US Elections 2016

[Volourn]

"Democrats vote on the policy objectives of candidates.."

 

HAHAHAHAHA.

 

.

 

"And GWB was a near unmitigated disaster, too."
 

No, don't lie.

[kgambit]

 

 

Huh, I thought you were an ardent Bernie supporter, Bruce. What changed your mind?

 

Bruce has always been a supporter of Hillary.  

 

Indeed, I am

 

But I like Sanders, its just I believe Hilary is better suited overall to be the next US president

 

 

I thought you didn't like his economic policies.   

[Bartimaeus]

Not looking forward to caucusing tomorrow...stupid election system. *sigh*

[ShadySands]

Not looking forward to caucusing tomorrow...stupid election system. *sigh*

 

Yeah, I hope it's not too much of a zoo

[Guard Dog]

 

Yes, the "we need to elect one of us" idiocy is a real thing, unfortunately.

 

Which is really ironic since the last two "one of us" candidates were the son of multimillionaire oil men (GWB) and the son of an already successful property multimillionaire (Trump) so are about as far from the Average Joe on Struggle Street as you can get. And GWB was a near unmitigated disaster, too. It's not just the US that has this phenomenon though, our Prime Minister is a multimillionaire banker (!) who is seen as just one of the guys because he admits peeing in the shower and likes to sexually harass people with pony tails seems like a nice guy to have a beer with. Though at least he is first gen wealthy and not from family wealth.

 

Damn! You beat me to it. I was going to say if folks are looking for one on "us" they are barking up the wrong tree with Trump.

[Guard Dog]

I'm voting first thing tomorrow. I'm not a registered Republican but we use a hybrid Primary here. I can affiliate with the Republicans at the poll tomorrow to cast a ballot.

[ShadySands]

I'm voting first thing tomorrow. I'm not a registered Republican but we use a hybrid Primary here. I can affiliate with the Republicans at the poll tomorrow to cast a ballot.

I'm jealous

 

We have a caucus here that I had to register as a Dem to go to and to make that worse I also only have ~30 min window in which I have to arrive in to be allowed in.

 

Dunno why they have to make it so difficult 

[Wrath of Dagon]

And your vote doesn't matter anyway, right? The delegates are uncommitted?

 

Edit: Sorry, I think that's only the Republicans.

Edited March 1, 2016 by Wrath of Dagon

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

Huh, I thought you were an ardent Bernie supporter, Bruce. What changed your mind?

 

Bruce has always been a supporter of Hillary.  

 

Indeed, I am

 

But I like Sanders, its just I believe Hilary is better suited overall to be the next US president

 

 

I thought you didn't like his economic policies.   

 

Yes thats correct, well I don't like his more radical economic ideas like the whole restructuring of the financial sector and big business

But I don't dislike him on a personal level as he really seems to care about people in the USA who are battling financial

 

So I want Hilary to get the nomination but I won't be very disappointed if Sanders gets it as he also respects most of the Obama legacy

[Namutree]

That's the most bizarre rationale I've ever heard. A candidate should be elected based on gender?

 

What a triumph of ideology and stupidity over politics.

 

Besides, she's barely human, let alone female.

Aren't identity politics wonderful?

[Drowsy Emperor]

 

That's the most bizarre rationale I've ever heard. A candidate should be elected based on gender?

 

What a triumph of ideology and stupidity over politics.

 

Besides, she's barely human, let alone female.

Aren't identity politics wonderful?

 

 

Admittedly, none of if it trumps a horse in the senate, so the US still has a ways to go.

[ktchong]

I will probably vote for Trump.

 

My first choice would be Bernie Sanders, but I think Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee.

 

So, if I go to the voting booth and have to pick Hillary, Trump or someone who has no chance of winning, I will vote for Trump. 

Edited March 1, 2016 by ktchong

[Gorth]

"Democrats vote on the policy objectives of candidates.."

 

HAHAHAHAHA.

 

.

 

"And GWB was a near unmitigated disaster, too."

 

No, don't lie.

 

Yeah, drop the "near" part. He was an unmitigated disaster

[ktchong]

Analyzing Trump's speech - he uses NLP (Neuro-Linguistic Programming).

 

Edited March 1, 2016 by ktchong

[aluminiumtrioxid]

Analyzing Trump's speech - he uses NLP (Neuro-Linguistic Programming).

 

 

What a fancy way of saying "he talks like a fourth-grader".

