Serious US Election Thread (read post #2014)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Oh sorry, I thought I responded to you before telling you it's time to stop, but I guess until now I just complained about your dreadful posting behaviour to others.

In any case, this thread is focused on actual discussion, not on making fun of another's preferred political candidate because they are involved in a scandal or are orange and have funny hair or whatever. This is cong, not firebot. If you want to incite a discussion about whether or not Clinton should be indicted for the email scandal, be my guest, but then put more effort in your posts, provide arguments as to why you feel like she should be indicted, and basically just avoid repeating Trump's one-liners ad infinitum. Your postings as they are right now do not call for discussion, do not add anything we didn't already know to the thread, and even fail to be entertaining. If you want to vent your frustrations about the fact that Clinton "weasels her way out of everything", by all means do it, but do it on IRC or Skype or Firebot or any other place where you're not cluttering up discussions with one-liners no one gives half a damn about.

Carry on.
I've been a little lazy this month; sorry.
 

Bughouse

Like ships in the night, you're passing me by
is a Site Content Manageris a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a CAP Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnus
Robert Alfons this thread is also focused on US politics not whatever global reference frame you seem to insist on using. You can't just decide who you get to call right wing or not when it means something very different here.

The issues that you consider so important are not actually the biggest issues here. Our country isn't enlightened enough to have already agreed on everything your country's parties must have, so we have to focus plenty on civil rights, the environment, gun control, and education, among other basic things. These are the issues that really define right vs left in the US much more than anything economic. Proof? They've made plenty of compromises on economics in the past few decades. On these issues? Roughly zero.
 
Someone compiled a juicy list of some of the best DNC Wikileaks emails. That whole meme of how online Hillary Clinton supporters are just trolls/fake accounts now holds some solid truth. A Super PAC was paid to push back online Bernie Sanders supporters. Man, that fat guy stripping at the Libertarian National Convention isn't so bad now when you factor in the trainwreck that was the Republican National Convention and the trainwreck the Democratic Party is in prior to their Convention.

http://pastebin.com/4R9nGms9
 

Sam

i say it's all just wind in sails
is a Battle Simulator Admin Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Top Tiering Contributor Alumnusis an Administrator Alumnus
http://www.amalanetwork.com/2016/07/23/shills-and-scandals-the-misleading-dncleaks-tweet-by-tweet/

The Super PAC email was about notes taken during Fox News Sunday...a lot of the big "revelations" here are non-stories stripped of context to look big.

20,000 emails and the worst that would be found was the DWS held some contempt for Sanders after he called her corrupt and said she should resign, is that really shocking? The DNC painting Hillary as the presumptive nominee in late May when most people would agree Hillary more or less had it locked up (yes Sanders had a non-zero chance...but very close to zero). A party reaching out to journalists and reporters who say something about them or their candidates? I'd be more surprised if they didn't.

Like look at this: your list calls this "DNC having a mole working inside Sanders campaign" https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/7793

"We can’t go to DWS with just Facebook intel. Kay told me she has friends inside the Bernie organization there who may be able to provide some more information." = mole????
 
http://www.amalanetwork.com/2016/07/23/shills-and-scandals-the-misleading-dncleaks-tweet-by-tweet/

The Super PAC email was about notes taken during Fox News Sunday...a lot of the big "revelations" here are non-stories stripped of context to look big.

20,000 emails and the worst that would be found was the DWS held some contempt for Sanders after he called her corrupt and said she should resign, is that really shocking? The DNC painting Hillary as the presumptive nominee in late May when most people would agree Hillary more or less had it locked up (yes Sanders had a non-zero chance...but very close to zero). A party reaching out to journalists and reporters who say something about them or their candidates? I'd be more surprised if they didn't.

Like look at this: your list calls this "DNC having a mole working inside Sanders campaign" https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/7793

"We can’t go to DWS with just Facebook intel. Kay told me she has friends inside the Bernie organization there who may be able to provide some more information." = mole????
It isn't my list, I just copied and pasted it from where it was compiled. Going about Sanders chances isn't the point of the leaks, being in favor and leveraging the election into Clinton's favor is. There's no justifying that besides being a diehard Democrat or diehard Clinton supporter. I'm not a Sanders supporter by any means, but this is ridiculous how they wanted to hold him down. Lots of tax-dollars were wasted on the Democratic nominating process, people deserve better.



^Regarding the Super PAC.
 
