-->
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
April 17, 2021, 11:25:03 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
News: peteramescarlin.com
Home Help Search Calendar Login Register
+  The Smiley Smile Message Board
|-+  Non Smiley Smile Stuff
| |-+  The Sandbox
| | |-+  Campaign 2016
Pages: 1 ... 56 57 58 59 60 [61] 62 63 64 65 66 ... 81   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: Campaign 2016  (Read 313646 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
HeyJude
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 9222



View Profile WWW
« Reply #1500 on: October 20, 2016, 06:59:07 AM »

Here's a funny (certainly a "NSFW" type of thing), and I think fair, look at the third party candidates (mainly Stein and Johnson) from John Oliver from just a few days ago:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3O01EfM5fU

I think he makes some good and important points. Namely, that people should absolutely vote their conscience. But he also digs deeper into the third party candidates' actual substance, and he finds something I agree with, which is that the *lack* of media coverage of these third party candidates actually probably *helps* them.

I feel the same about the third party candidates as I did about Ralph Nader. They seem to be (or profess to be) far more to the left which is absolutely to my liking, Stein and Johnson's substance is pretty minimal once you get past the surface. In the clip above, it shows Stein seemingly afraid to lose any voters, so she tries to *not* disavow things her potential voters bring up like 9/11 "Truther" stuff. Oliver also points out how her main policy pillar of clearing student debt is simply impossible. Meanwhile, Johnson's policies border on insane in a few cases.

Unfortunately, though, John Oliver's presentation of Stein's position on clearing student debt was a distortion and his analysis was completely inaccurate. This video goes through a point-by-point refutation of Oliver's case:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01YN0Unv9aA

I don't quite agree with the rhetoric that the speaker in this video uses and I certainly don't care for the 9/11 talk at the end, but the refutation of Oliver's other points is sound. Partly, Oliver's problem is that he's basing his opinion off of a Rolling Stone article that borrows from Slate's Jordan Weissmann's analysis and Weissmann is essentially a professional spokesman for the Clinton Administration.

Beyond the 9/11 talk and all of that, it's worth noting that while Oliver is allegedly using a source that used another source that comes from a writer (who I don't believe is actually on Clinton's staff), the video you've posted comes directly from a YouTube channel that is not a neutral media outlet, or a news reporting outlet at all, but is a pro-Stein channel. Every video is pro-Stein and anti-everything else.

That "response" video doesn't help Stein's case at all; it makes her look worse.

I think cancelling student debt is a great idea. I just don't sense Stein actually understands what she's claiming she can do. I don't sense she understands what "Quantitative Easing" is. I don't sense she understands what occurred with the bank bailouts several years back. I sense that her plan would absolutely fail for a number of reasons if she attempted it. It's not plausible or believable.

Johnson and Stein both sound to me like the kid in high school who used to run for class president who would promise "less homework" if elected. It's a largely empty promise.

Let me be clear again that I'm probably farther left than even Stein is. But I'm also a pragmatist. The downfall of far-left candidates often comes when they pick one or very few platform issues to talk about *over and over and over and over.* I don't think even people with *severe* student debt think it's the most important issue in the election.
« Last Edit: October 20, 2016, 07:05:10 AM by HeyJude » Logged

THE BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE IS ON FACEBOOK!!! http://www.facebook.com/beachboysopinion - Check out the original "BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE" Blog - http://beachboysopinion.blogspot.com/
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2869


View Profile
« Reply #1501 on: October 20, 2016, 11:00:46 AM »

Beyond the 9/11 talk and all of that, it's worth noting that while Oliver is allegedly using a source that used another source that comes from a writer (who I don't believe is actually on Clinton's staff), the video you've posted comes directly from a YouTube channel that is not a neutral media outlet, or a news reporting outlet at all, but is a pro-Stein channel. Every video is pro-Stein and anti-everything else.

Well, there is no such thing as a neutral media outlet, as far as I know. 90% of the mainstream media in the United States is owned by six corporations. And, as Chomsky points out, the function of the media is essentially to create a product that allows other corporations to sell advertisements. In other words, almost all of the media is made by corporations for corporations, and the content reflects that dynamic. This is not neutral by any means. Given that, it is crucial for there to be outlets like, say, Democracy Now or this pro-Stein channel which reflects interests that are excluded by the corporate controlled media. Now, if we decided to not accept information because it comes from a bias source, then we'd have to conclude that under no circumstances should we ever accept information from anyone. Realistically speaking, though, that's impossible, which is why rather than discounting information that is pro-this or pro-that (which would mean discounting everything), we assess the material as it is and come to our own conclusion. I would be happy to present factual information even if it came from newspapers owned by Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton if it happened to be true. The reason why I critique John Oliver here is because he seems to have taken the word of a hack reporter without actually assessing it and the reason why is because when you assess it, it turns out to be wrong.

