The 2016 US Election (Part III)

[Flagg]

Well, there is that.

However, since Warren did not run, Sanders did, and Warren did not endorse him, I think she may have lost some of the weight her name once carried with progressives.

Though personally, I think she may have made the right call in not endorsing Sanders, at least in hindsight, as it positions her to help unify the two sides and possibly serve as a progressive VP in the event of Sanders' defeat.

...lost some of her weight her name carried? Among progressives? Do you read the news?

Through Bern-Colored glasses, I think. I've yet to encounter a Sanders-slut who wouldn't leave him dying in the gutter should Warren come down from Gods right hand and enter the race. Thing is, I doubt Warren can win the general, or if she did it would be a squeaker. They would just go after her as an elite "overeducated" snobbish bitch with some anti-native bigotry thanks to Scott Brown.

[Dalton]

You're shitposting, Flagg. Again. We get it, you don't like Bernie Sanders.

[FireNexus]

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/06/29/op ... ke-up.html

Surprise, surprise. Workers in Britain, many of whom have seen a decline in their standard of living while the very rich in their country have become much richer, have turned their backs on the European Union and a globalized economy that is failing them and their children.

And it’s not just the British who are suffering. That increasingly globalized economy, established and maintained by the world’s economic elite, is failing people everywhere. Incredibly, the wealthiest 62 people on this planet own as much wealth as the bottom half of the world’s population — around 3.6 billion people. The top 1 percent now owns more wealth than the whole of the bottom 99 percent. The very, very rich enjoy unimaginable luxury while billions of people endure abject poverty, unemployment, and inadequate health care, education, housing and drinking water.

Could this rejection of the current form of the global economy happen in the United States? You bet it could.

During my campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination, I’ve visited 46 states. What I saw and heard on too many occasions were painful realities that the political and media establishment fail even to recognize.

In the last 15 years, nearly 60,000 factories in this country have closed, and more than 4.8 million well-paid manufacturing jobs have disappeared. Much of this is related to disastrous trade agreements that encourage corporations to move to low-wage countries.


Despite major increases in productivity, the median male worker in America today is making $726 dollars less than he did in 1973, while the median female worker is making $1,154 less than she did in 2007, after adjusting for inflation.

Nearly 47 million Americans live in poverty. An estimated 28 million have no health insurance, while many others are underinsured. Millions of people are struggling with outrageous levels of student debt. For perhaps the first time in modern history, our younger generation will probably have a lower standard of living than their parents. Frighteningly, millions of poorly educated Americans will have a shorter life span than the previous generation as they succumb to despair, drugs and alcohol.

Meanwhile, in our country the top one-tenth of 1 percent now owns almost as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent. Fifty-eight percent of all new income is going to the top 1 percent. Wall Street and billionaires, through their “super PACs,” are able to buy elections.


On my campaign, I’ve talked to workers unable to make it on $8 or $9 an hour; retirees struggling to purchase the medicine they need on $9,000 a year of Social Security; young people unable to afford college. I also visited the American citizens of Puerto Rico, where some 58 percent of the children live in poverty and only a little more than 40 percent of the adult population has a job or is seeking one.

Let’s be clear. The global economy is not working for the majority of people in our country and the world. This is an economic model developed by the economic elite to benefit the economic elite. We need real change.

But we do not need change based on the demagogy, bigotry and anti-immigrant sentiment that punctuated so much of the Leave campaign’s rhetoric — and is central to Donald J. Trump’s message.

We need a president who will vigorously support international cooperation that brings the people of the world closer together, reduces hypernationalism and decreases the possibility of war. We also need a president who respects the democratic rights of the people, and who will fight for an economy that protects the interests of working people, not just Wall Street, the drug companies and other powerful special interests.

We need to fundamentally reject our “free trade” policies and move to fair trade. Americans should not have to compete against workers in low-wage countries who earn pennies an hour. We must defeat the Trans-Pacific Partnership. We must help poor countries develop sustainable economic models.

We need to end the international scandal in which large corporations and the wealthy avoid paying trillions of dollars in taxes to their national governments.

We need to create tens of millions of jobs worldwide by combating global climate change and by transforming the world’s energy system away from fossil fuels.

We need international efforts to cut military spending around the globe and address the causes of war: poverty, hatred, hopelessness and ignorance.

The notion that Donald Trump could benefit from the same forces that gave the Leave proponents a majority in Britain should sound an alarm for the Democratic Party in the United States. Millions of American voters, like the Leave supporters, are understandably angry and frustrated by the economic forces that are destroying the middle class.

