THE 2016 US PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Every time Sanders is mentioned in the press without being referred to as "the one bright, shining hope of our nation" it's proof that the media is in Clinton's pocket.

So true. The fact that "the media" totally looked the other way on the whole "Benghazi" and/or "email" scandal and the fact that everyone knows that she's untrustworthy about some really important thing, however I can't think of what it is off the top of my head, is further proof.


Again, not saying Bernie's not Jesus, but wondering what his followers think he can accomplish in the face of an entrenched Republican congress and corporate controlled Hillarybot Democrat Party?

I agree that Bernieism is the way and the future, but who are the downticket candidates to back him up? AFAICT, they don't exist in 2016.

Even BARACK OBAMA HIMSELF admits that incrementalism is the path to real permanent change. Ill put a WP642020 bumper sticker on my car tomorrow. I'll even put up a hundred bucks to print them up, but you mfers better be serious.

You guys are talking about the lamestream media, right?

Like I said before, I don't think that BERNIE SANDERS SHOULD NOT or could not possibly BE ELECTED PRESIDENT and I'm not sure what a Bernie coalition would look like, since I'm not convinced such a thing exists, BUT

I am also curious about the Donald Trump cabinet: Adam Carolla for VP? Hulk Hogan for Secretary of State? Bret Michaels for something else? Seriously. He doesn't just go with the good old reliable Bush people. He's got to make America Great Again, so who does he put where?

Pretty sure Rodman will be heavily involved in one capacity or another.

Ted Falconi wrote:
I agree that Bernieism is the way and the future, but who are the downticket candidates to back him up? AFAICT, they don't exist in 2016.

Even BARACK OBAMA HIMSELF admits that incrementalism is the path to real permanent change. Ill put a WP642020 bumper sticker on my car tomorrow. I'll even put up a hundred bucks to print them up, but you mfers better be serious.

This is the biggest thing to me. The chorus of "I'm tired of voting for the lesser of two evils" only shows up during any given election cycle, and it's like dude, you're not gonna change anything by voting for Waka Flocka Flame. You wanna change something, start working on 2020, hell even 2024, starting now. And fuck a president, get people in congress, get people in state legislature, get people in local government. That's gonna be your real change, if you actually want it.

I may have just plugged into my brain here midrant, sorry.

Nah, you're fine and otfm.

Duff... wrote:

Ted Falconi wrote:
I agree that Bernieism is the way and the future, but who are the downticket candidates to back him up?  AFAICT, they don't exist in 2016.

Even BARACK OBAMA HIMSELF admits that incrementalism is the path to real permanent change.  Ill put a WP642020 bumper sticker on my car tomorrow.  I'll even put up a hundred bucks to print them up, but you mfers better be serious.

This is the biggest thing to me. The chorus of "I'm tired of voting for the lesser of two evils" only shows up during any given election cycle, and it's like dude, you're not gonna change anything by voting for Waka Flocka Flame. You wanna change something, start working on 2020, hell even 2024, starting now. And fuck a president, get people in congress, get people in state legislature, get people in local government. That's gonna be your real change, if you actually want it.

I may have just plugged into my brain here midrant, sorry.

These tortured thought exercises about "who is in the coalition?" and "how are they going to navigate the political machinery to get things done?" always feel strange to me when you could be saying "I'm going to vote for the person who I agree with more". Bernie may be continually described as a "radical" or "political outsider", but he is a long-serving US Senator. The Waka Flocka comparison is really disingenuous.

It's not that there aren't legitimate questions about process or temperament or management style, but it's incredibly difficult to know how someone might act in the role of the presidency without actually being there. It is a transformative amount of power. Especially with two candidates who have limited executive experience. Hillary was Secretary of State, which is somewhat close to an executive position (though perhaps not as close as she would like to you believe). Bernie was Mayor of Burlington, but that's a small city and it was a long time ago.

Hillary and Barack's brand of technocratic incrementalism is, I think, quite effective. I greatly respect it and always encourage people to celebrate incremental progress rather than complain about the stuff that didn't get done. I think Obama has been sneakily effective (at least, sneakily given the mainstream media narrative). But I also think, if you are someone who leans pretty far to the left, that now might be a great time to take that tiny intellectual leap and say "I think this guy with the cooky hair can do it. He represents my values and I hope he can bring those values to the national and world stage". The other stuff can figure itself out. I believe I can trust Bernie to pick just as good of people for his administration as Hillary can.

C-poots wrote:They both often speak like revolutionaries but disregard (somewhat) the political processes needed to enact most of what is proposed.

Where have you seen Hillary do a process deep dive during this campaign? Or are you just assuming she would be better on that issue because of her brand? I'm genuinely curious.

Sorry, I hate tech/consulting speak like Deep Dive and I couldn't continue until I typed that complaint out...nothing personal just had to say it.

As I mentioned before I don't actually know her stance or what she plans to try to get passed -- I am totally ignorant beyond hearsay. I was really basing my assumption on the media-and-social representation of her being a more centrist democrat which would allow her to more easily find that middle ground that gets bills (of debatable value) passed, or make conservative compromises in order to get her shit done.

