2016 Presidential Race

howard · Post by **howard** » Thu Mar 31, 2016 3:43 pm

Steve of phpBB wrote:Any argument that Hillary is basically a Republican, or that there is no difference between electing Hillary and electing a Republican, is a specious one.

No. Not gonna let that slide. Just, no; it is not a specious argument.

mister d · Post by **mister d** » Thu Mar 31, 2016 3:45 pm

Are we talking historical republican president or the potential of Trump/Cruz?

howard · Post by **howard** » Thu Mar 31, 2016 4:04 pm

The general policies of the last four presidents; 2 nominal democrats, 2 nominal gop. Or, compared to dubya. Lots of war, lots of money for wall street, banks and huge corporations. Blah blah blah, you can reasonably disagree, but hardly a specious argument.

tennbengal · Post by **tennbengal** » Thu Mar 31, 2016 4:36 pm

Just ducking in to note that I think the trump thing may finally be going off the rails. Just a sense that fatigue is setting in even for his base.

Keg · Post by **Keg** » Thu Mar 31, 2016 5:36 pm

tennbengal wrote:Just ducking in to note that I think the trump thing may finally be going off the rails. Just a sense that fatigue is setting in even for his base.

He's finally getting the fanduel/draftkings treatment...

Keg · Post by **Keg** » Thu Mar 31, 2016 5:40 pm

Brontoburglar wrote:Perhaps I'm lucky(?) in that I know what a Bernie bro is supposed to be but I've never seen one/know one, or perhaps Brian is fighting the good fight against a strawman that may or may not actually exist.

You must not follow joey clams on twitter.

DaveInSeattle · Post by **DaveInSeattle** » Thu Mar 31, 2016 6:14 pm

tennbengal wrote:Just ducking in to note that I think the trump thing may finally be going off the rails. Just a sense that fatigue is setting in even for his base.

But is it too late? Will he just coast now towards the nomination? Or will the Wet Sack of Mashed Potatoes pick up enough delegates to stop him?

Post by **brian** » Thu Mar 31, 2016 6:16 pm

DaveInSeattle wrote:
tennbengal wrote:Just ducking in to note that I think the trump thing may finally be going off the rails. Just a sense that fatigue is setting in even for his base.
But is it too late? Will he just coast now towards the nomination? Or will the Wet Sack of Mashed Potatoes pick up enough delegates to stop him?

I don't think Cruz can win a plurality of delegates before the election. So that's when things get interesting. If Trump is say 100 delegates shy of the number required for nomination but has 300 or so more than Cruz that's when things can potentially get messy in Cleveland.

Johnnie · Post by **Johnnie** » Thu Mar 31, 2016 9:04 pm

So if I comment on her tone am I a sexist? Because, holy hypocrisy this bitch's tone is just unprofessional.

And not for nothing, but...

Fossil Fuel Investors Are Pumping Millions of Dollars Into Hillary Clinton's Campaign

But clearly Bernie Bros are the problem here.

Post by **brian** » Fri Apr 01, 2016 12:22 am

You're not voting anyway so it doesn't matter.

Gunpowder · Post by **Gunpowder** » Fri Apr 01, 2016 7:44 am

I really don't care that Sanders isn't interested in raising money for other Democratic candidates. Hell, I may not like all of them.

I trust that the Hillary money is going to help lower candidates just as much as I trust that the money going to Susan B Komen is going to fight breast cancer.

Steve of phpBB · Post by **Steve of phpBB** » Fri Apr 01, 2016 1:26 pm

howard wrote:The general policies of the last four presidents; 2 nominal democrats, 2 nominal gop. Or, compared to dubya. Lots of war, lots of money for wall street, banks and huge corporations. Blah blah blah, you can reasonably disagree, but hardly a specious argument.

Yes, there are issues where there are no major differences between Hillary Clinton and a likely Republican president (my post was speaking about a Republican president who Hillary would be running against).

But there are many issues where there are differences.

Labor rights. Abortion rights. Civil rights for people of color. Civil rights for women. Civil rights for gays. Civil rights for non-Christians. Climate change. Torture. Environmental protection. Renewable energy. Consumer protections. Worker safety. Food safety. Health care. Unemployment insurance. Protections for victims of corporate negligence. The rights of criminal defendants. Social Security. Welfare. Fiscal responsibility. Taxation. Arbitration. Class actions. Access to contraception. Worker retraining assistance. Disability rights. Immigration. Voting rights.

A basic interest in governing competently. "Heckuva job, Brownie."

Remember how much we all hate Citizens United? All of the justices who made up the majority were appointed by one party. All justices appointed by the other party dissented.

So while I do understand where you are coming from, I have to stand by my position that it is not reasonable to claim that there are no differences between Hillary Clinton and whoever the Republicans will nominate.

