The 2016 US Election (Part II)

[Flagg]

Right, so there shouldn't be an issue when we decide not to vote for Clinton then, no? So quit bitching about what we want to do then.

You can't have it both ways calling us whiners and to just shut up and vote for Clinton while at the same time telling us to do something about it and bitch at us for letting the "Republitards" win.

JW, where did I say that you, or anyone else for that matter, has to vote for Clinton? As far as I can recall, I've spent most of my time in this thread talking about: A. things that are currently happening (Hillary is currently beating Bernie for the Dem nomination), or B. things that have happened in the past (Nader unquestionably cost Gore that election).

How you cast your vote is totally your decision, and I don't care very much what either of you two do with your ballots. Given that Nap apparently lives in Utah and you apparently live in Queens, it's not like either vote is going to do very much in the grand scheme of things.

Nader did not "cost" Gore anything. Gore cost himself the election by not earning more votes than Bush. Those weren't "Gore's" votes that ended up going to Nader. This is what people mean when they say various campaigns sound "entitled".

No, most Nader voters I knew at the time were buying into that "they're the same" bullshit and would have voted for Gore otherwise. And Gore did get more votes both nationally and in FL.

[maraxus2]

Or anyone else for that matter. Does Jill Stein comport exactly with what you believe? Gary Johnson? Anybody? I'd venture not. People have disagreements with all candidates, but you have to subsume them to a greater purpose, like not having right-wingers in total control over the government.

I was making a general remark about democracy, and Nap's problems with the current system, not about the primary per-se. As I said, I don't care if you fold your ballot three ways and stick it where the moon doesn't shine.

Nader did not "cost" Gore anything. Gore cost himself the election by not earning more votes than Bush. Those weren't "Gore's" votes that ended up going to Nader. This is what people mean when they say various campaigns sound "entitled".

Gore actually won Florida's initial recount, IIRC, and it was only changed after Katherine Harris started her election-day chicanery. And I say that Nader cost Gore votes because it was widely known that he'd be a spoiler and was ostensibly running to get the 5% of the vote necessary to qualify for public funds and official party status. He decided not to campaign in liberal-heavy states like California and NY in the last weeks of the campaign, and focused entirely on Florida where he would: A. be less successful at getting to 5%, and B. would split the liberal vote in Florida and throw the election to Bush. This wasn't exactly a big secret at the time either; it was widely known and discussed within the environmental movement at the time. So either Nader was pursuing a strategy that would obviously fail his overall purpose (to get 5% of the vote), or he was running to sabotage Gore's chances of election. Given the exit polling, and Nader's various statements prior to the election, the latter seems much more likely.

So yes, in my view, he did cost Gore the election.

[Flagg]

There was an entire meme (in a time before meme's) in liberal circles that Gore and Bush were essentially "the same", and that voting for Nader was better than voting "the system".

[Napoleon the Clown]

Thank you for making my point, Maraxus. "A vote for third party is a vote for the Republicans!" That proves exactly what I mean: You lot depend on our votes. Without us, you can't win. But you don't want us to have a voice in your party, you just want our support. Talk about being entitled.

Utah is open primary, so I was able to have my voice heard. I would love to see all fifty states adopt that system. And yeah, fuck caucuses. Go by popular vote instead of assigning delegates. But if you want someone's vote you're obligated to at least listen to their opinion. Otherwise, they have no reason to vote for you. And the Democrats never learn the right lesson. They don't look at that third-party candidate that ruined it all for them and go "Hey, we should try to appeal to the people who voted for him!" They become convinced they were too ambitious and they need to slide further toward the "middle."

Utah was actually a semi-open Caucus. The fact that you didn't know that makes me question whether or not you actually voted in it. And you actually have that back-asswards. Decline-to-state voters only have a choice because the Democrats and Republicans respectively pull together to put candidates on the ballot. You don't see a whole hell of a lot of independent voters working super duper hard to get actual candidates elected to actual offices. Instead, you all get to sit back and watch and judge us as an institution, while we campaigners do the yeoman's work of putting together a campaign and get people elected to office.