[Malcador]

What a fancy way of saying "he talks like a fourth-grader".

Shame we can't beat him like one.

[Rostere]

Yes Clinton has been following the standard " Obama idea of foreign policy " ..but for me this is exactly the right policy so why would she decide to redefine it?

 

But what is the "Obama idea of foreign policy"? If we look at her voting record, Hillary is a neocon who voted for the Iraq War, while Obama is not. Secondly, Obama did not choose her as Secretary of State to be his surrogate, but to appease special interest groups (read the entire fascinating story in the NYT here):

 

Once elected, Obama seemed to understand that he needed someone to lend him credibility with the Israeli government and its American defenders, a tough friend of Israel who could muscle the country away from settlements and toward a peace agreement. An aide to Obama called Malcolm Hoenlein, the executive vice chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish American Organizations, and asked him to call Hillary Clinton to see if she would be “agreeable” to being named secretary of state.

But then of course when Obama no longer needed so seek re-election, she left that post. Because why stay in an administration if you are going to run your campaign on criticizing the foreign policy of its leader?

 

Let us look at Hillary's record since after she left the Senate. We could look at her earlier views from 1990 onwards, but I could just as well sum it up as "Hillary has voted for and supported every single war or military intervention possible".

 

Libya (read more in a Vox article here):

• Obama was reluctant to intervene, Clinton pushed him to do so.
• Of the disorder which broke out after the fall of Gadaffi, Obama said: "We're going to have to have some humility in recognizing that we don't have the option of simply invading every country where disorder breaks out,". Clinton said: "We have learned the hard way when America is absent, especially from unstable places, there are consequences. Extremism takes root, aggressors seek to fill the vacuum, and security everywhere is threatened, including here at home.". Which means that Clinton would support American troops in Libya. Which is what even the secular Libyan factions have said that the DO NOT WANT, because it would give the radical Islamists more fodder for their arguments.
• On all these matters, Hillary took the side of neocons such as Lindsey Graham against Obama and his non-interventionist advisors.

Syria:

• Clinton has said that "the U.S. decision not to intervene early in the Syrian civil war was a failure" and pushed repeatedly for intervention, even though 70% of the American public was against it.
• She has called for imposing a no-fly zone in Syria, which recklessly would bring US in immediate shoot-out with the Russian air force. Under Obama's watch, Russians and Americans currently share the Syrian skies.
• On all these matters, she has agreed with Senate neocons such as Lindsey Graham, and been against Obama.

Iran:

• Before being appointed Secretary of State, Clinton denounced Obama's policy of diplomacy towards Iran as "naive".
• She says that the enemy she is most proud of having is "the Iranians". Which is shockingly racist and shows how she really looks upon the world. There are tens of millions of Iranians and she tires to blame them for the acts of their authoritarian leadership - needless to say, this does not fit into an Obama worldview.
• Clinton said recently: "You know, the NRA’s position reminds me of negotiating with the Iranians or the communists. There’s no possible discussion.". Needless to say, this goes against Obama's strategy of negotiating with the Iranian regime.
• In January, Hillary made an about face and started calling for new sanctions on Iran again. This goes against the current Obama policy.
• On all these matters, Hillary opposed Obama's policy and stood with the neocons before she became SoS. Afterwards, she has repeatedly ridiculed the idea of negotiating with Iran's regime without explicitly condemning Obama's key foreign policy achievements. Read into that what you will.

Afghanistan:

• Clinton sided with the Bush holdovers in sending 30000 more troops to Afghanistan. Then, when Obama brought them home, she strongly recommended him not to, in contrast to Robert Gates.

Israel:

• Israel's current leader Benjamin Netanyahu visited the US and made a speech to Congress in an effort to undermine Obama in his foreign policy efforts. This speech was boycotted by the Democrats who were loyal to Obama on foreign policy. Hillary Clinton however, has refused to condemn Netanyahu for this act, and in fact, she has said she will invite him to the White House the first thing she does once in office.
• Meanwhile, the Clintons have earned the astronomical amount of $4000000 in speaking fees from pro-Israel organizations.
• Obama has recently criticised (although in very meek terms) Israel's policy of land theft and ethnic cleansing as being contrary to achieving lasting peace in the region. Meanwhile, Hillary is on the payroll of the JNF (see above), a very controversial organization whose purpose literally is ethnic cleansing and land theft.
• On these matters, Hillary Clinton has consistently taken the side of leaders of foreign governments and foreign organizations against Obama, and distanced herself from him.