Quote
That "response" video doesn't help Stein's case at all; it makes her look worse. I think cancelling student debt is a great idea. I just don't sense Stein actually understands what she's claiming she can do. I don't sense she understands what "Quantitative Easing" is. I don't sense she understands what occurred with the bank bailouts several years back. I sense that her plan would absolutely fail for a number of reasons if she attempted it. It's not plausible or believable.

I'd probably need to see an example from the video that works against Stein. After all, the video demonstrates pretty conclusively, the rhetorical acrobatics that Oliver goes through in order to fabricate the point that Stein doesn't understand what she can do. You did see the part of the video in which the speaker demonstrates how Oliver cherry-picked Stein's statements which, read in their original context, illustrate how Stein's understanding of quantitative easing and how it works at the political level is, in fact, 100% accurate. Of course, Oliver's distortion of Stein's position isn't plausible or believable. It's because it's completely made up and the video proves that.

As far as things go that are actually implausible - theoretically it is implausible for the US government to finance military coups abroad, because it's against it's own laws to do so. And yet, Clinton has done just that in Honduras. One might ask how John Oliver assessed that implausibility.

Now like Chomsky, I also would recommend voting for Clinton in a swing state. At the same time, I am not willing to be so dishonest as to suggest that the reason why voters should do that is because she's a much better candidate than (or even on par with) Jill Stein. John Oliver is, and the video that I linked to bears that out, as far as I'm concerned.
Logged
♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇
The Dr. of Wilsonomics
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 11520


🍦🍦 fear2stop.bandcamp.com ☮☮


View Profile WWW
« Reply #1502 on: October 20, 2016, 11:12:38 AM »

I'm voting for Stein, not Sanders. I'm selling Sanders to my Republican friends who refuse to vote Clinton or Stein yet aren't happy with Trump

Of course you mean Johnson. Anybody but Trump is a good vote!

LOL I'm still bitter over Sanders getting screwed over. Yeah, I meant Johnson!
Logged

“Look, you’ve got it all wrong. You don’t need to follow me. You don’t need to follow anybody. You’ve got to think for yourselves. You’re all individuals.”
Crowd: “Yes, we’re all individuals!”
Individual: “I’m not!”

——————————————————————————
https://soundcloud.app.goo.gl/C6fnbHnbhVmg8Tgj6
♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇
The Dr. of Wilsonomics
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 11520


🍦🍦 fear2stop.bandcamp.com ☮☮


View Profile WWW
« Reply #1503 on: October 20, 2016, 11:19:19 AM »

Quote
I'm disappointed the Democratic party couldn't find someone with less baggage than Clinton.

They did, and he would've made a GREAT president, but you can thank Debbie Wasserman Schultz for THAT mess Roll Eyes
Logged

“Look, you’ve got it all wrong. You don’t need to follow me. You don’t need to follow anybody. You’ve got to think for yourselves. You’re all individuals.”
Crowd: “Yes, we’re all individuals!”
Individual: “I’m not!”

——————————————————————————
https://soundcloud.app.goo.gl/C6fnbHnbhVmg8Tgj6
SMiLE Brian
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 8312



View Profile
« Reply #1504 on: October 20, 2016, 11:27:15 AM »

I want Chocolate shake man to debate Hillary and Trump! (Despite him being from Canada Razz)
Logged

And production aside, I’d so much rather hear a 14 year old David Marks shred some guitar on Chug-a-lug than hear a 51 year old Mike Love sing about bangin some chick in a swimming pool.-rab2591
HeyJude
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 9222



View Profile WWW
« Reply #1505 on: October 20, 2016, 11:48:42 AM »

Quote
I'm disappointed the Democratic party couldn't find someone with less baggage than Clinton.

They did, and he would've made a GREAT president, but you can thank Debbie Wasserman Schultz for THAT mess Roll Eyes

I like Sanders more than Clinton in terms of his core principles and politics, and I loathe most of the people in the Clinton/Democratic Party machine. Shultz I've never been a fan of. Uggh.

In an election where there were two strong, thoughtful, relatively liberal candidates, I'd say put Sanders up there instead of Clinton. But, with the dire situation concerning that *other* guy who, for the first time in my life I'm convinced could blow up the world should he win, I think sadly that the more "electable" choice has to be put up there. Sanders, in my opinion, would be performing as well and would not as easily beat Trump. It's obviously something we'll never know. But I think Clinton wins over more women, more centrists, and more conservatives than Sanders would.

