U.S Presidential Election 2016 Not Otherwise Specified

Perhaps I'm overthinking it, but several times I wanted to write something (often just general thoughts about what a horse's ass I think Bernie Sanders is) and I cannot find a place to put it. Sometimes I want to say something about Trump and although there are five or so threads about him, none are on-point. So, this is for random, or nonrandom thoughts about our pending presidential election. Any musings about comments made by presumptive candidates or thoughts about the electoral process or policy critiques or arguments, even theoretical.

For instance, can anyone believe that Bernie has not dropped out of the race and endorsed Hillary, given that she has accumulated a majority of the pledged delegates? Would anyone believe that a man touting an unselfish, progressive agenda turns out to be a narcissist hoping to have one last hurrah? Who would not want the adulation, but isn't it time to congratulate your opponent and offer her your support? How about that wall? If Trump wins and builds a wall, will a democrat run against him in 2020 and say "Mr. Trump, tear down that wall"? Yes random musings or...give it a try....

Once a Trotskyite always a fool.

http://www.arktimes.com/arkansas/bas...nt?oid=4433105

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

Once a Trotskyite always a fool.

http://www.arktimes.com/arkansas/bas...nt?oid=4433105

---

It is amazing that the far left always sees the center left as a bigger problem than the right wing. I was reading the comments under an article that said democratic leaders are urging Bernie to drop out now that he is so far behind and one person commented, "can you point to any of these leaders or did your corporate handlers tell you to say that"?

This is honestly the type of derangement a person needs to have in order to be avowedly left-wing and think Trump is preferable to Clinton. All of one's reasons for being left-wing must be so murky to make that decision...it must be based on feel rather than principles. Trump might not be a social conservative, but whoever he appoints to the court will be. You cannot be a liberal and think that doesn't matter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

Once a Trotskyite always a fool.

http://www.arktimes.com/arkansas/bas...nt?oid=4433105

---

Trish's corporate handlers told her to post this. Thank you for selling out comrade.

But seriously this is center left agenda:
1. more progressive taxes. Top rate higher, capital gains rate higher, or less exemption for estate taxes
2. pro-choice with states only retaining the right to regulate abortion
3. legality of gay marriage and a judge that will not overturn that precedent
4. retention of affordable care act
5. less foreign intervention in conflicts but not isolationism
6. climate change-not impeding the work of the epa or violating international treaties
7. Not building a wall

Now I have not been paying attention this season but this is a pretty significant difference no? So we won't be breaking up banks or have free college tuition (the latter seems like a decent albeit expensive idea). What else goes on this list.

Out of curiosity...assuming for a moment that Sanders won the nomination...would you both still have voted for him regardless of who the Republican nominee was?.

My comments would relate to the mechanics of your elections in the US.

1) I wonder if, after the experience with Sanders and Trump the Democrat and Republican parties will change their rules and limit nominees for public office to those who have been members of the party for a specified length of time? I would have thought for the Presidency, a minimum of 10 years continuous membership would be a reasonable demand. How this would work in individual States I do not know, in some strict criteria might already exist.
---In the UK you can stand as an independent if you want to but you can only do so if you have paid £500 and provided the name of 10 'subscribers' who live in the constituency you wish to represent. If you are a member of an established political party, their rules govern the selection process. In the Labour Party you need to be nominated by someone in your constituency party to have your named entered into the Parliamentary Panel (aka the 'Labour List') from which other constituencies can choose, and that person must have been a party member for at least 12 months prior to the nomination.

2) In the UK we do not have a system you have in the US whereby someone must register as a party supporter or member (Democrat or Republican) to take part in the primary or caucus processes when selecting candidates for elections, I am not even sure we understand how it works, and I do wonder about this 'registered Democrat/Republican' status, because it means your vote is not private. In the UK how we vote is a private matter that no other person need know, I find this public identification quite odd for a country that elects so many of its county, state and federal officials. Or I might have got it wrong as in mechanical terms I don't actually know how you do it.

3) You need to change your rules on election expenses, as the volume of money spent on elections is obscene. In the right hands, $10 billion would do Detroit, the Deep South and other needy parts of the USA much more good than 20 second ads in the intermission of a baseball game. What is more urgent and necessary -providing people with clean water, or giving an inflated jerk the opportunity on-air to insult half the country?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fred41

Out of curiosity...assuming for a moment that Sanders won the nomination...would you both still have voted for him regardless of who the Republican nominee was?.

