American Politics

[shionoro]

Just make your own conclusions after watching this. She's really no different from Trump; she'll say whatever she needs to in order to hold public office. The only difference is what Trump said in the primary is a bit more distasteful because he was appealing to a republican base. It only sounds "uglier".

Not even mentioning the Clinton Foundation...

--- Double Post Merged, May 25, 2016, Original Post Date: May 25, 2016 ---

Because of how the convention system works, especially for Democrats. I'm not a fan of the Electoral College for the general election either, but it's miles ahead as far DEMOCRACY goes.

But is she really? If clinton had said a lot of the things sanders said, she would have looked even better.
She could have told people about diminishing the power of wallstreet (obama did that, afaik, in his primary time) and then (like obama) not follow up.

That would certainly have looked nice.

The things she said so far were all at least real political statements, while trump said things which can never be true (sanders did that, too).

 

[xi0]

But is she really? If clinton had said a lot of the things sanders said, she would have looked even better.
She could have told people about diminishing the power of wallstreet (obama did that, afaik, in his primary time) and then (like obama) not follow up.

That would certainly have looked nice.

The things she said so far were all at least real political statements, while trump said things which can never be true (sanders did that, too).

I'm not exactly sure what you're getting at here. I think Sanders says what he says because he has more of an obvious, revolutionary attitude. It's clear the establishment within the party wants nothing to do with him and never wanted anything to do with anyone other than Clinton from the beginning. That being said, Clinton did her best to align herself with things Sander's brought up during the campaign, which is just nonsense given her track record. Obama has nothing to do with this now honestly, he's a lame duck.

Trump's campaign is barely about real issues and solutions, I was never saying anything to the contrary. Only that Clinton and Trump are both liars and consistently contradict themselves in and effort to dupe the voting public into supporting them.

I'm just saying that this video is only a snippet that shows that she's a liar and phony...or at least has a real issue coming off as genuine. I don't think she's a good choice to be president, and saying "rather her than Trump" is hardly an endorsement. So from where I stand, fuck her and the DNC.

 

[shionoro]

I'm not exactly sure what you're getting at here. I think Sanders says what he says because he has more of an obvious, revolutionary attitude. It's clear the establishment within the party wants nothing to do with him and never wanted anything to do with anyone other than Clinton from the beginning. That being said, Clinton did her best to align herself with things Sander's brought up during the campaign, which is just nonsense given her track record. Obama has nothing to do with this now honestly, he's a lame duck.

Trump's campaign is barely about real issues and solutions, I was never saying anything to the contrary. Only that Clinton and Trump are both liars and consistently contradict themselves in and effort to dupe the voting public into supporting them.

I'm just saying that this video is only a snippet that shows that she's a liar and phony...or at least has a real issue coming off as genuine. I don't think she's a good choice to be president, and saying "rather her than Trump" is hardly an endorsement. So from where I stand, fuck her and the DNC.

What i am saying is that noone accuses obama of being 'shady' or dishonest just because he didnt close guantanamo, didnt really go after the 'fat cats' and kept on the war on terror (after finally withdrawing from afghanistan and iraq much alter than he said).

Things dont always go as planned and sometimes you have to say things of which you are not sure whether you can get them done, just to be elected.

Clinton knows that. She doesnt ponder any extreme ridicoulus statements which are out of reality, like trump does.
Putting them on equal ground is wrong in my opinion.

Also: Isnt it even better to elect someone as politician who keeps tabs on trends in popular opinion and changes 'views' accordignly?

 

[z.5]

Also: Isnt it even better to elect someone as politician who keeps tabs on trends in popular opinion and changes 'views' accordignly?

No - I don't believe so.

It is better to elect a politician whose views you believe in - rather than a politician who will change their views as fast as a chameleon changes its colours.
I like to know where my politicians stand on issues and not have to guess where they will stand on issues in the future...

I mean, a politician who is willing to change their views so quickly hardly appears to have much invested in those views which they suggest they hold.

