Support NeoGAF

[T'Zariah]

Obama has been as hard on banks as the economic recession would allow.

No, nobody was arrested, but Bernie wouldn't arrest anybody either.

How could they be prosecuted when what they did wasn't illegal at the time?

 

[ahoyhoy]

I disagree that most reforms would dramatically increase the power of the individual. Any reforms would still force individuals to form coalitions to make their voices heard.

The real problem with our system is that individuals make these half-assed attempts at influencing the system every four years on the national level instead of making sustained efforts at the local level first, where a sizeable coalition has a chance to establish itself into the mainstream. This is not a brush that I mean to tar you with, but parties are simply national representations of regional coalitions, and those regional coalitions gain power from local elected individuals.

You can influence the national parties here quite easily; do the legwork at the local level. That isn't significantly more granular than other comparative government systems in terms of how individual people must find ways to make their voices heard.

Then why have federal elections at all? If all the practical influence lies in the influence of local officials and local parties as you say, could we get away with going back to having our local legislatures elect senators? I know you aren't arguing for this, but in your pragmatic approach to the franchise, you are effectively suggesting that the individual should feel satisfied influencing politics locally as best they can rather than pushing for reform that allows them the confidence to directly influence every level of government through voting.

Like a proposed before: if an individual is a die-hard Green party supporter at every level of government, right down to their local HOA, do they deserve the right to vote for the Green party candidate at the national level if they believe that candidate would make the best Senator/Congressman/President? Or should they be limited to acting through the two parties they've helped indirectly influenced via their local efforts?

I'd argue that we shouldn't disenfranchise a flexible vote just because factions hold more practical sway over elections than individual votes.

 

[marrec]

I know. I just wanted show that if we're running on the notion that Hilary will be Obama 2.0 policy-wise, then you're going to have to take the good and the bad in which that entails.

I'm not necessarily of the opinion that Obama's continued bank policies would be bad for the nation.

But yes, otherwise I'd agree.

I would hope that most people supporting Sanders aren't so single-issue as to give up on Hillary simply because she is to the right of him on banking reform.

 

[SlimySnake]

Why is she a good candidate?

1. She's brilliant. And I mean that literally. She was a National Merit Finalist, She graduated from Wellesley College with honors and was the first student ever to give a commencement speech at the request of her classmates. She followed then Senator Edward Brooke who basically told the students to get in line. She tore his rhetoric down with enough effect to get modest national coverage. Did her JD at Yale Law School where she was a clear standout. Throughout she interned and clerked at some of the most prestigious socially progressive law firms in the nation. After college she made partner in such a law firm at 32. She is one of the best minds on political policy of her generation, and that isn't an exaggeration of any kind.

2. She is an unabashed pragmatist who actually understands what the POTUS represents. You might not appreciate this as many deride Obama for being weak or acting as a centrist, but the job of the POTUS is to govern for everyone. That is important if we're ever going to return to a point where the U.S. is a less fractured republic, which it desperately needs. She has been very clear that her personal beliefs come second to the political will of the people and has a track record of legislation to that end.

3. There is no sacred cow for her. She grew up with a conservative father and as a teenager did work on Goldwater's campaign. Meanwhile she met Martin Luther King Jr. as a teenager through a progressive minister. She saw both sides of the isle when both sides of the isle weren't as entrenched as they are now and in college still found her path as a progressive democrat, just one opposed to the violent protest model many progressive dems were applying a the time.

4. She's a real progressive, just not an ideologue. Her academic work on education and children's rights is legit. Her record on healthcare in unimpeachable, she's just not willing to sacrifice something good (the ACA) for something great that can't yet be realized (universal single payer). That doesn't mean she won't lay the groundwork if the opportunity presents itself.

5. She knows how to negotiate even with entrenched opposition and get legislation done. Clinton was Obama before Obama in terms of GOP obstructionism (they basically turned the dial from a hard 8 up to 10 and broke the nob trying to turn it higher for Obama though). Bill and Hillary still got a lot of things they wanted passed, including an assault weapons ban. Progress can still be made, the sell just needs to be done correctly and Clinton has the skills to do just that.

