U.S. Politics

[maqroll]

1 hour ago, villakram said:

Don't rule Sanders out at all. As the run to NH Kasich demonstrated (and roboRubio's death spiral), huge swings are very very possible and Hillary has a huge likability problem.  

Sanders can win every New England state, NY, NJ, Washington, Oregon, Wisconsin, Minnesota and Illinois. But Hillary will destroy him in delegate-rich California, Texas, Ohio and Florida. Unless he pulls off a huge upset and wins in SC and Nevada, I just can't see middle of the road Democrats jumping over to his camp.

[Awol]

5 hours ago, Dr_Pangloss said:

Hilary is a word removed.

I've heard there is a career ending scandal lurking in background concerning the Clintons, aid money for Haiti and some interesting property developments.

No idea if it's true, but if so she's probably already lost.

[Demitri_C]

The Mexicians have said they will not be paying a penny into building this wall that trump wants. Not suprising why on earth would they?? be interesting to hear how Trump plans to respond to this?

[tonyh29]

4 hours ago, Awol said:

I've heard there is a career ending scandal lurking in background concerning the Clintons, aid money for Haiti and some interesting property developments.

No idea if it's true, but if so she's probably already lost.

Assuming the property development stuff is Whitewater  , that has been hanging around them since before Bill was President and probably unlikely to damage her now  ,more so seeing as some of the people involved are dead and some of those that were convicted were given pardons by Bill as he left office  ....

she even seems to have survived the email server scandal

Haiti I'd not heard of other than Hilary's brother being involved with a Gold mine over there , but I'm sure he won that bid fair and square

 

The film 13 Hours might damage her a little , depends how many people see it and how they view it I guess

 

[mjmooney]

2 hours ago, Demitri_C said:

The Mexicians have said they will not be paying a penny into building this wall that trump wants. Not suprising why on earth would they?? be interesting to hear how Trump plans to respond to this?

 

[HanoiVillan]

4 hours ago, Demitri_C said:

The Mexicians have said they will not be paying a penny into building this wall that trump wants. Not suprising why on earth would they?? be interesting to hear how Trump plans to respond to this?

bluster bluster the people we have negotiating it are idiots bluster bluster i'll bring in smart people, like me bluster bluster *waves hands at distracting comment* bluster bluster racist comment about mexican people bluster bluster they stopped me saying what I wanted because of PC bluster bluster PC is why I didn't build the wall sadface now my presidential term is over and I achieved nothing except increase my fortune trolled you goodbye!

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

Given the prospect of any of the Republicans or the chaos that will be the fallout of a Sanders presidency, I think Hilary is the safest choice at the moment. I think, assuming she gets the nomination, that she will win comfortably on the big night as the silent majority will likely see that way too. If it becomes a choice of Trump or Cruz v Sanders, I've no idea who the middle will go for. I both want that to happen and don't want it to happen.

 

[villakram]

4 hours ago, CarewsEyebrowDesigner said:

Given the prospect of any of the Republicans or the chaos that will be the fallout of a Sanders presidency, I think Hilary is the safest choice at the moment. I think, assuming she gets the nomination, that she will win comfortably on the big night as the silent majority will likely see that way too. If it becomes a choice of Trump or Cruz v Sanders, I've no idea who the middle will go for. I both want that to happen and don't want it to happen.

 

Why would a Sanders presidency be chaos? His positions would be pretty much middle of the road in most European nations.

[villakram]

18 hours ago, maqroll said:

Sanders can win every New England state, NY, NJ, Washington, Oregon, Wisconsin, Minnesota and Illinois. But Hillary will destroy him in delegate-rich California, Texas, Ohio and Florida. Unless he pulls off a huge upset and wins in SC and Nevada, I just can't see middle of the road Democrats jumping over to his camp.

There is a real lack of appreciation for the complexity of this race in the main stream reporting bordering on blithe acquiescence to a Clinton win, but storms are brewing, e.g., see the below piece by Michelle Alexander. Nobody expected her to lose like she did in NH, i.e., losing the female vote which had been assumed to be a sure thing for her. Destruction of the the Bush/Clinton power structure would be a very positive thing for American society... fingers crossed!

