Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)

[CaptnStrawberry]

I thought Booker was more like an overwrought Civics 101 lecture, but to each their own.

[薔薇語]

The Washington Post has an article about Rep. Wasserman Schultz being outed from the DNC. 

A key couple paragraphs at the front:

"[T]he Florida congresswoman did not go quietly or without a fight. It took pressure from the White House – including a phone call with President Obama – to get her to finally see the writing on the wall.Two reliable sources say Wasserman Schultz was trying to make top aides take the fall, rather than take personal responsibility. Until the end, she struggled to understand what a lightning rod she’s become.

“There was a lot of drama,” a Democratic member of Congress involved in the discussions leading up to her resignation told Philip Rucker. “She made this as painful as she could. She did not want to go. ... She wasn’t going to resign until the president called her. She put a lot of people through hell.”

Emphasis added by me. 

 

Soar. 

[gewing]

It doesn't seem strange to me. Bernie has pretty much said all this time that the DNC was in Hillary's camp, and that certain members of it were violating their duties in abandoning neutrality. He was dismissed by many in the party and in the press as delusional or making it up but the truth is now out. Naturally Bernie's not surprised... and I think if he was offended before, it's old news to him. 

 

And Hillary is about to rely on him a lot if she's smart, because frankly, I think a good chunk (A third or more I'd guess) of Bernie's supporters are tempted to sit this one out at this stage and he's the only one who can really sway them on the "We can't let trump win period" angle that they'll respect. 

 

But I'm not sure Hillary will see it that way. Not because she's dumb, she's not... but because she's acting (In my view) overconfident, and assuming that anyone afraid of Trump has no where else to go. That maybe , for practicality sake, true.... but people aren't always practical, and it may yet bite her in the ass.

 

Trump can win this thing thanks to the power of angry progressives too disillusioned to get out and vote. I pray it doesn't come to that.

Overconfidence has sunk Democratic candidates before...    Gore was assumed to have an easy path to the white house.    I remember mockery of his opponent along the lines of "Nobody sane or intelligent would vote for him!"       

[megaplayboy]

Disgusted by the boos for Elizabeth Warren. She has the most liberal voting record in the Senate...more liberal than Sanders.

[薔薇語]

I am not watching it live, Mega. Was it when she endorsed Sec. Clinton? If so, I would imagine the boos were more directed at what seems to be an unconscionable compromise to the other side by Senator Sanders' supporters. 

Remember back when we used to make fun of Tea Party Republicans and how they treated "compromise" as a bad word. Well, if it is good for the republican goose, it would seem to be good for the Democratic gander. 

 

Soar. 

[megaplayboy]

Newsflash to Sanders diehards: when you lose a primary you do not get 100% of what you want, ever. That is how politics works. That is how the democratic(small d) process works.

[Hermit]

I can't blame them for their fears that Clinton will be under no obligation to hold onto the progressive issues after she gets in the White House. But I do think some of the die hards are in danger of trying to win a battle so hard they lose the war

[Iuz the Evil]

If Hillary and her most devoted fans don't like the reaction from the more Progressive elements of the party there's the solution open to any politician: win them over. Assuming support by folks based on revulsion to another candidate has a poor track record (see also: Gore, Al). If you want to win, you have to inspire and unite your base. If you can't win them over, maybe work on a better message.

 

Michelle Obama was great. Would campaign for her.

 

Senator Warren has populist appeal, she helped. If the platform she indicated is what the Clinton campaign endorses that will help.

 

I'm hoping there is more positive tone and a move toward unity as the week goes on. We will see how they handle it.

[Pariah]

So, is Kaine the half-brother of Corwin who killed Brand and effectively ended the war between Amber and Chaos?

 

Or am I thinking of someone else?

[薔薇語]

So it would seem the mere mention of the nominee or her running mate inspires widespread booing. That big blue tent seems to be getting smaller and smaller.

 

Soar.

[megaplayboy]

It's belied by the latest polling that shows that 90% of those who supported Sanders in the primaries will vote for Clinton.

[CaptnStrawberry]

I guess I'm in the other 10% then.  As was pointed out, the Sanders campaign won 23 contests and 46% of the pledged (not super) delegates.  And now on the heels of fairly damning evidence of manipulation and media collusion throughout the primary process, Sarah Silverman, Michelle Obama and others copped a 'tude.  Sanders delegates were treated as though they were merely sulky children in the corner, consistently misbehaving.  I literally started to get nauseous.  But Bernie means it when he says 'the struggle continues.'

[megaplayboy]

I look at it this way. If Bernie had won and was the nominee, and there were upset Clinton supporters talking about sitting out the election, or voting for Johnson or even Trump, would Sanders voters be saying it's really not a big deal if Trump wins, and not bothering to try to persuade holdouts to get behind the nominee?

[Pattern Ghost]

You know how Dexter always tells Dee Dee not to push the button?

 

I wonder how many voters will be afflicted by Dee Dee's impulses come election day, when they're staring at that big, shiny Trump button. Will they be tempted by whispers of madness that only they can hear to push it, to see what chaos lies beyond?

 

 

 

 

*Ok, so I mixed up Lovecraftian Mythos with Dexter's Lab, but it seemed appropriate.