Who is more likely to fight for their beliefs - someone whose beliefs are fluid, or someone whose views are firmly rooted?

 

[xi0]

It's not necessarily a changing of views that bothers me. For instance, the marriage equality stuff is whatever to me. The bigger issue is examples later in the video that shows just outright dishonesty, especially when it comes to Wall Street reform.

 

[SharkBait]

Aren't most republicans either filthy rich/well off or religious people? So I doubt you'll be converting any of them any time soon. You're more likely to convert a democrat to republican than vice versa but... agreed

Last I checked many republican leaning states arent that religious or anything close to filthy rich, actually to win majorities, its impissible for most republican voters to be filthy rich. Also Clinton has some pretty rich voters based on repeated exit polls. Trump loyalists dont look religious or even rich/well off.

 

[Dragoon]

Last I checked many republican leaning states arent that religious or anything close to filthy rich, actually to win majorities, its impissible for most republican voters to be filthy rich. Also Clinton has some pretty rich voters based on repeated exit polls. Trump loyalists dont look religious or even rich/well off.

True... usually those are the Republicans that stick out the most tho imo

--- Double Post Merged, May 26, 2016, Original Post Date: May 26, 2016 ---

I call bullshit on the religious thing tho.

 

[Philia]

Sanders to debate Trump.
I wonder what's the point in it.

 

[GrySun]

Except the same polls show Trump losing to Sanders. Whatever terms you want to scare ole ma and pa with don't matter, the fact is what he's saying resonates with a ton of voters, especially the disenfranchised. If the Trump campaign's only ammunition is "muh capitalism", it'll get old quick. Compare that to all of the baggage Clinton has - it's nothing really.

Yeah, and how's Kasich doing in the polls vs Sanders? Some poll matchups are quite useless. And I still highly question all the polls, even those where Trump is winning. Because it's really hard to imagine Sanders/Clinton/Trump as a rock/paper/scissors, everyone doing better against another. Doesn't make much sense.

Sanders resonates mostly with young and rather naive people(and many students that want their debts gone). Let's not kid ourselves, socialism is poison. Most people(especially the older ones) are highly repelled just by the sound of socialism(rightfully so), which is probably why Clinton is so heavily beating Sanders. It doesn't matter if it's "democratic socialism" and if it's pulled off perfectly, old ma and pa are disgusted by the thought.
I'm pretty sure someone could do a lot more with Sanders, perhaps his rather meaningless time as a senator without getting much done. But the "muh capitalism" ammo should suffice against Sanders in a general.

Either way we can mostly speculate since we'll never know for sure. Besides there's more interesting things yet to happen on the road to november.

Sanders to debate Trump.
I wonder what's the point in it.

Was gonna mention this one too. Oh Phila, there's potentially a huge meaning in this debate. It all depends on what Sanders and Trump agreed on when planning the debate. Which is by the way the first time ever for a republican and democrat candidate to debate each other in the primaries.
My guess is that they'll probably not trashtalk each other but have a peaceful and healthy debate and highlight their similarities with an intent to both walk away with higher favorability, as well as make Clinton look bad(since she refused debates with Sanders despite promising to do so earlier) and perhaps even trashtalk Clinton. Ol Bernie could be giving away Trump the nomination right there, in a rather desperate attempt to still get the democrat nomination.

And even if I'm wrong and this debate ends up being pointless, they still raised money for a charity during this event and it'll make them and many people feel happy and fuzzy inside. In that case it's still a slight victory for both of them.

Although I don't think I'm wrong. Trump would never agree to debate Sanders if they'd both yell at each other during the event. Trump needs many democrat votes in the general and Sanders' supporters is his best source of those votes. By having them both hate each other during the debate Trump would just shoot himself in the foot.
Meanwhile Sanders needs to debate Clinton more and try everything he can to still get the nomination, yet she refuses to debate him or give Sanders any more time than necessary in order to secure her nomination(btw it's a good thing he's not giving up since countless people donated to Sanders in hopes for him to represent them and carry on their ideals). So he would agree to debate Trump instead and agree to Trump's terms.
I'm looking forward to the live stream. It should happen within the next ~7 days iirc.

