Jump to content

Politics 2016 (election edition)


Recommended Posts

 

I think the anti-Hillary/pro-Bernie folks are going to have to do some serious soul searching fairly soon.  People may not like/trust her, but the specter of a Trump/Rubio /Cruz presidency has to bring some of them to their senses.

 

LouieB

 

That is the biggest thing that scares me about the Pro-Bernie folks.  In all likelihood Sanders is done and Clinton will be the nominee.  I have heard people say if Bernie doesn't win the nomination then then they will vote for Trump.  Which is really boggles the mind.  Clinton has a long row to hoe to get the enthusiasm that Bernie has built up.  If the Bernie supporters either stay home or vote for Trump, then the progressive ideals that Sanders has talked about have no chance of ever coming true.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 2.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Bernie actually did great in Nevada. But the south is going to be a tough sell.  Meanwhile since I gave him money a couple times, his campaign is begging more.  I think I will hold on to my cash until after super Tuesday and see what gives at that point. 

 

I think the anti-Hillary/pro-Bernie folks are going to have to do some serious soul searching fairly soon.  People may not like/trust her, but the specter of a Trump/Rubio /Cruz presidency has to bring some of them to their senses.

 

LouieB

 

I actually got into an ill-advised Facebook debate about this.  It's pretty much a classic pragmatism vs. idealism story.  I'm part of the former.  My argument is that if you consider your vote to be a deeper part of your identity you need to get over it. I don't love Clinton, but I'll turn in my coupon for her if that's my choice, it'll take five minutes, and will be my contribution to a slightly safer world.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually got into an ill-advised Facebook debate about this.  It's pretty much a classic pragmatism vs. idealism story.  I'm part of the former. 

 

I so badly want to be part of the former.  I want to like Bernie, I want to support him, but I got burned (no pun intended) in 2008 with Obama.  He came riding in with this Hopey and his Changey and really 8 years later it is more of the same.  Not to say he hasn't been good and we are far better off then 2008, but the progressive ideals have not come to fruition.  Not necessarily inaction by the President, mostly because how he has been stymied by Congress.  I think if Sanders is elected it will be another frustrating 4 years of inaction and two party fighting.  Clinton, I feel has a better handle on how to deal with the congress and I just sense disappointment coming with her.  Maybe because I don't have huge hopes for sweeping change like I did with Obama and many people do with Sanders.  I feel an incremental small amounts of progressive change is what is needed.  

 

I see Sanders at this point in history a lot like Goldwater was in 1964.  Goldwater was really the predecessor to the huge conservative movement that came to a head with Ronald Reagan.  Maybe because of the movements by Sanders in progressive circles will encourage politicians to move further and further to the left and have true progressive ideals and maybe at the time our country will be ready for them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting how it flips; I can see exactly what you're saying here and it makes sense. However, I was unclear, what I was talking about is different. It's how you respond to a Clinton nomination as a skeptical progressive. In other words, I'm saying "go ahead and vote for her, it's better than the alternative" in the general election if she gets it, whereas my friends are considering abstaining from voting if Bernie doesn't get the nomination.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting how it flips; I can see exactly what you're saying here and it makes sense. However, I was unclear, what I was talking about is different. It's how you respond to a Clinton nomination as a skeptical progressive. In other words, I'm saying "go ahead and vote for her, it's better than the alternative" in the general election if she gets it, whereas my friends are considering abstaining from voting if Bernie doesn't get the nomination.

 

Yeah, unless you truly see no difference between the candidates in the general election (which is hard to imagine in any case), I'm not sure why someone wouldn't vote for whoever they think is the better candidate, despite that person not representing your ideal choice.

Link to post
Share on other sites
as a rule, republicans can't stand HRC. I don't see her working any better w/ the right than Bernie.