In this pivotal moment, the Democratic Party and a new Democratic president need to make clear that we stand with those who are struggling and who have been left behind. We must create national and global economies that work for all, not just a handful of billionaires.

Am I crazy, or did this motherfucker just tacitly support the Brexit? He mentioned that he didn't like the nationalism and bigotry, but he seems genuinely pleased that Brits ("workers", the word choice which I think gave away his actual feeling) just blew the brains out of the global economy. He just demonstrated, if so, that his "stick to the script" MO is more about not showing people his full views.

I know it's no secret that I'm done with the Bern, but this is fucking outrageous. He didn't even say Brexit was a fucking problem. He warned, it seems, that America might do What he wants us to actually do.

I'm getting pretty sure that his failure to answer questions asking to clarify his stump speech is because the clarification would turn everyone off. Has anyone heard him answer "Is Brexit a bad thing" since this oped got published? How much would you like to bet he didn't say "Yes"?

[The Romulan Republic]

If you want to show that Sanders supports Brexit, find a quote of him actually saying he supports Brexit. Do not rely on "I bet he thinks this" innuendo and implication and expect everyone to just take it at face value.

Sanders is not supporting the Brexit. Here, I'll quote from your own post:

Let’s be clear. The global economy is not working for the majority of people in our country and the world. This is an economic model developed by the economic elite to benefit the economic elite. We need real change.

But we do not need change based on the demagogy, bigotry and anti-immigrant sentiment that punctuated so much of the Leave campaign’s rhetoric — and is central to Donald J. Trump’s message.

We need a president who will vigorously support international cooperation that brings the people of the world closer together, reduces hypernationalism and decreases the possibility of war. We also need a president who respects the democratic rights of the people, and who will fight for an economy that protects the interests of working people, not just Wall Street, the drug companies and other powerful special interests.

We need to fundamentally reject our “free trade” policies and move to fair trade. Americans should not have to compete against workers in low-wage countries who earn pennies an hour. We must defeat the Trans-Pacific Partnership. We must help poor countries develop sustainable economic models.

We need to end the international scandal in which large corporations and the wealthy avoid paying trillions of dollars in taxes to their national governments.

We need to create tens of millions of jobs worldwide by combating global climate change and by transforming the world’s energy system away from fossil fuels.

We need international efforts to cut military spending around the globe and address the causes of war: poverty, hatred, hopelessness and ignorance.

In other words, Sanders does not support the Brexit or the bigoted, nationalist motivations behind it. And he certainly does not support America doing something similar (i.e. electing Trump). Rather, he regards it as a predictable kind of response to the problems with the global economy, and is proposing an alternate solution. Not Brexit-style isolationism and xenophobia, but an alternative solution.

And since you referenced this section of the article (if only to try to hand wave it away) in your own post, I know full-well that you read it and were aware of it when you typed up your little rant.

Before I determine how to respond further, I would also ask you to clarify this:

He mentioned that he didn't like the nationalism and bigotry, but he seems genuinely pleased that Brits ("workers", the word choice which I think gave away his actual feeling) just blew the brains out of the global economy. He just demonstrated, if so, that his "stick to the script" MO is more about not showing people his full views.

Is this meant to insinuate that Sanders' "actual feeling" is secretly in favour of "nationalism and bigotry"?

And this:

He warned, it seems, that America might do What he wants us to actually do.

Is this meant to insinuate that Sanders wants Trump to win the election, the thing he was specifically warning against in the article you quoted?

If so, I would remind you that Bernie Sanders has criticized Trump harshly throughout his campaign (including calling him a pathological liar), that he is almost diametrically opposed to Trump on numerous policies, that he has stated one of the foremost goals of his movement going forward is to prevent the election of Trump, and that Sanders is far from the only commentator on the Left to warn that Brexit should be taken as a wake-up call about the possibility of a Trump victory (which is what he's actually doing here).

Again, I ask:

If Bernie Sanders is such an irrelevant, impotent joke with no political future, as some here seem determined to insist...

Why are you so determinedly attacking him, apparently doing everything in your power to misrepresent him, and discredit him? Its not as if he's a threat. Right?

[Block]

Unless you can't read nuance at all he didn't come close to supporting it. What he said is that he understands why it happened and that unless we're careful to address the frustration that caused many people to vote leave, Trump could benefit from the same discontent in the US.

[The Romulan Republic]

Unless you can't read nuance at all he didn't come close to supporting it. What he said is that he understands why it happened and that unless we're careful to address the frustration that caused many people to vote leave, Trump could benefit from the same discontent in the US.