Again, I don't have an issue with nationwide open primaries, so I don't know what you're going on about me not wanting you to have a voice in my party.

And I dunno what you're talking about re: sliding further to the middle. Obama was significantly to the left of Kerry and Gore, and Hillary is about the same as him. Bernie is perceived to be out in left-field, though his actual record is somewhat more equivocal. Likewise, our Congressional delegation is significantly to the left of where it was in 2006, to say nothing of 2000. You keep leaning on these tropes that don't have a whole hell of a lot of evidence to back them up. This seems to be a pattern with you.

I'd say arms deals and extreme warhawk policies is a bit further to the right than Bill Clinton. I'd even say her policies have been to the right of Obama, when it comes to foreign policy. And Obama hasn't been the most peaceful of presidents. He only looks peaceful because of how far to the right the Republicans are. Reagan had positions that would be too far left for a good chunk of Democrats these days. Tax policy now and tax policy in the days before Reagan are certainly a lot more right-leaning, even among the Democrats. About the only place that the Democrats have moved left is on gay rights. Militarily? Moving right. Economic policy? Moving right. Look at goddamned welfare reform. Tax policies. American politics as a whole has moved to the right on most fronts.

The democratically elected government of Nicaragua was toppled, and Secretary Clinton had a hand in it. Since that time, women's rights have suffered deeply. A high-profile feminist leader was murdered. The entire situation in the Middle East is worse than when Dubya left office.

Christ, this is the same fucking bullshit we got out of Mitt Romney and his 47% comment. But it's okay, because reasons

Please explain.

Remember his 47% comment, where the message boiled down to "Fuck 'em, they won't vote for us anyway so we won't try to reach across the aisle." That's the attitude at play here. "You won't officially join our club, so we won't listen to your opinion."

At this point, I would love nothing more than to see the Democratic and Republican parties both disintegrate. Neither one represents the people. That third or so of the public that sways the vote is stuck voting for the lesser of two evils, and the fractured nature of opinions in that group means they can't just band together and make their own party that will represent what they believe. Some of that third is libertarians, that want a government so small they can drown it in the bathwater. Some are outright communist. Some are full-on anarchists. Some are socialists. The only way we'll be able to have a viable Not Democrat or Republican is if both parties collapse inward.

Oh boo-hoo. You have to chose a candidate that doesn't comport precisely with your views. Welcome to democracy. Leaving aside the fact that most independents are actually quite partisan, they just choose not to identify with one or both parties, you're fighting a strawman here. Since we don't live in a proportionally representative democracy, and since we devolve a lot of powers to the states, you're stuck choosing between two parties within the existing system. If you have a problem with it, you should do something to change it. Whining on the internet about how unfair it all is doesn't count.

There's no issue with the Dems bending themselves towards the median voter (wait, I thought that was a bad thing?), and it is in fact the only way they can win. Why you think the Dems should comport themselves to your views is, I must confess, a bit beyond me. You profess to hate both parties and are apparently planning on voting for Jill Stein. Good for you! I happen to genuinely like basically all of the candidates the Dems run, at least in my beloved home state. It's not voting for a lesser evil for me at all. How about this? You vote for your preferred candidate and I'll vote for mine. That way, you can preserve your smug sense of superiority, and I can actually do something marginally productive for the country. Everybody wins!

I'm seeing a huge number of Democrats that are saying "Just support the Democrats and fuck your beliefs." The narrative that a vote for Not Democrat is a vote for the Republican means that you don't give a shit about what someone wants out of their candidate. If someone votes with their conscience, they're a traitor. I advocate for fucking listening and it's treated like I'm demanding they cater to my every whim. If that's your sincere belief... I commend your ability to read when you've got your head so far up your ass you're able to look at your half-digested lunch. My opposition to Hillary Clinton has to do with her abhorrent human rights record. Enjoy voting for a war criminal while holding that smug sense of superiority convinced that you're "doing something marginally productive for the country." The 80s were fucking great on foreign policy, right? It's not like arming people resulted in Al Qaeda getting all their neat toys, right? It's not like our attempts to fight the Reds through proxy warfare is a huge factor in the Middle East being so fucked up now. No sirree. The people Secretary Clinton sold weapons to love us, unlike the people Reagan sold weapons to. Yyyyuup. Definitely. No way it's already backfired. War is peace and freedom is slavery.

