Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)

[Netzilla]

Yep, and they were principle drivers for Obama and Sanders as well.  They can't just be waived away as apathetic.  The idea that young voters don't turn out has been wrong for over a decade.  They will turn out if inspired to do so.

[megaplayboy]

You're not going to get an inspiring and charismatic candidate to vote for every time out. Sometimes it's just transactional politics. The perfect is the enemy of good enough. An alternative was presented in the primaries, and that alternative failed to break through with the broader base of the party. The DNC had little to do with that candidate's failed outreach. And I voted for him. But I had no problem voting for Clinton, because I don't need to be inspired in order to vote for what's in alignment with my interests and priorities.

[Netzilla]

You can't expect people to vote for you if you don't inspire them.  Why should they?  Politicians are supposed to EARN your vote.  Expecting people to vote for you because the other guy sucks is ignoring the fact that voters can always stay home or vote third party.  It's a bad strategy.  It's been loosing Democrats seats in congress for 6 years now.

 

As to the primary, even if you don't think the DNC had their thumb on the scale for Hillary, the appearance of that was damaging to her brand and she didn't do enough to reassure and win back Bernie supporters.  As a result, they either didn't show up or they went third party.  It's not their fault that they felt disenfranchised.  Either they were disenfranchised or the Clinton campaign didn't do enough to convince them otherwise.

[megaplayboy]

You can't expect people to vote for you if you don't inspire them. Why should they? Politicians are supposed to EARN your vote. Expecting people to vote for you because the other guy sucks is ignoring the fact that voters can always stay home or vote third party. It's a bad strategy. It's been loosing Democrats seats in congress for 6 years now.

 

As to the primary, even if you don't think the DNC had their thumb on the scale for Hillary, the appearance of that was damaging to her brand and she didn't do enough to reassure and win back Bernie supporters. As a result, they either didn't show up or they went third party. It's not their fault that they felt disenfranchised. Either they were disenfranchised or the Clinton campaign didn't do enough to convince them otherwise.

Politics is the art of compromise. Your favorite isn't always going to win. BUT REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT YOU VOTE, YOUR INTERESTS AND PRIORITIES ARE ALWAYS AT STAKE. Not voting, or voting in a way that won't materially advance those interests and priorities any time in the near future, is not the optimal, rational choice imho. Your interests and priorities are going to be harmed, likely tremendously, due to the outcome of the election.

[Pariah]

Bernie Sanders Just Blasted the Democratic Party for Trump’s Victory

[megaplayboy]

Bernie Sanders Just Blasted the Democratic Party for Trump’s Victory

As usual, his timing kinda sucks. Circular firing squad isn't supposed to start for a few weeks yet.

[TheDarkness]

Inspiring leaders aren't always capable, capable leaders aren't always inspiring.

 

One of the greatest statesmen in ancient China had a terrible stutter. He also produced a work that would allow China to maintain a wide are with a lean bureaucracy that England would take ideas from two millennium later.

[Pariah]

As usual, his timing kinda sucks. Circular firing squad isn't supposed to start for a few weeks yet.

 

The article I read yesterday (which I can't find at the moment) has Sanders specifically telling the Democrats in Congress to get out of Washington D.C and go see how real working people in America live. I think that's sound advice for all elected leaders.

[Netzilla]

Politics is the art of compromise. Your favorite isn't always going to win. BUT REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT YOU VOTE, YOUR INTERESTS AND PRIORITIES ARE ALWAYS AT STAKE. Not voting, or voting in a way that won't materially advance those interests and priorities any time in the near future, is not the optimal, rational choice imho. Your interests and priorities are going to be harmed, likely tremendously, due to the outcome of the election.

 

And if you don't think either major party candidate cares about your interests and priorities?  That's how the people who went third party felt.  You have to give people a reason to vote FOR you otherwise they'll look elsewhere.  Expecting otherwise is a bad strategy. 

 

Look at how Obama ran his campaigns compared to the Clinton campaign.  He made a concentrated effort to reach out to younger voters and to address issues that were important to them.  Even if his subsequent performance was largely moderate, he ran on a campaign of progressive change and he didn't have enough of a track record to make people doubt it.  Clinton had the appearance of an establishment candidate who would largely continue to do business as usual rather than being the candidate for change.  In addition, her past record shows that she's pro fracking, supported the war in Iraq, supported the Wall Street bailout and so on.  That's a record that runs counter to the interests of those who wanted Bernie.

[megaplayboy]

The article I read yesterday (which I can't find at the moment) has Sanders specifically telling the Democrats in Congress to get out of Washington D.C and go see how real working people in America live. I think that's sound advice for all elected leaders.