--- Double Post Merged, May 26, 2016, Original Post Date: May 26, 2016 ---

Relevant video:

 

[M3J]

I'm not exactly sure what you're getting at here. I think Sanders says what he says because he has more of an obvious, revolutionary attitude. It's clear the establishment within the party wants nothing to do with him and never wanted anything to do with anyone other than Clinton from the beginning. That being said, Clinton did her best to align herself with things Sander's brought up during the campaign, which is just nonsense given her track record. Obama has nothing to do with this now honestly, he's a lame duck.

Trump's campaign is barely about real issues and solutions, I was never saying anything to the contrary. Only that Clinton and Trump are both liars and consistently contradict themselves in and effort to dupe the voting public into supporting them.

I'm just saying that this video is only a snippet that shows that she's a liar and phony...or at least has a real issue coming off as genuine. I don't think she's a good choice to be president, and saying "rather her than Trump" is hardly an endorsement. So from where I stand, fuck her and the DNC.

Didn't Hillary start bringing up things Bernie brought up and going from staying away from Obama to defending him when Bernie was becoming a threat?

Also: Isnt it even better to elect someone as politician who keeps tabs on trends in popular opinion and changes 'views' accordignly?

How is that better? If a politician can't stick to one thought or opinion or changes his/her mind all the time, how can you trust them? Keeping trends of popular opinions is okay, but changing opinions based on popularity is not.

If a politician can't stick to one opinion or sways easily, he/she would be a horrible choice to be any type of leader. Plus, it'll just make people believe said politician won't uphold promises.

Sanders resonates mostly with young and rather naive people(and many students that want their debts gone). Let's not kid ourselves, socialism is poison. Most people(especially the older ones) are highly repelled just by the sound of socialism(rightfully so), which is probably why Clinton is so heavily beating Sanders. It doesn't matter if it's "democratic socialism" and if it's pulled off perfectly, old ma and pa are disgusted by the thought.
I'm pretty sure someone could do a lot more with Sanders, perhaps his rather meaningless time as a senator without getting much done. But the "muh capitalism" ammo should suffice against Sanders in a general.

You out of touch? Most people I know who are pro Bernie are so because he believes in equality and cares about people. There's really not much naivety there, not when you compare it to people who believe Trump can actually erect a wall or ban Muslims who aren't his rich friends from entering the country. If Bernie didn't give a shit about people and equality, he wouldn't be this popular no matter how much he talked about debts.

 

[Philia]

Was gonna mention this one too. Oh Phila, there's potentially a huge meaning in this debate. It all depends on what Sanders and Trump agreed on when planning the debate. Which is by the way the first time ever for a republican and democrat candidate to debate each other in the primaries.
My guess is that they'll probably not trashtalk each other but have a peaceful and healthy debate and highlight their similarities with an intent to both walk away with higher favorability, as well as make Clinton look bad(since she refused debates with Sanders despite promising to do so earlier) and perhaps even trashtalk Clinton. Ol Bernie could be giving away Trump the nomination right there, in a rather desperate attempt to still get the democrat nomination.

And even if I'm wrong and this debate ends up being pointless, they still raised money for a charity during this event and it'll make them and many people feel happy and fuzzy inside. In that case it's still a slight victory for both of them.

Although I don't think I'm wrong. Trump would never agree to debate Sanders if they'd both yell at each other during the event. Trump needs many democrat votes in the general and Sanders' supporters is his best source of those votes. By having them both hate each other during the debate Trump would just shoot himself in the foot.
Meanwhile Sanders needs to debate Clinton more and try everything he can to still get the nomination, yet she refuses to debate him or give Sanders any more time than necessary in order to secure her nomination(btw it's a good thing he's not giving up since countless people donated to Sanders in hopes for him to represent them and carry on their ideals). So he would agree to debate Trump instead and agree to Trump's terms.