In the future, if we had a sort of "open primary" style situation where many qualified candidates run, and then two liberal people are the final two when it comes down to the final election, I'd be happy to vote for a Sanders, or even a Stein. Not sure about Johnson; he has more serious problems.
Logged

THE BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE IS ON FACEBOOK!!! http://www.facebook.com/beachboysopinion - Check out the original "BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE" Blog - http://beachboysopinion.blogspot.com/
♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇
The Dr. of Wilsonomics
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 11520


🍦🍦 fear2stop.bandcamp.com ☮☮


View Profile WWW
« Reply #1506 on: October 20, 2016, 11:51:19 AM »

I dunno...when Sanders was in there he polled better against Trump than Clinton did.
Logged

“Look, you’ve got it all wrong. You don’t need to follow me. You don’t need to follow anybody. You’ve got to think for yourselves. You’re all individuals.”
Crowd: “Yes, we’re all individuals!”
Individual: “I’m not!”

——————————————————————————
https://soundcloud.app.goo.gl/C6fnbHnbhVmg8Tgj6
HeyJude
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 9222



View Profile WWW
« Reply #1507 on: October 20, 2016, 12:09:32 PM »

Beyond the 9/11 talk and all of that, it's worth noting that while Oliver is allegedly using a source that used another source that comes from a writer (who I don't believe is actually on Clinton's staff), the video you've posted comes directly from a YouTube channel that is not a neutral media outlet, or a news reporting outlet at all, but is a pro-Stein channel. Every video is pro-Stein and anti-everything else.

Well, there is no such thing as a neutral media outlet, as far as I know. 90% of the mainstream media in the United States is owned by six corporations. And, as Chomsky points out, the function of the media is essentially to create a product that allows other corporations to sell advertisements. In other words, almost all of the media is made by corporations for corporations, and the content reflects that dynamic. This is not neutral by any means. Given that, it is crucial for there to be outlets like, say, Democracy Now or this pro-Stein channel which reflects interests that are excluded by the corporate controlled media. Now, if we decided to not accept information because it comes from a bias source, then we'd have to conclude that under no circumstances should we ever accept information from anyone. Realistically speaking, though, that's impossible, which is why rather than discounting information that is pro-this or pro-that (which would mean discounting everything), we assess the material as it is and come to our own conclusion. I would be happy to present factual information even if it came from newspapers owned by Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton if it happened to be true. The reason why I critique John Oliver here is because he seems to have taken the word of a hack reporter without actually assessing it and the reason why is because when you assess it, it turns out to be wrong.

Quote
That "response" video doesn't help Stein's case at all; it makes her look worse. I think cancelling student debt is a great idea. I just don't sense Stein actually understands what she's claiming she can do. I don't sense she understands what "Quantitative Easing" is. I don't sense she understands what occurred with the bank bailouts several years back. I sense that her plan would absolutely fail for a number of reasons if she attempted it. It's not plausible or believable.

I'd probably need to see an example from the video that works against Stein. After all, the video demonstrates pretty conclusively, the rhetorical acrobatics that Oliver goes through in order to fabricate the point that Stein doesn't understand what she can do. You did see the part of the video in which the speaker demonstrates how Oliver cherry-picked Stein's statements which, read in their original context, illustrate how Stein's understanding of quantitative easing and how it works at the political level is, in fact, 100% accurate. Of course, Oliver's distortion of Stein's position isn't plausible or believable. It's because it's completely made up and the video proves that.

As far as things go that are actually implausible - theoretically it is implausible for the US government to finance military coups abroad, because it's against it's own laws to do so. And yet, Clinton has done just that in Honduras. One might ask how John Oliver assessed that implausibility.

Now like Chomsky, I also would recommend voting for Clinton in a swing state. At the same time, I am not willing to be so dishonest as to suggest that the reason why voters should do that is because she's a much better candidate than (or even on par with) Jill Stein. John Oliver is, and the video that I linked to bears that out, as far as I'm concerned.

There certainly isn't such a thing as a truly neutral media outlet. But someone on YouTube with nothing but pro-Stein videos is less likely to offer anything even approaching balance as compared to even a "bleh" mainstream media outlet where at least you might get a mixture of more partisan and less partisan people on-air and behind the scenes.

Now, I should be clear, if someone wants to do a pro-Stein YouTube channel, they should, and they shouldn't have to give equal time to someone else. That's the whole point of doing the channel. But this person on YouTube is really just the Stein campaign version of someone in the spin room.

It's not that I don't accept the info on that Stein channel. I simply weigh it accordingly. There are other still relatively partisan outlets that do still provide some semblance of at least being honest about their candidate.

I don't like most any "political analysts", as their party affiliation will dictate almost everything they say. It's why I shut the news off right after the debates end. Oh, big surprise, Democrats think Hillary won and Republicans think Trump won (though Trump is of course getting a stunning number of even Republicans who are willing to say he's doing poorly).

If Stein were in the debate and a Stein supporter/surrogate was on TV, they'd say Stein won regardless as well. And that's kind of what that YouTube channel is. It imparts some core information that can be chewed on, but it has to be weighed accordingly.

I vote for Hillary, but I have no problem admitting her many faults, her objectively unappealing aspects, and so on.

