PDA

View Full Version : Trump and Clinton the winners.



skuthorp
04-19-2016, 08:47 PM
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2016/apr/19/new-york-primary-polls-sanders-trump-clinton-cruz-kasich-live

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/clinton-trump-look-add-delegate-leads-new-york-primary-n557801

Just the result so far here, no commentary or detail.

Nicholas Scheuer
04-19-2016, 08:57 PM
Clinton not by big numbers. Sanders is gaining in the big picture.

Reynard38
04-19-2016, 09:17 PM
I've overheard quite a few conversations lately of people saying they have no intention of voting for ANY of the current candidates. Could be we will see very light turnout in November.

skuthorp
04-19-2016, 09:26 PM
I think that 'none of the above' may do well here too.

John Smith
04-19-2016, 09:55 PM
Clinton not by big numbers. Sanders is gaining in the big picture.

Probably by double digits. Bottom line she increases her lead in pledged delegates. He would have to win every state from here on by a larger margin than he's won any state by.

My question is does he keep going and attacking her or does he get behind her, or some other path?

CK 17
04-19-2016, 09:59 PM
She'll not get my vote, neither will any republican. I will vote down ballot though.

Dave Wright
04-19-2016, 10:16 PM
If a republican wins the presidency this year you can blame the independents and a certain percentage of "democrats" who vote republican, or don't vote at all.

Reynard38
04-19-2016, 10:21 PM
She'll not get my vote, neither will any republican. I will vote down ballot though.

Neither I, nor my wife or daughter will cast a vote for any currently running republican or Clinton (oops, that's redundant).

Gerarddm
04-20-2016, 01:33 AM
She won big.

Trump and Clinton general. Ugh.

Nicholas Scheuer
04-20-2016, 05:42 AM
If enough "indignant" voters stay home in the general election, then the whackos might elect Trump all by themselves. Another Hitler parallel.

PeterSibley
04-20-2016, 06:05 AM
Probably better than Cruz anyway.

CPF
04-20-2016, 06:29 AM
Neither I, nor my wife or daughter will cast a vote for any currently running republican or Clinton (oops, that's redundant).


Might you cast a vote against Trump or Cruz?

Best,
Chris

Reynard38
04-20-2016, 06:36 AM
Might you cast a vote against Trump or Cruz?

Best,
Chris

We already did when we voted for Sanders in the primary.

TomF
04-20-2016, 06:38 AM
Might you cast a vote against Trump or Cruz?

Best,
ChrisThat is a really, really important question.

In principle I understand being disgusted by both candidates - I've been there in some electoral cycles where I live too. The question then becomes whether "harm reduction" is a meaningful concept in the election. In some cases, where neither candidate is actually objectively posing a greater threat of incompetence or ideological horror or etc., then fine. Sit it out.

But if there is an actual difference, I've felt it a civic duty to vote for harm reduction. Even if it meant voting for someone I'd really rather wasn't on the ticket - and would have voted against were I given a better choice.

I don't really see how this American election can be viewed as insignificant, or how the two options on offer are not understood to express quite markedly different levels of risk.

Keith Wilson
04-20-2016, 07:11 AM
But if there is an actual difference, I've felt it a civic duty to vote for harm reduction. Exactly. I've voted in every election since I was old enough. Sometimes I've had to figuratively hold my nose and vote for the least bad candidate, but the lesser of two evils is, well, less evil. And barring something really unexpected, the likely Republican candidates are to worst I'e seen since 1964 (when I was 9), and maybe ever.


Clinton not by big numbers. Sanders is gaining in the big picture.This is simply incorrect. Ms. Clinton won by 16% (58-42%), and has very nearly made her nomination inevitable.


moTthediesel
04-20-2016, 07:16 AM
That is a really, really important question.

In principle I understand being disgusted by both candidates - I've been there in some electoral cycles where I live too. The question then becomes whether "harm reduction" is a meaningful concept in the election. In some cases, where neither candidate is actually objectively posing a greater threat of incompetence or ideological horror or etc., then fine. Sit it out.