So for example,

• The USA respects the veto of the UNSC even if flawed like the initial required military intervention in Syria

Wrong. Hillary has called Obama's policy in Syria a failure, criticized him for not intervening more and earlier, and recently flip-flopped into supporting American "boots on the ground" in Syria. Hillary Clinton supports taking out Assad in spite of the UNSC veto. Bernie Sanders does not support the US overthrowing Assad militarily.

 

Conclusion: Bernie Sanders supports continuing the policy you mention. Hillary Clinton does not.

 

• The USA is not automatically agreeing to the views of historical " friends" around military intervention. So despite massive pressure from the likes of Israel and Saudi Arabia the Obama administration did not just bomb Iran. They followed the path of negotiations

 

 

Wrong. Hillary has consistently mocked negotiating with Iran (see above), and has not condemned Netanyahu's obstruction of the Iran deal which is VERY conspicuous, since all the Democrats which actually supports Obama's foreign policy have done so. Hillary has consistently pushed for intervention and an increased American military presence in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Libya and in Syria. Furthermore, she is on the payroll of far-right pro-Israel groups (for giving speeches supportive of Israel, see above). Bernie has voted against interventions in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Libya, and in Syria. He has pretty much the same views on Israel as Obama.

 

Conclusion: Hillary is pandering to, and is paid off by "friends". Bernie is not.

 

 

• The USA is prepared to let other countries take the military lead in regions where typically it was the USA who had to lead. Its okay if there is a perception that Russia " outmaneuvered" the USA in Syria. Its fine if Russia resolves the conflict one way or another

 

 

Wrong. Hillary Clinton has said that Iran should not be allowed to have military in Syria, and she has advocated a no-fly zone despite the presence of the Russian air force. Read this article about how "Hillary Clinton took a big step away from President Obama’s foreign policy at Tuesday night’s debate, challenging him to resist Russia's intervention in the Syrian war." Meanwhile, Bernie has talked of working with Iran and Russia to combat ISIS.

 

Conclusion: Bernie follows the Obama policy you describe. Hillary does not.

 

I like Sanders but what are some examples of him being on the right side of policy decision since the 90'S ...I feel this would  be a subjective debate

In short, Sanders has been against all wars, while Hillary has been for all wars, and for all escalation (except for a short stint at the end of the Bush years when her neocon views became wildly unpopular). It's astonishing that you are wrong on every single point. Do you even read the news? There's a wealth of information on this all over the Internet in various news sources, read this article for example, summing up the foreign policy differences between Obama and Hillary. When one of the two founders of PNAC jumps ship to support Hillary (and forgets about almost a lifetime of supposed Republican views), you know she's a ****ing neocon. I mean come on - this is basically the equivalent of an endorsement from **** Cheney.

 

Anyway, here's Rand Paul again explaining why Hillary is a neocon (while crashing a Democratic meeting... which is hilarious):

 

 

It's likely a combination of Blacks generally being conservative(ie more likely to back establishment candidates) and a lot of them not knowing who Bernie is.

 

Yes, I mean, apparently that seems to be the case - but that's just stating what we know. What we want to know is an explanation for this, why this is the case.

 

Hillary has been capitalizing on the former by appealing to their religious leaders and the latter is exacerbated by having few debates(and what debates there are happen at times people aren't likely to watch) and the lack of coverage Bernie gets in the media.

 

Yes, but Cruz also has the overwhelming support of evangelical pastors, yet evangelicals vote Trump.

 

The lack of debates is an invalid explanation, because while it might explain why people in general vote Clinton, it does not explain the absurd discrepancy between black and non-black voters.

 

So this leaves us with only the "religious leaders" explanation. But it also seems absurd that black religious leaders have a level of control over their congregations so much greater than that of any other religious group.

[Malcador]

She says that the enemy she is most proud of having is "the Iranians". Which is shockingly racist and shows how she really looks upon the world. There are tens of millions of Iranians and she tires to blame them for the acts of their authoritarian leadership - needless to say, this does not fit into an Obama worldview.

Wait, how is that racist ? Clear to me she means Iranians as in their state not every single one in existence.

[Rostere]

 

She says that the enemy she is most proud of having is "the Iranians". Which is shockingly racist and shows how she really looks upon the world. There are tens of millions of Iranians and she tires to blame them for the acts of their authoritarian leadership - needless to say, this does not fit into an Obama worldview.