I remember a book Michael Moore wrote back around ten years ago where he had a chapter that was essentially "stuff liberals need to admit" to further the discussion. It was stuff like "Mumia probably killed that guy", "some unions *are* corrupt", and so on. I don't think, directly in the face of ridiculous Trump-style lies should liberals stand up and point out a bunch of flaws in their own candidate. But if voters for other candidates can admit some flaws, so too should Stein (or Johnson, etc.) supporters, in the right forum.

As for Oliver, I'm not going to defend the guy. He's a comedian talking about politics, literally from the Jon Stewart school. I think he's funny and entertaining and seems smart enough. It doesn't mean I buy every word he says. I do think he downplays Hillary's faults a bit. Though, to be fair, he did an entire segment not too long ago running through all of Hillary's scandals, pointing out when criticisms were/are legit. I think he ultimately came away with essentially a variation of the "but do you want to get kicked in the nuts or have your head chopped off?" argument in comparing Clinton's scandals to Trump's (which I think is an apt assessment).

I also think Oliver did make a key point that the lack of coverage of Johnston and Stein *has* helped them. These reporters pressing Clinton and Trump on specific policy issues would do the same thing to Johnson and Stein, and both Johnson and Stein have often seemed to avoid going into a lot of specifics. Johnson claimed in that one clip that actually delving into the nuts and bolts of his tax plan was "getting into the weeds" too much. Stein said quantitative easing is something we "don't" need to know a lot about, and I disagree. I'm not saying Clinton never squirms out of directly answering stuff. Every politician does that. But to present a main pillar of your campaign and then evade talking much specifics about it *when questioned* is troubling.

And, I agree with what you say concerning voting for Clinton in swing states. I'm not prepared to say Clinton is the best candidate. I think Stein looks good on paper but would probably be less productive in office and would actually get less done concerning liberal causes compared to Hillary Clinton. So I'd probably vote for Clinton (while still holding my nose) even if it were between Stein and Clinton. If I just went off of a page of listed proposals, I'd probably vote for Stein. But once the actual plausibility of those proposals is tested, I think a lot of Stein's points fall flat.

Additionally, Johnson and Stein have been forced to turn to a lot of the same unfortunate spinning and rhetoric that "major party" candidates do, including Stein's flip-flopping and waffling for fear of losing votes (e.g. the vaccination issue), and Johnson's stunningly Trump-esque bloviating when the subject of being a "spoiler" even comes up. Both Johnson and Stein also both strike me as a bit too simple for my taste. I think Hillary is probably smarter than both of them. Hillary is also way more slimy, tainted by a gazillion scandals, and is connected to icky stuff. But she's probably smarter, and that has to be weighed accordingly. All just opinion, of course.
« Last Edit: October 20, 2016, 12:22:13 PM by HeyJude » Logged

THE BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE IS ON FACEBOOK!!! http://www.facebook.com/beachboysopinion - Check out the original "BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE" Blog - http://beachboysopinion.blogspot.com/
HeyJude
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 9222



View Profile WWW
« Reply #1508 on: October 20, 2016, 12:16:49 PM »

I dunno...when Sanders was in there he polled better against Trump than Clinton did.

I think polls undertaken during primaries of hypothetical "general election" scenarios aren't worth paying a great deal of attention to. I think when it gets very close to election day, more adventurous choices become less likely. People finally start thinking "holy s**t, okay, this is real, who's going to have their finger on the button?" 

There were times when others (Carson, etc.) polled ahead of Trump too.

I think how Sanders *would have* done is of course impossible to know. I think, if Trump had acted identically, probably any generic Democratic candidate would probably win by some measure.

But Sanders had/has plenty of problems too. He's not the smoothest politician either. Again, sometimes that's refreshing. But it's problematic in a race where one has to differentiate themselves as much as possible from the bloviating, hectic style of Trump.

And again, much like Bill, Hillary runs more towards the center as election time approaches, and I think that's far more effective in pulling in voters outside of the hardcore liberal base. I don't like how much many Democrats run towards the center, but if it keeps Trump out (or Bush or Dole in the 90s), I have to reluctantly support it.
Logged

THE BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE IS ON FACEBOOK!!! http://www.facebook.com/beachboysopinion - Check out the original "BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE" Blog - http://beachboysopinion.blogspot.com/
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #1509 on: October 20, 2016, 04:27:32 PM »

Democrats used to nominate candidates from the more-left regularly and they always lost. Leftists protest leftish candidates and don't vote with any reliability. And there are lots of conservative Americans. It doesn't really make sense in a two-party system to elect a nominee who is not near the center.
Stein and Sanders would never have a realistic chance in a general election. And Stein has neither management nor legislative experience.  She also has a tendency to mis-state the actual circumstances of our economy - that latter bothers me because if you don't recognize what's wrong, you're unlikely to be able to address it. However, that latter is not, in itself, an electoral liability. I would love for someone who thinks Sanders was robbed of his nomination to thoughtfully put forth their evidence.
I would also love someone from the left who thinks Clinton is so terribly flawed to thoughtfully put forward their arguments for that. Note that people usually put this in the context of the Democratic Party choosing a flawed candidate, therefore saying that you don't like that she supports policies that are standard Democratic Party policies would not be an argument.
It seems to me that there are memes - sorry for using that word, but it captures what I mean - that have been accepted without examination by people all over the political spectrum.
« Last Edit: October 20, 2016, 04:30:43 PM by Emily » Logged
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2869