 

I tend to agree with Kevin (rare for me). Clinton is Machiavellian enough to move Republicans in a way that Obama and Sanders might not. Interesting analogy re: Sanders and AuH2O.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing I'll say for her, she has her foreign policy shit together WAY more than anyone else in the race.  We might not always know what her agenda is, or fully trust her motives, but she knows what's going on, she knows how to build a cabinet (Benghazi be damned).  Sanders, Cruz, Trump, Rubio.... these men do not understand how the world is working the way that HRC does.

 

Sounds like I'm on her team, but I'll be damned if she's not sitting right in Wall Street's pocket.  That's going to affect her banking reform, her environmental agenda- all of it can be undermined by that fact.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like I'm on her team, but I'll be damned if she's not sitting right in Wall Street's pocket.  That's going to affect her banking reform, her environmental agenda- all of it can be undermined by that fact.

 

But the question begs, does that make you (assuming she is the nominee)

1. Still vote for her (begrudgingly) 

2. Vote for the Republican

3. Vote 3rd party

4. Not vote

 

Really any option but 1, would end up with a Republican in the White House and then any progressive dream is set back decades.  

 

 

I tend to agree with Kevin (rare for me). Clinton is Machiavellian enough to move Republicans in a way that Obama and Sanders might not. Interesting analogy re: Sanders and AuH2O.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

:guitar

 

Took me the the longest time to figure out AuH20.  Nice work on that one.  

 

About Clinton, she is probably one of the shrewdest politicians out there.  I think she can play the game with the best of them and will be able to use her office more effectively than Obama did, or than Sanders will be able to.  

 

Had a hilarious thought.  The GOP refuses to accept any Supreme Court nominee, Hillary (or Sanders for that matter) wins in 2016.  The Senate moves control to the Dems.  So the new president nominates Obama to the court, as just a giant F-U to the Right.  The GOP would lose their collective minds.  Wouldn't happen, but it would be great.  And IMHO he would not be a bad justice.    

Link to post
Share on other sites

One issue with nominating Obama or anyone else who has served in Congress or as president is the conflict of interest. There would be a lot of cases where a principled justice would have to recuse themselves. 

 

Taft did it.  Really don't know how he did as Chief Justice, but there is a precedent.    

 

Oh yeah there would be huge conflicts of interest, especially with Obamacare lawsuits coming in.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Took me the the longest time to figure out AuH20.  Nice work on that one.  

Can't really take credit for that.

 

d9edf77d00d5d4247a7299d7ee304f46.jpg

My H.S. Government teacher relished the story of some hippies who made buttons that had the chemical formula for urine followed by "On AuH2O". I think that's probably apocryphal as there can't really be one chemical formula for urine.

 

Taft did it.  Really don't know how he did as Chief Justice, but there is a precedent.    

 

Oh yeah there would be huge conflicts of interest, especially with Obamacare lawsuits coming in.

It would be interesting to go back to research the Taft nomination. Were the Republicans in control of Congress? Were there concerns about potential conflicts of interest? A cursory glance at Wikipedia doesn't hint at any of this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

But the question begs, does that make you (assuming she is the nominee)

1. Still vote for her (begrudgingly)

2. Vote for the Republican

3. Vote 3rd party

4. Not vote

 

Really any option but 1, would end up with a Republican in the White House and then any progressive dream is set back decades.

 

Right. Which matches my pragmatic pleas to my friends. I don't "sell out" because I voted for a candidate I won't whole heartedly celebrate, just as much as not voting because "it all stinks" gives you zero bragging rights or superiority.

 

We use our limited tools to affect things in the best way we can. It's not a symbolic war at that point.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually got into an ill-advised Facebook debate about this.  It's pretty much a classic pragmatism vs. idealism story.  I'm part of the former.  My argument is that if you consider your vote to be a deeper part of your identity you need to get over it. I don't love Clinton, but I'll turn in my coupon for her if that's my choice, it'll take five minutes, and will be my contribution to a slightly safer world.

 

Oh yeah, this is a polarizing debate for sure. I don't find Hillary supporters to be as anti-Bernie as Bernie supporters are anti-Hillary, but that makes sense considering the idealism factor. Idealogues are much more likely to see things as non-negotiable and to see compromise and incremental improvements as selling out. It worries me how so many Bernie supporters are demonizing Hillary. It's going to make it hard for them to swallow their bitterness and do the right thing for the good of the country. 

