The US Election 2016, Part IV

[ShadySands]

 

If anyone really wants to damage the USA they don't need to interfere with this election. Damage is nearly assured not matter the outcome. The only way that will be avoided is if Congress (at least half of it) is firmly in the control of the opposite party of the winner. Then we can weather four years of impotent drama by President whoever and unf--k things in 2020.

So you want the Dems to control the Senate in case Trump tries to appoint someone to the Supreme Court who might actually defend the Constitution? OK.

 

I know I do

 

 

stupid page break something something

Edited July 27, 2016 by ShadySands

[Guard Dog]

Great Campaign Ad! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jyk2cID9bSI

[Hastur]

Great Campaign Ad! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jyk2cID9bSI

Keep at it, brother!  Clever ad.

[Longknife]

Time for some photography admiration.

 

Photo of Sanders immediately after his speech endorsing Hillary Clinton:

 

https://twitter.com/TotesMcGotes/status/758175689346523136

[Guard Dog]

Congrat's Hillary. This is a big moment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFwdvMQHmOI

[Hastur]

Damn, it takes a third out of power party to get away with an ad like that!  The Republicans would get hammered for that ad, but then again, the Republican lack the will and intestinal fortitude to level with people anyway.

 

I got a kick out of George Will suggesting that the reason the Big T won't divulge taxes is because it would show he's got ties to "Russian Oligarchs."  lol  Comedy.  It might actually be true, which is the scary thing.  Not much for conspiracy theories.  The real scandal is that he won't come out with the damned things, not any specific speculation.  It could be any number of things, but whatever it might be, it most certainly is that he's hiding his taxes.

[HoonDing]

So Trump's a Putin mole. Big surprise.

 

It's like Man in the High Castle, just replace Japan/Germany with China/Russia.

[Hurlshort]

Great Campaign Ad! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jyk2cID9bSI

 

I try not to share much political stuff on my Facebook page, but this one made the list.  Needs to be a national TV spot, for sure.

[Guard Dog]

 

Great Campaign Ad! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jyk2cID9bSI

 

I try not to share much political stuff on my Facebook page, but this one made the list.  Needs to be a national TV spot, for sure.

 

I don't know who they've hired to produce these ads but they are doing an excellent job. They are simple, understated, and devastatingly effective. The last five have been just outstanding. 

[Keyrock]

Actually, I tend to agree with Bruce. Most outlets, from Fox to MSNBC and CNN to BBC, can't afford to out and out lie. Commentary is commentary, and so you get opinion, and various stories will get more or less airtime depending on the source, but none of them will lie. It would completely destroy them. I personally get news from a variety of sources. Because I'm more conservative, I like Fox reporting, but I regularly read other outlets, from CNN, BBC, the Huffington Rag, and even facebook. If it's an important story, I tend to check at least a few outlets. I think Fox does tend to be a little more entertaining, but even they irritate me sometimes, both on the conservative and liberal angle. Anyone who thinks Fox is all conservative should watch Sheppard Smith reports sometime. ...But, yeah, they're a lot more conservative than CNN and way the hell more conservative than MSNBC. (And simply a better news organization than MSNBC too, although I did used to enjoy Olbermann (sp?) when he was on air. lol Countdown!) I canceled my cable TV, though, so I don't actually watch anything live anymore for the most part.

It's not about blatantly and purposely lying, no mainstream news outlet would do that because of the potential consequences if they're caught red handed fabricating a story.  Mainstream news outlets are, however, often times willing to regurgitate misrepresented and skewed stories from more extremist outlets.  Generally speaking, the more you go from moderate to an extreme of the spectrum, any extreme, the more people are willing to bend the truth and even straight up fabricate things, probably because the more you go to an extreme of the spectrum the more you need to bend and fabricate to make things fit your views, since the unbiased truth tends to fall somewhere near the moderate middle ground.  It's less about political leanings and agendas and more about the bottom line, though.  The top priority of almost any large mainstream news outlet is money, and since they get paid in advertising revenue and more views equals more advertising revenue, it's all about getting as many views as possible...  Clicks, I guess the current unit of measurement of exposure is clicks.  Anyway, it's fairly commonplace for mainstream media to pick up on and run sensationalist "news" stories from more niche or extremist outlets.  For the most part, the stories are just regurgitated as is.  Fact checking takes time and effort and who has time for that, amirite?  Besides, they're being handed what essentially amounts to free money (since sensationalism sells and sells well) for little to no work, why look a gift horse in the mouth?  The best part is that they have their own asses covered in the event that they are called out for misrepresenting the truth.  They can just cite their source and put the blame on them for fabricating a story.  So long as they have plausible deniability, the worst case scenario is getting burned for incompetence, which, while not great, is a heck of a lot less damaging than getting burned for fabricating the story.

[Guard Dog]

This one is a bit more traditional (meaning not as good) but still pretty good: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NnwBkdFQcW8

[HoonDing]

 

Secret police and internment camps are politically too sensitive even for Trump.