But if there is an actual difference, I've felt it a civic duty to vote for harm reduction. Even if it meant voting for someone I'd really rather wasn't on the ticket - and would have voted against were I given a better choice.

I don't really see how this American election can be viewed as insignificant, or how the two options on offer are not understood to express quite markedly different levels of risk.

Yes, that's exactly how I see it too. Sort of a "Hippocratic Voter" principle -- first, do no harm. I remember arguing that way lots of times in 2000 with friends and family who could see no difference between Bush and Gore. I think we know how that turned out.

Tom

Keith Wilson
04-20-2016, 07:21 AM
I remember arguing that way lots of times in 2000 with friends and family who could see no difference between Bush and Gore. I think we know how that turned out.Exactly. I had a long, mostly civil argument with a Nader supporter in the fall of 2000 who was making exactly that claim. I haven't seen him lately; I wonder what he'd say now.

I expect that Mr Trump will manage to convince most of you to vote against him by November, whoever the Democrats nominate. He's good at that.


FWIW Mr. Sanders tends to win in caucus states that are predominantly white, and does better in open primaries where anyone can vote for any candidate regardless of party registration. Ms. Clinton does better where there are more racial/ethnic minorities and in 'closed' primaries, where only registered Democrats or unaffiliated voters can participate.

CPF
04-20-2016, 07:26 AM
We already did when we voted for Sanders in the primary.

Well, I voted for Sanders in the primary too. But if Sanders is not on the General ballot, it'll be a different situation, a different choice to be made. We have the Citizens United decision and all the resultant corruption because of a largely conservative Supreme Court; I want that changed. I bet you do, too.

Best,
Chris

CK 17
04-20-2016, 07:30 AM
For me it's more of a protest against the way the "party" has conducted itself. I've learned a lot that I had not known before. I'm pretty disgusted. This doesn't seem to be an issue other federal with state candidates.

Keith Wilson
04-20-2016, 07:32 AM
I think Mr. Trump will convince you to do otherwise. Again, the lesser of two evils is less evil.

S.V. Airlie
04-20-2016, 07:42 AM
For me it's more of a protest against the way the "party" has conducted itself. I've learned a lot that I had not known before. I'm pretty disgusted. This doesn't seem to be an issue other federal with state candidates.This is not the time to protest because if Hillary IS the nominee, she still is WAY better than any republican nominee. I can't believe you'd be happy giving the presidency to Trump or Cruz.

I understand where you are coming from but, I look at the alternative. I will hold my nose and vote for Hillary if it comes to that.

Bernie is now complaining that Independents couldn't vote. I've never really understood why people register Independent knowing that, in their state, the primary maybe closed. I may vote "independently" for either party if a candidate is a better choice but, I'll still register in one or the other in the primaries. Doesn't matter in the general.

CPF
04-20-2016, 07:50 AM
For me it's more of a protest against the way the "party" has conducted itself. I've learned a lot that I had not known before. I'm pretty disgusted. This doesn't seem to be an issue other federal with state candidates.

Well, I hear that. But perhaps that's a saddle for a different horse. I don't know that abstaining would be heard anywhere as a protest against the party's conduct. It seems to me it would be more effective to act in a positive way against the party's conduct: get involved locally, agitate against Wasserman Schultz, write your national Democratic reps, etc. And let the election be about choosing a President, which seems important this time around -- to put it mildly.

Best,
Chris

genglandoh
04-20-2016, 08:32 AM
Both Trump and Hillary had big wins.

Trump won by 35%
Hillary won by 15%
IMHO anytime someone wins by more then 10% it is a big win.

Keith Wilson
04-20-2016, 08:36 AM
Mr. Sanders will not be the nominee. The question is what he's going to do now, and whether he'll do damage to the Democratic party (and possibly the country) in the process. Jonathan Chait this morning (source here with all the links (http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/04/losing-primary-is-making-bernie-sanders-crazy.html)):


Bernie Sanders Has Lost the Primary and It’s Making Him a Little Crazy
By Jonathan Chait

Bernie Sanders has run a surprisingly effective presidential campaign. But Bernie Sanders is not going to win the Democratic nomination. Sanders performs especially well in caucuses, in heavily white states, and in open primaries. He performs badly in racially diverse states and primaries that only allow registered Democrats to vote. Of the 1,400 remaining delegates to be voted on, just 14 (one percent) will be chosen by caucus. Nearly half will be chosen by two primaries, California and Pennsylvania, both of which Hillary Clinton leads in polling.