Steve of phpBB · Post by **Steve of phpBB** » Fri Apr 01, 2016 1:39 pm

Gunpowder wrote:I trust that the Hillary money is going to help lower candidates just as much as I trust that the money going to Susan B Komen is going to fight breast cancer.

This isn't about trust. Much of the fundraising that Hillary is doing is for the Democratic National Committee and state Democratic parties. As I understand it, Bernie Sanders, while seeking the nomination of the Democratic Party, is not doing any fundraising for the Democratic Party.

howard · Post by **howard** » Fri Apr 01, 2016 5:28 pm

It is reasonable.

I really don't want to rehash, but let me narrow my point. My argument may be wrong. But it is neither specious nor based on something other than reason.

If you are talking about the two most likely nominees, Trump and Cruz, well fucking of course there are significant differences. I'm talking about 1) the way the last republican president actually governed, and the continuum of many many policies during the seven years of Obama; 2)specifically the foreign policy actions of Hillary as SecState.

Because her rhetoric is completely irrelevant. I'm talking about her actual record, as senator, as secsate.

Finally, I submit the current democrat has given us slightly better supreme court justices, and that Hillary can be expected to do the same. Stipulated. My argument suggests there is much much more to being president that supreme court nominees.

But it is not the substance of my argument vs yours. It is the dismissal of my argument as unreasonable and/or specious. Not true, and that is why I rise to object. I would never similarly dismiss your point of view.

Johnnie · Post by **Johnnie** » Sun Apr 03, 2016 3:50 pm

Diplo for VP confirmed.

Brian has an aneurysm once confirmed.

Pruitt · Post by **Pruitt** » Sun Apr 03, 2016 8:34 pm

So the new media narrative is that even Trump's supporters may have had enough of him.

Which makes him a lock for the nomination.

Johnnie · Post by **Johnnie** » Sun Apr 03, 2016 8:38 pm

So, Bernie actually won Nevada, btw.

I have no idea how this works anymore.

rass · Post by **rass** » Tue Apr 05, 2016 12:07 pm

Post by **Sabo** » Tue Apr 05, 2016 12:20 pm

He looks like Roger Ebert.

P.D.X. · Post by **P.D.X.** » Tue Apr 05, 2016 12:24 pm

Prediction: If Trump loses the election (or even the nomination), no matter how bad he gets his ass kicked, he's going to make it rain with lawsuits over anything and everything that might have the slightest bit of traction. No way his ego can bear losing a "fair" fight, and he'll drop millions so he can chalk up his loss to being a victim of cheating.

Johnnie · Post by **Johnnie** » Tue Apr 05, 2016 12:38 pm

Sabo wrote:He looks like Roger Ebert.

Dead?

Johnnie · Post by **Johnnie** » Tue Apr 05, 2016 12:42 pm

This is a good photo:

mister d · Post by **mister d** » Tue Apr 05, 2016 12:45 pm

I want the no-tan pic with his real hair too.

Johnnie · Post by **Johnnie** » Tue Apr 05, 2016 4:24 pm

Brontoburglar · Post by **Brontoburglar** » Tue Apr 05, 2016 5:01 pm

when did "being a libertarian" start getting conflated with "being a moderate?"

so many people who wrongly champion libertarianism are self-professed moderates and that makes no sense whatsoever because combining two extremes doesn't suddenly equal a meeting in the middle

sancarlos · Post by **sancarlos** » Tue Apr 05, 2016 5:37 pm

Brontoburglar wrote:when did "being a libertarian" start getting conflated with "being a moderate?"

so many people who wrongly champion libertarianism are self-professed moderates and that makes no sense whatsoever because combining two extremes doesn't suddenly equal a meeting in the middle

Libertarianism doesn't necessarily have to include any extremes. If you favor limited government intervention and are generally liberal on issues of personal liberty, you could be said to be both moderate and of a libertarian bent. But, to your point, it's a big tent, and some self-professed libertarians like that Bundy nut are certainly not moderate.

howard · Post by **howard** » Tue Apr 05, 2016 6:10 pm

I don't know which is worse, self-professed libertarians who have no clue what the word means, or legacy party faithfuls who paint us all as Atlas Shrugged carrying anarchists who want to burn down the government and privatize everything.

Anyway, I am pumped for the big contest tonight in Wisconsin. Johnny Cueto's first start in orange/black, vs the Brewers.

howard · Post by **howard** » Tue Apr 05, 2016 8:15 pm

Blast from the past

Read for yourself: http://www.goreading.net/Fear_and_Loath ... ne/63.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

DaveInSeattle · Post by **DaveInSeattle** » Tue Apr 05, 2016 8:21 pm

Brontoburglar wrote:when did "being a libertarian" start getting conflated with "being a moderate?"