Exactly.

Now, I'll admit I would have liked to see him start off with a strong, clear-cut condemnation of Brexit (seriously, I doubt you could find a bigger Brexit-hater on this board than me). But to suggest that Sanders supports Brexit is a stretch, to put it mildly, and does not fit with what he is saying here, unless you go out of your way to twist or cherry-pick his words to interpret them in that light.

What he is saying, to put it briefly, is that people are pissed off at the economic status quo (very true), and that xenophobes and nationalists could exploit that if an alternative solution isn't found (very true, as Brexit sadly demonstrates).

Again, Sanders is far from the only person on the Left to make the point that Brexit is a warning of what could happen in America with Trump, and its not Brexit supporters making that argument.

[Flagg]

You're shitposting, Flagg. Again. We get it, you don't like Bernie Sanders.

I was? It looks more like I was saying Americans wouldn't vote for Elizabeth Warren.

[Terralthra]

You're shitposting, Flagg. Again. We get it, you don't like Bernie Sanders.

I was? It looks more like I was saying Americans wouldn't vote for Elizabeth Warren.

Yet you managed to insult supporters of Sen. Sanders in your post. Twice. Do you not notice when you do that, like some bizarre political version of Tourette's?

[Flagg]

You're shitposting, Flagg. Again. We get it, you don't like Bernie Sanders.

I was? It looks more like I was saying Americans wouldn't vote for Elizabeth Warren.

Yet you managed to insult supporters of Sen. Sanders in your post. Twice. Do you not notice when you do that, like some bizarre political version of Tourette's?

So? Is there some rule that I can't? I multitask.

[Terralthra]

I was? It looks more like I was saying Americans wouldn't vote for Elizabeth Warren.

Yet you managed to insult supporters of Sen. Sanders in your post. Twice. Do you not notice when you do that, like some bizarre political version of Tourette's?

So? Is there some rule that I can't? I multitask.

Twisting every post into an attack on people only tangentially related to the subject of your post is what had made your posts shitposts. I am having a hard time believing that you don't understand that.

[Flagg]

Yet you managed to insult supporters of Sen. Sanders in your post. Twice. Do you not notice when you do that, like some bizarre political version of Tourette's?

So? Is there some rule that I can't? I multitask.

Twisting every post into an attack on people only tangentially related to the subject of your post is what had made your posts shitposts. I am having a hard time believing that you don't understand that.

How can they be shitposting when the main point of the post is that I don't believe Warren is electable? That's the tree, the Sanders insults are the tinsling.

[The Romulan Republic]

Yeah, Huffington Post... isn't the greatest source, but I'm posting this for one reason: it contains links to the current draft of the 2016 Democratic platform. I'm not posting the whole platform here because... long. But if anyone cares to read it, here you go.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/201 ... 4c43c06bb5

The Democratic Party released the final draft of its 2016 platform Friday, giving activists and party members a chance to see it before the full platform committee approves it in Orlando, Florida, July 8-9. It will then head to the floor of the full convention in Philadelphia to be ratified by the delegates.

Income inequality has a leading role in the document, and the inclusion of the phrase “rigged economy” reflects the influence of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.).

“Democrats believe we must restore the basic bargain that built America’s mighty middle class: If you work hard and play by the rules, you can get ahead and stay ahead, provided we break down certain barriers,” reads the document. “The system isn’t working when we have a rigged economy in which ordinary Americans work longer hours for lower wages, while most new income and wealth goes to the top one percent. In contrast, Donald Trump has shown time and again that he cannot be trusted to secure the basic economic dignity of Americans.”

The platform also advocates a $15 minimum wage, which has been a key part of Sanders’ presidential primary campaign.

Influence over the platform emerged as a key demand of Sanders and his supporters, who wanted to make sure the party continued to reflect the ideas he has been championing.

He was given an unprecedented amount of say in the platform when the Democratic National Committee allowed him to name five members to the 15-member committee. Hillary Clinton chose six, and DNC Chair Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) picked four. Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) is the chair.

But Sanders lost in his attempt to include opposition to the Trans Pacific Partnership trade deal in the platform. When Sanders met with President Barack Obama last month, he informed him that he was going to to push for such a plank in the platform. Obama said he would oppose it — since, after all, the TPP is his initiative — and the White House fought to make sure Democrats didn’t go along with Sanders. Clinton also opposes the TPP.