That said, if you have any good reading about her stance I'd love to have it fed directly to me otherwise I probably wont look. I likely won't vote anyway.

jasperness wrote:it's incredibly difficult to know how someone might act in the role of the presidency without actually being there. It is a transformative amount of power. Especially with two candidates who have limited executive experience. Hillary was Secretary of State, which is somewhat close to an executive position.

Being First Lady for 8 years doesn't count as being close to executive power?

jasperness wrote:

Duff... wrote:

Ted Falconi wrote:
I agree that Bernieism is the way and the future, but who are the downticket candidates to back him up?  AFAICT, they don't exist in 2016.

Even BARACK OBAMA HIMSELF admits that incrementalism is the path to real permanent change.  Ill put a WP642020 bumper sticker on my car tomorrow.  I'll even put up a hundred bucks to print them up, but you mfers better be serious.

This is the biggest thing to me. The chorus of "I'm tired of voting for the lesser of two evils" only shows up during any given election cycle, and it's like dude, you're not gonna change anything by voting for Waka Flocka Flame. You wanna change something, start working on 2020, hell even 2024, starting now. And fuck a president, get people in congress, get people in state legislature, get people in local government. That's gonna be your real change, if you actually want it.

I may have just plugged into my brain here midrant, sorry.

These tortured thought exercises about "who is in the coalition?" and "how are they going to navigate the political machinery to get things done?" always feel strange to me when you could be saying "I'm going to vote for the person who I agree with more".

Well, yeah, and you could be saying "Who's name has the fewest syllables?" You want to vote for someone you agree with, but how candidates plan to accomplish the things they promise should very much be part of the calculus.

But mostly what I'm ranting about when it comes to the Sanders voter (and plenty of others, sure) is just letting it ride on this one guy. On one hand it's this idea that if we just get this guy in office, everything's gonna be smooth sailing; ie the election itself is the goal. And on the other hand it's about hanging all hopes on one candidate, for one office, when it's an entire system that needs to changed with new voices. Bitching about Hilary and voting third party (I guess I could have said Nader or Stein instead of Waka) and then going back to sleep until the next presidential election cycle.

My thoughts are scattered on this matter and I'm a bit distracted right now so corralling them at the moment isn't easy. I can clarify later if need be.

C-poots wrote: I likely won't vote anyway.

Goddammit C-poots.

Imagining my Presidential campaign is very funny.

I agree with you, Duff, but I also don't think anyone could possibly disagree with it. I just think that is a different conversation then voting for Bernie Sanders to be my next Commander-in-Chief. You're right that the election shouldn't be the goal and that new voices need to appear. That doesn't necessarily imply that change needs to be incremental (although I guess it probably almost always is).

Once again, what I appreciate about Bernie Sanders is that it raises the level of political discourse, opens up the average voter to potentially new and exciting possibilities, and hopefully he can be the catalyst for a new generation of socialist thinkers and activists to raise their voices and hopefully find themselves in positions of real power. I know that is hard to think about when all you see on the Internet is terrible op-eds and stupid memes about how Bernie packs a fat blunt or whatever.

This is an interesting conversation though and one that I hope a lot of other people are having.

reuben wrote:

jasperness wrote:it's incredibly difficult to know how someone might act in the role of the presidency without actually being there. It is a transformative amount of power. Especially with two candidates who have limited executive experience. Hillary was Secretary of State, which is somewhat close to an executive position.

Being First Lady for 8 years doesn't count as being close to executive power?

Up to everyone to decide for themselves, I guess. Sure she was proximally close, as close as you can be. But she was not the chief executive herself. Does being the President's Chief of Staff count? Does being the Press Secretary count? I think there's something different between understanding how an executive office works and having actual experience leading and setting the operational agenda for an entire company (like the federal government).

Personally, executive experience wouldn't be one of my top concerns anyway

Duff... wrote:But mostly what I'm ranting about when it comes to the Sanders voter (and plenty of others, sure) is just letting it ride on this one guy. On one hand it's this idea that if we just get this guy in office, everything's gonna be smooth sailing; ie the election itself is the goal. And on the other hand it's about hanging all hopes on one candidate, for one office, when it's an entire system that needs to changed with new voices. Bitching about Hilary and voting third party (I guess I could have said Nader or Stein instead of Waka) and then going back to sleep until the next presidential election cycle.

My thoughts are scattered on this matter and I'm a bit distracted right now so corralling them at the moment isn't easy. I can clarify later if need be.

The cult of personality stuff is definitely annoying. It's not realistic to think one charismatic person is a wholly transformative figure. But that stuff gets people excited and to the polls, so there's a bit of playing that up during the campaign. It's not my favorite part of Bernie's campaign. I think it also contributes to (a minority of voices) who like to demonize Hillary.

I'll be excited to enthusiastically vote for Hillary in November if that's what ends up happening.

Ҩ wrote:Once again, what I appreciate about Bernie Sanders is that it raises the level of political discourse, opens up the average voter to potentially new and exciting possibilities, and hopefully he can be the catalyst for a new generation of socialist thinkers and activists to raise their voices and hopefully find themselves in positions of real power.