View Profile
« Reply #1510 on: October 20, 2016, 04:33:52 PM »

I would also love someone from the left who thinks Clinton is so terribly flawed to thoughtfully put forward their arguments for that. Note that people usually put this in the context of the Democratic Party choosing a flawed candidate, therefore saying that you don't like that she supports policies that are standard Democratic Party policies would not be an argument.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. I don't think you're saying that leftists shouldn't criticize the Democratic party as a flawed organization, but I don't know what you are saying here.
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #1511 on: October 20, 2016, 04:43:40 PM »

I would also love someone from the left who thinks Clinton is so terribly flawed to thoughtfully put forward their arguments for that. Note that people usually put this in the context of the Democratic Party choosing a flawed candidate, therefore saying that you don't like that she supports policies that are standard Democratic Party policies would not be an argument.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. I don't think you're saying that leftists shouldn't criticize the Democratic party as a flawed organization, but I don't know what you are saying here.
People often say Clinton is a "flawed" candidate. I don't often hear that in the context that the Democrats are a flawed party so any of their candidates would be flawed (that is not an unusual thought, but it's not the usual context for saying Clinton is flawed). The usual context seems to be that Clinton is flawed relative to whomever else the Demicrats may have nominated - I've heard people use it in comparison to Biden, Obama redux, various senators and governors). So I'm wondering, relative to other prominent, mainstream Democrats, how is she flawed? Outside of, say, being a woman or she doesn't have great stage presence or isn't schmoozy enough with the media. If those things are what's meant, I agree. If what's meant is something more profound, I'd like to hear why. I say 'from the left' because I'm not interested in a Beanbag rant about Benghazi.
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #1512 on: October 20, 2016, 04:48:49 PM »

I will say, as a New England + mid-Atlantic separatist, I can envision and would enjoy a gov't populated with Steins and Sanderses. Though I'd suggest Stein spend some years as a governor or legislator before going for pres. I just don't think it's feasible for the US. At least during this period in history.
Logged
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2869


View Profile
« Reply #1513 on: October 20, 2016, 04:51:05 PM »

I would also love someone from the left who thinks Clinton is so terribly flawed to thoughtfully put forward their arguments for that. Note that people usually put this in the context of the Democratic Party choosing a flawed candidate, therefore saying that you don't like that she supports policies that are standard Democratic Party policies would not be an argument.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. I don't think you're saying that leftists shouldn't criticize the Democratic party as a flawed organization, but I don't know what you are saying here.
People often say Clinton is a "flawed" candidate. I don't often hear that in the context that the Democrats are a flawed party so any of their candidates would be flawed (that is not an unusual thought, but it's not the usual context for saying Clinton is flawed). The usual context seems to be that Clinton is flawed relative to whomever else the Demicrats may have nominated - I've heard people use it in comparison to Biden, Obama redux, various senators and governors). So I'm wondering, relative to other prominent, mainstream Democrats, how is she flawed? Outside of, say, being a woman or she doesn't have great stage presence or isn't schmoozy enough with the media. If those things are what's meant, I agree. If what's meant is something more profound, I'd like to hear why. I say 'from the left' because I'm not interested in a Beanbag rant about Benghazi.

I understand. Thank you! As you know, I don't think Clinton is significantly different in any substantive way from others in her party. However, since most of the people who used to post here  defending Trump and the extreme right are gone, I am less inclined to defend the Democratic party from the bizarre and outlandish attacks.
Logged
SMiLE Brian
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 8312



View Profile
« Reply #1514 on: October 20, 2016, 04:58:39 PM »

That's a relief! Grin
Logged

And production aside, I’d so much rather hear a 14 year old David Marks shred some guitar on Chug-a-lug than hear a 51 year old Mike Love sing about bangin some chick in a swimming pool.-rab2591
♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇
The Dr. of Wilsonomics
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 11520


🍦🍦 fear2stop.bandcamp.com ☮☮


View Profile WWW
« Reply #1515 on: October 20, 2016, 05:16:16 PM »

Quote
So I'm wondering, relative to other prominent, mainstream Democrats,  how is she flawed?
I had a long post ready to go, until I re-read this part.

Also have to exclude Sanders as he is still technically an independent.