"From the crime bill to welfare reform, policies Bill Clinton enacted—and Hillary Clinton supported—decimated black America."

http://www.thenation.com/article/hillary-clinton-does-not-deserve-black-peoples-votes/

[Dr_Pangloss]

9 minutes ago, villakram said:

Why would a Sanders presidency be chaos? His positions would be pretty much middle of the road in most European nations.

But for Americans, middle road 'European' policies are staunchly left. Obama is more right than the Tories if you look at the policies that have continued and been enacted under his government.

That said I'd like to see Sanders win as it will make things very interesting to say the least, and he's infinitely more likable than the heavily botox'd Clinton.

Edited February 11, 2016 by Dr_Pangloss

[HanoiVillan]

I'm not a fan of the whole 'Europeans mocking Americans' genre of political one-upmanship, so consider this an expression of horror rather than hilarity, and I will note that I found it here (http://gawker.com/meet-the-science-and-muslim-hating-conspiracy-theorist-1758545449), an American website. 

This is Mary Lou Bruner:

She's campaigning for the Texas State Board of Education, you know, approving schoolbooks and unimportant shit like what kids get taught at school. She likes to post on Facebook to tell people her opinions:

On Dinosaurs

'When the flood waters subsided and rushed to the oceans there was no vegetation on the earth because the earth had been covered with water. It took a while for grass and trees to grow back and the big plant-eating dinosaurs needed lots of vegetation to live. The dinosaurs on the ark may have been babies and not able to reproduce. It might make sense to take the small dinosaurs onto the ark instead of the ones bigger than a bus. After the flood, the few remaining Behemoths and Leviathans may have become extinct because there was not enough vegetation on earth for them to survive to reproductive age. Most of the dinosaur fossils which scientists have found are permanently preserved in positions of great distress as if they were trying to keep their heads above water or above the mud.'

On School Shootings

... The school shootings started after government removed the Ten Commandments and the Bible from public school buildings, and disallowed prayer at school and school events. The school shootings started after the schools started teaching evolution is an absolute fact and the classes cannot talk about weaknesses in the Theory of Evolution. The shootings started after the schools started teaching the Constitution of the USA is a flawed document written by selfish aristocrats who were only looking out for their own wealth, The school shootings started after the government started teaching children to feel sorry for themselves if they do not have as much as other children in the school....

On 'The Muslims'

'The Muslims use our own First Amendment against us. Islam is not a religion. Islam is an inhumane totalitarian political ideology with radical religious rules and laws and barbaric punishments for breaking the religious rules.

If Islam is a religion it is a cult religion. A group that forces people to join or die is not a real religion. A group that kills people who try to leave the group is not a real religion. A group that disfigures, dismembers, or mutilates bodies as punishment is not a real religion. A group that practices child sexual abuse or forced marriages of small girls to adult men is not a real religion.

The USA should ban Islam and stop all immigration. from Muslim countries because Islam’s stated goal is to conquer the USA and kill the infidels (nonbelievers).'

Mary Lou Bruner is not an outsider candidate. She's been endorsed by the former chairman of the State Board of Education, amongst others. 

Good luck, Texas 

Edited February 12, 2016 by HanoiVillan

[leviramsey]

On 2/10/2016 at 23:50, maqroll said:

Pretty accurate indicator of opposing political views in New England. Solidly left wing, progressive, anti-war social justice candidate vs unreligious, sloganeering, jingoistic racist.

Around 1 in 20 Bernie voters in the primary only decided to vote for Bernie in the Democrat primary vs. for Trump in the GOP primary at the polling place.  Around 1 in 10 Trump voters likewise decided in the reverse way.

There's a block of about 20% of the electorate for whom Trump and Bernie are their top 2 preferences.  That's the 20% or so of the electorate that went for Perot 20 years ago; a lot of them supported Ron Paul and Buchanan.  It's largely older, white, working class men angry that white American male privilege ain't what it used to be.

Which isn't that surprising.  To the extent Trump has made actual policy proposals, he's running on strikingly similar proposals as Bernie, but with jingoism and explicit xenophobia thrown into the mix.  They're the two candidates who are making the strongest promises to increase Social Security and Medicare, Trump has stopped saying he wants single-payer healthcare (now all he says is repeal Obamacare and replace it with an unspecified improvement, which would still be consistent with single-payer).  They're the two candidates promising to rip up free trade deals.  They're the two candidates who like to imply that immigrants are "taking our jobs" (although Sanders, after decades of saying so explicitly, now leaves it between the lines: he supports stepped up (though more humane) border enforcement and using NAFTA renegotiation to cap the number of Mexicans coming over).  Trump is to the left (to the extent that's meaningful) on guns, notwithstanding Bernie's recent turns in response to Hillary's attacks on that front.

