understand very much the appeal of Bernie Sanders, and I in fact would prefer him as the candidate. That said, If he does not become the next democratic candidate, then the concept of staying home or a futile 3rd party protest vote is pretty much a half-vote for the fascist demogaugue.

Really, are we comparing what amounts to a normal establishment politician, with a guy who literally has advocated for open violence, rounding up people of specific ethnicities or religions, shutting down the internet, and open war crimes against civilians? He's a symptom of a kind of American political 'thinking' that needs to be crushed as hard as possible through the legal channels of being annihilated in a general election by as big a margin as possible.

I would not be surprise if Bernie or Bust supporters are the type that would not vote in the first place if he wasn't on the ballot so they'd just be among half the country that doesn't bother to come to the polls anyway.

We've already had an article posted here stating the majority of Bernie supporters would vote for Hillary in the general.

[LadyTevar]

Overconfidence much? Or just more stupidity?

Donald Trump loves coal miners and thinks you should not vote in Tuesday’s elections, he told a crowd of thousands at the Charleston Civic Center Thursday, also hitting all the themes of his campaign — building a wall between the United States and Mexico, renegotiating trade deals and his success in the polls and in prior primaries.

Twice during his 45-minute speech, Trump urged the audience not to vote in next week’s primary elections, instead telling them to “save your vote” for the fall.

“You don’t have to vote anymore, save your vote for the general election, forget this one, the primary’s done,” said Trump, who essentially clinched the Republican nomination this week.

He circled back to his advice 20 minutes later: “Now I can tell you, stay home but get twice as many people in November.”

Tuesday’s election will decide a seat on the state Supreme Court, giving the winner a spot on the bench for the next 12 years.

- See more at: http://www.wvgazettemail.com/news/20160 ... fdp3Q.dpuf

By the time I saw this in the "morning paper", it'd already been picked up by HuffPost, Washington Post, TIME, and even The Guardian and was trending on Google

[Broomstick]

For you maybe. I'd rather have a blithering psychotic who gets zero done, which I think is what'd happen with Trump than Bush v3. She is every bit the chicken hawk that Cheney is.

First problem with that statement: the assumption Trump will get zero done. If you're wrong on that we'll have a blithering psychotic trying to implement the agenda he's already laid out.

Second problem: Trump isn't a "chickenhawk", he'll a full-out warmonger. Haven't you listened to him? He'd definitely get us involved in more shooting.

[NeoGoomba]

I wonder how many of Trump's cabinet members will be able to play him like a fiddle by simply feeding his mammoth ego and convincing him that their ideas were actually his all along? I mean, judging by his actions and attitudes (both during the election and the years prior) he demands "yes-men" or no one at all. How long until those around him figure out how to pull his strings with ease?