Last edited:

Sam

i say it's all just wind in sails
is a Battle Simulator Admin Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Top Tiering Contributor Alumnusis an Administrator Alumnus
An entire paragraph with 0 substance. I called it your list because you provided it lol. Leveraging the election would have been very bad and inexcusable...if they did that. The entire point of my post was that the emails don't prove that at all.
 

Bughouse

Like ships in the night, you're passing me by
is a Site Content Manageris a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a CAP Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnus
There's some damning stuff in the emails, in that no one at the DNC should ever be considering a way to go after Bernie for being an atheist, but then... well... no one ever did actually do it. What I got out of the leaked emails was more or less that there were some individuals, not an entire collusive operation, who had some not so nice ideas about how to hurt Bernie. But none of them were ever actually done.

All in all, enough to have DWS resign over (and imo she probably should have been ousted years ago anyway...), but really nothing major enough to freak out.
 
Robert Alfons this thread is also focused on US politics not whatever global reference frame you seem to insist on using. You can't just decide who you get to call right wing or not when it means something very different here..
Robert Alfons has a point.

By American standards, Obama is left, Bush Jr is right, Clinton is left, Bush Sr is right, Reagan is right, etc. However, wealth concentration by the less-than-1% has risen, money has increased its influence in politics, worker protections have diminished, constitutional rights have been weakened, etc. The policies of Obama and Bush Jr, or Clinton and Bush Sr, diverge on social issues, which are largely a symptom (e.g., dependent on) of the greater problems. As a result, a claim such as "Obama's and Bush Jr's policies are only marginally different" is considered ridiculous, when in truth, both are incredibly similar.

The range of ideas is very limited in American political discourse and this enables the continued benefaction of a very small portion of the population. Refraining from looking at the greater scope of ideas, and examining our politicians within said greater scope, is not beneficial; it's backwards. You're essentially arguing about a handful shades of a couple colors, when there are hundreds of shades and thousands of colors beyond that.
 

shaian

you love to see it
is a Tutor Alumnusis a Team Rater Alumnusis a Social Media Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnus
Someone compiled a juicy list of some of the best DNC Wikileaks emails. That whole meme of how online Hillary Clinton supporters are just trolls/fake accounts now holds some solid truth. A Super PAC was paid to push back online Bernie Sanders supporters. Man, that fat guy stripping at the Libertarian National Convention isn't so bad now when you factor in the trainwreck that was the Republican National Convention and the trainwreck the Democratic Party is in prior to their Convention.

http://pastebin.com/4R9nGms9
a superpac funded this project: http://correctrecord.org/

roughly a million-ish spent on it iirc

every candidate has / had something like that cuz barry o had something like this back in the day and it made waaaves

sanders hired online support as well: http://revolutionmarketing.com/

same dudes as obama, roughly 25+ million for the same shit

trump prolly has one too to be honest
 

Chou Toshio

Over9000
is an Artist Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Top Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnus
There's some damning stuff in the emails, in that no one at the DNC should ever be considering a way to go after Bernie for being an atheist, but then... well... no one ever did actually do it. What I got out of the leaked emails was more or less that there were some individuals, not an entire collusive operation, who had some not so nice ideas about how to hurt Bernie. But none of them were ever actually done.

All in all, enough to have DWS resign over (and imo she probably should have been ousted years ago anyway...), but really nothing major enough to freak out.
She's resigning: http://edition.cnn.com/2016/07/22/politics/dnc-wikileaks-emails/

Dunno how much that will make a difference, but Bernie's getting what he asked for
 

Chou Toshio

Over9000
is an Artist Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Top Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnus
Robert Alfons has a point.

By American standards, Obama is left, Bush Jr is right, Clinton is left, Bush Sr is right, Reagan is right, etc. However, wealth concentration by the less-than-1% has risen, money has increased its influence in politics, worker protections have diminished, constitutional rights have been weakened, etc. The policies of Obama and Bush Jr, or Clinton and Bush Sr, diverge on social issues, which are largely a symptom (e.g., dependent on) of the greater problems. As a result, a claim such as "Obama's and Bush Jr's policies are only marginally different" is considered ridiculous, when in truth, both are incredibly similar.