Two characteristics of the contest make Clinton’s delegate lead of around 200 and rising — which would not seem to be overwhelming compared with the remaining delegates to be won — virtually insurmountable. First, the race has largely hardened into place, as most voters have decided on one candidate or the other (Clinton being an especially well-known commodity). Sanders has expanded his base, but has failed to dislodge Clinton’s support among older and minority voters. Second, the proportional way in which states allocate votes make even a modest deficit all but insurmountable. Sanders's path to the nomination, as calculated by Nate Silver recently, would require him to win New York by about 4 percent. He is going to fall nearly 20 percent short of that target. He would need, again per Silver, not only to close Clinton’s lead in California (and other states where she leads) but also to produce an overwhelming victory.

The trouble is that Sanders and his supporters are not listening to Nate Silver. Instead, the campaign is propounding all sorts of weird, quasi-mathematical approaches to the question of delegate math. Seth Abramson, a poet and assistant professor of English at the University of New Hampshire, has published a series of alternative analyses of the Democratic race with headlines such as “Bernie Sanders Is Currently Winning the Democratic Primary Race, and I’ll Prove It to You,” “Hard Proof That Hillary Clinton Has Been Losing to Bernie Sanders for a Month Now, ” “Hillary Clinton’s Support Among Nonwhite Voters Has Collapsed,” “Clinton Delegate Lead Down to 194, Even as Dramatic Miscounting of Delegates by Media Continues,” and so on. The Sanders campaign itself is not endorsing Abramson’s experimental-poetry approach to electoral forecasting, but it is decrying the system as rigged in various ways: The sequencing of states is unfair, the voting power of the “conservative” — but in reality, heavily Democratic and African-American — South is unfair, closed primaries are wrong. (The campaign has not questioned the fairness of low-turnout caucuses, which are even less democratic than primaries.)

Sanders’s denunciations of the primary system as rigged have merged with his descriptions of the economy and the political system as rigged. In combination with his attacks on Clinton for succoring Wall Street — which are exaggerated but not entirely imagined — Sanders has conjoined Clinton and the Democratic Party apparatus to the shadow nexus of villains that he and his revolution are pledged to overthrow. Jeff Stein traveled to Ithaca, an outpost of Sanders enthusiasm, and found the place almost uniform in its conviction that Democratic voters actually had preferred their man, only to be thwarted by some ill-defined combination of fraud or corporate/media chicanery.

If he grasps the situation clearly, Sanders is no longer running a presidential campaign in the sense that he's leading an effort designed with the end goal of winning the presidency. He is running a message campaign, using the platform of a campaign and its free media publicity to organize supporters and circulate his ideas. That is a perfectly valid thing for him to do. But does Sanders grasp the situation clearly? When Clinton kept her doomed campaign churning to the bitter end in 2008, even in the face of insurmountable delegate odds, she was driven by delusional advisers who believed an inflammatory tape of Michelle Obama assailing white people was poised for release. Sanders may well be in the grips of similar fantasies. Given the shaky mathematical foundations of some of his domestic plans, it would almost be a surprise if he were not.

Even a message campaign needs something to say about the process — some reason to motivate its supporters to organize and turn out. That becomes difficult when victory is off the table. The problem for Sanders is that his message about the campaign is infecting his message about the country with an angry, self-serving paranoia.

SullivanB
04-20-2016, 08:47 AM
If a republican wins the presidency this year you can blame the independents and a certain percentage of "democrats" who vote republican, or don't vote at all.

If the Democrats lose the presidency this year, it will be because they insisted on it. But you've certainly got the Democratic Party scapegoat drill down pat.