---

Although there are conservative Republicans that I respect and whose policies I don't think would be as damaging as Trump's, it would be tough for a couple of reasons. I really am pretty far left. I posted the center left policies to show that I don't see them as such a terrible compromise, but ideologically I believe in social welfare programs, would love to see a single payer health care system (although it would include trade-offs). Additionally, the social issues, particularly same sex marriage are becoming areas of non-compromise for me. The reason I don't support Bernie is because I don't think he has any idea how to achieve many of these objectives. I also don't like sloganeering...I don't see more elaborate programs as requiring an attack on the 1% or on corporations or financial regulation as necessitating a destruction of large banks. I just believe in programs for the less fortunate and more taxes for those who are super wealthy and will remain so after they are taxed. I also believe in regulation of the marketplace, against monopolies, moral hazard, negative externalities, etc.

Saying that, I think it's an overreaction when people look at candidates they don't agree with and think they will destroy the country. There are conservatives who I'm sure would do a fine job and it would not be an apocalyptic outcome...but it would not be a compromise for me. I would have to forego things I believe in strongly. This is particularly the case on the social issues; I don't know too many candidates who believe that banning same sex marriage violates equal protection. It would just depend on how inept I think Sanders is, and though I think he's pretty inept, there's nothing there that I think would damage the country as much as carpet bombing another country or building a wall on our southern border.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

My comments would relate to the mechanics of your elections in the US.

1) I wonder if, after the experience with Sanders and Trump the Democrat and Republican parties will change their rules and limit nominees for public office to those who have been members of the party for a specified length of time? I would have thought for the Presidency, a minimum of 10 years continuous membership would be a reasonable demand. How this would work in individual States I do not know, in some strict criteria might already exist.
---In the UK you can stand as an independent if you want to but you can only do so if you have paid £500 and provided the name of 10 'subscribers' who live in the constituency you wish to represent. If you are a member of an established political party, their rules govern the selection process. In the Labour Party you need to be nominated by someone in your constituency party to have your named entered into the Parliamentary Panel (aka the 'Labour List') from which other constituencies can choose, and that person must have been a party member for at least 12 months prior to the nomination.

---

I read an article that discussed the rise of Trump. It was talking about how all of the top down filters that usually prevent an extreme candidate from becoming the nominee have been eroded (one of these was the so-called democratization of media, where anyone can publish garbage on a blog and the usual filters such as editing no longer apply).

Although I like what you're recommending, would this have the effect of removing some power from the voter and giving it to the party establishment to set standards? In a way it is just making sure the candidate is committed to the party principles, but the skeptic would ask why registered party members are not permitted to do this with their vote? Is it because we don't trust large heterogeneous groups to make sound and principled decisions?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fred41

Out of curiosity...assuming for a moment that Sanders won the nomination...would you both still have voted for him regardless of who the Republican nominee was?.

---

Yes (giving the word ‘regardless’ a practical interpretation). For one thing, I’m not nearly as down on Bernie as Gene Lyons is. I am pretty upset with his die-hard fans. I voted for Hillary months ago in the primary because I think she is more experienced in domestic and foreign affairs than Bernie, and I prefer her more practical and nuanced approach to political, social and ethical issues.

I knew, however, that both would have a tough road on the general campaign trail. Bernie would get hit for all the items Gene Lyons mentioned in his article. Hillary would get hit with all the shit that conservatives have been throwing at her for decades. I voted for Obama in the 2008 primary in part because I thought Hillary would be too polarizing (little did I know just how much Obama’s race would polarize the nation). But Hillary has been thoroughly vetted, been through it all before and proved she has what it takes to sustain that kind of abuse. Bernie, although he’s been the Senate for what - 25 years, has never been through anything like the abuse he would get on the campaign for the general election. I wasn’t sure how he’d hold up, and I still don’t know how he’d hold up, because he never has been attacked in that way.

Would I vote for Bernie over Trump? In a nanosecond. Would I vote for Bernie over Cruz? In a nanosecond? Over Rubio? Hell yeah. Over Kasich? Yes. The economy of Ohio has improved under Kasich, but not necessarily because of his pro-conservative policies. He’s busting unions, he’s joined the war against planned parenthood and stopped its funding in Ohio, he pro-fracking, pro-Keystone XL etc. However, just 24 hours ago he just legalized medical marijuana in Ohio! Yeah Kasich!

I know there are people who vote for the person and not the policies and ideas. To me that’s just crazy. The person can only do so much. The important things are the policies, the appointees, the proposed agenda. I cannot endorse going in the directions most conservatives in power, or seeking power, want to take us.

Is there a liberal I wouldn’t vote for? Well Trump was a liberal at one point :) I wouldn’t vote for him no matter what ticket he decided to run on. I heard on NPR this morning that Bob Dole just endorsed Trump. He said he has “...an obligation to the party. What am I going to do? I can’t vote for George Washington.”