The range of ideas is very limited in American political discourse and this enables the continued benefaction of a very small portion of the population. Refraining from looking at the greater scope of ideas, and examining our politicians within said greater scope, is not beneficial; it's backwards. You're essentially arguing about a handful shades of a couple colors, when there are hundreds of shades and thousands of colors beyond that.
I'm an American, and I agree at looking at the demands we have for our government through the lens of a broader background of ideas and possible solutions. Frankly, while his ideals may be even more progressive/social, Bernie's proposals are only a little left of Obama. (But then, I think even Obama wants to be left of Obama)

But I personally see that as the sweet spot in terms of economics-- where you have a price-setting market that manages the efficient allocation of most goods and services and drives economic growth, but has practical regulations/oversight that ensure high competition, a relatively level playing field, consumer protections, and enough transparency for businesses and individuals to make better decisions. Also, make-sense government control over industries that don't perform well as a free market (some utilities, arguably health), and subsidizing of important initiatives that don't make sense for-profit (see: subsidizing antibiotic development research, where you want to make something that we will use as little as possible). Also social services that maintain a broad level of standard of living and redistribute a certain degree of wealth-- which ultimately also benefits business by helping to maintain a healthy/growing market. While I'd say this is the general advocated vision of everyone we would call anything between "moderate liberal" and "social democrat" here in the US, the actual dedication towards that vision seems to vary...

Maybe it's because I'm American, but I see that sweet spot as the ideal, though it is quite conservative still on the world stage. Actually, this is quite close to the reality of Japan; though a poor worker's culture, comparatively weak innovation (to the US), and greater social conservatism are issues.

Anyway, a true and updated glass steagle, regulation over dollars spent in politics/lobbying (ie. fix citizens united +), and improved systems of health and education support are the key pieces needed to hit the sweet spot-- you know, just the things that are exactly the key pieces of Bernie's campaign; though it's not like Obama hasn't also fought the good fight.

Overall, I'd say that people are right in saying that we're fighting over a very small range of ideas when looking at Hillary, Obama, Bernie-- but somewhere in there is the sweet spot imo. Human corruption/greed and lobbying, wayyy too much call for abolishing a "big brother" that isn't there, and other factors have left us with an economy that is starving and not serving the majority of our citizens, but that doesn't mean the vision is wrong-- but it definitely isn't realized.
 
Have no news to contribute, but this poll aggregation site might be worth a view for those interested in likely presidential race outcomes. Worth noting that third party representation generally drops if the big two are in a tight race close to polling day, so the only thing anyone could conclude right now is that it's fairly close a long way out.

http://www.electoral-vote.com/
 

shaian

you love to see it
is a Tutor Alumnusis a Team Rater Alumnusis a Social Media Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnus
she's "working" in an honorary position presumably as a means to get her to step down cuz shes the same chick who accused obama of being a sexist anti-semite for trying to get her to step down in 08
 
It's a known fact that Wikileaks is also at this point Russian propaganda :/



This new "scandal" is almost nothing and people are REALLY picking at scrapes here to find something juicy. The email that everyone is talking about is from LATE MAY aka when Bernie has basically already lost.


Also this has nothing to do with Hillary since she's not on the DNC so she's not escaping anything lol. We're also just going to ignore how in the emails that DNC had to contact the Sanders campaign a lot for being so incompetent that they couldn't follow through with basic procedures and they were helping him out, particularly in December.


Tim Kaine is a good pick because basically she needed a white male "moderate" in order to have broader appeal (imo) because there are just way more moderates then people wanting a far left liberal pick. Liz Warren is better needed in the senate too then VP. She serves an important role in the senate and I think her talents would be wasted as VP.


And Chou, Bernie is A LOT to the left of Obama I mean just look at how much your taxes would've gone up/economic things would've changed *if* Bernie got elected and his agenda passed. It's Hillary who's actually just a little to the left of Obama even if people here don't want to believe it (There's nothing wrong with Sanders being A LOT to the left of Obama and he'll continue to do good work in the senate. I agree with the rest of your post though :)
 

Chou Toshio

Over9000
is an Artist Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Top Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnus
And Chou, Bernie is A LOT to the left of Obama I mean just look at how much your taxes would've gone up/economic things would've changed *if* Bernie got elected and his agenda passed. It's Hillary who's actually just a little to the left of Obama even if people here don't want to believe it (There's nothing wrong with Sanders being A LOT to the left of Obama and he'll continue to do good work in the senate. I agree with the rest of your post though :)
Hmmm... I think it's all about the context, and relativity.

Perhaps when we talk about Bernie and Obama, I think we're mixing up "their policies," "their proposals", and "their ideals".
With both candidates being policies -> proposals -> ideals in order of progressiveness; not being able to expect to get exactly what they want.