We know right now that the Democrats constitute roughly 25% of the voting country and that the Party cannot win without the Independents. We know right now that the Independents reject Mrs. Clinton by big numbers, not to mention that they prefer her opponent by big numbers. We know right now of the not insignificant number of potential Dem voters telling us they will not vote for Mrs. Clinton. We know right now of the impressive number of young voters and first time voters being brought into the fold only because they're inspired by her opponent. We know right now of Mrs. Clinton's low likability and trust ratings, and that her opponent does better. We know right now of her opponent's dramatic rise in popularity, nationally, virtually unknown when he started yet already having tied or slightly bettered Mrs. Clinton.

And knowing all that right now, we're already looking for a scapegoat, already blaming those darned Independents and others who've already told us they're not going to vote for the candidate we intend to put up.

S.V. Airlie
04-20-2016, 08:48 AM
I think in some ways, he already is. A lot that Trump will make use of down the road. Yes, Sanders made some points, even some I'd say made an impression but, calling HC unqualified to be president, for all the wrong reasons, is fodder Trump will use.

Sanders entire argument is centered on really, only 3 issues and it has become personal. HC, has multiple issues she's addressing because a president needs to deal with multiple issues.

Keith Wilson
04-20-2016, 09:01 AM
More on Mr. Sanders and his course now, from The New Republic. I sincerely hope he follows this advice; he could do a fair amount of good.


Bernie Can Still Be the Future of the Democratic Party—If He Plays His Cards Right
By Jeet Heer

For Bernie Sanders, his loss in New York’s Democratic primary must be sobering. Hillary Clinton beat him by 16 percent, worse than expected. Moreover, while Sanders can reasonably complain that the rules set up by the party, requiring voters to be registered as Democrats months in advance, were onerous and disenfranchising, he has to contend with the fact that voter turnout was high. This cuts against Sanders’s claim that he’s attracting the most enthusiastic followers.

Sanders’s campaign had been on a winning streak lately, capturing seven of the last eight states. The national polls have been tightening, and Sanders has been outperforming expectations. While there’s a tendency on the part of the media to dismiss Sanders as already too far behind to catch up, the fact is that he has done far better than anyone would have predicted. He faces long, but not impossible odds.

It’s precisely because winning is still a option that the Sanders campaign has taken a much more aggressive tone lately. He has questioned Clinton’s qualifications to be president, although he later softened that by saying he questioned her judgment. Sanders’s campaign has been more vocal about calling attention to Clinton’s reliance on big-money donors, and his supporters recently picketed a recent Clinton fundraiser. The hearty congeniality of the early days of the campaign are gone, with Sanders and Clinton much more likely to snip at each other in debates and on the trail.

While the loss in the New York doesn’t mark the end of Sanders’s campaign, his odds of winning became much longer. Upcoming delegate-rich states like Pennsylvania and Maryland favor Clinton. On Tuesday night, Sanders consultant Tad Devine said that after the next Tuesday’s primaries in Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware, Rhode Island, and Connecticut, the campaign will “assess where we are.”

So Sanders has to decide when he will make the pivot from an aggressive outsider who’s trying to take down the frontrunner to a loyal party member who will support the winner. If Sanders stays negative as his chances of winning dwindle, he’ll burn bridges and be shut out of the party. By further damaging Clinton ahead of the general election, he runs the risk of being seen as a Ralph Nader–like spoiler.

The other alternative is to revert to the civic idealism of the early days of his campaign, which aimed to reform the Democratic Party from within. The case for staying negative is that Sanders can highlight genuine problems with the primary system, which is plagued by arbitrary rules. The hurdles the New York Democratic Party has placed on voting go against the larger arguments the party makes about the importance of voting rights in general elections. Given Sanders’s long time as an independent rather than a Democrat, it might be easier for him to return to the role of the prophet in the wilderness castigating the system.

Yet as he himself notes, Sanders’s years in politics have also shown him to be someone who knows how to work with others and push forward a positive agenda. Given that a strong minority in the party love him, he is in a position to leverage his campaign to be a real power broker in the party and push the Clinton campaign to the left.