It is, but it's also kind of condescending. Lots of congressmen visit their districts regularly, talk to constituents and respond to letters, calls and emails from them. Now, Senators may be a different animal, and more likely to spend more time in Dc and less time in their states.

[Lord Mhoram]

It is, but it's also kind of condescending. Lots of congressmen visit their districts regularly, talk to constituents and respond to letters, calls and emails from them. Now, Senators may be a different animal, and more likely to spend more time in Dc and less time in their states.

Good advice is good advice even if some are already doing it.

 

I will vote for Rob Bishop until he stops running. Why? I posted a concern about something on his webpage form. He called me back personally a few days later. Not a secretary, not an automated call, but him personally. Utah is lower population, so that is more reasonable then say New York but that touch of humanity won my loyalty.

[Mister E]

And since we are all about issues of voter suppression through intimidation: imagine what it is like to be a Republican leaning person in Oregon now.

 

 

Wisely some Oregon Trumpers I know are now pretending to have not voted for Trump at all.

 

Unfortunately they are still insufferable in their self satisfaction.

 

Nothing ever changes.

 

It is a kind of social hell for those who literally have transformed themselves into Trump using facial expressions & haircuts.

 

It is not okay to act like Trump. It never was. It never will be.

[megaplayboy]

And if you don't think either major party candidate cares about your interests and priorities? That's how the people who went third party felt. You have to give people a reason to vote FOR you otherwise they'll look elsewhere. Expecting otherwise is a bad strategy.

 

Look at how Obama ran his campaigns compared to the Clinton campaign. He made a concentrated effort to reach out to younger voters and to address issues that were important to them. Even if his subsequent performance was largely moderate, he ran on a campaign of progressive change and he didn't have enough of a track record to make people doubt it. Clinton had the appearance of an establishment candidate who would largely continue to do business as usual rather than being the candidate for change. In addition, her past record shows that she's pro fracking, supported the war in Iraq, supported the Wall Street bailout and so on. That's a record that runs counter to the interests of those who wanted Bernie.

Did they want a border wall and a ban on Muslim immigration, and the repeal of affordable health care? Because that's what they're getting. When you're in a coalition, you also have to consider the interests and concerns of your friends and allies. They are going to suffer much more than the mostly white and middle class Sanders supporters who were disappointed with Clinton. Does that mean something to them?

[Netzilla]

Did they want a border wall and a ban on Muslim immigration, and the repeal of affordable health care? Because that's what they're getting. When you're in a coalition, you also have to consider the interests and concerns of your friends and allies. They are going to suffer much more than the mostly white and middle class Sanders supporters who were disappointed with Clinton. Does that mean something to them?

 

If Clinton actively supports issues they don't like (take Fracking, for example), then if they vote for Clinton, they still get things they don't want (like accelerated greenhouse emissions and increased earthquakes in formerly geologically stable areas).  It was a no-win situation for them and their friends and neighbors.  So, they voted for those they felt were more in line with what they did want.  What's hard to understand about that?

 

Voters are under no obligation to vote for someone they don't like.  Acting like they do is self-defeating.  We elect people to represent us.  We are not obligated to them.  They are obligated to us.

 

I knew Trump had a chance to win.  I didn't think the odds were good, but I figured those giving him a 25-30% chance were probably closest to the mark.  So that's why I voted Clinton.  On the other hand, most media outlets were giving Trump a much smaller chance (some as low as 2 or 5%).  Combine that with neither major party candidate looking like a good choice and of course voters went third party or stayed home. 

 

History does not support the idea of Democrats winning by putting up uninspiring candidates.  It didn't work for Kerry, it didn't work in the 2010 midterms, it didn't work for congress in 2012 or 2014, and now it didn't work this time.  So, why should Democrats continue to do this?

[csyphrett]

Netzilla is right. I know a guy who voted for McMullen even though McMullen wasn't on the ballot in my state. I don't like either one of these candidates so I voted for a third party. I told him point blank that voting for someone who didn't have a chance was just throwing your ballot away.

 

People want change versus status quo, that's fine. But knowing you have a sociopath who will wreck your boat and a status quo person who will at least try to keep things together was the choices. Anything else was hey I'm jumping off the boat to drown. That's especially true now that Ryan is making noises of destroying Medicare, and the Republicans can destroy Obamacare.

 

(I am especially pissed about the Obamacare because I depend on it for my heart medication. This guy at work has it too, and he voted for Trump. I just found that out. I was like this dumbass is an idiot. OMGWTFBBQ!!!!)

CES

[tkdguy]

I haven't been online since yesterday, and even then I was working on one hour of sleep. So I haven't read what has been posted here, and I'm not going to.

 

I'm just letting you know that I am bowing out of this thread. I thought I could control my emotions, but I was wrong. I think I should just stop reading this before I post something that will get me banned. I have more important issues going on outside the Hero Boards at this time, and I will devote my energies to those issues instead.

