US Election 2016, part II

[ShadySands]

 

Sure she hasn't driven a car in 20 years but it's better than a post that only says nevermind

Edited July 6, 2016 by ShadySands

[Guard Dog]

 

I'm not a big Hillary Clinton fan, but to me she is by far the best candidate we have that is in line with my world view. She's a politician in the absolute sense, but her motives are honorable as is her dedication for public service. I support her candidacy.

No you lost me here. There is nothing, and I do mean nothing honorable about the motives or methods of Hillary Clinton. She cares about one thing: the advancement of Hillary Clinton. If someone gets helped along the way, great. If people get hurt, f--k them. She is completely dishonest. there can hardly even be a debate on that point now. She is a politician, no doubt there. Unlike Barack Obama she is not what I'd call a "true believer" which in my book makes her preferable to him. But only by the thinnest of margins. She is a deeply flawed candidate and human being and if it wasn't for the fact that she's running against someone who could be described in the exact same way this election would already be over.  

 

As for me I'm going to buy a bumper sticker that says "Don't Blame Me, I Voted for Johnson". The beauty of that is it works no matter which turd doesn't flush in November.  

[Longknife]

gross negligence is more o' a "wtf is wrong with you" standard. doug shoots vincent in the leg but weren't actual planning on killing vincent. intent were to scare vincent and nobody were more surprised than doug when vincent died. 

 

 

I'm kind of fascinated the US legal system has this level of negligence as a thing.

 

I'm sure I'll get lost in translation a bit here but in attempt to explain, in Germany the golden rule is "could a third party take a look at this situation and deem one's actions negligent" or "is this mistake easily apparent to a third party," and if the answer is yes, there's your negligence. The only differences amongst negligence would be bewusst vs. unbewusst, aka concious vs. unconcious. That's the difference between driving while drunk and thinking "IT'LL BE FIIIIIINE" and driving while drunk because you're legit a special kind of retard that doesn't understand the risks involved. While that difference is similar to typical negligence vs. gross negligence, it seems their purpose is handled differently, as for Germany it's typically only relevant to the degree of the punishment, not IF someone is guilty of negligence. (though it could in some cases, depending on the case of course)

 

What I find interesting is that to me and the legal system I'm familiar with, Hillary's qualifications damn her, not help her. Perhaps I misunderstood something but you say a prosecutor wouldn't tackle the case because Hillary is intelligent and thus proving gross negligence is more difficult. From my perspective and the legal system we have here, her intelligence raises the odds of her being charged. Each case is handled seperately regarding the capacity of the client. Someone who is mentally unstable or mentally disabled is of course not going to be charged with negligence in many cases, but someone highly intelligent has the capacity to be negligent. The mere fact that Clinton showcases the intelligence neccesary to become Secretary of State is a testament to how she should've known better and should've had the capacity to recongize the risks of what she did, to the point where absolutely this would be a question of if this could be a case of intent (thus the criminal investigation). But to see it go from a potential criminal indictment to nothing at all...? Exceedingly strange to me. The next step down is negligence, and the fact that Clinton is intelligent should only make it easier, not to mention I'm a bit surprised that her deletion of certain government documents isn't being handled more seriously. You could easily work the law in such a way that those government documents are seen as government property, thus deleting or moving them to an unsecure server could be viewed as theft or damaging another's property, which at the very least would result in a fine.

 

Not judging, but I just feel like either I've completely misunderstood something OR it's kind of impressive the differences you can see in different legal systems. I've spoken with Americans before (obvious interest seeing as I'm a dual citizen) and typically the German and American legal systems are largely the same (well the philosophies behind them anyways. Case law is quite different) about topics and 9 times out of 10 the situation is similar. The extra 10% however can make all the difference, and while at times it can be understandable differences (for example I can understand a legal system where unconcious negligence receives no charge, even if that's monumental levels of stupidity that would make most angry), this one's definitely taken me by surprise, assuming I understood it correct.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Sanders booed by Democrats

 

For his part, Sanders said he had a basic message for House Democrats.

“My message was a simple message: We have got to fight for the needs of the middle class and working families of this country,” Sanders said as he left the caucus meeting. “We got to get people involved in the political process, we got to get a large voter turnout, and if we have a larger voter turnout, Democrats will regain control of the Senate and I believe they’re gonna take the House back.”