[megaplayboy]

http://www.theonion.com/article/supporters-aggravated-bernie-sanders-didnt-use-dnc-53325

[megaplayboy]

Incidentally, Sanders voters aren't the only ones with hurt feelings. Or do you think the nominee's backers appreciated purported progressives calling their candidate corrupt, dishonest and untrustworthy for the past year? Or the truly egregious online behavior of some Bernie Bros...

[Ternaugh]

"Do you want me to pull this convention over?"

 

"But Mom! They started it first!"

[Pariah]

And just a week ago, I thought political conventions couldn't get any more dysfunctional. Oh well, live and learn.

[Nolgroth]

You know how Dexter always tells Dee Dee not to push the button?

 

I wonder how many voters will be afflicted by Dee Dee's impulses come election day, when they're staring at that big, shiny Trump button. Will they be tempted by whispers of madness that only they can hear to push it, to see what chaos lies beyond?

 

 

I'm already listening to the voices. There is this morbid curiosity to see just how far down we can cast this nation. It's like having that obnoxious, distant relation standing on the edge of the swimming pool; you shouldn't push them in, but you just can't silence that little demon voice inside your head. <SPLASH>

 

I honestly can't say what Trump will bring to the presidency. I've got a pretty good idea of what Clinton will. I'll take the demon I don't know in this case. 

[薔薇語]

Incidentally, Sanders voters aren't the only ones with hurt feelings. Or do you think the nominee's backers appreciated purported progressives calling their candidate corrupt, dishonest and untrustworthy for the past year? Or the truly egregious online behavior of some Bernie Bros...

Name calling is hardly a civil act to engage in but hardly one unheard of in American politics in general and Democratic politics in particular. A Republican candidate with a similar record to the Secretary would most certainly be called "corrupt, dishonest, and untrustworthy". 

 

When it comes to the "egregious online behavior of some Bernie Bros", my understanding is that most of that is simply hearsay at best and fabricated lies by the the Clinton Campaign or surrogates thereof. The Wiki-leaks scandal doesn't work to quell concerns about duplicitous actions. Secretary Clinton / her surrogates are far too fond of painting any opponents, including Senator Sanders himself, as sexist. Saying women who vote against Hillary have "a special place in hell", and accusing young female Senator Sanders' supporters of simply being "boy crazy". After a year of being told you have no hope of winning, accused of sexism, having your political motivations reduced to mere sexual urges, and facing an establishment in cahoots with your political opponent and then being told to shut up and take one for the team, you will probably be rubbed a bit raw. If the vote had gone the other way, I don't see it being even remotely the same. Secretary Clinton and her supporters were not being called anti-Semitic, accused of having MILF fantasies, or other such absurdities. 

 

I can completely understand why a Supporter of the Senator would care very little about the Senator's attempts to unify with a group that has been name calling an entire movement for a year. More power to them. 

 

Soar. 

[CaptnStrawberry]

And don't forget the attempt to label Sanders supporters as 'chair-throwing' thugs based on the dubious oral vote in Nevada (imho, an act of provocateur).

 

The Clinton camp ran a dirty campaign.  Sanders, the cleanest I remember seeing.  I don't really see an equivalency.  But I'm trying not to be bitter; as long as incremental steps towards his policies are actually made, I'll be happy.  If HRC ignores that pledge, she could be buried in the midterms/2020.

[Starlord]

Name calling is hardly a civil act to engage in but hardly one unheard of in American politics in general and Democratic politics in particular. A Republican candidate with a similar record to the Secretary would most certainly be called "corrupt, dishonest, and untrustworthy". 

 

Definitely.

[megaplayboy]

Dirty? Lol. Look at 2008, 1992, et AL and get back to me. Sanders wasn't roughed up all that much. Lots of stuff in his background was left untouched, stuff that Republicans would have been sure to use in the general.

 

And the Bernie bro behavior isn't hearsay. Their footprints are all over the Internet, on twitter, facebook, blog comment sections, etc.

[Hermit]

An older article about "Bernie Bros"

 

With so many ways to create sock puppet accounts in the name of someone you support, or , worse, in the name of someone you oppose... it's hard to figure out what to believe is legit.  I do know that Bernie has denounced any people for doing such things and said that his crew doesn't want them.

 

On the flip side, we just got wikileaks (If you feel that is valid) confirmation the DNC and Clinton Machine were in cahoots. So... I'm still going with Bernie being the cleaner campaign by far. I admit bias maybe coloring my perception.

[Lawnmower Boy]

An older article about "Bernie Bros"

 

With so many ways to create sock puppet accounts in the name of someone you support, or , worse, in the name of someone you oppose... it's hard to figure out what to believe is legit.  I do know that Bernie has denounced any people for doing such things and said that his crew doesn't want them.

 

On the flip side, we just got wikileaks (If you feel that is valid) confirmation the DNC and Clinton Machine were in cahoots. So... I'm still going with Bernie being the cleaner campaign by far. I admit bias maybe coloring my perception.

 

 

I'm Hermit and I hate Aquaman, Tennessee and .. apple pie, I guess?

 

[Edit] Uhm, this account hijacking thing is hard. Could you just maybe lend me your password, Hermit, old buddy?