Trash-talking Clinton won't get Sanders anywhere. If anything it will distant him from the Democratic party even more. Sanders needs to destroy Trump in the debate to gain any momentum in the Democratic Party.

 

[xi0]

>says repeatedly how he can't wait to run against Clinton
>offers to debate her opponent in an unprecedented event
>risks the chance not facing Clinton in the general election by doing so
>...
>people still taking this clown seriously and supporting him when he's clearly just a giant attention whore
>oh wait, he just clinched the nomination
>

 

[M3J]

Trash-talking Clinton won't get Sanders anywhere. If anything it will distant him from the Democratic party even more. Sanders needs to destroy Trump in the debate to gain any momentum in the Democratic Party.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/27/politics/trump-says-he-will-not-debate-sanders/

Trump is a coward, he knows he'd get owned by Bernie in a debate. Seems there won't be any debate between the two.

 

[Philia]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/27/politics/trump-says-he-will-not-debate-sanders/

Trump is a coward, he knows he'd get owned by Bernie in a debate. Seems there won't be any debate between the two.

Wasn't the debate Trump's idea?
This man is one hell of a troll. It'll be amazing to see him as the President of US

Apparently, according to recent polls Sanders is closing in on Clinton in California. The old socialist may still have some fight left in him. Clinton's rating going down every week. Don't think she stands much of a chance against the troll lord. Dunno why Democratic party is still backing her. When polls suggest that Sanders beats Trump by huge margin.

 

[shionoro]

Wasn't the debate Trump's idea?
This man is one hell of a troll. It'll be amazing to see him as the President of US

Apparently, according to recent polls Sanders is closing in on Clinton in California. The old socialist may still have some fight left in him. Clinton's rating going down every week. Don't think she stands much of a chance against the troll lord. Dunno why Democratic party is still backing her. When polls suggest that Sanders beats Trump by huge margin.

That is the question for the democratic superdelegates.
However, as far as i know, clinton is a democrat since forever and did her fair share of footsoldierwork for the party, from bottom to the very up of it, while sanders ran as independend.
Thus, democrats give her a huge loyality bonus.

 

[kkck]

Wasn't the debate Trump's idea?
This man is one hell of a troll. It'll be amazing to see him as the President of US

Apparently, according to recent polls Sanders is closing in on Clinton in California. The old socialist may still have some fight left in him. Clinton's rating going down every week. Don't think she stands much of a chance against the troll lord. Dunno why Democratic party is still backing her. When polls suggest that Sanders beats Trump by huge margin.

Well, as far as the primaries go clinton is beating sanders on every account. She has more delegates than him and for the most part has more overall votes than him. Even politifacts made the point that clinton was leading by at least that much. As of now clinton does not even need the superdelegates to win.... Realistically speaking the only way to take the nomination from her, short of a miracle allowing sanders to get enough of the remaining delegates to win, would be for the superdelegates to turn on clinton. But at least from what I can tell the whole superdelegate thing is one of the aspects of the primaries which sanders have been critical off and whatnot... If clinton is winning the nomination in terms of votes, delegates and superdelegates, then wouldn't sanders winning by stealing the super delegates be incredibly hypocritical?

 

[Philia]

Well, as far as the primaries go clinton is beating sanders on every account. She has more delegates than him and for the most part has more overall votes than him. Even politifacts made the point that clinton was leading by at least that much. As of now clinton does not even need the superdelegates to win.... Realistically speaking the only way to take the nomination from her, short of a miracle allowing sanders to get enough of the remaining delegates to win, would be for the superdelegates to turn on clinton. But at least from what I can tell the whole superdelegate thing is one of the aspects of the primaries which sanders have been critical off and whatnot... If clinton is winning the nomination in terms of votes, delegates and superdelegates, then wouldn't sanders winning by stealing the super delegates be incredibly hypocritical?