Don't cry when someone votes third-party while saying they need to shut the fuck up and let the Democrats ignore their voice. The comfort with war crimes is something that disgusts me about the Democratic party. The sheer number of Democrats who don't think unaffiliated voters should have a voice in selecting who they would like to vote for in November disgusts me, and they're the group I'm talking about. Especially when their view is that you have to vote Democrat or you might as well be voting for the Republican. Good for you on thinking unaffiliated voters should be able to participate in the primaries! Have a banana sticker.

The DNC wants support from undecided voters, but it doesn't want to make any concessions to get that support.

I will enjoy watching Hillary Clinton stab you lot in the back. Within a year of her inauguration, we'll be in a brand new war. Maybe she'll use a bullshit euphemism. Maybe she won't. She definitely won't fight for you, unless you're a rich fuck.

[Soontir C'boath]

Or anyone else for that matter. Does Jill Stein comport exactly with what you believe? Gary Johnson? Anybody? I'd venture not. People have disagreements with all candidates, but you have to subsume them to a greater purpose, like not having right-wingers in total control over the government.

No, but when Hillary is basically a Republican, how much further to the right are the Democrat voters willing to go? I am a Democrat and I do not recognize this party anymore. Especially when Clinton works in favor of banks and there are other shit like the goddamn DNC chair being in favor of payday loan companies..

So yes, in my view, he did cost Gore the election.

You might as well blame the other third parties as well that took from Gore, because even one of those parties would have given him the 500+ votes he needed. We can also blame the people who stayed home entirely and if anything, they're worse; they didn't want to give a shit at all. At the end of the day, it was the chad issue and the fact that the Gore simply could not get the Supreme Court on his side to perform a full recount. It should also be noted that in Palm Beach County, thousands voted for Buchanan who probably actually meant to vote for Gore if not for the confusing ballot voters were given in that county.

[Starglider]

The DNC wants support from undecided voters, but it doesn't want to make any concessions to get that support.

It doesn't need to. If you even pretend to be a liberal you are morally obliged to vote for Hillary because first woman president misogyny feminism representation hope'n'change.

[The Romulan Republic]

I know you're being sarcastic, but I would argue that if Clinton is the nominee, their is an obligation to support her for entirely different reasons- to keep rampant bigotry, violent extremism, and fascism from gaining more power in America.

[Flagg]

The DNC wants support from undecided voters, but it doesn't want to make any concessions to get that support.

It doesn't need to. If you even pretend to be a liberal you are morally obliged to vote for Hillary because first woman president misogyny feminism representation hope'n'change.

Nice strawman. Take a lot of mental effort to put that together or did you just copy/paste from troglodytedipshit,org? Moron.

If Donald duck-fucking Trump gets the GOP nomination, which looks all too likely (and it may rip the bloated bowels of that rotten "party" open for good in the process, spilling all the rotten, maggotty black shit on the floor for all to see and smell, oh happy day) it's every American who isn't a fucking bigoted pile of dogshit's responsibility to vote in one solid block to prevent the final nail from being driven into the coffin of our fading republic.

[The Romulan Republic]

Democrats Abroad is currently taken comments/feedback from its members for the Democratics Abroad Platform. I threw in my five cents on behalf of nuclear power, the space program, refugees, tuition free college, and universal medicare, though I doubt anyone will take much notice (just one man, etc.).

It feels good to contribute something more than just a vote though, however small.

[Thanas]

It reminds me a lot of the people who kept saying "Barack HUSSEIN Obama*" regardless of the context.