"It was frustrating because he's squandering the movement he built with a self-obsession that was totally on display," said one senior Democrat.

[Namutree]

Sanders booed by Democrats

 

For his part, Sanders said he had a basic message for House Democrats.

“My message was a simple message: We have got to fight for the needs of the middle class and working families of this country,” Sanders said as he left the caucus meeting. “We got to get people involved in the political process, we got to get a large voter turnout, 

The funny things is; had he said these things at a Trump event (excluding the democrat stuff); he would have gotten applause.

[Leferd]

He didn't get booed for saying those things. It was because he was still clinging to the hope that he'd receive the nomination and not shutting down his campaign.

[Bartimaeus]

Source of him saying something to that effect? From what he's said, he's pretty clearly just trying to represent his share of the vote (who he feels is not represented well by Clinton) all the way to the convention as best as he can.

Edited July 6, 2016 by Bartimaeus

[Leferd]

Huh? The reports state that Congressional Democrats were asking him when he'd shut down his campaign for party unity and he didn't say when. They booed him for that.

[Bartimaeus]

You assigned a motive to his actions that I feel is pretty unfair towards him, which is what I asked about. I am pretty sure he doesn't give a crap about "party unity", and why should he? The nominee will be decided at the convention regardless.

[ShadySands]

He's already said that he will support her when she officially gets the nomination. I don't see why they push to make him do so before the convention. Maybe because he's trying (unsuccessfully so far) to use whatever political capital he has to change the party platform when they want the status quo. I dunno

[Volourn]

 "but her motives are honorable as is her dedication for public service. I support her candidacy.      "

 

Agreed. Nothing says 'honourable motive' than laughing and mocking a rape victim. HAHAHA!     

 

 

And, the demos are cryiung because their bullying and shaming attacks don't work. Once again, SJW Nazis  are evil pieces of crap.

Edited July 7, 2016 by Volourn

[Leferd]

Oh please.

 

What's unfair about it? The Democrats were letting him know of their displeasure over him not stepping aside when clearly he already lost. By staying in the race this long, he lost whatever leverage he had in negotiations with the party in setting the party agenda going into the general election.

 

I've been saying all along that Sanders shouldn't quit until it's over. Well, now it's been over for one month now. And there's no indictment.

 

Sanders miscalculated and it cost him. Was he clinging to hope for an indictment? That'd be his in.

[Bartimaeus]

You are literally assigning a motive to his actions that he has not expressed, when in fact, he has expressed other motives for doing what he has done. I am perfectly O.K. with the Democratic Party being unhappy with him for not following the status quo in accepting the winner's coronation and subsequently letting them walk all over him. In turn, I'm pretty unhappy with them for ignoring his platform and supporters as hard as they have done, and for ignoring the vast, vast majority of his nominations for party positions. They were ignoring him and whatever "leverage" - your words - he had to begin with, so I hardly care if that leverage disappears by him continuing his little protest of crappy party politics. Indeed, it just makes me like him better by refusing to tote the line until the very end and the party less for trying to coerce him into doing so, and that's probably much the same for other Sanders supporters.

 

Yes, if it were my choice, he should not endorse Hillary at any point, or give a very weak one at best - something along the lines of, "...Well, she's not Trump. I leave the matter to the voters and their consciences." I think his convictions regarding how bad Trump is are a little stronger than mine, though, so it'll probably be a stronger endorsement than that.

Edited July 7, 2016 by Bartimaeus

[Gromnir]

Oh please.

 

What's unfair about it? The Democrats were letting him know of their displeasure over him not stepping aside when clearly he already lost. By staying in the race this long, he lost whatever leverage he had in negotiations with the party in setting the party agenda going into the general election.

 

I've been saying all along that Sanders shouldn't quit until it's over. Well, now it's been over for one month now. And there's no indictment.

 

Sanders miscalculated and it cost him. Was he clinging to hope for an indictment? That'd be his in.