So there you go, would I vote for Bernie against any republican? As long as no descendent of Victor Frankenstein resurrects George Washington and convinces him to run on the Republican ticket.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

I read an article that discussed the rise of Trump. It was talking about how all of the top down filters that usually prevent an extreme candidate from becoming the nominee have been eroded (one of these was the so-called democratization of media, where anyone can publish garbage on a blog and the usual filters such as editing no longer apply).

Although I like what you're recommending, would this have the effect of removing some power from the voter and giving it to the party establishment to set standards? In a way it is just making sure the candidate is committed to the party principles, but the skeptic would ask why registered party members are not permitted to do this with their vote? Is it because we don't trust large heterogeneous groups to make sound and principled decisions?

---

A strange reply, after all, what are political parties for? And why should they allow someone who has shown no previous commitment to the party to seek its nomination for President? It is up to the people to reject party candidates in favour of an independent, and if there is no independent who can transcend party and appeal directly to voters that is hardly my problem. But yes, when it is the party who chooses the candidate to represent you the people in general have no say in the matter, in the UK but as I say, we have a system dominated by parties, and as yet there have been few independents to make a difference, or smaller parties -consider how the Greens in Germany broke the duopoly between the SPD and the CDU. Or maybe Trump and Sanders are signs of a change taking place as voters become disaffected with 'business as usual' on both sides of the Atlantic...

We need a smaller government and people should consider Johnson / Weld

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

A strange reply, after all, what are political parties for?

---

Maybe one of the reasons it's easy to lose sight of this in America is that in a virtual two party system a candidate can define himself by being different from the alternative. So while parties are organized around certain principles and values, you can almost call yourself a Republican if you're not a Democrat and vice versa. Affiliation over time shows a commitment to what each party stands for, but the parties are not making it very clear what views are a sine qua non to membership. The parties end up representing more an ethos than a clear set of principles.

Ask a person what it means to be a Democrat and they should be able to say more than, "well you have to register as a Democrat and be affiliated with the party." But as you indicate, this has to at least be a requisite. So I agree.....party affiliation over time is an easy litmus test for whether someone is committed to what the party stands for. If the person has not identified as a Republican or Democrat for very long, there is probably a good reason for that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

Or maybe Trump and Sanders are signs of a change taking place as voters become disaffected with 'business as usual' on both sides of the Atlantic...

---

Probably true. In order for such candidates to spawn a lasting movement, they would have to be rejected by their party for either not being orthodox enough or not being affiliated for long enough. Then we would see whether they could sustain a movement based on their ideas or whether it is whatever dubious personal appeal each man has that has resulted in his support.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

Although there are conservative Republicans that I respect and whose policies I don't think would be as damaging as Trump's, it would be tough for a couple of reasons. I really am pretty far left....

---

I don't think anything you've posted seems all that far to the left , but that may be due to changes in my own way of thinking. Closer to urban centers, there are Republicans that aren't as socially conservative, but unfortunately the minute they run for higher office, it seems they always have an epiphany and become legally opposed to abortion, gay rights, etc.
It even seemed as if the 'abortion rights litmus test' was on it's way out...and then the Tea Party showed up. It seems a Republican moderate no longer has a snowball's chance in hell of running for president...at least for the time being.
The reality of course is during an election a nominee is lock step with both their party and what they believe a majority of their voters want. Once they're in office though, there's usually a lot of policy tweaking going on. Sometimes you can distinguish between what a candidate says and what you think they really believe.

I wouldn't vote for Bernie...he really is too far left for me. Pretty much his whole life was devoted to it.
But I wouldn't vote for Trump either...people keep saying that's not the real Trump, but he hasn't even tried to brush up on the learning process. If he's not even going to bother learning policy or even being able to control childish outbursts at this late stage of the game...then what's the point in even considering him?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

Yes (giving the word ‘regardless’ a practical interpretation). ...

---

I wasn't going to give you a ridiculous choice or try to paint you into a moral corner...lol. I'm pretty sure you can come up with some interesting scenarios where your own personal principles would be put to the test.

But everyone has their own limits on where they would take a particular stand (whether or not the grounds for that stand are actual or in ones own head).

If it was between Mr. Sanders and Mr. Trump I would finally be forced to either abstain or give the two alternate parties a closer look.

I'm also not in love with Hillary, but I can vote for her...I believe she's moderate enough and has more common sense than the two mentioned. For the record, I also would prefer her to Biden.

The real question of course wouldn't be "would you vote for Bernie against any Republican"....but "would you vote for any Democrat against any Republican"....but again, we would wind up coming up with some silly examples.