*Or other versions which kept bringing his middle name in.

Meh, that was very racist to scream ARAB TERRORIST!!!

Even for those who don't scream "Arab terrorist," I've seen it in the context to just drive home the fact that he's different, at every possible point. His name sounds odd to one's Anglo ears, and it's another way of attempting to discredit someone based on that oddness. Bean laid out my point more generally, but I wanted to address this specific bit.

It is also not as if there wasn't widespread anti-german discrimination at numerous points in US history.

[Dalton]

SImmer it down. This thread is once again getting a little too heated.

[Flagg]

Meh, that was very racist to scream ARAB TERRORIST!!!

Even for those who don't scream "Arab terrorist," I've seen it in the context to just drive home the fact that he's different, at every possible point. His name sounds odd to one's Anglo ears, and it's another way of attempting to discredit someone based on that oddness. Bean laid out my point more generally, but I wanted to address this specific bit.

It is also not as if there wasn't widespread anti-german discrimination at numerous points in US history.

My grandfather on my moms side (being of largely German descent) used to say he was given a hard time while a teenager during WW2 even with his (forcibly) anglicized name. But I guess it was nothing compared to the shit his father went through during and after WW1. People forget that there was a ton of anti-German animosity (sauerkraut becoming "freedom cabbage" or something similar) during both World Wars in the US. It's just that the many x worse treatment Japanese-Americans received during WW2 eclipses the treatment German and Italian-Americans received.

[maraxus2]

In today's news, Cruz picks Fiorina to be his Not-VP when he doesn't win the nomination.

Ted Cruz Names Carly Fiorina as His Running Mate, Seeking a Jolt

“If the election were held today, we’d lose but not get crushed,” said a Republican familiar with Mr. Cruz’s polling.

What is striking, though, is that Mr. Cruz decided to tap Mrs. Fiorina even after his own surveys indicated she would offer only a modest boost. In Indiana and subsequent states, Mr. Cruz’s campaign tested the impact if Mr. Cruz named Mrs. Fiorina as his running mate and found it was only worth “a couple of points,” said a Republican briefed on the polling results. “Voters like her. They don’t love her,” said this Republican, who insisted on anonymity to discuss the decision-making.

Yet Mr. Cruz’s gambit may present a perilous challenge for Mr. Trump, who faces mounting criticism for his derisive remarks about women, including his repeated claims that Mrs. Clinton’s sole political asset is “the woman’s card.”

Already viewed unfavorably by a majority of women in general election polls, Mr. Trump has clashed savagely with Mrs. Fiorina in the past. He has mocked her business record, her voice and even her looks. “Look at that face,” Mr. Trump said in an interview with Rolling Stone magazine last summer. “Would anyone vote for that?”

Another slashing comment directed at Mrs. Fiorina’s appearance or gender could have grave consequences for Mr. Trump, especially with female voters he would need to win over to compete in the fall.

Current and former advisers to Mr. Trump said he has long found Mrs. Fiorina an agitating presence and described her in public and private as an unworthy opponent with dubious business credentials. And Mr. Trump has repeatedly disregarded advisers who urged him steer clear of conflict with a comparatively obscure rival, no matter how fervent his distaste for her.

Sam Nunberg, a former Trump aide who was dismissed from the campaign last summer, said Mr. Trump’s advisers warned him that his treatment of Mrs. Fiorina would be perceived as a test of his discipline for the general election.


Carly Fiorina and Senator Ted Cruz at the Republican presidential debate in Boulder, Colo., last year.
“We had already anticipated that there would be attacks of sexism, that there would be attacks that you don’t respect women,” said Mr. Nunberg, who now opposes Mr. Trump, paraphrasing the Trump campaign’s counsel to the candidate. “This was a major test to show you can compete as a presidential candidate.”

Mr. Nunberg added, “Unfortunately, Donald failed that test miserably.”