 

lack of indictment hardly ends the race for sanders.  sanders knows he can't have the nomination, but he wants issues addressed.  well, guess what? sanders supporters, folks who has stated that they would not under any circumstances vote for hillary clinton, is now more relevant than ever.  the email scandal is actual just getting started as now we is gonna have congressional hearings to address the fbi investigation... in depth.  does anybody look good when investigated close by law enforcement? those hearing is gonna last through the election.  is gonna be ugly.  is always ugly. last week, clinton didn't need sanders or his supporters.  come election time she may very well need every vote... or maybe not.  we do know that today, in her first public address since the release o' the "extremely reckless" comments from the fbi, clinton announced that she were gonna adopt free-college plan, which were a major sanders pledge.

 

 

yeah, the race for the nomination is long over, but "it goes on hillary, the race is not over."

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps only partial tongue-in-cheek.  clinton did do a sudden 180 on free-college.  is no coincidence that such happened after fbi presser  and following the moves by republicans in Congress to get hearings started.

[Leferd]

Meh.

 

I was going to add on regarding the college proposal --but it's pretty difficult to organize and type out my thoughts on a phone. But Clinton actually announced her college plan while out campaigning with Obama as an expansion of his free college proposals, the morning of Comey's press conference. It is certainly possible and commendable if it's due to Sanders's influence (which was a primary reason why I wanted Sanders to continue campaigning up until the Primaries were over), but it's not because of her looming email scandal.

 

The DoJ/FBI hearings are all political grandstanding. Nothing's going to come out of it. The FBI will have crossed their T's and dotted their I's. No undue influence would have shown to have taken place during the course of the investigation --and certainly nothing the Republicans will be able to prove.

 

Barring a national catastrophe, Hillary Clinton will be the next POTUS with a better than 75% chance probability. Trump's campaign and the RNC is simply not sophisticated or united enough to turn out enough voters in battleground swing states beyond his key demographic to defeat a well-organized Clinton political machine. The polls are trending that way. The analytics say so. The ancillary data supports it.

 

 

*edit

 

I think you're giving too much weight to the political grandstanding. Most (non-rabid) voters don't care what's happening in Congress or their stupid hearings. Attention span is too short, too ADD.  Lookie here -- More googles for Trump and his theatrics than Clinton and her emails the day after.

 

 

Hillary Clinton isn't as unlikeable as most people here make her out to be. To regular everyday democrats, she's actually very well liked. The Democratic Party is united. Sanders and his supporters aren't even democrats. In the grand scheme, Democrats will vote Democrat. Republicans will vote Republicans. The disaffected either won't vote or place protest votes. Swing voters are significantly swaying towards Clinton. The DNC/Clinton campaign will turn out more voters than Trump/RNC.

 

Edited July 7, 2016 by Leferd

[Gromnir]

change to "morning of" the fbi presser doesn't actual help diminish the notion that the rather dramatic change on free-college were precipitated by the email crisis, does it?  but we do agree that it would take something drastic to prevent clinton from being elected.  

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Bartimaeus]

I think you're giving too much weight to the political grandstanding.

 

Says the guy getting on Sanders' case for continuing to protest party politics.

[Longknife]

Oh please.

 

What's unfair about it? The Democrats were letting him know of their displeasure over him not stepping aside when clearly he already lost. By staying in the race this long, he lost whatever leverage he had in negotiations with the party in setting the party agenda going into the general election.

 

I've been saying all along that Sanders shouldn't quit until it's over. Well, now it's been over for one month now. And there's no indictment.

 

Sanders miscalculated and it cost him. Was he clinging to hope for an indictment? That'd be his in.

 

 

Ridiculous.

 

It is not Sander's responsibility to ensure people vote for Clinton. That responsibility falls on her and her alone. What am I, Sander's dog? If he tells me to vote for her, will I do it without question? Honestly, if he were to endorse her, my respect for him would fall. It would not raise my respect for her nor encourage me to vote for her.

 

This is politics. Is it a **** tactic to convince voters that this is Sander's responsibility to bow out and endorse her? Yes. Does it work? Unfortunately, it probably does for some people, thus the Clinton campaign does it. But just because people fall for it does not make it a tactic that speaks the truth. Would you blame Nader for Al Gore losing in 2000? That's equally ridiculous, as Nader has every right to represent the people that would vote for him, and honestly in an ideal democracy people should have options and have candidates they feel represent him, so to try and say Nader had a duty not to run for the sake of the election is the absurd kind of logic that results in this corrupt terriawful two-party system.