Clinton had super delegates pledged to him even before the primaries began. Clinton was a media darling from the beginning. And the party has been backing her all along. These things give Clinton a huge edge over her rivals. And yet she hasn't yet managed to grab the nomination yet.
Sanders has decent chances to win the remaining primaries excluding New Jersey. And if he does, he may overtake Clinton in delegate count. Super delegates haven't voted yet. Also polls show Sanders doing better against Trump while Clinton's numbers going down every week. So if Sanders overtake Clinton in delegate count he'll have a good shout in the convention.
But I doubt the democratic party would nominate Sanders even if it's the case. They seem to prefer Clinton even if she loses.

 

[kkck]

Clinton had super delegates pledged to him even before the primaries began. Clinton was a media darling from the beginning. And the party has been backing her all along. These things give Clinton a huge edge over her rivals. And yet she hasn't yet managed to grab the nomination yet.
Sanders has decent chances to win the remaining primaries excluding New Jersey. And if he does, he may overtake Clinton in delegate count. Super delegates haven't voted yet. Also polls show Sanders doing better against Trump while Clinton's numbers going down every week. So if Sanders overtake Clinton in delegate count he'll have a good shout in the convention.
But I doubt the democratic party would nominate Sanders even if it's the case. They seem to prefer Clinton even if she loses.

Well, but it's not like having the party's support is wrong... And sanders catching up to clinton even without superdelegates seems extremely unlikely at best. Sanders has beaten hillary in several states recently but overall he has done so by relatively small margins or in states without that many delegates. As things stand clinton has 1769 delegates and sanders 1499. A 270 delegate difference. There are 913 delegates left and 7 states left. Out of those california and new jersey make up 65% of the remaining delegates. And so far clinton is polling to beat sanders in both... It is possible for sanders to catch up but only "technically". In the sense that if a miracle happens and sanders wins by a landslide it can happen. However that is an extremely unlikely scenario, barely short of impossible. Sanders is staying in the race solely to make a point, whatever it may be (I can't fathom him being deluded enough to actually think he can win, he must be aware his actual chances are optimistically just short of zero).

 

[Philia]

Polls can be confusing. I don't think Clinton won any state where polls show that she was training(Have been following the election for the last few months). However Clinton was leading in Oregon significantly and Kentucky(by double digits) polls. But Sanders won Oregon comfortably and Kentucky was pretty much a tie.

Sanders catching up is unlikely.That's for sure. But what if he wins 5/6 of the last 7 primaries? He may not win this many states. And even if he wins he might not surpass Clinton. But Sanders is campaigning hard. And if everything goes his way then he might narrowly edge Clinton. Sanders major problem probably is New Jersey. I think it is a winner take all state. He is trailing largely. He needs to campaign hard here.
Overall I'd say Sanders has around 10% chances to clinch the nomination.

 

[kkck]

Polls can be confusing. I don't think Clinton won any state where polls show that she was training(Have been following the election for the last few months). However Clinton was leading in Oregon significantly and Kentucky(by double digits) polls. But Sanders won Oregon comfortably and Kentucky was pretty much a tie.

Sanders catching up is unlikely.That's for sure. But what if he wins 5/6 of the last 7 primaries? He may not win this many states. And even if he wins he might not surpass Clinton. But Sanders is campaigning hard. And if everything goes his way then he might narrowly edge Clinton. Sanders major problem probably is New Jersey. I think it is a winner take all state. He is trailing largely. He needs to campaign hard here.
Overall I'd say Sanders has around 10% chances to clinch the nomination.

10% chance of winning? That is way too optimistic... More like 0.1%.... At least by the information online neither california nor new jersey are winner take all, both are "proportional". And clinton has enough of a lead that even if bernie actually won all the delegates there it wouldn't be enough to catch up even without considering the superdelegates. There are about 900 delegates left and sanders has to make up for a 270 delegate difference. So correct me if I am wrong but for sanders to win he needs to get at least 591 delegates, 65% of the remaining ones, merely to be tied with her. And obviously more than that to actually win. Sanders needs to win at the very least in a way he has never won before. Which is technically possible yet unlikely.