I appreciate that Hillary's experience and financial power kept other prominent Democrats out of the race so we could actually have this clear contrast with Sanders. If there were your typical Biden/Kerry middle-of-the-road dudes also in the race then we wouldn't be having as interesting discussions.

Ҩ wrote:
Once again, what I appreciate about Bernie Sanders is that it raises the level of political discourse, opens up the average voter to potentially new and exciting possibilities, and hopefully he can be the catalyst for a new generation of socialist thinkers and activists to raise their voices and hopefully find themselves in positions of real power.

I agree. I don't mean to criticize Sanders himself, and at the very least, he's pulling Clinton left.

Ҩ wrote:Once again, what I appreciate about Bernie Sanders is that it raises the level of political discourse

Is this really happening, though, irl/at large? I, too, am enjoying the conversation(s) in this thread and on this board, but I feel like the lunatics still dominate pretty much any and all discourse to which I'm exposed. (Outside of my friends who poo themselves. For the record, Dan is pro-Hillary and T is quite taken with El Bern; so are the people whose resting states include clean drawers.) I hope you're right, though! Not trying to disagree. Genuinely wondering. And pessimistic, yes.

I just think it's probably normal to be politically pessimistic. That pessimism just needs to be properly historicized so that it isn't assumed to be the natural state of affairs. The problem with the Obama presidency (although I'm gonna probably miss it) is that the campaign was a cultural moment that quickly became disappointing. So it's a totally valid question to suggest that Bernie would be the same thing (although I don't think you should vote with that in mind).

Perhaps this is a reflection of my age and immaturity but I just want a progressive candidate who is constantly on the attack. All these liberals, including Obama, bemoan partisanship as if there was something that must be done about it. I disagree. The Republican party and their values are disgusting. I want their voices to be marginalized as much as possible politically and culturally.

Ҩ wrote: The Republican party and their values are disgusting. I want their voices to be marginalized as much as possible politically and culturally.

Well, you're living through an unfortunate time in history my man because once Trump wins the nomination that shit is going to be louder than ever.

Maybe I'm off base here, but I feel like your average Joe on the street will be more inclined to show up to the ballot booth in order to "keep Hillary out" than if Bernie is the nominee.
Perhaps this is just due to my own status as a military service member and less importantly as a guy who was raised on and has an understanding for right wing savagery. The emails/classified documents stuff is something that even I, as a person who by and large supports Clinton's politics, take a bit of an offense to. These, "anybody else would be in Levenworth" posts you see from you republican cousin are actually not too far off base. At a minimum, if I'd have been caught doing stuff like that, I'd have lost my job (hey! That happened to me anyway, and for no damn reason!), gotten dishonorably discharged (this didn't), and been sent packing with no severance. It annoys me that once you've entered that bulletproof power zone, you seem to be immune to consequences. Is this enough to make me want to vote for Trump or Cruz or some asshole? Fuck no. Jesus no. But a lot of deluded average dudes who are still on the fence or who still link republicanism to "the party that thinks you should work hard and be rewarded, and/or the party that supports the 'heroes'" will be preconditioned to hate Clinton. Also, misogynists! I'd bet plenty of average voters in the US would show up just to keep an old lady out of the Oval Office. I wonder if this crowd would be counterbalanced by the "electing a woman would be commendable progressive politics, even if the candidate herself wasn't hugely progressive (the albrecht group?)" crowd.
On the other hand, why should republicans unite against Sanders? Because "socialism." Honestly, this ain't the 50s and I feel like nobody gives a shit anymore? Perhaps I'm wrong, but I think "she's a criminal and a liberal" beats "he's a communist and a liberal" when it comes to rallying the opposition.

Will vote for either nominee, of course.

Not a bad analysis but let's not forget that Obama passed a health care law based on the ideas of Newt Gingrich and the Heritage Foundation and was forever branded a socialist. It does matter and I think the republicans can't wait to go on attack should Sanders win the nomination. Clinton also motivates voters of color in ways Sanders hasn't figured out yet, and with white folks lining up to vote red, that's an important consideration.

Duff... wrote:Clinton also motivates voters of color in ways Sanders hasn't figured out yet, and with white folks lining up to vote red, that's an important consideration.

A good point. I guess it's likely a product of my own social media echo chamber, but I continually forget this and misinterpret it as the opposite.

One thing is certain: Trump has zero chill.




*Sorry. last few pages were pretty heavy.

Given how bizarre this election already has become I wouldn't be surprised if Weird Twitter actually gets Ted Cruz to deny he's the Zodiac Killer. Just imagine that sound clip.

Ҩ wrote:The Republican party and their values are disgusting. I want their voices to be marginalized as much as possible politically and culturally.

Wrestling Pun outs himself with the kind of left-wing savagery that I always assumed only existed as a boogeyman in Limbaugh fever dreams
:drudge sirens:

Politics is about exercising power. Just so we are all clear.

Ҩ wrote:Politics is about exercising power. Just so we are all clear.

Can we use a sarcasm meter? I'm not sure how seriously I'm supposed to take quotes like these.