...might be fun at a later time though.

and thank you both for answering the question honestly and thoughtfully.

To be completely fair and honest, both candidates represent this country very well.

On the right we have an intolerant bigot whose rise was fueled by soundbites and memes. So apropos for the uneducated right. The educated right is left wondering if people really are this stupid when it is a combination of stupidity and being tone-deaf to the wants and needs of their constituents.

On the left we have a one-percent narcissist whose only goal is to be the first woman President, no matter what. She will run the Oval Office as an arm of her charitable foundation with a for sale sign outside. So apropos for a party that pays lip service to the poor while hiding behind their tax shelters and charitable organizations. She will turn on you when a larger donation appears in her bank account because she believes that the rules do not apply to her.

They represent the country well. They are us in a nutshell.

As for the second place finishers.....

On the left you have someone who is fighting tooth and nail against a corrupt system as he has done his entire life. Kudos to him. I don't agree with his policies but I do respect him.

On the right you have someone whose views may be extreme but was elected to go into Washington and shake up the rotten establishment. He made more enemies in one term than a six term Senator. Quite a success for someone elected to do just that and in the end the party looked to him to save them from a bigot. Irony in a nutshell.

They all represent America oh so well.

Attachment 943034

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/22/us...cans.html?_r=0

Some of the predicaments faced by the Trump camp. Very poor campaign infrastructure, poor fundraising, and a recently fired campaign manager. I wonder whether he's going to want to use his own money for his campaign. First, it's not clear what's liquid, and it's also not clear that he has as much money as he says he has. So even if he can get several hundred million in cash together together for his campaign, does he leave himself able to fund the operating costs for his personal empire.

https://www.thenation.com/article/th...orth-carolina/

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/0...-donald-226648

Melania Trump may have violated the terms of her visa when she worked as a model. Given Donald Trump's opposition to illegal immigration, this accusation would have serious traction. I have no idea whether it would have legal consequences for Melania, but it would probably damage Trump politically, even if only a little bit.

http://www.nytco.com/the-new-york-ti...action-letter/

This is the New York Times response to Donald Trump's lawyer's threat to sue for libel. In case anyone here missed it I wanted to share it...it's enjoyable to read.

To the former Bernie supporters, and to the rest who are Leftists.
Why not vote for the Greens or an independent . Stay with the anti -status-quo feels. You don't have to vote for either department of the Establishment party.

"either department of the Establishment party"(Nader quote)

Good of you to bring up Nader. If it weren't for Nader, we would never have had to put up with Bush/Cheney and all their nonsense. Remember and learn.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nitron

To the former Bernie supporters, and to the rest who are Leftists.
Why not vote for the Greens or an independent . Stay with the anti -status-quo feels. You don't have to vote for either department of the Establishment party.

---

when you say an independent, do you mean like joe exotic?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sc-_7RCFArM

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nitron

To the former Bernie supporters, and to the rest who are Leftists.
Why not vote for the Greens or an independent . Stay with the anti -status-quo feels. You don't have to vote for either department of the Establishment party.

---

Because Jill Stein has no idea what she is talking about. The same goes for Gary Johnson.

Blackchubby38, can I call you just blackchubby?
How about the other hundred or so Independents , with all do respect to Joe Exotic, surely Hillary ,( so evil it's stupid),and Trump, (so stupid it's evil) can't be the only shining lights?

Voting is not a religious act. The booth is not a confessional. Voting responsibly doesn’t mean you must selfishly remain true to yourself and your principles (as if that's ever possible), but rather that you cast your vote with the welfare of the entire population in mind. To count, to have a voice - you have to make your vote count.

Let's talk Turkey, this whole thing is a crapshoot, the JUSTICE is in your imagination.
If you live in Texas or California, your vote is meaningless.
And like the old Art Buchwald joke, if two of your carpool are Democrats, and two are Republicans, you can do your civic duty by all agreeing to stay home on election day.
Half the people don't vote.
The system IS rigged, you can pick the Democratic machine or the Republican regime.
THAT BEING SAID.....
Anyone who remembers the years 2000-2008 and wants to put the Republicans back in charge needs to stay after school for the next 8 years.
Nothing could be simpler or clearer.

Quote:

---

Let's talk Turkey, this whole thing is a crapshoot, the JUSTICE is in your imagination.
If you live in Texas or California, your vote is meaningless.
And like the old Art Buchwald joke, if two of your carpool are Democrats, and two are Republicans, you can do your civic duty by all agreeing to stay home on election day.
Half the people don't vote.