For Mr. Cruz, the drawbacks to naming Mrs. Fiorina are many: A pick designed to change momentum in a primary could prove less than optimal for a general election. Voters might find it presumptuous for a candidate to name his prospective running mate while trailing by several hundred delegates.

Then there are the taunts from Mr. Trump. “He’s wasting his time,” the front-runner told reporters Tuesday night, when asked about Mr. Cruz’s preparations for a possible selection.

On Wednesday, Mr. Trump responded dismissively to reports of a Cruz-Fiorina ticket: On Twitter he posted a clip of Mrs. Fiorina on television, earlier in the campaign, calling Mr. Cruz a politician who “says whatever he needs to say to get elected.” (A “super PAC” supporting Mr. Kasich circulated a memo listing Mrs. Fiorina’s past criticisms of Mr. Cruz in greater detail.)

For those inclined to cast Mr. Cruz’s hard-charging Senate tenure as a triumph of principle, the selection and its unusual timing could register as the kind of unconventional move of a Republican who has made a career of bucking the party’s establishment.


But among Republicans in Washington, where skirmishes with Mr. Cruz have focused more often on tactics than policy substance, the maneuver appeared likely to reinforce the perception among his detractors that he is cynical and calculating.

Either way, in Mrs. Fiorina, Mr. Cruz has turned to a credible outsider and an expert attack dog who has sparred often with the senator’s rivals in both parties.

She will surely be deployed in California, where the June 7 primary could determine whether Mr. Trump captures the delegates needed to clinch the nomination before the convention. Mrs. Fiorina has statewide political experience there, having been the Republican nominee against Senator Barbara Boxer in 2010. Her connections with the sort of party activists likely to vote in the primary there could give Mr. Cruz a valuable surrogate in the weeks leading up to it.

She did, however, lose her one California campaign by 10 points and has since left the state to live in the Virginia suburbs of Washington.

Mindful of the gender gap often evident in Mr. Trump’s polling, Cruz allies hope that Mrs. Fiorina will prove a capable foil to him, as she did while besting him in a series of debate exchanges during her own candidacy.

In recent weeks, she has again relished the role, disparaging Mr. Trump in interviews and urging him to “man up” and debate Mr. Cruz head-to-head. She has also shown a habit of answering questions addressed to Mr. Cruz at news conferences, interjecting to sing his praises or defend his actions.

In the past, though, Mrs. Fiorina has chafed at being described as vice-presidential material. Last year, she called it “sexist” that she was often asked whether she was running for president in the hopes of being chosen as someone’s running mate.

More recently, she had hedged when asked about her interest. As Mrs. Fiorina sat beside Mr. Cruz for a Fox News interview last month, the Texas senator was asked whether he would consider Mrs. Fiorina for the role. A live audience cheered, and Mrs. Fiorina answered before Mr. Cruz could.

“Let’s win the nomination first,” she said.

Mr. Cruz’s selection of Mrs. Fiorina was also reminiscent of a candidate whom he revered. In his 1976 primary against President Gerald R. Ford, Ronald Reagan — lagging and needing to change the subject — announced his choice of a running mate before the Republican convention.

The gamble paid off in the short term. His selection of Senator Richard S. Schweiker of Pennsylvania led the evening news, slowed the news media’s rush to declare Ford the presumptive nominee and allowed Reagan to continue wooing delegates.

But Reagan’s announcement came after the primaries had ended, not with 10 states remaining, and he was closer behind Ford in the delegate count than Mr. Cruz is today to Mr. Trump. Mr. Schweiker carried the promise of winning over a clear constituency, the Pennsylvania delegation, while it is unclear which voters Mrs. Fiorina could deliver.

And Reagan still lost to Ford.

Favorite take of the day comes from California's own Barbara Boxer, who squashed Fiorina like a bug in 2010:

I predict that the latest @CarlyFiorina merger will be as successful as her last one.

[The Romulan Republic]

Its Palin all over again. You can just tell that they're probably thinking: "If we pick a token women, Hillary supporters will come over to us!"