I always thought that Libertarian meant you were either a conservative who didn't want to get labelled as "Republican" or a conservative who wanted to smoke pot.

sancarlos · Post by **sancarlos** » Tue Apr 05, 2016 8:29 pm

DaveInSeattle wrote:
Brontoburglar wrote:when did "being a libertarian" start getting conflated with "being a moderate?"
I always thought that Libertarian meant you were either a conservative who didn't want to get labelled as "Republican" or a conservative who wanted to smoke pot.

My college roommate said it was a republican who didn't hate minorities or gays and didn't go to church. But the definition of republican was different back then.

Steve of phpBB · Post by **Steve of phpBB** » Wed Apr 06, 2016 11:33 am

sancarlos wrote:
DaveInSeattle wrote:
Brontoburglar wrote:when did "being a libertarian" start getting conflated with "being a moderate?"
I always thought that Libertarian meant you were either a conservative who didn't want to get labelled as "Republican" or a conservative who wanted to smoke pot.
My college roommate said it was a republican who didn't hate minorities or gays and didn't go to church. But the definition of republican was different back then.

For most people, it seems libertarian means you want to have a "principle" to rely on when arguing that the government should not do anything to help minorities or poor people, limit pollution, or reign in excess corporate power.

mister d · Post by **mister d** » Wed Apr 06, 2016 11:39 am

Every libertarian I know is the exact same person with a variable of (a) economically comfortable because of their families or (b) 1st generation economically comfortable espousing policies that, applied 25 years ago, would preclude their current comfort.

tennbengal · Post by **tennbengal** » Wed Apr 06, 2016 1:08 pm

Sigh. Six more months of Cruz's mug on the tv. Awesome. And maybe four years after that. Fuck the Republicans for this shit show.

The Sybian · Post by **The Sybian** » Wed Apr 06, 2016 3:19 pm

I didn't pay attention to the Wisconsin primaries, but I saw a map that looked like Sanders won all but one county, yet won only 47 delegates to Hilary's 36. Were the delegates split by statewide popular vote? Split by percentage in each county? There were a very small number of Super Delegates, who all pledged to Hilary.

Steve of phpBB · Post by **Steve of phpBB** » Wed Apr 06, 2016 4:37 pm

The Sybian wrote:I didn't pay attention to the Wisconsin primaries, but I saw a map that looked like Sanders won all but one county, yet won only 47 delegates to Hilary's 36. Were the delegates split by statewide popular vote? Split by percentage in each county? There were a very small number of Super Delegates, who all pledged to Hilary.

I think they were split by Congressional district, 6 per district. So the only way to get 4 in a district is to get 60 percent or so.

In the Republican primaries, winners get rewarded. In the Democratic primaries, everyone gets a participation medal.

sancarlos · Post by **sancarlos** » Wed Apr 06, 2016 7:23 pm

I think Howard and I both perceive ourselves to be a certain kind of libertarian. You guys are being mean to us and I might cry just a little bit.

howard · Post by **howard** » Wed Apr 06, 2016 7:59 pm

Yep. sniff.

eta: fuck those guys, sancarlos. Here's an old picture for your collection:

Johnny Carwash · Post by **Johnny Carwash** » Wed Apr 06, 2016 8:20 pm

As someone who went through a libertarian phase (and still am a little bit), I'd broadly categorize people who identify as "libertarian" into the following categories:

1) Awful, sociopathic Ayn Rand-ian true believers. If they get "lucky" they end up as Martin Shkreli, but more likely just shout their opinions into a headset during downtimes between World of Warcraft raids.

2) Garden-variety reactionaries who call themselves "libertarian" without understanding what it means. Usually they hear the term from their talk-radio blowhard of choice and repeat it to feel smart. These are the people who say they are against "big government" and for "liberty" but want to triple the size of the military and make it illegal to be gay.

3) Well-meaning but intensely naive people who think things would "just work out" across the board if we reverted to pre-industrial, Adam Smith-era forms of government.

4) People who like to identify as libertarians because it makes them feel like they are an "independent thinker" and "above the fray" of regular partisan politics, but would probably back away from pure libertarian views if you forced them into an honest assessment of real issues.

I'd say I used to be somewhere between 3 and 4.

howard · Post by **howard** » Wed Apr 06, 2016 8:29 pm

It's starting to get fun here.

Johnnie · Post by **Johnnie** » Wed Apr 06, 2016 8:43 pm

My libertarian friends (like Jarvis who has been radio silent ever since he retrained into being a paralegal) are basically Republican fanboys with an edge to them where they are never wrong and everything they say is completely right 100% of the time.

I'm more open to two way communication and compromising to an agreeable solution. I also think religion is evil, guns are cool, and drugs aren't bad. I don't care about who you are attracted to and what bathroom you want to use. But I'm not so socially retarded to think that any "movement" (feminism, black lives matter...etc) can't go over the edge in its own right.

I have no idea what I can be labeled politically. Centrist? Moderate? Green Party?