6. While this won't sound like a ringing endorsement it's worth a lot more than you think: she is an ideal place holder on the path to future progress. She GOP has done everything they can to smear her and she's still standing. As POTUS she would present another left of center leader for the nation who actually makes the country better while the GOP is imploding. This is the time to get more people into the pews on the left and a moderate progressive is how you do that, not an extreme left candidate. As a reslut she would very possibly be a two term POTUS and significantly remake the SCOTUS to the left for years to come.

7. Re-districting. The next census will land in the next POTUS' term along with the re-districting associated with that. You won't find a person more capable and willing to build a strong U.S. AG's office to drag conservative gerrymandering in front of the courts and get meaningful legal precedent stopping voter disenfranchisement in it's tracks. That matters more than ever when Clinton as POTUS would ensure a favorable SCOTUS at the end of that legal track.

8. We get to crack the glass ceiling with the first woman POTUS directly after we had the first black POTUS. Nothing better than that to send a message to regressive bigots that the nation is done with them. A strong repudiation of Trump in this cycle coupled with said female POTUS would do massive damage to the Tea Party/regressive movement in this country.

Just a few reasons. I say all this as a person who actively campaigned for Obama over her. She's not Obama, but she is a damn good choice in her own right.

Great post. I find it disturbing how many people dont even know about her accomplishments before she became first lady. She was so well qualified, Bill actively campaigned saying America was getting 2 for the price of 1 if they elected him.

 

[cbrun44]

Why is she a good candidate?

Excellent post Drek!

 

[T'Zariah]

Great post. I find it disturbing how many people dont even know about her accomplishments before she became first lady.

They don't WANT to.

 

[marrec]

How could they be prosecuted when what they did wasn't illegal at the time?

I dunno it's what a lot of people complain about when they talk about "taking down the big banks" as if judicial retribution against individual executives would somehow make the country better financially.

 

[Blader]

I have heard a lot of great "lesser of two evils" arguments for Hillary, but I have no heard anything that suggests I would actually want her to be in charge of my country. The marks against her are too strong to warrant that.

More likely you're just tuning them out. Because there's a giant post from pigeon on the last page and a giant post from Drek on this page that are firmly pro-Hillary, "I actually want her to be in charge my country," arguments.

 

[ahoyhoy]

I dunno it's what a lot of people complain about when they talk about "taking down the big banks" as if judicial retribution against individual executives would somehow make the country better financially.

Impeaching a President or even a Senator might not be what's best for the country either but if they've broken the law they've broken the law.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Not to mention as SoS she fought for LGBT rights incredibly hard. And if someone wants to bring up Hillary's spotty history they would do just as well to bring up Sanders spotty history on the same subject.

They don't because Bernie is a straight shooter, even when he has flip-flopped before and had to move to the left on issues.

Telling Vermont legislature in the mid-2000s not to legalize gay marriage? Profile in courage right there.

Don't want to insinuate that it also has something to do with Bernie being a man, although it certainly makes things easier. The American people judge women with strong personalities much more harshly than men.

 

[marrec]

Impeaching a President might not be what's best for the country either but if they've broken the law they've broken the law.

There has been one [1] successful impeachment of a sitting US President and I'd argue it was absolutely best for the country.

A banking executive working within financial law to do their job (make profit) getting jailed arbitrarily seems vindictive rather than productive.

 

[Angelus Errare]

Seems this needs to be reposted yet again. But I suspect quite a few people actually don't care about Bernie's platform much. They're just Bernie supporters because he's "anti-establishment".

This is an emotional argument, based on feelings. There are a multitude of options for letting your voice be known; the Presidency is but one of many avenues through which you can exert your voice. Work on the folks who actually author and negotiate laws, for instance.

Y'know what's asinine? Handing over the judiciary to folks who would see your vision buried for a generation.

Let's play-out a possible scenario, shall we?

Let's say that the temper tantrum throwers get their way here: Hillary loses here in 2016.
Great. The wench was too moderate anyway!
Trump or Cruz is elected instead.
The new President nominates Scalia's replacement, one in the mold of Scalia.
Ginsburg or Breyer are pretty old; odds are that one of them doesn't make it through the first term.
The new President replaces one. The court is now 6-3 conservative.
Anthony Kennedy turns 80 in a few months. He sees his shot at retiring when the new President takes office.
That 6-3 majority gets younger. The chance to flip the court to a liberal lean fades.
It'll be a few decades before the court could ever lean left again.

