US Elections 2016

[Meshugger]

Losing with Cruz seems to be a viable solutions for Wisconsin republicans. Their democrats seems to have more sensibility though.

[BruceVC]

Losing with Cruz seems to be a viable solutions for Wisconsin republicans. Their democrats seems to have more sensibility though.

My objective that  I have been unequivocal about since day 1 is a Hillary Clinton Democratic nomination

 

But I also respect the reality that in this election you have popular support for anti-establishment candidates like Sanders and you cannot ignore his support base even if I dont agree with all of it 

 

But as far as the Democratic nomination is concerned you need 2382 delegates to win the nomination and Hilary has more or less 1700 to Sanders 1000? 

 

So my question is how can Sanders realistically win based purely on the Math considering the outstanding states that still need to vote?

 

This link raises an interesting point 

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/04/04/politics/hillary-clinton-memo-bernie-sanders/index.html?eref=rss_politics

[Amentep]

 

Does seem like in this day & age there should be a better way to do it - because I imagine almost every state of any significant size has the problem related to population dense areas vs more rural areas which may end up voiceless.

Wouldn't the counter argument be that you're increasing the power of rural voters compared to city dwellers? In theory, under the popular vote system wouldn't everyone's vote count the same and failure to secure the popular vote be representative of a failure to have the backing of the majority of the people?

 

Wouldn't that depend on how you changed it?

 

Also the city dwellers should still have (gerrymandering notwithstanding) the vast majority of congressional representation and (if one just reverted to the old system) the largest portion of the state government representation that would end up choosing the Senators, but arguably the rural areas would have enough strength as a group to make sure the elected candidate couldn't forget that the state consisted of more than the big population centers - which is possible in the popular vote.

 

But I wasn't really necessarily proposing a return to the old way, I just think there should be a way that still allows representation amid disparate population areas rather than disenfranchisement.

[Valsuelm]

Okay so Cruz and Sanders won Wisconsin

 

Interesting result, I am more excited now about NY....that's going to be very exciting 

 

I dunno about exciting. My prediction of what's going to happen if the election isn't tampered with (an extremely unlikely proposition that it won't be tampered with in at least some districts, in particular in NYC):

 

In short it will be Trump and Sanders winning the primaries. *Note, what the delegates (and especially super delegates) do is another story, as the fix is definitely in there. This prediction, based on my own ears to the ground as well as discussion with some folks actually in the RNC and DNC machines here, is only what's going to happen in the voting booth.

 

And Trump will carry the state by a large margin in the general election if he's the nominee, especially if Hillary is the nominee (any other Republican will lose the state; only Trump can win it for the reds (for this reason alone the establishment RNC should be behind Trump, if they were actually serious about winning the general (they are not)). The anti-Hillary sentiment is very strong here among pretty much all Democrat demographics (she would not win a Senate seat here today), excepting for the sit at home female baby boomer demographic (who think she can do no wrong, and want a female president all else be damned), and possibly the Obamaphone crowd demographic (who are a wildcard of sorts for the democrat primary (It's unclear if they even know who Sanders is, though they often skip primary voting so may not impact it all that much), and also where any election fraud is most like to happen).

Edited April 6, 2016 by Valsuelm

[Meshugger]

I say it again, the only sane candidates are Sanders and Trump. While they greatly differ in political leanings, they are still putting what they think, the interests of the american people first. A win for either will be a middle finger to globalist power structure at large.

[BruceVC]

I say it again, the only sane candidates are Sanders and Trump. While they greatly differ in political leanings, they are still putting what they think, the interests of the american people first. A win for either will be a middle finger to globalist power structure at large.

Both Trump and Sanders are anti-established in there own political leanings and views, these views despite having populist support are dangerous and concerning as both candidates offer some ideas and  solutions that have never been implemented before or just make no economic sense

 

I wont go into everything I disagree with Trump about but lets take Sanders, he wants to break-up the banks and large global Investment banks based in the USA. This is a terrible idea and makes no economic sense, see the link below 

 

http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/up-front/posts/2016/04/04-four-questions-to-ask-before-breaking-up-banks-klein?utm_campaign=Brookings+Brief&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=28095032&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-_eaSQSi7KF2_PHOJtPRh_mm68CJ3x6M1IEQ9QWWb83Fvo_c453O_hhUBJIWTl5CQk_LHX0RmsCj_b8ZkeHQzTjqPit8w&_hsmi=28095032

[Valsuelm]

 

I say it again, the only sane candidates are Sanders and Trump. While they greatly differ in political leanings, they are still putting what they think, the interests of the american people first. A win for either will be a middle finger to globalist power structure at large.