My main recollection of Fiorina's campaign is her vicious anti-abortion/anti-Planned Parenthood rhetoric (which occurred alongside the terrorist attack on a Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado). Fuck her.

[maraxus2]

Nah, Cruz is probably trying (in an extremely misguided way) to pick off votes in California. Also apparently she really gets under Trump's skin. A useful surrogate!

This isn't just a Hail Mary pass, it's a Hail Mary into the wrong end zone.

[Starglider]

I know you're being sarcastic, but I would argue that if Clinton is the nominee, their is an obligation to support her for entirely different reasons- to keep rampant bigotry, violent extremism, and fascism from gaining more power in America.

I am not making a moral argument about how anyone 'should' vote. I am saying that the Democratic party benefits from and to some degree exploits a liberal narrative that compels people to vote for them, regardless of foreign or economic policies, if they want to maintain identification with 'I am a moral liberal'. The Republicans do the same thing with the opposite side of wedge issues e.g. abortion, if you want to maintain a self-image of 'I am a pro-life Christian' you are almost compelled to vote for them, to avoid being a Democrat-baby-killer-enabler.

This is not applicable to the primaries, but when it comes to the general election both parties are quite efficient at using slogans and social wedge issues to suppress dissent from their less popular core policies.

[Raw Shark]

[snip] People forget that there was a ton of anti-German animosity (sauerkraut becoming "freedom cabbage" or something similar) during both World Wars in the US. [snip]

It wasn't even confined to German humans - supposed "people" stomped on fucking Dachshunds, which, speaking as a dog person, I just won't get started on because I don't want to smash the monitor with my fist.

Favorite take of the day comes from California's own Barbara Boxer, who squashed Fiorina like a bug in 2010:

I predict that the latest @CarlyFiorina merger will be as successful as her last one.

Oh, Babs. Never change.

[maraxus2]

John Boehner, freed from having to give any shits, says what all members of Congress secretly (openly?) think.

“You can call me boner, beaner, jackass, happy to answer to almost anything,” said former Speaker of the House John Boehner as he took the stage at CEMEX Auditorium on Wednesday evening. Boehner joined David M. Kennedy, faculty director and history professor emeritus, in a talk hosted by Stanford in Government (SIG) and the Stanford Speakers Bureau.

This joking yet blunt attitude set the tone for the night as Kennedy and the former Speaker discussed topics ranging from Boehner’s upbringing in Ohio to the future of the Republican Party. For the second half of the program, Kennedy opened up the floor to student questions.

2016 Presidential election

Much of the discussion – and laughs – focused on Boehner’s views on the current presidential candidates. Segueing into the topic, Kennedy asked Boehner to be frank given that the event was not being broadcasted, and the former Speaker responded in kind. When specifically asked his opinions on Ted Cruz, Boehner made a face, drawing laughter from the crowd.

“Lucifer in the flesh,” the former speaker said. “I have Democrat friends and Republican friends. I get along with almost everyone, but I have never worked with a more miserable son of a bitch in my life.”

In his comments at Stanford, former Speaker of the House John Boehner referred to Ted Cruz as "Lucifer in the flesh" and Donald Trump as a "texting buddy." Photo by Nafia Chowdhury (Nafia Chowdhury)
In his comments at Stanford, former Speaker of the House John Boehner referred to Ted Cruz as “Lucifer in the flesh” and Donald Trump as a “texting buddy.” (NAFIA CHOWDHURY/The Stanford Daily)
Boehner described other Republican candidates as friends. In particular, the former speaker said he has played golf with Donald Trump for years and that they were “texting buddies.”

His friendship with Ohio Governor John Kasich, however, was a little more ambiguous.

“[Kasich] requires more effort on my behalf than all my other friends … but he’s still my friend, and I love him,” Boehner said.

Boehner for the most part accepted Trump as the presumptive Republican nominee, though he did express his surprise at the candidate’s success. While he did not praise Trump’s policies, the Speaker did say he would vote for Trump in the general election if he becomes the Republican nominee. The former Speaker said he would not, however, vote for Cruz.