Wait, how is that racist ? Clear to me she means Iranians as in their state not every single one in existence.

 

Suppose the Ayatollah said that he was proud that his enemies were "the Jews". Or that Obama should say that "the Jews" have been undermining his talks with Iran. Does that sound racist to you?

 

It should, and those are all equivalent. If this is not apparent then it's a sign of how easy it is to objectify and lump together people in the public debate. It's not hard at all to say "the Iranian regime" or "the Iranian government". In fact, those are the two commonly used terms which Hillary seemed almost to deliberately avoid in this case, possibly to sound more brash and tough. It is very, very incriminating that someone who makes a living in part out of shilling for hawkish special interest groups fails to distinguish between an entire people and an authoritarian clique ruling them. It is this type of toxic and careless attitude which led to prejudice against Germans during and after WW1, with very awful resulting backlash.

[Leferd]

 

 

She says that the enemy she is most proud of having is "the Iranians". Which is shockingly racist and shows how she really looks upon the world. There are tens of millions of Iranians and she tires to blame them for the acts of their authoritarian leadership - needless to say, this does not fit into an Obama worldview.

 

Wait, how is that racist ? Clear to me she means Iranians as in their state not every single one in existence.

 

Suppose the Ayatollah said that he was proud that his enemies were "the Jews". Or that Obama should say that "the Jews" have been undermining his talks with Iran. Does that sound racist to you?

 

It should, and those are all equivalent. If this is not apparent then it's a sign of how easy it is to objectify and lump together people in the public debate. It's not hard at all to say "the Iranian regime" or "the Iranian government". In fact, those are the two commonly used terms which Hillary seemed almost to deliberately avoid in this case, possibly to sound more brash and tough. It is very, very incriminating that someone who makes a living in part out of shilling for hawkish special interest groups fails to distinguish between an entire people and an authoritarian clique ruling them. It is this type of toxic and careless attitude which led to prejudice against Germans during and after WW1, with very awful resulting backlash.

Lols. That's a stretch.

[Malcador]

Suppose the Ayatollah said that he was proud that his enemies were "the Jews". Or that Obama should say that "the Jews" have been undermining his talks with Iran. Does that sound racist to you?

 

It should, and those are all equivalent. If this is not apparent then it's a sign of how easy it is to objectify and lump together people in the public debate. It's not hard at all to say "the Iranian regime" or "the Iranian government". In fact, those are the two commonly used terms which Hillary seemed almost to deliberately avoid in this case, possibly to sound more brash and tough. It is very, very incriminating that someone who makes a living in part out of shilling for hawkish special interest groups fails to distinguish between an entire people and an authoritarian clique ruling them. It is this type of toxic and careless attitude which led to prejudice against Germans during and after WW1, with very awful resulting backlash.

Sure, if 'Iranian' was only the description of their race and not also one for their countrymen/government (people do this a lot, I'm sure you've come across people talking badly about "Americans" or "Russians" in the same vein), I guess that would be similar to your 'Jews' example. Reaching a bit far to jab her with racism with that, to be honest. A minor part of your post, but was one that made me raise an eyebrow.

Edited March 1, 2016 by Malcador

[ShadySands]

It's likely a combination of Blacks generally being conservative(ie more likely to back establishment candidates) and a lot of them not knowing who Bernie is.

 

Yes, I mean, apparently that seems to be the case - but that's just stating what we know. What we want to know is an explanation for this, why this is the case.

 

Hillary has been capitalizing on the former by appealing to their religious leaders and the latter is exacerbated by having few debates(and what debates there are happen at times people aren't likely to watch) and the lack of coverage Bernie gets in the media.

 

Yes, but Cruz also has the overwhelming support of evangelical pastors, yet evangelicals vote Trump.

 

The lack of debates is an invalid explanation, because while it might explain why people in general vote Clinton, it does not explain the absurd discrepancy between black and non-black voters.

 

So this leaves us with only the "religious leaders" explanation. But it also seems absurd that black religious leaders have a level of control over their congregations so much greater than that of any other religious group.

 

Two things, one, they see her as the successor to Obama similar to how Bruce does and two, they are the most religious racial group in the country

[Raithe]

[Gfted1]

Make the UK behave like QQ children = Success?

 

I kid, I kid. I know its important to you guys.

[Keyrock]

Because the high-larious picture fails to show all his successes.  You don't become a billionaire by playing it safe, you're going to have failures along the way and you're going to have to slit some throats.