Both Trump and Sanders are anti-established in there own political leanings and views, these views despite having populist support are dangerous and concerning as both candidates offer some ideas and  solutions that have never been implemented before or just make no economic sense

 

I wont go into everything I disagree with Trump about but lets take Sanders, he wants to break-up the banks and large global Investment banks based in the USA. This is a terrible idea and makes no economic sense, see the link below 

 

http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/up-front/posts/2016/04/04-four-questions-to-ask-before-breaking-up-banks-klein?utm_campaign=Brookings+Brief&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=28095032&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-_eaSQSi7KF2_PHOJtPRh_mm68CJ3x6M1IEQ9QWWb83Fvo_c453O_hhUBJIWTl5CQk_LHX0RmsCj_b8ZkeHQzTjqPit8w&_hsmi=28095032

 

 

It's actually a really good idea and makes tons of sense. The re-implementation of Glass-Steagall as well as other legislation to similar effect is something that Sanders has very right. It's very arguable that the repeal of Glass-Steagall is the worst thing that happened during the Clinton years.

 

As for not being implemented before? I've seen nothing Trump proposed economically that hasn't been implemented before. As for Sanders, while there may be some specific things that haven't been implemented before in the U.S., I've not seen him propose anything that isn't already common elsewhere.

 

Edited April 6, 2016 by Valsuelm

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

"It makes no sense to break up the big banks" - Guy whose family are bankers

[Meshugger]

 

I say it again, the only sane candidates are Sanders and Trump. While they greatly differ in political leanings, they are still putting what they think, the interests of the american people first. A win for either will be a middle finger to globalist power structure at large.

Both Trump and Sanders are anti-established in there own political leanings and views, these views despite having populist support are dangerous and concerning as both candidates offer some ideas and  solutions that have never been implemented before or just make no economic sense

 

I wont go into everything I disagree with Trump about but lets take Sanders, he wants to break-up the banks and large global Investment banks based in the USA. This is a terrible idea and makes no economic sense, see the link below 

 

http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/up-front/posts/2016/04/04-four-questions-to-ask-before-breaking-up-banks-klein?utm_campaign=Brookings+Brief&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=28095032&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-_eaSQSi7KF2_PHOJtPRh_mm68CJ3x6M1IEQ9QWWb83Fvo_c453O_hhUBJIWTl5CQk_LHX0RmsCj_b8ZkeHQzTjqPit8w&_hsmi=28095032

 

 

The economy, the banks or the political leanings of candidate X is not what this election is about, you are simply highlighting issues that are considered secondary for the ordinary citizen. No, this election is a cultural one; between the globalist harmonization of values (PC culture), people (diversity) and laws (TPP, TAPP) and nationalist one. The globalist answers to no one, but at least the nationalist one tries to be accountable for the constiuents of the nation, good or bad. 

 

Of course any multinational conglomerate is against this, especially banks, as they can be nationalized/let to fail if they mess up a nation's economy, instead of being bailed out.

[Valsuelm]

"It makes no sense to break up the big banks" - Guy whose family are bankers

 

Is Bruce from a family of bankers? That would actually make oodles of sense.

[Malcador]

I say it again, the only sane candidates are Sanders and Trump. While they greatly differ in political leanings, they are still putting what they think, the interests of the american people first. A win for either will be a middle finger to globalist power structure at large.

You really think that applies to Trump?

[Meshugger]

 

I say it again, the only sane candidates are Sanders and Trump. While they greatly differ in political leanings, they are still putting what they think, the interests of the american people first. A win for either will be a middle finger to globalist power structure at large.

You really think that applies to Trump?

 

 

For the republicans? Of course. 

[Malcador]

Well meant in general, not just one party or one segment of a party's base. Made good use of them so far but sane, heh.

[Meshugger]

Well meant in general, not just one party or one segment of a party's base. Made good use of them so far but sane, heh.

 

Trump's antics are simply Paleo-conservatism, which has a strong nationalistic bent.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoconservatism 

 

Sanders is self-explanatory.

Edited April 6, 2016 by Meshugger

[HoonDing]

I say it again, the only sane candidates are Sanders and Trump. While they greatly differ in political leanings, they are still putting what they think, the interests of the american people first. A win for either will be a middle finger to globalist power structure at large.

sad though that such a big country can't do better than those two old farts

[Hurlshort]

 

"It makes no sense to break up the big banks" - Guy whose family are bankers

 

Is Bruce from a family of bankers? That would actually make oodles of sense.