Sanders has been a surprise contender, and it’s easy to engage in might-have-beens or alternative history scenarios. But a healthier way to think about the Sanders campaign is in terms of what it bodes for the future. He has proven there is a large space to the left of Clinton in the Democratic Party. In the future, his electoral weak spots could be addressed by a candidate who has a similar message but pitches it to a broader audience. The Achilles heel of his campaign has been Southern blacks. But there is not intuitive reason why this group should be immune to a message of economic populism. Indeed, Jesse Jackson showed in 1988 that it could be done.

The Sanders campaign should be seen not as a failed gambit but as a road map to the future of the Democratic Party. If a candidate can combine Sanders’s economic populism with the ability to articulate that message in the South, then the future will belong Sanders, and Clinton’s triumph will be seen as the last gasp of the centrism that dominated the party in the long aftermath of Reaganism.

Gerarddm
04-20-2016, 09:09 AM
^ Yep.

Dave Wright
04-20-2016, 10:15 AM
A good example of rational thinking. A good example of working with what you have:



Well, I hear that. But perhaps that's a saddle for a different horse. I don't know that abstaining would be heard anywhere as a protest against the party's conduct. It seems to me it would be more effective to act in a positive way against the party's conduct: get involved locally, agitate against Wasserman Schultz, write your national Democratic reps, etc. And let the election be about choosing a President, which seems important this time around -- to put it mildly.

Best,
Chris

Incidently, I know many people who consider themselves lifelong democrats. Sometimes, just for fun, I ask them if they have their party membership card. That usually elicits a blank look. I say that's the little wallet card they send you in the mail, aong with surveys, informational requests, issue statements, etc. You get that after you send them your first donation, it doesn't have to be much, even ten dollars will do. Donations??????? More blank stares......

Already two posters to this thread have stated that they will not vote. I asked this gentleman quoted below (in another thread) if he was working up personal justification to not vote at all. If Karl Rove and Newt Gingrich could hear his thoughts now they would chuckle and say: "Man, can you believe this? Who would have thought that the smear campaign that we started back in the '90's would have grown and taken on a life of its own."


If the Democrats lose the presidency this year, it will be because they insisted on it. But you've certainly got the Democratic Party scapegoat drill down pat.

We know right now that the Democrats constitute roughly 25% of the voting country and that the Party cannot win without the Independents. We know right now that the Independents reject Mrs. Clinton by big numbers, not to mention that they prefer her opponent by big numbers. We know right now of the not insignificant number of potential Dem voters telling us they will not vote for Mrs. Clinton. We know right now of the impressive number of young voters and first time voters being brought into the fold only because they're inspired by her opponent. We know right now of Mrs. Clinton's low likability and trust ratings, and that her opponent does better. We know right now of her opponent's dramatic rise in popularity, nationally, virtually unknown when he started yet already having tied or slightly bettered Mrs. Clinton.

And knowing all that right now, we're already looking for a scapegoat, already blaming those darned Independents and others who've already told us they're not going to vote for the candidate we intend to put up.

SullivanB
04-20-2016, 11:31 AM
Incidently, I know many people who consider themselves lifelong democrats. Sometimes, just for fun, I ask them if they have their party membership card. That usually elicits a blank look. I say that's the little wallet card they send you in the mail, aong with surveys, informational requests, issue statements, etc. You get that after you send them your first donation, it doesn't have to be much, even ten dollars will do. Donations??????? More blank stares......

Already two posters to this thread have stated that they will not vote. I asked this gentleman quoted below (in another thread) if he was working up personal justification to not vote at all. If Karl Rove and Newt Gingrich could hear his thoughts now they would chuckle and say: "Man, can you believe this? Who would have thought that the smear campaign that we started back in the '90's would have grown and taken on a life of its own."

Still looking for scapegoats, I see. No need to bother ourselves with the reality that our gal is a seriously flawed candidate. The Republicans are in crisis, so there's no good reason to worry about them. And if marching to the Party establishment line should turn out to be a bad bet, there's always someone else to blame.