Then, in 2020, the voters have had enough of President Trump's asshattery - glorious backlash election occurs!
Bernie 2.0 is elected.
He brings with him coattails: a Democratic Congress!
The dream is being realized!

Bernie 2.0 and the new Congress set out immediately to enact their agenda.
The first batch of bills hits Bernie 2.0's desk. He takes out his pen and signs it, to great progressive celebration.
And as soon as the ink dries on Bernie 2.0's signature, the GOP or their corporate buddies file suit in court to stop this legislation from ever taking effect.

Ruling.
Appeal.
Appellate ruling.
Appeal.
SCOTUS, by a vote of 6-3 or 5-4, rules to kill Bernie 2.0's legislative achievement.

Repeat for anything remotely controversial that gets passed Bernie 2.0 and his Congress.

Liberals are horrified to realize: "what good is winning in 2020 and beyond if there's a judiciary in place, ready to kill anything that's challenged before them?"

..

I'm guessing that you consider yourself serious about the long-term viability of Bernie's policy agenda. In which case, I'd say it's foolish to condemn that agenda to judicial death for 20-30 years.

Don't give me a response on how you feel. Or how Hillary is too moderate, or too corporate, or too scheming. None of those responses substantively counter what I've plainly laid-out before you. The mechanics of how our system works don't give a damn about your feelings.

If you're at all serious about keeping Bernie's vision alive for the future, so that we can elect Bernie 2.0 knowing that his agenda is viable, there's only one logical choice in November.

 

[dave is ok]

How could they be prosecuted when what they did wasn't illegal at the time?

Last I checked defrauding investors and laundering money for the cartel is illegal.

 

[Dash_Riprock]

There has been one [1] successful impeachment of a sitting US President and I'd argue it was absolutely best for the country.

A banking executive working within financial law to do their job (make profit) getting jailed arbitrarily seems vindictive rather than productive.

Technically Nixon resigned before he could be impeached.

 

[marrec]

Technically Nixon resigned before he could be impeached.

True.

 

[ahoyhoy]

There has been one [1] successful impeachment of a sitting US President and I'd argue it was absolutely best for the country.

A banking executive working within financial law to do their job (make profit) getting jailed arbitrarily seems vindictive rather than productive.

I generally agree. Jailing random people to sate the blood-lust of the masses would be less productive than reforming the system to discourage recklessness. Hell, if you want to hurt bankers, slap a huge fine on them and/or find creative ways to bar them from continuing their current practices.

But again, if someone has broken the law, they should at least be indicted, if not just so that people can have some faith that there's a sense of justice in government.

 

[Ananas]

Impeaching a President or even a Senator might not be what's best for the country either but if they've broken the law they've broken the law.

The world isn't black and white.

 

[marrec]

I generally agree. Jailing random people to sate the blood-lust of the masses would be less productive than reforming the system to discourage recklessness. Hell, if you want to hurt bankers, slap a huge fine on them and/or find creative ways to bar them from continuing their current practices.

But again, if someone has broken the law, they should at least be indicted, if not just so that people can have some faith that there's a sense of justice in government.

We agree on that.

 

[RustyNails]

Last I checked defrauding investors and laundering money for the cartel is illegal.

Wasn't HSBC responsible for that cartel business? There were no laws against buying securities of subprime mortgages. It cant be defrauding if you can buy and sell stocks and cdos freely in the market. To see what defrauding actually looks like, see the Enron scandal. I mean, we're talking about fake shell companies with no people in them, showing millions in revenue growth. Thats fraud.

Also if you dont think Obama fought back hard, see how much republicans are trying to declaw CFPB and fighting it's every provision to this day in court.

 

[dave is ok]

I generally agree. Jailing random people to sate the blood-lust of the masses would be less productive than reforming the system to discourage recklessness. Hell, if you want to hurt bankers, slap a huge fine on them and/or find creative ways to bar them from continuing their current practices.

But again, if someone has broken the law, they should at least be indicted, if not just so that people can have some faith that there's a sense of justice in government.

We've been slapping huge fines on them for years

They admit no wrongdoing, pay a fine which is usually less than they made from the illegal activity in question, and continue breaking the law.

You need to throw some people in jail. Fines don't work on institutions with billions of dollars.

 

[Barzul]

I have heard a lot of great "lesser of two evils" arguments for Hillary, but I have no heard anything that suggests I would actually want her to be in charge of my country. The marks against her are too strong to warrant that.