The draft of the platform acknowledges “a diversity of views“ in the party about the deal:

These are the standards Democrats believe must be applied to any future trade agreements. On the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), there are a diversity of views in the party. Many Democrats are on record stating that the agreement does not meet the standards set out in this platform; other Democrats have expressed support for the agreement. But all Democrats believe that any trade agreement must protect workers and the environment and not undermine access to critically-needed prescription drugs.
The DNC said the committee heard from 114 witnesses and received written and video testimony and comments from 2,500 individuals regarding the formulation of the platform.

Read the full draft here.

[The Romulan Republic]

Finally, some VP news for the orange man child:

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/01/gingrich ... mp-vp.html

Presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has begun formally vetting prospective vice presidential picks.

The New York billionaire is considering former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, among what he previously described as a short list of possible running mates. Their inclusion was confirmed by people with direct knowledge of the vetting process who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the situation publicly.

Trump begins the vetting process with less than three weeks before the start of the Republican National Convention, when he said he would publicly unveil his pick.

Gingrich and Christie, who both received vetting paperwork in the last 24 hours, emerged as prominent Trump allies in recent months, even as the presumptive nominee faced deep and sustained skepticism from many GOP leaders. Trump's relationship with other would-be running mates was badly strained in the bruising Republican primary season, leaving him with a small pool of willing and qualified candidates.


Getty Images
Trump on Thursday acknowledged Christie was under consideration.

"I'm certainly looking at him and I always will. Whether it's for that or something else," Trump told conservative radio host Howie Carr. He later described Indiana Gov. Mike Pence as "somebody we respect a lot."

Pence told Indiana reporters Thursday he hasn't spoken with Trump in several weeks and referred questions to the Trump campaign, which declined to comment further on the vice presidential search.

While formal vetting did not begin until this week, Trump told The Associated Press last month he'd narrowed his vice presidential list to "a very good list of five or six people."

His vice presidential pick could be crucial to easing the concerns of Republicans who worry about his lack of political experience, as well as his temperament to be commander in chief. Tapping a political insider would also be a way for Trump to signal a willingness to work with the party establishment he has thoroughly bashed even after emerging as the presumptive nominee.

Many have already been ruled out consideration, including Florida Gov. Rick Scott and primary rival Marco Rubio, a Florida senator seeking re-election.

Governor of New Jersey Chris Christie.
Getty Images
Governor of New Jersey Chris Christie.
"I have never sought, will not seek and do not want to be considered for vice president," Rubio wrote on Facebook.

Trump said last month, and has repeated in the weeks since, that he preferred someone with political experience to help him guide his agenda through Washington.

"I think that's good for a number of reasons. No. 1, if you win, which hopefully we will. I want help with — you know, I want a hand with legislation, getting things through. And if you bring a business person — we don't need another business person," Trump said.

Christie was vetted four years ago by 2012 nominee Mitt Romney's research team. The Christie administration's more recent involvement in the so-called "Bridgegate" political retribution scandal could complicate his 2016 prospects.

Gingrich, who ran for president in 2012, served as House speaker from 1995 to 1999. He has political baggage as well, having been married three times and lived in Washington for decades.

Yet Trump has said he's looking for a running mate with a long history in the public eye to help with the vetting process.

"For the most part they've been vetted over the last 20 years. In other words, you people have gone to every dinner that they've ever attended, one way or another," Trump said. With a military or business person, he said, "the vetting is a whole different story. Whereas the politicians are, generally speaking, pretty well vetted."

Trump also said that he wants to announce his pick at the July GOP convention: "I do think I don't want to make a decision until the actual convention, not even before it. I mean until it."

[Purple]

I know nothing of your politics so I must ask directly. If you wonted Trump to win which VP pick do you think would give him the best odds of doing so? Alternatively which would give him the worst odds?

[Flagg]

I know nothing of your politics so I must ask directly. If you wonted Trump to win which VP pick do you think would give him the best odds of doing so? Alternatively which would give him the worst odds?

I think in all honesty Trump's VP pick will change not one goddamned thing. Trump's campaign is about Trump, just like every other facet of his public life. Hell, he may pick Christie just because the polo shirt that has "TRUMP 2016" will have to be enormous to cover that fatass.

[The Romulan Republic]

I know nothing of your politics so I must ask directly. If you wonted Trump to win which VP pick do you think would give him the best odds of doing so? Alternatively which would give him the worst odds?

Out of all possible contenders? Not a clue.

Out of Christie or Gingrich... Gingrich, I think. He's got plenty of authoritarian asshole to be compatible with Trump and his base, but he also lends at least a thin veneer of political experience and respectability. He has his scandals, but honestly, they're nothing next to Trump's own.