 

 

He even has a family member in prison for some sort of Wall Street scandal.  

[HoonDing]

that explains the weekly cooling off with Russian strippers

[BruceVC]

 

 

"It makes no sense to break up the big banks" - Guy whose family are bankers

 

Is Bruce from a family of bankers? That would actually make oodles of sense.

 

 

He even has a family member in prison for some sort of Wall Street scandal.  

 

No not Wall Street scandal, inside trading. But his actions were condemned unequivocally by all, no one made excuses. You can work in the financial sector and be ethical and not break the law

 

But yes Vals many members of my family are involved in the financial sector but that has got nothing to do with  my real concern about this suggestion to break-up the banks or implement restructuring in the financial sector in the USA 

 

You ask what has not been implemented before from Trump or Sanders....many things they suggest are radical and never been implemented before..in fact conventional wisdom is vociferously against most of these idea....lets see

 

• Sanders :  Restructuring of the  financial sector in the USA : Never been done before 
• Sanders :  Extreme taxing of the wealthiest Americans :  Never been done before
• Trump :  We will bulld a wall between the USA and Mexico :  Never been done before
• Trump :  We will deport all 11 million illegal, mostly Latino's,  citizens :  Never been done before
• Trump : We block all Muslims coming to the USA: Never been done before

 

I can on and on if you want but I think you get my point 

[Valsuelm]

 

 

 

"It makes no sense to break up the big banks" - Guy whose family are bankers

 

Is Bruce from a family of bankers? That would actually make oodles of sense.

 

 

He even has a family member in prison for some sort of Wall Street scandal.  

 

No not Wall Street scandal, inside trading. But his actions were condemned unequivocally by all, no one made excuses. You can work in the financial sector and be ethical and not break the law

 

But yes Vals many members of my family are involved in the financial sector but that has got nothing to do with  my real concern about this suggestion to break-up the banks or implement restructuring in the financial sector in the USA 

 

You ask what has not been implemented before from Trump or Sanders....many things they suggest are radical and never been implemented before..in fact conventional wisdom is vociferously against most of these idea....lets see

 

• Sanders :  Restructuring of the  financial sector in the USA : Never been done before  X
• Sanders :  Extreme taxing of the wealthiest Americans :  Never been done before X
• Trump :  We will bulld a wall between the USA and Mexico :  Never been done before X
• Trump :  We will deport all 11 million illegal, mostly Latino's,  citizens :  Never been done before
• Trump : We block all Muslims coming to the USA: Never been done before X

 

I can on and on if you want but I think you get my point 

 

 

All Xs have been done before.

 

As for the only one that isn't X'd: Deporting people happens all the time. The sheer # of illegals to be deported indeed has not happened. Though it is quite doable.

 

That said, I don't see it happening, even if Trump is in office. What may happen however is the disincentive as well as difficulty to come here illegally may be increased, which would be a very good thing.

 

As for 'conventional wisdom' being 'vociferously against most of these idea'. Mainstream media propaganda /= conventional wisdom, and the voting polls are telling a different story. Neverminding that 'conventional wisdom' regarding anything isn't exactly always firmly grounded in reality or a good thing.

 

Also, what's your sudden aversion to 'never been done before'? Gay marriage was never legal before, once upon a time women were never allowed to vote before. You're all for those things, and others that were 'never been done before'.

 

'Never been done before', is never a reason to not do something in and of itself.

Edited April 6, 2016 by Valsuelm

[ShadySands]

Bruce, both of those Sanders things have been done before

 

And we already have walls and have had mass deportations though I will admit that they may not on the scale Trump is probably talking (I dunno as I haven't actually paid him much attention)

[BruceVC]

Bruce, both of those Sanders things have been done before

 

And we already have walls and have had mass deportations though I will admit that they may not on the scale Trump is probably talking (I dunno as I haven't actually paid him much attention)

When were the big banks in the USA broken up? Shady did you read this link I posted 

 

http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/up-front/posts/2016/04/04-four-questions-to-ask-before-breaking-up-banks-klein?utm_campaign=Brookings+Brief&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=28095032&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-_eaSQSi7KF2_PHOJtPRh_mm68CJ3x6M1IEQ9QWWb83Fvo_c453O_hhUBJIWTl5CQk_LHX0RmsCj_b8ZkeHQzTjqPit8w&_hsmi=28095032

[Amentep]

• Trump :  We will deport all 11 million illegal, mostly Latino's,  citizens :  Never been done before

As far as I know (and I welcome correction on this point), there's no such thing as an illegal citizen in the US. Naturalized citizens would have to be denaturalized to be deportable and citizens by birth can only renounce their citizenship, not be denaturalized. Legally at least (I know they're are cases where the courts have due to judicial error deported people).