Hillary or Trump will be your president, they will make decisions that can alter your environment and the lives of people you see in your day to day life. I hope you've at least accepted this. It doesn't matter what you want or what you would like, all that matters is what will be. It will be one of them. I know which candidate I could live with.

 

[marrec]

We've been slapping huge fines on them for years

They admit no wrongdoing, pay a fine which is usually less than they made from the illegal activity in question, and continue breaking the law.

You need to throw some people in jail. Fines don't work on institutions with billions of dollars.

We need to prove that individuals broke laws in place to throw people in jail. We can't just throw someone in jail because we're mad at them for making too much money.

Regardless, between Bernie and Hillary just as many top banking executives would be put in jail.

 

[ahoyhoy]

We've been slapping huge fines on them for years

They admit no wrongdoing, pay a fine which is usually less than they made from the illegal activity in question, and continue breaking the law.

You need to throw some people in jail. Fines don't work on institutions with billions of dollars.

I was referring to proportional fines that have serious impacts on their bottom line, like 50% of their real profits annually until the damage they've done is repaid or something like that. I haven't given much thought to the specifics and it's probably way out of my depth.

I guess I used the word "slap" which is like "slap on the wrist". I want a fucking boot in the face. I agree that a real message needs to be sent, though I'm not sure if jailing half of Wall Street or fining them back into the Stone Ages will be more effective.

 

[PumpkinSpice]

I have heard a lot of great "lesser of two evils" arguments for Hillary, but I have no heard anything that suggests I would actually want her to be in charge of my country. The marks against her are too strong to warrant that.

She's probably the best qualified person to run for the job in living memory. She has solid progressive policy proposals and is experienced at getting compromised real-world implementations of progressive policy through obstructionist congresses under 2 presidents.

What's not to like exactly?

 

[dave is ok]

We need to prove that individuals broke laws in place to throw people in jail. We can't just throw someone in jail because we're mad at them for making too much money.

There have been plenty of cases with very solid evidence against individuals that were never prosecuted. The reason no one is being tried isn't because "what they did wasn't illegal" or because "we're mad at them for making too much money" although I'm sure that's what they want you to think.

They can afford good lawyers, they can motion and continue for years if need be the money doesn't run out, and the instruments they deal with are obtuse and complex which makes finding a suitable jury pool a nightmare. The government just plain out doesn't want these cases because they cost a lot of money, and the SEC can only fine them so much.

Regardless, between Bernie and Hillary just as many top banking executives would be put in jail.

Yeah, zero. Same with a Republican. The parties aren't different in this regard. How poor does the populace need to get before something changes?

 

[marrec]

There have been plenty of cases with very solid evidence against individuals that were never prosecuted. The reason no one is being tried isn't because "what they did wasn't illegal" or because "we're mad at them for making too much money" although I'm sure that's what they want you to think.

They can afford good lawyers, they can motion and continue for years if need be the money doesn't run out, and the instruments they deal with are obtuse and complex which makes finding a suitable jury pool a nightmare. The government just plain out doesn't want these cases because they cost a lot of money, and the SEC can only fine them so much.

Can you provide me a few examples of cases with solid evidence against individuals that were never prosecuted?

 

[Goodstyle]

Obama basically telling some donors to fall in line behind Clinton soon.

Tackles the "not authentic" rhetoric and brings up how Bush was seen as the "authentic" candidate.

 

[Averon]

The world isn't black and white.

It should be when it comes to breaking the law.

 

[Voysa Reezun]

Then why have federal elections at all? If all the practical influence lies in the influence of local officials and local parties as you say, could we get away with going back to having our local legislatures elect senators? I know you aren't arguing for this, but in your pragmatic approach to the franchise, you are effectively suggesting that the individual should feel satisfied influencing politics locally as best they can rather than pushing for reform that allows them the confidence to directly influence every level of government through voting.

Like a proposed before: if an individual is a die-hard Green party supporter at every level of government, right down to their local HOA, do they deserve the right to vote for the Green party candidate at the national level if they believe that candidate would make the best Senator/Congressman/President? Or should they be limited to acting through the two parties they've helped indirectly influenced via their local efforts?

I'd argue that we shouldn't disenfranchise a flexible vote just because factions hold more practical sway over elections than individual votes.