There'd be a certain irony to it being Gingrich though, as he was one of the Clintons' major political adversaries from the days of Bill's administration (when Gingrich was Speaker of the House), so having him on one side and Hillary Clinton on the other would have this weird reliving the 90s vibe, at least to me.

[Flagg]

You also have to have your VP pick accept. I can see Gangrenegritch accepting eagerly since his political career has less life in it than a zombie on 'The Walking Dead'. Christie has some actual prospects going for him as long as he can keep dodging those Japanese harpoons, so I doubt he'd be as easy to convince.

[Napoleon the Clown]

Honestly, Trump should go for a political outsider for his Veep. I'm thinking Orson Scott Card, to lure in the Mormons. If he can't win them over, he may actually lose Utah. Which would be goddamn epic. It would also appease the rabid homophobes more than just about any other possible pick. Certain book nerds might be swayed as well.

Mostly because of the name combination, though.

[Dalton]

Honestly, Trump should go for a political outsider for his Veep. I'm thinking Orson Scott Card, to lure in the Mormons. If he can't win them over, he may actually lose Utah. Which would be goddamn epic. It would also appease the rabid homophobes more than just about any other possible pick. Certain book nerds might be swayed as well.

Mostly because of the name combination, though.

Go to your room.

[FireNexus]

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/ ... erver-case

What an unbelievably surprising turn of events. They referred to it as "unbelievably careless", sure, but now this will fade into the background like it always should have and just be another piece of evidence that the Clintons are Teflon.

[Grumman]

Clinton has said that she never used her personal email to send information that was marked classified at the time, although some of her emails had been retroactively classified, as NPR's Politics team has reported.

Comey says that's not true. FBI investigators found more than 100 emails that contained information that was classified at the time the email was sent, he said Tuesday. Eight of those were top secret, the highest level of classification.

That is not something that should be shrugged off on the grounds that Clinton's just too arrogant to listen to people telling her not to be stupid. Even if it is not a crime, we should demand that the President be somebody who is at least competent enough to listen to people who know more about a subject than themselves.

[FireNexus]

I agree. And I would not be a Clinton supporter if an Obama was running this year. But there is no Obama. Clinton was far and away better than any other potential candidate, except maybe Tommy Carcetti, but he was never going to last long enough to matter.

It has to be shrugged off. Taking a firm stand on this doesn't do any good.

[TimothyC]

"To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now."

I wonder what went down at the meeting between AG Lynch and Slick Willy.

[Iroscato]

I'm so shocked at this. This is my shocked face. Can you tell how shocked I am? :O

[Wild Zontargs]

[From a non-American point of view,] Trump's statement on the matter is remarkably sane-sounding, given the level of "he's a madman" vibes I've been picking up from non-fans.

The FBI Director laid out today a detailed case of how Hillary Clinton compromised the safety of the American people by storing highly classified information on a private email server with no security. He confirmed that her email could easily have been hacked by hostile actors, and confirmed that those she emailed with were hacked.

Our adversaries almost certainly have a blackmail file on Hillary Clinton, and this fact alone disqualifies her from service.

It has also been revealed that Hillary Clinton lied when she said that she did not send classified information. The FBI Director confirmed that over 100 emails were deemed classified at the time they were sent, including emails classified as top secret.

On top of it all, Hillary Clinton’s lawyers wiped the servers clean to delete another 30,000 emails – hiding her corrupt dealings from investigators. She used the State Department for her personal gain, trading favors for cash, and tried to conceal the records. Also, she didn’t want people to know the details about her botched decisions in Libya, Syria, Iraq and Egypt that destabilized the Middle East.

But because of our rigged system that holds the American people to one standard and people like Hillary Clinton to another, it does not look like she will be facing the criminal charges that she deserves.

Bill Clinton didn’t accidentally run into the Attorney General on the airport tarmac last week in Phoenix. Hillary Clinton didn’t accidentally sneak into the FBI during one of the country’s biggest holiday weekends to testify on her illegal activities, something that wouldn’t be afforded to others under investigation (and on a Saturday of all days). It was no accident that charges were not recommended against Hillary the exact same day as President Obama campaigns with her for the first time.

Folks – the system is rigged. The normal punishment, in this case, would include losing authority to handle classified information, and that too disqualifies Hillary Clinton from being President.


The final jury will be the American people, and they will issue the verdict on her corruption, incompetence, and bad judgment on November 8th.