I would like to see Trump vs. Bernie, if only because it would be a chaotic election.  Bloomberg has apparently set aside a billion dollars (unlike Trump, Bloomberg's an actual billionaire) to mount a third-party run if it looks likely that it would be Trump vs. Bernie.  Bloomberg could win enough states to move the election to the House, and considering the extent to which neither Bernie nor Trump is particularly liked by their parties' leadership, Bloomberg could end up elected by the House.

[leviramsey]

On 2/10/2016 at 15:47, Heretic said:

 

In an era where 'Establishment' candidates are finding such labels as anchors rather than buoys, I suspect the name 'Bush' is not a preferred choice amongst the candidates.

Christie is now gone. Fiorina must go sooner or later, she's got zero traction. Carson is doing worse than I thought. Rubio had a terrible New Hampshire debate (mullered by Christie, ironically) so he has work to do.

Fiorina may well be next to go. Bush might continue because his name might attract more SuperPAC donations in the long run but he's still way off the pace. Even Kasich has done more than him.

If Bush gets trounced in Florida (where he was governor) that will be pretty humiliating.

Bush is running a great campaign for 2004 (hey, it's really the last campaign his team won).

[TheAuthority]

4 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

I'm not a fan of the whole 'Europeans mocking Americans' genre of political one-upmanship, so consider this an expression of horror rather than hilarity, and I will note that I found it here (http://gawker.com/meet-the-science-and-muslim-hating-conspiracy-theorist-1758545449), an American website. 

This is Mary Lou Bruner:

She's campaigning for the Texas State Board of Education, you know, approving schoolbooks and unimportant shit like what kids get taught at school. She likes to post on Facebook to tell people her opinions:

 

Mary Lou Bruner is not an outsider candidate. She's been endorsed by the former chairman of the State Board of Education, amongst others. 

Good luck, Texas 

Her election to this office wouldn't just effect Texas. What makes the school-board so critical in Texas is that the state orders the largest amount of text-books in the country. The publishers of school text books cater to that market because it has the highest volume, and so every kid in America ends up learning what Texas wants. It came to a head a few years ago with the Texas school-board holding endless meetings about including 'Intelligent Design' as an actual science alongside natural evolution. At school board meetings in America absolutely anyone is allowed to get up and speak and absolutely anyone does. Apparently the people listening and making the decisions will be be bigoted, fundamentalist dinosaur on the ark believers.

[maqroll]

3 hours ago, leviramsey said:

Around 1 in 20 Bernie voters in the primary only decided to vote for Bernie in the Democrat primary vs. for Trump in the GOP primary at the polling place.  Around 1 in 10 Trump voters likewise decided in the reverse way.

There's a block of about 20% of the electorate for whom Trump and Bernie are their top 2 preferences.  That's the 20% or so of the electorate that went for Perot 20 years ago; a lot of them supported Ron Paul and Buchanan.  It's largely older, white, working class men angry that white American male privilege ain't what it used to be.

Which isn't that surprising.  To the extent Trump has made actual policy proposals, he's running on strikingly similar proposals as Bernie, but with jingoism and explicit xenophobia thrown into the mix.  They're the two candidates who are making the strongest promises to increase Social Security and Medicare, Trump has stopped saying he wants single-payer healthcare (now all he says is repeal Obamacare and replace it with an unspecified improvement, which would still be consistent with single-payer).  They're the two candidates promising to rip up free trade deals.  They're the two candidates who like to imply that immigrants are "taking our jobs" (although Sanders, after decades of saying so explicitly, now leaves it between the lines: he supports stepped up (though more humane) border enforcement and using NAFTA renegotiation to cap the number of Mexicans coming over).  Trump is to the left (to the extent that's meaningful) on guns, notwithstanding Bernie's recent turns in response to Hillary's attacks on that front.