 

I propose the tried and true Turkish method: march these millions of ppl through the Nevada desert. It's not your fault when ppl die of hunger, thirst and exhaustion.

[BruceVC]

 

Secret police and internment camps are politically too sensitive even for Trump.

 

I propose the tried and true Turkish method: march these millions of ppl through the Nevada desert. It's not your fault when ppl die of hunger, thirst and exhaustion.

The Mexican president has already said Mexico wont be paying for the wall.....so who is going to pay for it?

 

http://edition.cnn.com/videos/politics/2016/07/10/mexican-president-enrique-pena-nieto-trump-wall-sot-gps.cnn

[Elerond]

 

I didn't know that Bill has changed their gender to woman

 

 

     

 

Edited July 27, 2016 by Elerond

[Keyrock]

I mean, gender is an artificial construct anyway. 

[Zoraptor]

 

He always said he would back her if/when she got the nomination

 

Just like some of us said we wouldn't support her at such a time

 

We both kept our word. I don't see a problem

The problem is that if he lost he was supposed to lose fair and square. The DNC giving Clinton an advantage nullifies any obligation he had to support Clinton.

 

 

I don't begrudge Sanders giving Clinton the endorsement. It's very easy to say he should have pulled a Cruz, but then if Cruz isn't a bona fide sociopath without an ounce of integrity in his body he does an excellent impression of one. Sanders pledged to support Clinton when/ if the time came and he followed through on that despite obviously being deeply unhappy about it.

 

Thing is Sanders did lose; he might have lost in sketchy circumstances but lose he did. If Clinton wins he has to work with her, and if Clinton loses then her supporters and the entire Democratic Party structure will be looking to set blame and specifically set blame on anyone who isn't them. We only need to look back to 2000 to see them scapegoat Nader- which to an extent the Greens never recovered from- despite more democrats voting for Bush in Florida than Nader, and far more not voting at all. Sanders does not want to be Nader 2.0 and that is understandable if he wants to achieve anything. For better or (very much likely) worse the Democrat party is here to stay, if he wants to revolutionise politics- and actually do it rather than talk about it- he has to preserve his movement and reform from within.

 

As it stands he, or his successor more likely, is in a good position should Hillary lose to get the nomination in 2020 and real reform in the interim.

[Namutree]

Apparently Trump just asked Putin for help with Clinton's emails, during a press conference. We're not in Kansas anymore?

Depending on the context that could be pretty damning. I guess I'll watch it.

[Zoraptor]

It was tongue in cheek, since he also said that he didn't think the Russians are releasing stuff. His campaign is pretty memetastic, and there are a fair few 'Thanks for trying to keep our politicians honest, Russia, no one else will' type memes out there.

 

 

I didn't know that Bill has changed their gender to woman

 

I was really struck by how he looks more like a Bill Clinton doll than actual Bill Clinton now. I guess plastic surgery/ botox etc is a legit business expense for the Clinton Foundation, at least.

[Namutree]

 

 

He always said he would back her if/when she got the nomination

 

Just like some of us said we wouldn't support her at such a time

 

We both kept our word. I don't see a problem

The problem is that if he lost he was supposed to lose fair and square. The DNC giving Clinton an advantage nullifies any obligation he had to support Clinton.

 

 

I don't begrudge Sanders giving Clinton the endorsement. It's very easy to say he should have pulled a Cruz, but then if Cruz isn't a bona fide sociopath without an ounce of integrity in his body he does an excellent impression of one. Sanders pledged to support Clinton when/ if the time came and he followed through on that despite obviously being deeply unhappy about it.

 

Thing is Sanders did lose; he might have lost in sketchy circumstances but lose he did. If Clinton wins he has to work with her, and if Clinton loses then her supporters and the entire Democratic Party structure will be looking to set blame and specifically set blame on anyone who isn't them. We only need to look back to 2000 to see them scapegoat Nader- which to an extent the Greens never recovered from- despite more democrats voting for Bush in Florida than Nader, and far more not voting at all. Sanders does not want to be Nader 2.0 and that is understandable if he wants to achieve anything. For better or (very much likely) worse the Democrat party is here to stay, if he wants to revolutionise politics- and actually do it rather than talk about it- he has to preserve his movement and reform from within.

 

As it stands he, or his successor more likely, is in a good position should Hillary lose to get the nomination in 2020 and real reform in the interim.

 

Strongly disagree.

 

If I bet a guy $20 that I can beat him in a foot race, and he proceeds to shoot me in the knees during said race, I don't owe him squat. The DNC cheated; his loss doesn't count.

 

Sanders and his supporters need to show that they aren't pushovers. "Get your act together or we won't vote with you. Clean house or go extinct." Needs to be the message. The democrats can't scapegoat Sanders like they did Nader because:

 

A) Sanders has too many supporters. If they do that, Trump will win again, and the democrats will be finished as a party.