 

It's really quite simple: I am a human being. Give me an opportunity to spend all day sitting on my ass? I'll take it. If come November this is Hillary vs. Trump and I hate both, I will gladly take that opportunity to sit on my ass at home and do nothing. It is her responsibility and the responsibility of her campaign to convince me a vote for her is well-placed. That the Clinton Campaign cannot figure out that votes are earned via offering the proper policies rather than getting the proper people to shout your name...? Well, that's one of the reasons I won't be voting for her.

[Leferd]

Lol. I personally don't care very much if Sanders endorses, or doesn't endorse Clinton. I was originally pointing out that Sanders was getting booed not for the comments KP quoted him for, but because he wasn't stopping his campaign. The Democratic Congressmen were getting on him for unity and his motives for staying in the race.

 

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-campaigns-talks-endorsement-week/story?id=40389661

 

But it may be a moot point, as the Sanders and Clinton camp are getting together to discuss future events and a possible endorsement anyway. He'll get his speaking spot in the convention, a Senate committee chair, (when the Dems take back the Senate) and a voice in the party platform. But he may have gotten more if he played ball with the party sooner. It's a trade off and he may have overplayed his hand a bit.

[Guard Dog]

What more could he have gotten? They were not going to make him the running mate and there is no cabinet job anyone would want him in. He's probably on his last Senate term. Heck going down in ball of flames is the best thing he could hope for.

[Longknife]

The Democratic Congressmen were getting on him for unity and his motives for staying in the race.

 

Quite frankly, I don't think there's a single congressman you could name who I trust more than Bernie. Like no joke I'm more likely to become skeptical about one of them boo'ing him than I am to take their opinion to heart. Why? Well one, what the **** do they care about this? You mean to tell me the democratic congressmen are so passionate about Hillary that they were driven to this? I find this very difficult to believe for congressmen who must regularly listen to their opposition state stances they heavily oppose. And two? For sake of argument let's say Bernie has this huge ego and it's all about self-promotion now. I couldn't give two ****s, to be honest. All I care about is his policies and his stances. He could be someone I completely loathe on a personal level, but if his policies and political stances are things I agree with, he has my support.

 

So spare me if I have a difficult time believing these congressmen that listen to opposing views daily are soooooo passionate about Hillary Clinton that they couldn't contain themselves.

[Leferd]

What more could he have gotten? They were not going to make him the running mate and there is no cabinet job anyone would want him in. He's probably on his last Senate term. Heck going down in ball of flames is the best thing he could hope for.

 

You may be right. Perhaps Sanders is going to get all that he could ask for. Who knows...we'll see.

 

Then again, Clinton may not necessarily even need Sanders as a proxy.

 

 

Of these battleground states, Sanders beat Clinton in Michigan, New Hampshire, Colorado, Minnesota, Wisconsin and Iowa. Clinton has healthy leads over Trump in all except for Colorado. In order for Trump to win the GE, he'll need to do much better...and he's got a significant polling defecit to overcome in many of these states. He's still got time --and a chance...but it ain't looking good.

[Bartimaeus]

I was originally pointing out that Sanders was getting booed not for the comments KP quoted him for, but because he wasn't stopping his campaign.

 

And I was perfectly O.K. with that, but...

 

 

 

because he was still clinging to the hope that he'd receive the nomination

 

This is what I took issue with, and nothing you've responded with since has been about that. Maybe I didn't make that totally clear when I originally responded, but I did mention his motives for not conceding multiple times.

[Leferd]

 

I was originally pointing out that Sanders was getting booed not for the comments KP quoted him for, but because he wasn't stopping his campaign.

 

And I was perfectly O.K. with that, but...

 

 

 

because he was still clinging to the hope that he'd receive the nomination

 

This is what I took issue with, and nothing you've responded with since has been about that. Maybe I didn't make that totally clear when I originally responded, but I did mention his motives for not conceding multiple times.

 

 

Fair 'nuff. Maybe I am projecting a little Don Quixote on him.

[Guard Dog]

I suspect Hillary will do poorly at bringing in Sanders supporters. But she doesn't need them. Her path to victory IMO is the disaffected Republicans and right leaning independents who won't support Trump.