I would like to see Trump vs. Bernie, if only because it would be a chaotic election.  Bloomberg has apparently set aside a billion dollars (unlike Trump, Bloomberg's an actual billionaire) to mount a third-party run if it looks likely that it would be Trump vs. Bernie.  Bloomberg could win enough states to move the election to the House, and considering the extent to which neither Bernie nor Trump is particularly liked by their parties' leadership, Bloomberg could end up elected by the House.

No chance Bloomberg sneaks in there. If he does run, he'll siphon votes away from the GOP nominee. I wouldn't put it past the Clintons being behind a Bloomberg candidacy...

[TheAuthority]

7 hours ago, maqroll said:

No chance Bloomberg sneaks in there. If he does run, he'll siphon votes away from the GOP nominee. I wouldn't put it past the Clintons being behind a Bloomberg candidacy...

I'm not 100% convinced of that. There's a lot of Democrats who find Hilary difficult to vote for - she's just not that like-able as a candidate. I think that applies even more to the independents. If Bloomberg does run I think he could damage the Democrat nominee even more than Nader did in 2000.

I know he's not everyone's cup of tea but Bill Maher penned a good article on the Hollywood Reporter this week which focusses on Hilary and peoples problems with voting for her:

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/features/bill-maher-pens-blistering-essay-863493

Quote

And poor, poor Hillary Clinton. I mean she just is such a Charlie Brown figure. I could see the nomination slipping away from her again. I don't know why everyone just wants to beat up on her. If you are threatened by Hillary Clinton, you were molested by a real estate lady, I used to say. There is no other explanation because she is just not that threatening. I actually like Hillary. I think she is unfairly demonized and has been for her entire career. I personally don't think she is dishonest. And yet the hatred for her is just amazing — the hatred on the right and the abandonment on the left. She's particularly hard to watch as a candidate. (That laugh.) Yes, the hard truth is that Hillary Clinton is a terrible campaigner who is living in a different era.

 

[villakram]

so much of politics comes down to having that "it", that hollywood dreaming types like to talk about. Particularly in the uber media managed US presidential election system, e.g., see Bush vs Kerry/Gore. Hillary is simply one of the really boring people that people don't particularly like.

Also doesn't help that she has zero substance whatsoever and all sorts of stink hovering around her. Bernie, at a minimum has substance and is a good naturally empathic speaker.

[mjmooney]

I get the impression that if Corbyn became PM, there would be all sorts of hand wringing and ranting from the Daily Mail demographic, but life would go on, albeit in an 'interesting' way. But Sanders as US President? Meltdown, and a nailed-on assassination, surely? 

[Villaphan04]

12 minutes ago, mjmooney said:

I get the impression that if Corbyn became PM, there would be all sorts of hand wringing and ranting from the Daily Mail demographic, but life would go on, albeit in an 'interesting' way. But Sanders as US President? Meltdown, and a nailed-on assassination, surely? 

I think that a Trump or Sanders presidency would probably end in an assassination.

[TheAuthority]

6 hours ago, mjmooney said:

I get the impression that if Corbyn became PM, there would be all sorts of hand wringing and ranting from the Daily Mail demographic, but life would go on, albeit in an 'interesting' way. But Sanders as US President? Meltdown, and a nailed-on assassination, surely? 

Ultimately there is only a very small chance that Sanders will even get the nomination even if he keeps winning primary elections. The Democratic Party (ironic name as you will see) allows unelected so called 'super-delegates' to cast votes regardless of how other members of the party have voted. The eventual party leader and nominee for president has to woo the super-delegates into supporting them and they can be anyone from party officials to members of the House - essentially not your average Joe Public (or Joe the Plumber.) The Democrats employ this system in order for the party higher-ups to keep some semblance of control and to avoid someone like, say Donald Trump, hijacking the party ticket (the Republicans don't use the same system to elect their candidate.)

Sanders has basically campaigned on the fact that he has no super-delegate support and is an outsider who often contradicts the party line (similar to Corbyn in that regard.) Despite noises from the party being made that they would eventually rally to his side should he emerge as the party's favorite candidate, it is very different to what happened to Obama in '08. Obama was always friendly to the Democratic higher-ups and Bernie certainly isn't. Hilary is starting with a 362-8 advantage in Delegates who have already announced their preference for her.