When it came to the Democrat primaries, Boehner asserted his belief that although Bernie Sanders has put up a significant fight, Hillary Clinton will win the nomination over Bernie Sanders. While stating that he disagreed with Sanders on all the issues, the former Speaker also called Sanders a nice guy and the most honest politician in the race.

On Clinton, Boehner’s reviews were more mixed. Early in the talk, the speaker impersonated Clinton, saying “Oh I’m a woman, vote for me,” to a negative crowd reaction. Later, he added that he had known Clinton for 25 years and finds her to be very accomplished and smart.

Boehner also speculated about surprises that could come closer to the Democratic National Convention if Hillary Clinton’s emails became a larger scandal.

“Don’t be shocked … if two weeks before the convention, here comes Joe Biden parachuting in and Barack Obama fanning the flames to make it all happen,” Boehner said.

Time in office

Kennedy also spent a large portion of the talk asking the former speaker about his time in office and his relationship with President Obama. Having been elected to office 13 times – a number which he was quick to clarify with Kennedy – Boehner said he had learned a lot from previous speakers, including Newt Gingrich and Nancy Pelosi.

Throughout the talk, Boehner frequently referenced the Freedom Caucus as the “knuckleheads” and “goofballs” in Congress. When Kennedy asked about the Democrats in Congress, Boehner asserted that both parties have their own inner-divisions.

“The thing that’s different about Republicans and Democrats is that [Democrats] do their fights behind closed doors,” the former speaker said. “Republicans are way too independent for that.”

Although he talked about the challenges of working with a partisan, gridlocked Congress, Boehner reflected positively on his relationship with Obama. Although he acknowledged that the two disagree, Boehner said the two get along well.

Boehner described his days in office as fairly repetitive and very busy. He would wake up around 5:30 a.m., walk to Starbucks for coffee, then return home to do some morning reading. He would go into the office around 8 a.m., and “then it was like a sprint all day long.” According to the Speaker, however, he always made sure to go home by 10 p.m.

“I think my proudest accomplishment is walking out of there the same jackass I was 25 years before,” Boehner said.

In speaking of his retirement, the former Speaker said he didn’t regret a thing. As a Catholic, Boehner said it was particularly moving to meet Pope Francis when he spoke to Congress. Boehner resigned the following day.

Student reactions

When the floor was opened for student questions, questions ranged from asking Boehner to push for the censure of Former Speaker Dennis Hastert to his opinions on the future of the Republican Party.

Brandon Camhi ’16 asked Boehner about how he would prevent more socially progressive conservatives from becoming disillusioned with the Republican Party.

“If I were running for president I’d be running on things that unite Republicans,” Boehner said. “These other issues are just going to keep coming up, and the Democrats know where our soft spots are.”

According to Camhi, this was as much as he expected the former speaker to be able to answer his question.

“He said as much as he’s going to say, and what he said is true,” Camhi said. “The Republican Party has to move away from divisive social issues.”

More generally, Camhi was surprised by how candidly Boehner spoke. According to Alex Lee ’18, who attended the smaller reception with Boehner after the event as a member of the Stanford Speakers Bureau, this same candidness was present in his personal conversations as well.

According to Lee, it was also interesting to have a minority political opinion being represented on the predominantly liberal campus.

“I could [feel] the tension in the room when Boehner said certain things, namely claiming that Clinton was leveraging her gender or discussing South Carolina bathrooms,” Lee said.

At the end of the discussion, Kennedy re-focused the talk by asking Boehner who his political heroes were. In his answer, Boehner re-emphasized his own relatively moderate stances within the Republican Party.

“Well you know I’m a big fan of Ronald Reagan,” Boehner said. “But I love all these knuckleheads talking about the party of Reagan. He would be the most moderate Republican elected today.”

[Crown]

The DNC wants support from undecided voters, but it doesn't want to make any concessions to get that support.