There's those Dems who dared to insist on something besides the corrupt and morally bankrupt status quo of the Party, the ingrates (Take a note to revoke their Party membership cards after the smoke has cleared.). And, yes, there's always that long campaign of Republican smears to blame and deflect attention from our unfortunate choice of candidates. Hey, we might blame even a 2016 loss on old Ralph Nader. He's an easy target. What's to worry about?

Keith Wilson
04-20-2016, 11:36 AM
. . . dared to insist on something besides the corrupt and morally bankrupt status quo of the Party . . .I'm sorry your preferred candidate didn't get enough votes, but this is starting to get tiresome, and more than a little irritating.

Bobcat
04-20-2016, 11:51 AM
I'm sorry your preferred candidate didn't get enough votes, but this is starting to get tiresome, and more than a little irritating.

When you have only one drum, that's what you bang, over and over and over...

SullivanB
04-20-2016, 12:00 PM
I'm sorry your preferred candidate didn't get enough votes, but this is starting to get tiresome, and more than a little irritating.

I sincerely regret that my comments have caused you irritation but the influence of big money in our politics and in our party is, as I see it, an unfortunate truth that must be acknowledged before it can be corrected. And, admit it or not, it's at the very heart of this Democratic primary contest.

Everyone in the Party talks big about what a terrible thing Citizens United is, how it has in a very short time corrupted our politics exponentially, and how they want to undo it. Are we supposed to ignore the fact that the very candidate our party intends to nominate for the presidency has set new records for the kind of abuse Citizens United has made even worse? Are we to forget that so many others within our party engage in similar practices? Is it that you don't believe that it's corrupting our politics or is it that you think we just ought not be speaking out loud about it with the election just around the corner?

Bobcat
04-20-2016, 12:02 PM
Here's a question for you about money in elections:

If money buys elections, why did Jeb Bush, with the biggest war chest, go no where as a candidate?

S.V. Airlie
04-20-2016, 12:04 PM
Probably his name!

Dave Wright
04-20-2016, 12:04 PM
Funny, I was talking to a black friend about the "Bill Clinton crime bill." He said, you know, back then the majority of the black community was supportive of the bill. Crime was out of hand, drug violence was out of hand, something had to be done. We wanted something done. It's easy to look back and say it wasn't the right thing to do in retrospect, but now we're not going to vote for Hillary because of it??? Sheeeeeeit! She has my vote for her overall record of support.

Sully, make a list, write down every deficiency, personal failing, and policy imbroglio that you can think of for Hillary Clinton. Take your time, think it out, and please don't leave anything out. Then post it here. Please tell us, this is it, the list is complete. We can then apply fact checking to your every point. If your list is accurate and stands up, you're the winner, you're the master of fact, and we'll all bow down to your wisdom and logic. What could be fairer than that?

Durnik
04-20-2016, 12:11 PM
If money buys elections, why did Jeb Bush, with the biggest war chest, go no where as a candidate?

Easy Peazy - nobody has a bigger 'war chest' than Trump - & he also controls the strings.

next.

bobby

Keith Wilson
04-20-2016, 12:12 PM
Are we supposed to ignore the fact that the very candidate our party intends to nominate for the presidency has set new records for the kind of abuse Citizens United has made even worse??Um -- excuse me? "New records for the kind of abuse Citizens United has made even worse"? Evidence, please? You're sounding more like a Naderite by the minute, rattling on endlessly about the relatively minor differences between the Democrats when the Republicans have long ago vanished over the far-right horizon.

FWIW, Trump hasn't spent very much money at all. That's not why he won.

SullivanB
04-20-2016, 12:41 PM
Here's a question for you about money in elections:

If money buys elections, why did Jeb Bush, with the biggest war chest, go no where as a candidate?

It's a fair question. The establishments of both parties are facing challengers who have captured the yearning within their parties for a change, for some integrity and honest representation in government. While the "movements" challenging the establishments are quite different, each has generated the anomaly whereby, despite how much money has been thrown at the establishment candidates, Bush perhaps the best example, sufficient numbers of the parties' faithful simply aren't buying into the "politics as usual" that your big money typically succeeds in buying. They've had enough politics as usual. Of course, despite the question, you already knew that.