 

My hope is that if/when the inevitable happens and Hillary sews up the nomination, Bernie gets behind her and urges his supporters to do so too. If Bernie supporters have absolutely no other reason to be pragmatic, please let them think about the Supreme Court. If they stay home or throw their vote away on a quixotic, unelectable third party candidate, I think there's a real danger in this crazy election year that we could end up in an unimaginable situation. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I honestly worry more about a Cruz presidency than a Trump presidency. But I just don't see anyone the Republicans roll out capable of beating Clinton.

I was just thinking about this. I'm not sure whether I agree. Both are pretty scary. I think Cruz especially shows some Nixon-like levels of deceit and paranoia. On the other hand, I cannot think of a more thin-skinned politician than Trump.

 

Trump's policies would probably end up being more moderate than Cruz. I can almost believe the sheep in wolf's clothing I've heard others mention. I don't think he'd give a shit about gay marriage or abortion, which is good. Though he'd probably appoint justices who did give a shit. The thing that worries me most is his demagoguery, especially as it relates to Latinos and Muslims. The tone his presidency would establish would border on thuggery. I think he would absolutely diminish our reputation across the globe in a way that could be truly tragic for years.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was just thinking about this. I'm not sure whether I agree. Both are pretty scary. I think Cruz especially shows some Nixon-like levels of deceit and paranoia. On the other hand, I cannot think of a more thin-skinned politician than Trump.

 

Trump's policies would probably end up being more moderate than Cruz. I can almost believe the sheep in wolf's clothing I've heard others mention. I don't think he'd give a shit about gay marriage or abortion, which is good. Though he'd probably appoint justices who did give a shit. The thing that worries me most is his demagoguery, especially as it relates to Latinos and Muslims. The tone his presidency would establish would border on thuggery. I think he would absolutely diminish our reputation across the globe in a way that could be truly tragic for years.

 

I think you definitely could be right about Trump, but where there is some question as to whether Trump would actually bring that tone to the presidency, I don't wonder that about Cruz. Everything you typed above can be said about Cruz with the addition of religious zealotry. Cruz's brand of conservatism really bothers me.

 

The only instance I could ever see myself voting for Donald Trump would be if it was just a race between him and Ted Cruz.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh yeah, this is a polarizing debate for sure. I don't find Hillary supporters to be as anti-Bernie as Bernie supporters are anti-Hillary, but that makes sense considering the idealism factor. Idealogues are much more likely to see things as non-negotiable and to see compromise and incremental improvements as selling out. It worries me how so many Bernie supporters are demonizing Hillary. It's going to make it hard for them to swallow their bitterness and do the right thing for the good of the country. 

 

My hope is that if/when the inevitable happens and Hillary sews up the nomination, Bernie gets behind her and urges his supporters to do so too

the bolded part is one of my reasons why, as a Bernie supporter, I am anti-HRC... the arrogance of the foregone conclusion that she's gonna be the dem choice for president.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I honestly worry more about a Cruz presidency than a Trump presidency. But I just don't see anyone the Republicans roll out capable of beating Clinton.

 

Read this, interesting how the Rust belt is gonna play a huge roll.  

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/how-donald-trump-becomes-president_us_56cb5429e4b0928f5a6c9ead

 

NAFTA and TPP are going to be issues for Clinton.  

 

Played around (and I know it is early) with some electoral math and of course the first one I came up with was a 269 to 269 tie

 

http://www.270towin.com/maps/5n04d

 

That would be a shit show.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

I honestly worry more about a Cruz presidency than a Trump presidency. But I just don't see anyone the Republicans roll out capable of beating Clinton.

I agree. Cruz is a religious demagogue. If he wins, then that would mean Congress didn't flip, but became even more Republican. Cruz as the executive, with a strengthened legislature AND a reshaped judiciary, is frightening.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...