It doesn't need to. If you even pretend to be a liberal you are morally obliged to vote for Hillary because first woman president misogyny feminism representation hope'n'change.

Nice strawman. Take a lot of mental effort to put that together or did you just copy/paste from troglodytedipshit,org? Moron.

If Donald duck-fucking Trump gets the GOP nomination, which looks all too likely (and it may rip the bloated bowels of that rotten "party" open for good in the process, spilling all the rotten, maggotty black shit on the floor for all to see and smell, oh happy day) it's every American who isn't a fucking bigoted pile of dogshit's responsibility to vote in one solid block to prevent the final nail from being driven into the coffin of our fading republic.

While that may be (objectively) true; if you are legitimately 'undecided' or even left of Hillary your interests would be best served to not declare for Hillary right now. You want her to work for your vote and move to your position on at least some issues.

Susan Sarandon's ambiguity is a good example here.

John Boehner, freed from having to give any shits, says what all members of Congress secretly (openly?) think.

Much of the discussion – and laughs – focused on Boehner’s views on the current presidential candidates. Segueing into the topic, Kennedy asked Boehner to be frank given that the event was not being broadcasted, and the former Speaker responded in kind. When specifically asked his opinions on Ted Cruz, Boehner made a face, drawing laughter from the crowd.

“Lucifer in the flesh,” the former speaker said. “I have Democrat friends and Republican friends. I get along with almost everyone, but I have never worked with a more miserable son of a bitch in my life.”

No one could possibly be shocked by that.

[Flagg]

Posting this because Los is too lazy.

It may also be a bit on the iffy side considering Sanders is of the chosen...

[Vendetta]

John Boehner, freed from having to give any shits, says what all members of Congress secretly (openly?) think.

I don't think it's entirely secret or surprising that Cruz is worse for the Republican Party than Trump is.

I mean Trump's biggest problem for the party is that he's just not that conservative. Hell he probably wouldn't even institute stoning for women who get abortions what a lily livered librul!

(Also that they all hate him, but as I believe I said in this or the previous thread, they all hate him equally no matter what faction of republicanism they represent, so at least he's not blatantly the creature of one wing of an already fractious political alliance.)

Trump would be terrible for America. Cruz would be worse for the Republican party, but he's all they've got now.

[Raw Shark]

I actually want to high-five boner right now. This thread has broadened me.

[Eternal_Freedom]

I have a question for those who are saying Sanders can't win and should suspend his campaign.

If the argument is that by continuing to campaign up until the convention, to allow all voices to be heard etc is "damaging for the nominee" and it's impossible to for him to win and so forth, why aren't we also annoyed at Cruz and Kasich etc staying in the Republican race when AFAIK Trump has a similar (or larger) leader over Cruz to the lead Clinton has over Sanders? I get that we don't want Trump to be the Republican nominee, but shouldn't the principle apply both ways?

Or are we only applying it to the Democrats because we hate the Republicans?

[Raw Shark]

I have a question for those who are saying Sanders can't win and should suspend his campaign.

If the argument is that by continuing to campaign up until the convention, to allow all voices to be heard etc is "damaging for the nominee" and it's impossible to for him to win [snip]

Just speaking for myself here, but I was with the team initially, but now fully intend to support Jill Stein for the White House in the general based on Clinton's behavior, if Sanders doesn't pull off a miracle in the primary. I'll vote straight-ticket Democrat in congress, but I will not put my name on a Hillary bid because she is a war-mongering asshole who sucks more corporate dick than Monica Lewinsky sucked her husband's actual dick, and say fuck her, figuratively speaking (because literally fucking her would be purgatorial) (oh sorry, was that sexist? Lost its impact! Cried wolf too many times, Hils! You fucked that one - Sorry. No probs with you having a vagina, but you're kind of a dick).

[Dominus Atheos]

No probs with you having a vagina, but you're kind of a dick.

If I didn't love my current signature so much (it never stops being relevant!), I would sig that.