CK 17
04-20-2016, 01:06 PM
Well, I hear that. But perhaps that's a saddle for a different horse. I don't know that abstaining would be heard anywhere as a protest against the party's conduct. It seems to me it would be more effective to act in a positive way against the party's conduct: get involved locally, agitate against Wasserman Schultz, write your national Democratic reps, etc. And let the election be about choosing a President, which seems important this time around -- to put it mildly.

Best,
Chris
Ya right, like the "party" is going to listen to me. Trying to Change the party procedures is a fools errand. The only tool I have is a ballot.

SullivanB
04-20-2016, 01:09 PM
Um -- excuse me? "New records for the kind of abuse Citizens United has made even worse"? Evidence, please? You're sounding more like a Naderite by the minute, rattling on endlessly about the relatively minor differences between the Democrats when the Republicans have long ago vanished over the far-right horizon.

FWIW, Trump hasn't spent very much money at all. That's not why he won.

As Brother Reagan used to say, there you go again. Every time someone suggests that a bit of integrity might be injected into a party badly in need of some rehab, you resort to your old whipping boy, Ralph, still suffering from the self-induced delusion that it was Ralph what sank the Party.

On the matter of big money influencing politics, the Democrats take a back seat to nobody and your gal is clearly in a league of her own. Two things we know to be true - the Earth is not flat and both major political parties are corrupted by big money. The big difference between the parties is that the R's are proud of it. But the only reason the country is having the conversation about Hillary and her big money donors, or any conversation at all about money in politics, is because Bernie has raised the issue, the cad.

Re Trump, I've explained the obvious answer in post #39.

Osborne Russell
04-20-2016, 01:19 PM
I've overheard quite a few conversations lately of people saying they have no intention of voting for ANY of the current candidates. Could be we will see very light turnout in November.

Go ahead and don't vote, but don't say you didn't elect Trump.

Keith Wilson
04-20-2016, 01:29 PM
Every time someone suggests that a bit of integrity might be injected into a party badly in need of some rehab . . . Oy. You wrote the following: " . . . the very candidate our party intends to nominate for the presidency has set new records for the kind of abuse Citizens United has made even worse" I thought this was very silly, and asked you for evidence. No evidence yet. The problem isn't that you object to the influence of money in politics; I generally agree with you on that issue. Citizens United was a horrible decision. The problem is that you make either false or wildly-exaggerated claims about Ms. Clinton, and exaggerate the relatively minor differences between the Democrats, when the Republicans have long ago vanished over the far-right horizon.

Nicholas Scheuer
04-20-2016, 02:10 PM
Trump needn't follow Hitler's history like a script. He might mean well (ha, ha) with his hare-brained schemes, but prove so inept at handling the resulting chaos that he needs to declare Marshal Law just to try to keep order. Then, when US Army troops might balk at locking & loading against people they just graduated High School with, one of the many "militia forces" might volunteer to help Trump. Then (stay with me now), a neo-Nazi militia army might get PO'd at the do-gooder militia and escalate (or would that be de-escalate?) the situation to a level Hitler never dreamed of. Forget about "deportation"; just shoot'em on sight. Who ever said 1984 was the worst thing that could happen? Show some imagination!

L.W. Baxter
04-20-2016, 02:18 PM
...this is starting to get tiresome, and more than a little irritating.

The attacks on Hillary's character coming from the (alleged) left have caused me more irritation than anything I have previously witnessed on this forum.

But I'm no longer taking it personal. :d

TomF
04-20-2016, 02:26 PM
The attacks on Hillary's character coming from the (alleged) left have caused me more irritation than anything I have previously witnessed on this forum.

But I'm no longer taking it personal. :dI find it interesting that the folks raising these points are more concerned about Clinton's character than Trump's.