For ideals, I'd say Bernie's likely far left of any of Obama's policies and proposals, and some degree left of Obama's ideals.
Bernie's proposals are probably only a tiny smidge left of Obama's ideals, and while significantly left of his proposals-- not by a great deal in the larger scope of global left and right we were talking about. Bernie's "radical" in an American context, but still proposing things that are palatable to "moderates" in Clinton's camp.

As we both agree on-- his "radical" key proposals are just the bare bare bare bones of what is necessary for a vision that is actually shared by the broader range of moderate liberals->America's far left. I'm sure his ideal would include a lot of things unpalatable at all to many "liberals" in the US, but he has made few, calculated, and thoughtful demands that are both tremendously important to turning the economy and government in the right direction, and feasible in the American context.

Bernie's agenda is one of the most brilliant parts of his campaign imo.
 
Last edited:
Robert Alfons has a point.

By American standards, Obama is left, Bush Jr is right, Clinton is left, Bush Sr is right, Reagan is right, etc. However, wealth concentration by the less-than-1% has risen, money has increased its influence in politics, worker protections have diminished, constitutional rights have been weakened, etc. The policies of Obama and Bush Jr, or Clinton and Bush Sr, diverge on social issues, which are largely a symptom (e.g., dependent on) of the greater problems. As a result, a claim such as "Obama's and Bush Jr's policies are only marginally different" is considered ridiculous, when in truth, both are incredibly similar.

The range of ideas is very limited in American political discourse and this enables the continued benefaction of a very small portion of the population. Refraining from looking at the greater scope of ideas, and examining our politicians within said greater scope, is not beneficial; it's backwards. You're essentially arguing about a handful shades of a couple colors, when there are hundreds of shades and thousands of colors beyond that.
Would also like to piggyback on this saying that any politician who is capitalist in global politics is technically considered "right wing", meaning Obama and Clinton fall under this category.

Sanders, being a semi-socialist is the only one who is slightly left wing on the global political compass.
 

Chou Toshio

Over9000
is an Artist Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Top Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnus
Would also like to piggyback on this saying that any politician who is capitalist in global politics is technically considered "right wing", meaning Obama and Clinton fall under this category.

Sanders, being a semi-socialist is the only one who is slightly left wing on the global political compass.
Except the only difference, as is often pointed out-- is the willingness to use the terms capitalist and socialist-- since no one is proposing an economy of purely ungoverned chaos, nor completely price-set, completely government operated economies.

Obama, Clinton, and even Ted Cruz are all socialists-- in that they agree in social security, different degrees of government regulation of industry, and different degrees of government provided services.

Bernie is a Capitalist, as are most politicians in most of the world's countries-- in that he believes that a regulated, yet organic market in many sectors of the economy is needed to achieve economic growth and productivity. Even Unions are fundamentally a product of capitalism, even if some right wingers would have people think otherwise.

It's just a matter of degrees and who is using which words... and also varying degrees of willingness to admit this reality.
 

Aldaron

geriatric
is a Tournament Director Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Admin Alumnusis a Smogon Discord Contributor Alumnusis a Top Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Top Contributor Alumnusis an Administrator Alumnus
What shitstorm is the DNC in lol?

The leaked emails just show that the chair needs to be canned for bias? Which..she is...

The bernie supporters yelled and cried a bit? Who threatened to vote for Jill Stein but almost everyone knows will, in the overwhelming majority, vote for the DNC nominee in November?

What I took away from last night is that Michelle Obama is a fucking god damned KING and I can't wait to see what she does in the future lol.

I'm really curious if the right-wingers in this topic are truly so deluded to believe that the majority of bernie or bust supporters aren't aware enough of the importance of the supreme court seats to eventually vote for hillary in November lol...regardless of how much they yell now and threaten to vote for Jill Stein.

This presidential election is all about suffering your party's nomination for the next 4-8 years to secure 30-50 years of 1-3 supreme court seats as well looking towards the future of the parties.

And I'm very very very thankful that Michelle Obama will probably be in the future of mine :)
 
I'm very interested in seeing how Bill Clinton will be received tonight. I personally think he'll appeal more to rural Democrats cause Bill is that kinda guy, but he's also an old-fashioned politican so it's hard to say whether or not he'll build an effective message other than "I agree with everything my wife says".

I always feared that he's kind of out of touch with modern Democrats, but I can be wrong (and I hope I am), really!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 1)

Top