---

Better yet: if the other person in your carpool is the opposite party as you, then agree to both stay home and not vote, then vote anyway, 'cause you can't be sure those lying cheats from the opposite party can be trusted to keep the terms of their agreements.

Alternatively, just act responsibly and vote.

Quote:

---

Anyone who remembers the years 2000-2008 and wants to put the Republicans back in charge needs to stay after school for the next 8 years.
Nothing could be simpler or clearer.

---

For this you get a thumbs up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nitron

Blackchubby38, can I call you just blackchubby?
How about the other hundred or so Independents , with all do respect to Joe Exotic, surely Hillary ,( so evil it's stupid),and Trump, (so stupid it's evil) can't be the only shining lights?

---

what's exactly with this assumption that hillary is so evil? is it because she deleted a bunch of emails after using a private server? or is it because she has a bunch of wallstreet donors for her campaign?

i know trump says this a lot but i thought it was just part of his mantra to claim his opponent is evil and thus, he must be the opposite- but when everyday people say the same thing, i wonder, what exactly they mean. are you a very spiritual person to consider clinton evil or are you just repeating something you heard?

also, which independents do you think deserve the nomination since you keep bringing up. maybe joe exotic is a little "too exotic" so do you mean princess frambro? lynn kahn perhaps or ryan scott?

hey, is mcafee president material?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMz6GV3b1ys

W(BushII) 'lost' 22 million emails. Where's the outrage?

maybe bush was too stupid to be evil.

i've always thought of evil as something with an intelligent design behind it- or as lady caroline lamb once put it: mad, bad and dangerous to know.

p.s. is hillary evil because of this supposed evidence of voter fraud with the DNC?

this supposed voter fraud thing with the DNC?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

Good of you to bring up Nader. If it weren't for Nader, we would never have had to put up with Bush/Cheney and all their nonsense. Remember and learn.

---

Nader was a nonevent. Lack of interest in Al Gore put W in the White House. All he had to do was campaign in & win his home Stare. Florida would have been moot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bluesoul

maybe bush was too stupid to be evil.

i've always thought of evil as something with an intelligent design behind it- or as lady caroline lamb once put it: mad, bad and dangerous to know.

p.s. is hillary evil because of this supposed evidence of voter fraud with the DNC?

this supposed voter fraud thing with the DNC?

---

Really, Bluesoul, it took me less than five minutes on Google to find out that James O'Keefe and his 'Project Veritas' has been peddling made up videos for years of which this is the latest which doesn't prove anything other than that Scott Foval claims he can do something illegal though he also claims not to have done. If you want to believe this, there is nothing to stop you, just as Lady Caroline Lamb was not referring to evil but her unfaithful boyfriend Lord Byron, the romantic poet who was 'mad, bad and dangerous to know' and hardly the most evil man in Britain at the time.

You can read debunks of Project Veritas here-
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1524146.html

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-dru...rd-voter-fraud

yeah, glad you're able to google brah. except, i wasn't using that video to claim anything about it was real. did you not read and comprehend my reply which was to nitron or have you started drinking from the toilet as well?

oh and lol @ motherjones and huffington post. what's next? yahoo news search results.

btw: i'll just pretend you never made the comment about lady caroline lamb. let's just say for now, you can go to sleep thinking you know what you're talking about. next time, there'll be no warning

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bluesoul

yeah, glad you're able to google brah. except, i wasn't using that video to claim anything about it was real. did you not read and comprehend my reply which was to nitron or have you started drinking from the toilet as well?

oh and lol @ motherjones and huffington post. what's next? yahoo news search results.

btw: i'll just pretend you never made the comment about lady caroline lamb. let's just say for now, you can go to sleep thinking you know what you're talking about. next time, there'll be no warning

---

A fair point with regard to my slight reading of your post, but the point about Lady Caroline Lamb, stands, and I will assume that next time, there'll be no warning is from Trump's playbook, having no practical or emotional impact on me or my ability to sleep through the night.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

A fair point with regard to my slight reading of your post, but the point about Lady Caroline Lamb, stands, and I will assume that next time, there'll be no warning is from Trump's playbook, having no practical or emotional impact on me or my ability to sleep through the night.

---

the only thing that stands is your incorrect, but mostly superficial understanding of the quote, but i like how modest you are with "my slight reading of your post"

do you think it's equally slight reading how you assume no warning next time as coming from trump's playbook or has this charade of you thinking you know what you're talking about suddenly started to unravel?

After the election......
all fingers point to Paul Ryan being THE FACE of the Republican Party.
The Rock Hard Mad as Hell 35% Trump coalition will be 70% of your party.
So Paul,.....
what's the plan, stan?