Dave Wright
04-20-2016, 02:34 PM
I've been restrained, but what the hell. Character? What's that? What do we know about character? Does it change over an adult lifetime? Who knows?


http://www.snopes.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/bernie-sanders.jpg

hokiefan
04-20-2016, 02:37 PM
I find it interesting that the folks raising these points are more concerned about Clinton's character than Trump's.

Well, everyone knows that Trump has no character.

TomF
04-20-2016, 02:38 PM
Well, everyone knows that Trump has no character.Which is why they're threatening to stay home on voting day, and allow him to inflate his popular vote?

SullivanB
04-20-2016, 02:40 PM
I find it interesting that the folks raising these points are more concerned about Clinton's character than Trump's.

That's because the only viable political party that's even remotely acceptable, even remotely sane, is the Democratic Party. There ain't nothing else to work with. What I find interesting is the constant bringing up of the Republicans, as if as long as there's always someone or some party that's worse to point to, the shortcomings of our own party ought not be in issue.

TomF
04-20-2016, 02:48 PM
Sully, you're not helping "the only viable political party that's even remotely acceptable, even remotely sane" get elected when you provide fuel for the 6 or 7 Americans who are still actual independents to imagine that Clinton is more the Antichrist than Trump.

Bobcat
04-20-2016, 02:52 PM
Sully, you're not helping "the only viable political party that's even remotely acceptable, even remotely sane" get elected when you provide fuel for the 6 or 7 Americans who are still actual independents to imagine that Clinton is more the Antichrist than Trump.

It's called cutting off your nose to spite your face. And the same holds true in my view for those who just won't vote if they can't vote for Bernie

SullivanB
04-20-2016, 03:18 PM
Sully, you're not helping "the only viable political party that's even remotely acceptable, even remotely sane" get elected when you provide fuel for the 6 or 7 Americans who are still actual independents to imagine that Clinton is more the Antichrist than Trump.

Self analysis really is a healthy thing, Tom, even for political parties. It's one of the functions of a contested primary.

And, please, let's keep it in perspective. I'm saying she's a bought and paid for politician, one of many and probably most, and one who's been especially competent at raking in the dough. I understand that some are intent on defending the taking of big money in politics or at least justifying the practice. Some may even admire it. I think it's harmful, that it's the big problem with our political system. Just because you don't like what I've said doesn't mean I'm calling her the antichrist.

You figure those independents (whose numbers have dwindled to nothing in the blink of a TomF eye) are tuned in to the Forum and are being discouraged from voting for Hillary because of what someone says in this thread? Hardly.

skuthorp
04-20-2016, 04:43 PM
Most politicians are bought and paid for, how do you think they got there in the first place given the money required?
Your political system has been bought and sold for decades if not longer. And ours is going the same way.

Wooden Boat Fittings
04-21-2016, 12:05 AM
If enough "indignant" voters stay home in the general election, then the whackos might elect Trump all by themselves. Another Hitler parallel.

That's one of the points this graphic is trying to make --


http://www.woodenboatfittings.com.au/public/test-trump.jpg
Mike

TomF
04-21-2016, 08:16 AM
Hitler came to power with a plurality of the votes cast in the 1933 Reichstag election. With about 89% voter turnout, the Nazi party polled at 43.9% of the popular vote. What got him dictatorial power was gaining the support of all parties of the Reichstag except the Socialists (getting this, Daniel? :D) to pass the "Enabling Act". Within months, Hitler followed up by banning all other political parties.

So yeah, get out and vote. Know what is possible to happen if you don't, even if the guys you think are too wacko to ever really be elected really don't get a majority of the popular vote.

George Jung
04-21-2016, 08:48 AM
https://scontent.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/13062378_1186439278053490_1519875370021165343_n.jp g?oh=ac3e4f1ae5d4720c481b70370f8dfdc1&oe=577ACC23

George Jung
04-21-2016, 08:48 AM
Pick yer poison!


https://scontent.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfl1/v/t1.0-9/13015232_1186831724680912_8605799032456160192_n.jp g?oh=a37cfe3698bca735825d920dc0ef5e8c&oe=57B88324