Edited April 6, 2016 by Amentep

[Valsuelm]

 

• Trump :  We will deport all 11 million illegal, mostly Latino's,  citizens :  Never been done before

As far as I know (and I welcome correction on this point), there's no such thing as an illegal citizen in the US. Naturalized citizens would have to be denaturalized to be deportable and citizens by birth can only renounce their citizenship, not be denaturalized. Legally at least (I know they're are cases where the courts have due to judicial error deported people).

 

You are pretty much correct.

 

Put simply, they aren't 'illegal citizens', they are illegal aliens. It's one of many things Bruce has wrong.

 

He's often like a 3rd grader who hasn't been paying attention to the math teacher telling an astrophysicist how to go about their calculations, then having the audacity to double down when the astrophysicist nicely explains why he's wrong.

Edited April 6, 2016 by Valsuelm

[ShadySands]

 

Bruce, both of those Sanders things have been done before

 

And we already have walls and have had mass deportations though I will admit that they may not on the scale Trump is probably talking (I dunno as I haven't actually paid him much attention)

When were the big banks in the USA broken up? Shady did you read this link I posted 

Your comment was restructuring the financial sector not breaking up banks specifically which I don't know if it has been done for that main reason

 

Also, Clinton now going on the attack

 

Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton is adopting a more aggressive media strategy as she readies for a primary showdown in New York with rival Bernie Sanders and a possible general election battle with Republican front-runner Donald Trump. 

 

The new approach was taking shape before Clinton’s loss to Sanders in Wisconsin — the Vermont senator's sixth win in the last seven state races — and was highlighted in a round of calls Clinton made on Wednesday morning to cable news shows.

 

In a call to MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” Clinton pointed to the New York Daily News’s front page, a tabloid that had the blaring headline “Bernie’s Sandy Hook Shame” on Wednesday.

In the story, the daughter of the school principal killed in the Sandy Hook shootings criticizes Sanders for opposing an effort to allow mass shooting victims to sue gun manufacturers.

 

“That he would place gun manufacturers' rights and immunity from liability against the parents of the children killed at Sandy Hook is just unimaginable to me,” Clinton said in the call. 

 

The comments from Clinton likely offer a preview of what’s to come in the two weeks before the April 19 New York primary. Clinton and her aides are signaling that they intend to go on the attack against Sanders, who is raising more money for Clinton and routinely trouncing her among young voters.

 

They also intend to take the fight to a weakened Trump, who suffered a loss himself in Wisconsin to Sen. Ted Cruz (Texas).

 

The call to “Morning Joe” also signaled a more quick-footed and aggressive approach Clinton is taking to get herself on-screen.

 

Last week, Clinton called in to CNN anchor Anderson Cooper to respond to Trump’s remarks that women should be “punished” for getting abortions.

 

“If you make abortion a crime — you make it illegal — then you make women and doctors criminals,” Clinton told Cooper. “Why is it, I ask myself, Republicans want limited government, except when it comes to women's health?”

 

Clinton’s phone call to Cooper was unusual and appeared to be an example of the Democratic front-runner pulling a page from Trump’s playbook. 

 

The GOP front-runner calls in so often to programs that some shows said they would refuse to take his calls. It’s helped him dominate coverage of the 2016 race.

 

Media quick-hits may take Clinton out of her comfort zone, but her allies say she's ready for the shift.

Edited April 6, 2016 by ShadySands

[Bartimaeus]

This election cycle has really highlighted how utterly disgusting and disturbing Hillary and her campaign can be when it comes to trying to obtain power (plus, I've been reminded of her campaign using some of the super lame tactics like the flagrantly sexist Obama Boys/Bernie Bros nonsense that was used in both 2008 and 2016). Once upon a time, I may have preferred her over Trump - now, if it's between the two of them, I'll vote third party. There's no better way to disenfranchise roughly a little less than half of your potential voting base than to lie about and demonize a candidate that that voter base really extraordinarily likes and respects, Hillary...and it seems like she will pay for it in the general election (assuming she wins the democratic nomination, which she almost certainly will). It was so pointless to do what she's done, too - she was already likely to win the nomination even without the myriad of ridiculous attacks on Sanders' integrity. What an incredibly stupid and shortsighted way to try to win an election.

Edited April 6, 2016 by Bartimaeus