Quote
Democrats used to nominate candidates from the more-left regularly and they always lost. Leftists protest leftish candidates and don't vote with any reliability. And there are lots of conservative Americans. It doesn't really make sense in a two-party system to elect a nominee who is not near the center.
Stein and Sanders would never have a realistic chance in a general election. And Stein has neither management nor legislative experience.  She also has a tendency to mis-state the actual circumstances of our economy - that latter bothers me because if you don't recognize what's wrong, you're unlikely to be able to address it. However, that latter is not, in itself, an electoral liability. I would love for someone who thinks Sanders was robbed of his nomination to thoughtfully put forth their evidence.

My hope after this absolute farce of an election is that more Americans like me will finally say ENOUGH and quit voting for one of the two party candidates just because they feel a 3rd party vote is "wasted"...because they have been brainwashed to think that way. 


Interested to see what people think of this....
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2874564.html#document/p1


Or this little chestnut from Brad Marshall...

Quote
From:MARSHALL@dnc.org
To: MirandaL@dnc.org, PaustenbachM@dnc.org, DaceyA@dnc.org
Date: 2016-05-05 03:31
Subject: No sh*t
It might may no difference, but for KY and WVA can we get someone to ask his belief. Does he believe in a God. He had skated on saying he has a Jewish heritage. I think I read he is an atheist. This could make several points difference with my peeps. My Southern Baptist peeps would draw a big difference between a Jew and an atheist.
Logged

“Look, you’ve got it all wrong. You don’t need to follow me. You don’t need to follow anybody. You’ve got to think for yourselves. You’re all individuals.”
Crowd: “Yes, we’re all individuals!”
Individual: “I’m not!”

——————————————————————————
https://soundcloud.app.goo.gl/C6fnbHnbhVmg8Tgj6
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #1516 on: October 20, 2016, 05:59:34 PM »

Quote
So I'm wondering, relative to other prominent, mainstream Democrats,  how is she flawed?
I had a long post ready to go, until I re-read this part.

Also have to exclude Sanders as he is still technically an independent.
Correct. I'm not asking for why Sanders' policies are better, or why Democratic Party policies are bad. I wouldn't disagree with most of what that argument would be (though among actual left candidates, Sanders is not my ideal.) Just why, among mainstream Democrats, there's something particularly wrong with Clinton.
Quote
Democrats used to nominate candidates from the more-left regularly and they always lost. Leftists protest leftish candidates and don't vote with any reliability. And there are lots of conservative Americans. It doesn't really make sense in a two-party system to elect a nominee who is not near the center.
Stein and Sanders would never have a realistic chance in a general election. And Stein has neither management nor legislative experience.  She also has a tendency to mis-state the actual circumstances of our economy - that latter bothers me because if you don't recognize what's wrong, you're unlikely to be able to address it. However, that latter is not, in itself, an electoral liability. I would love for someone who thinks Sanders was robbed of his nomination to thoughtfully put forth their evidence.

My hope after this absolute farce of an election is that more Americans like me will finally say ENOUGH and quit voting for one of the two party candidates just because they feel a 3rd party vote is "wasted"...because they have been brainwashed to think that way.  


Interested to see what people think of this....
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2874564.html#document/p1


This seems to me to be Podesta laying out guidelines for how one can raise money within current law.
Quote
Or this little chestnut from Brad Marshall...

Quote
From:MARSHALL@dnc.org
To: MirandaL@dnc.org, PaustenbachM@dnc.org, DaceyA@dnc.org
Date: 2016-05-05 03:31
Subject: No sh*t
It might may no difference, but for KY and WVA can we get someone to ask his belief. Does he believe in a God. He had skated on saying he has a Jewish heritage. I think I read he is an atheist. This could make several points difference with my peeps. My Southern Baptist peeps would draw a big difference between a Jew and an atheist.

This was a shitty email by someone I'd guess is a shitty guy. His suggestions don't seem to have been taken up.

I don't imagine any other big campaign or big organization of any sort would look very good if people sifted through all their emails looking for people saying nasty things. I've seen Sanders people who actually worked on his campaign, not just random internet people, say some awful things, but I don't impute it to Sanders himself, who I think is a good guy. It seems that some percentage of people are shitheads no matter where you go.
And, politics is gross. It's always been gross. But it has grown significantly grosser in the last 40 years. Nixon, then Lee Atwater, really put it on the track and it's been hurtling on those rails toward Trump ever since. I do think that Bill Clinton/James Carville stepped that sort of thing up on the Democrats' side. But Mondale and Dukakis were destroyed (particularly Dukakis) by that sort of thing. Atwater actually apologized to Dukakis before he died. But Nixon opened the door for Atwater, who held it wide open for Limbaugh who just threw the walls down for Drudge, Breitbart, Alex Jones, and the campaign operatives who embrace those tactic. Democrats, while worse than they were before, just haven't really gone into the same territory as Republicans when it comes to dirty campaign tactics. Or, at least they haven't on a mass scale - there are certainly examples available. I don't perceive Clinton's campaign as being *more* dirty than other Democratic campaigns since '92.