 

B) Sanders would just be standing up to the corruption. Not his fault the DNC is corrupt. Nader wasn't protesting being cheated by the DNC.

 

If the Sanders and his supporters let the DNC get away with this, the DNC will never change. In fact, they'll double down. You have to give them no choice. "Cheat and you lose, period." That's how you fix things.

[ShadySands]

There is the #DemExit thing going on but I already left the party not long after the caucus here. I mean, I only joined the party to cast my vote in the caucus in the first place, so there's that

 

I think that if Hillary loses they will still pin it on Bernie, I don't think there is anyway around that. Easier to point fingers than to look in the mirror

[Guard Dog]

Another good one. This one and the Hillary one were just released yesterday: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3CiPKueqo8

[Zoraptor]

Sanders and his supporters need to show that they aren't pushovers. "Get your act together or we won't vote with you. Clean house or go extinct." Needs to be the message. The democrats can't scapegoat Sanders like they did Nader because:

 

A) Sanders has too many supporters. If they do that, Trump will win again, and the democrats will be finished as a party.

 

B) Sanders would just be standing up to the corruption. Not his fault the DNC is corrupt. Nader wasn't protesting being cheated by the DNC.

 

If the Sanders and his supporters let the DNC get away with this, the DNC will never change. In fact, they'll double down. You have to give them no choice. "Cheat and you lose, period." That's how you fix things.

 

On the emotional level I'd probably agree with you, but I don't think it would achieve anything to do it that way except for make some people feel better about taking an overt stand.

 

To address those two points, while Sanders has a lot of support it is broadly divided into three groups (1) people who are primarily Democrats and will happily vote Hillary despite thinking that Bernie is better (2) mixed Democrats and Independents who will vote for Hillary while holding their nose and (3) primarily Independents who are Never Hillary. Whatever Bernie says all of (1) and most of (2) will vote for Hillary, that is simply the practicalities of the electoral system. Point B is pretty much covered by needing to counter corruption with practical steps rather than just handwaving and rhetoric. If Bernie goes that route too overtly by refusing to endorse or running as an independent he is sacrificing whatever his movement can achieve within the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party does not want to reform itself, it wants to stay with its vested interests- that's why they are vested interests, after all. And while he and many others may wish that isn't the truth, it is. He cannot win, so his choice amounts to taking out Hillary in a political kamikaze attack that would hand the election to Trump or endorsing and preserving his influence for use in the future in projects like who is the new DNC chair or getting Wasserman Schultz rolled wholesale. If he doesn't endorse then neither of those are achievable.

 

If Hillary loses then I agree with Shady, some will blame Bernie for it whatever he does. But as much as there are those three groups of Bernie supporters there are also 3 equivalent groups of Hillary supporters, and in these circumstances it would be the Never Bernie types alone that would blame him- whereas if he didn't endorse or ran against her he'd permanently alienate all her supporters plus many of his own.

[Namutree]

 

Sanders and his supporters need to show that they aren't pushovers. "Get your act together or we won't vote with you. Clean house or go extinct." Needs to be the message. The democrats can't scapegoat Sanders like they did Nader because:

 

A) Sanders has too many supporters. If they do that, Trump will win again, and the democrats will be finished as a party.

 

B) Sanders would just be standing up to the corruption. Not his fault the DNC is corrupt. Nader wasn't protesting being cheated by the DNC.

 

If the Sanders and his supporters let the DNC get away with this, the DNC will never change. In fact, they'll double down. You have to give them no choice. "Cheat and you lose, period." That's how you fix things.

 If Bernie goes that route too overtly by refusing to endorse or running as an independent he is sacrificing whatever his movement can achieve within the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party does not want to reform itself, it wants to stay with its vested interests- that's why they are vested interests, after all. 

 

Here's where you lose me. It's not losing what he can achieve, it is in fact, the only way he can achieve anything. If they think they can win without changing; the DNC will never change. They will only change if they have absolutely no choice. If Bernie doesn't remove his endorsement, he won't have to worry about losing his influence, because he will have no influence to lose. Everything he has fought for will amount to nothing if he does anything less. Even if the dems lose this time, they'll go:

 

DNC person 1: Hillary was a bad choice, next time we should go with some one more likable.

DNC person 2: Should we clean house like the Bernie people want?

DNC person 1: Do we HAVE to?

DNC person 2: No. It's still possible to win without doing so.

DNC person 1: Then no. We just need a more likable candidate. Oh, and we need to make sure more people like Bernie Sanders don't show up again to make a fuss.

 

There are too many people in camp C). The dems NEED them to win an election now or ever again. Not cleaning up their act next election cycle will be a non-option. It is impossible for Dems to win if they don't reform. They will reform in such a scenario; out of necessity if nothing else. What do you think they would do, quietly go extinct? 

[Longknife]

Just popping in to show off this and this.

[HoonDing]

just dropped by to show