 

Peace.

[wcw43921]

So--any possibility this could catch on?

 

Maryland Votes To Sidestep Electoral College

[megaplayboy]

If Clinton actively supports issues they don't like (take Fracking, for example), then if they vote for Clinton, they still get things they don't want (like accelerated greenhouse emissions and increased earthquakes in formerly geologically stable areas). It was a no-win situation for them and their friends and neighbors. So, they voted for those they felt were more in line with what they did want. What's hard to understand about that?

 

Voters are under no obligation to vote for someone they don't like. Acting like they do is self-defeating. We elect people to represent us. We are not obligated to them. They are obligated to us.

 

I knew Trump had a chance to win. I didn't think the odds were good, but I figured those giving him a 25-30% chance were probably closest to the mark. So that's why I voted Clinton. On the other hand, most media outlets were giving Trump a much smaller chance (some as low as 2 or 5%). Combine that with neither major party candidate looking like a good choice and of course voters went third party or stayed home.

 

History does not support the idea of Democrats winning by putting up uninspiring candidates. It didn't work for Kerry, it didn't work in the 2010 midterms, it didn't work for congress in 2012 or 2014, and now it didn't work this time. So, why should Democrats continue to do this?

You ducked the question, in my view. Do they care about what happens to other members of the political coalition, or not? The harm that will be done is arguably greater than that from any of the things you mentioned. Is it because it's not happening to them directly?

First they came for the Muslims, and I said nothing, because I'm not a Muslim.

Next they came for the Latinos, and I said nothing, because I'm not a Latino.

Then they came for African-Americans, and again I said nothing, because I'm not African American.

Finally they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me.

[Old Man]

So--any possibility this could catch on?

 

Maryland Votes To Sidestep Electoral College

 

Not in red states, but we can dream.

[megaplayboy]

Policy wise, the Democratic party adopted the most progressive platform ever. Clinton modified several of her policies to be closer in alignment with Sanders, and her higher education proposal got Sanders endorsement. Tuition free public college. Student loan debt relief.

Sanders endorsed her and campaigned for her. Elizabeth Warren endorsed her and campaigned for her. Clinton worked hard to try to win over millenials.

[wcw43921]

I haven't been online since yesterday, and even then I was working on one hour of sleep. So I haven't read what has been posted here, and I'm not going to.

 

I'm just letting you know that I am bowing out of this thread. I thought I could control my emotions, but I was wrong. I think I should just stop reading this before I post something that will get me banned. I have more important issues going on outside the Hero Boards at this time, and I will devote my energies to those issues instead.

 

Peace.

 

Be well.  Hope you'll come back soon.

[Pariah]

So--any possibility this could catch on?

 

Maryland Votes To Sidestep Electoral College

 

Let's pretend I lived in Maryland. This says that instead of counting my vote, and the votes of other Marylanders, toward choosing the President, the State wants to use votes cast in places like in Texas, California, Florida, and New York to choose the President.

 

Way to surrender your sovereign rights as a State of the Union, Maryland.

 

Why would ANYONE think this is a good idea?  

[Old Man]

Policy wise, the Democratic party adopted the most progressive platform ever. Clinton modified several of her policies to be closer in alignment with Sanders, and her higher education proposal got Sanders endorsement. Tuition free public college. Student loan debt relief.

Sanders endorsed her and campaigned for her. Elizabeth Warren endorsed her and campaigned for her. Clinton worked hard to try to win over millenials.

 

And all of that got zero play in the media.  None.  It didn't come up in the debates, it didn't get reported in the news.  All we got was emailboating and pneumoniaghazi.

 

That said, Hillary probably should have pushed her policies more where possible rather than running on her opponent's shortcomings.

[Old Man]

Let's pretend I lived in Maryland. This says that instead of counting my vote, and the votes of other Marylanders, toward choosing the President, the State wants to use votes cast in places like in Texas, California, Florida, and New York to choose the President.

 

Way to surrender your sovereign rights as a State of the Union, Maryland.

 

Why would ANYONE think this is a good idea?  

 

On the contrary, Maryland is second to last in relative power of individual presidential votes. Eliminating the EC would make a Maryland voter's vote worth the same as a Texan's or a Florida Man's.

[Hermit]

Let's pretend I lived in Maryland. This says that instead of counting my vote, and the votes of other Marylanders, toward choosing the President, the State wants to use votes cast in places like in Texas, California, Florida, and New York to choose the President.

 

Way to surrender your sovereign rights as a State of the Union, Maryland.

 

Why would ANYONE think this is a good idea?  

 

I also think that politicians running for president can now safely skip visiting Maryland, if they ever bothered to before.

 

EDIT: Though I suppose they didn't as Old Man points out