I think Sanders presented an unusual circumstance, or rather, of course Sanders presented an unusual circumstance. When he announced he was running, he said that he would run on some ballots as a Democrat, he wasn't sure about all ballots, but he simultaneously said that he wasn't a Democrat. It's not clear how the DNC should react to that. He's a stated non-Democrat running "as a Democrat" in some states, but not committing to doing it in all states. I think that by the time he was clearly running as a Democrat on all ballots and had stopped calling himself an Independent, it would be appropriate for the DNC to support him "as a Democrat," but that wasn't until well into the late fall of 2015. Then by late spring 2016, he had made half of his campaign about how much the DNC sucks. So the shock that the DNC wasn't enthusiastic about a candidate who, in the first place wasn't a Democrat, in the second place waffled about whether he was a Democrat, in the third place made his campaign against the DNC and in the fourth place, kept running against the presumptive nominee right up until the convention, which would have been frowned upon even if he had been a Democrat all along, is a little misplaced. Beyond members of the DNC saying to each other that they don't like Sanders, and beyond them not supporting him when it wasn't clear he was a Democrat, it seems to me that the arguments of Sanders being robbed are to do with a) the long-standing policy in some states that Democratic Party primaries are for registered Democrats and b) there were some voting issues. But the voting issues didn't occur in patterns that evidently negatively affect Sanders, and some of them were caused by Republicans evidently trying to make it harder for minorities to vote (Arizona).
Now, I like Sanders. And if I lived in a country in which Sanders could have been elected and could actually pass his policies, I'd have supported him over Clinton, though I'd prefer a world in which there could be a nominee with Sanders' policies and some practical skills. I am unusual, I guess, in that I like practical skills. But I think that the public seems to be in a mood for making scandals out of negligible issues and for near-intentional misreadings.  I'm concerned that this is going to turn out to be a standard feature of the internet.

« Last Edit: October 20, 2016, 06:06:19 PM by Emily » Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #1517 on: October 20, 2016, 06:17:53 PM »

I also don't think we will have more than two thriving parties until we do away with winner-take-all district elections.

imagine a congressional election with 4 candidates. only one can win. the coalescing will happen before that vote as people join forces to try to reach 51%, the only way you can be sure to win. They will naturally coalesce behind a center-left and a center-right candidate (for the spectrum in that region). So, across the country, districts will be divided into two coalitions. The center-lefts will get together and be one party; the center-rights will get together and be another party. With winner-take-all districts, coalitions form before the vote.

Now, imagine each state had state-wide congressional elections with proportional representation. If a state has 10 seats and the left party receives 20% of the vote, the left-center 30, the right-center 30 and the right, 20, then the left party gets 2 seats, the left-center 3, etc. Then, multiple parties could thrive, because having 20% of the seats in congress is enough to be extremely influential.
Then coalitions will form in the legislature, after the vote. An absolute flat tax comes up, the left, left-center and right-center will form a coalition against, the far right will be for and it will lose. A guaranteed income of $40000/yr comes up - there will be a coalition against. Those are extreme examples, but you can also imagine sensible gun legislation passing, for instance.

The coalitions would form at the legislative level, issue by issue. I think it would be vastly preferable, though as a whole we'd still end up with policies more or less in the middle of the American spectrum.
I'd love it if all the supporters of third parties would get together and root for changing how states choose their congressional candidates - it's not in the US constitution; it can be changed. That would be good.
But until then, it IS throwing away a vote.
Logged
♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇
The Dr. of Wilsonomics
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 11520


🍦🍦 fear2stop.bandcamp.com ☮☮


View Profile WWW
« Reply #1518 on: October 20, 2016, 06:20:20 PM »

Quote
Correct. I'm not asking for why Sanders' policies are better, or why Democratic Party policies are bad. I wouldn't disagree with most of what that argument would be (though among actual left candidates, Sanders is not my ideal.) Just why, among mainstream Democrats, there's something particularly wrong with Clinton.

Out of curiosity, what would be your ideal out of actual left candidates?

Good point on why the DNC didn't fully support Sanders. That wasn't something I ever really considered. Again, though, I'm very far to the left, so yes I admit to some bias.
Logged

“Look, you’ve got it all wrong. You don’t need to follow me. You don’t need to follow anybody. You’ve got to think for yourselves. You’re all individuals.”
Crowd: “Yes, we’re all individuals!”
Individual: “I’m not!”

——————————————————————————
https://soundcloud.app.goo.gl/C6fnbHnbhVmg8Tgj6
♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇
The Dr. of Wilsonomics
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 11520


🍦🍦 fear2stop.bandcamp.com ☮☮


View Profile WWW
« Reply #1519 on: October 20, 2016, 06:23:14 PM »

Quote
Now, imagine each state had state-wide congressional elections with proportional representation. If a state has 10 seats and the left party receives 20% of the vote, the left-center 30, the right-center 30 and the right, 20, then the left party gets 2 seats, the left-center 3, etc. Then, multiple parties could thrive, because having 20% of the seats in congress is enough to be extremely influential.
Then coalitions will form in the legislature, after the vote. An absolute flat tax comes up, the left, left-center and right-center will form a coalition against, the far right will be for and it will lose. A guaranteed income of $40000/yr comes up - there will be a coalition against. Those are extreme examples, but you can also imagine sensible gun legislation passing, for instance.

The coalitions would form at the legislative level, issue by issue. I think it would be vastly preferable, though as a whole we'd still end up with policies more or less in the middle of the American spectrum.
I'd love it if all the supporters of third parties would get together and root for changing how states choose their congressional candidates - it's not in the US constitution; it can be changed. That would be good.

That's my dream. I just wish people would wake up from their stupor and quit letting themselves be led around like lemmings.
Logged

“Look, you’ve got it all wrong. You don’t need to follow me. You don’t need to follow anybody. You’ve got to think for yourselves. You’re all individuals.”
Crowd: “Yes, we’re all individuals!”
Individual: “I’m not!”

——————————————————————————
https://soundcloud.app.goo.gl/C6fnbHnbhVmg8Tgj6
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #1520 on: October 20, 2016, 06:34:00 PM »

Quote
Correct. I'm not asking for why Sanders' policies are better, or why Democratic Party policies are bad. I wouldn't disagree with most of what that argument would be (though among actual left candidates, Sanders is not my ideal.) Just why, among mainstream Democrats, there's something particularly wrong with Clinton.

Out of curiosity, what would be your ideal out of actual left candidates?

Good point on why the DNC didn't fully support Sanders. That wasn't something I ever really considered. Again, though, I'm very far to the left, so yes I admit to some bias.
I would say a guaranteed basic income, lots of focus not just on affordability but also on quality of education from pre-K up, socialized health care, 35 hr. work week + 3 weeks vacation/year and one personal day/month + the zeitgeist of the Democratic Party just now on social justice + an overhaul of the criminal justice system + stop supporting assholes around the world + stop stealing other countries' resources + the empathy combined with bad-assery of Robert Kennedy.
I haven't found an individual who fits the bill yet. Let me know if you know her!
Logged
♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇
The Dr. of Wilsonomics
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 11520


🍦🍦 fear2stop.bandcamp.com ☮☮


View Profile WWW
« Reply #1521 on: October 20, 2016, 06:42:58 PM »

That'd be me, actually, but I'd never be rich enough to run. Plus I'm so blunt and outspoken I'd be assassinated the first week on the job!
Logged

“Look, you’ve got it all wrong. You don’t need to follow me. You don’t need to follow anybody. You’ve got to think for yourselves. You’re all individuals.”
Crowd: “Yes, we’re all individuals!”
Individual: “I’m not!”

——————————————————————————
https://soundcloud.app.goo.gl/C6fnbHnbhVmg8Tgj6
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #1522 on: October 20, 2016, 07:10:08 PM »

That'd be me, actually, but I'd never be rich enough to run. Plus I'm so blunt and outspoken I'd be assassinated the first week on the job!
Logged
♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇
The Dr. of Wilsonomics
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 11520


🍦🍦 fear2stop.bandcamp.com ☮☮


View Profile WWW
« Reply #1523 on: October 20, 2016, 07:11:59 PM »

Cool
Logged

“Look, you’ve got it all wrong. You don’t need to follow me. You don’t need to follow anybody. You’ve got to think for yourselves. You’re all individuals.”
Crowd: “Yes, we’re all individuals!”
Individual: “I’m not!”

——————————————————————————
https://soundcloud.app.goo.gl/C6fnbHnbhVmg8Tgj6
HeyJude
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 9222



View Profile WWW
« Reply #1524 on: October 21, 2016, 06:29:35 AM »

That'd be me, actually, but I'd never be rich enough to run. Plus I'm so blunt and outspoken I'd be assassinated the first week on the job!

Blunt and outspoken is okay! I'd vote for that! As long as you don't spend your entire speech telling us why Rosie O'Donnell is a loser.

That's my main gripe. I think a "tellin' it like it is!" candidate could be great. We haven't actually had that. We've had little moments here and there. Jerry Brown in California was a bit like that, more his 1970s iteration than the current one.

Among Beach Boys, I might put Al Jardine up for nomination too. I could use a little restraint, a little less "they're all losers!" and a little more Jardine-style "well, gosh darnit."  LOL
Logged

THE BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE IS ON FACEBOOK!!! http://www.facebook.com/beachboysopinion - Check out the original "BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE" Blog - http://beachboysopinion.blogspot.com/
Pages: 1 ... 56 57 58 59 60 [61] 62 63 64 65 66 ... 81   Go Up
Print
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
Page created in 0.743 seconds with 22 queries.