We have federal elections because the federalists won out in the late 1700s. We have them because by our very historical nature our country is a coalition of states banded together to mitigate issues of commerce, defense, etc. that would be amplified were we balkanized. That question is, with respect due, a red herring. Why we have a federal government is a different argument than how we can influence that government, which was your original point that I responded to.

I also think that your characterization of my position is something of a strawman. I do not ask for the conscientious voter to settle for influence on local politics. I ask him or her to lay a groundwork at the local and state levels that will allow him or her to effectively challenge the other parties at a national level.

In any case, a Green Party supporter has the right to vote for whomever s/he wants. If the party is strong enough, with groundwork laid at the local and state levels, it will destroy one of the two major parties by helping to shatter its coalition and then replacing it, or its message will be positively co-opted by the major parties, thus becoming mainstream.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

It should be when it comes to breaking the law.

Uhhh... no it really, really, REALLY should not at all.

I'm not sure you understand what exactly you just said. The legal system can't be black and white, that would be terrible.

 

[Barzul]

Seems this needs to be reposted yet again. But I suspect quite a few people actually don't care about Bernie's platform much. They're just Bernie supporters because he's "anti-establishment".

Brilliant scenario, it's just so obvious

 

[Sectorseven]

Obama basically telling some donors to fall in line behind Clinton soon.

The donors were debating between her and the guy who won't take their money?

 

[Averon]

Uhhh... no it really, really, REALLY should not at all.

I'm not sure you understand what exactly you just said. The legal system can't be black and white, that would be terrible.

Yeah, I should have specified. When it comes to financial crimes, like the kind that sunk Enron, I believe that should be not question that people need to be punished.

 

[SlimySnake]

Obama basically telling some donors to fall in line behind Clinton soon.

Tackles the "not authentic" rhetoric and brings up how Bush was seen as the "authentic" candidate.

Obama needs to come out and support Clinton soon because shes doing a poor job selling herself. It's ridiculous how many people I know who straight up dont like her. And not all of them are republicans.

She needs the party's big guys behind her who will go out and bat for her. Because at the moment whenever she touts her accomplishments or proposals she gets hit with pandering charges and is painted as someone who is willing to say anything to get elected. It will come off much better from someone like Obama who is very well liked and trusted in the party.

I understand why Obama is waiting for Sanders to drop out, but if Sanders is willing to drag this on until June then Obama must step in sooner than later. Republicans have already painted her as untrustworthy. We cant allow them to continue this rhetoric without objection any longer.

 

[Your Entertainer]

I appreciate the constructive posts pushing her merits.

Big Bernie supporter but will absolutely vote for her in the general. My biggest problems with her are, put very briefly, and in no particular order:

1. Monetary associations with big donors
2. Foreign policy (Both before and during SoS tenures, and yes the Kissinger association)
3. Several other assorted stances on issues throughout her career

I think that in your support for a candidate, it's important to not shy away from legitimate criticisms and areas to improve. I have no doubt she'll continue to move the country forward, and make it better for minorities and really most everyone. And yes the Supreme Court. The bottom line is that I liked Bernies ideas and stances better, but have no doubt that someone that espouses the same ideas will come forward in 8 years, and that Bernie-stances will become increasingly more viable in the future.

 

[Ananas]

It should be when it comes to breaking the law.

It absolutely should not be. We are humans and we have the ability to understand how situations and actions affect human behavior. We can use cognition to make decisions based off that. Black and white enforcement of laws would be horrendous.

 

[ahoyhoy]

We have federal elections because the federalists won out in the late 1700s. We have them because by our very historical nature our country is a coalition of states banded together to mitigate issues of commerce, defense, etc. that would be amplified were we balkanized. That question is, with respect due, a red herring. Why we have a federal government is a different argument than how we can influence that government, which was your original point that I responded to.

In any case, a Green Party supporter has the right to vote for whomever s/he wants. If the party is strong enough, with groundwork laid at the local and state levels, it will destroy one of the two major parties by helping to shatter its coalition and then replacing it, or its message will be positively co-opted by the major parties, thus becoming mainstream.

Factionalism is strong, true. It feels like a primal driver of humanity to divide into tribes and war against one another (or ally up when convenient). It held sway over the founders, but in either side of the Federalist argument there didn't appear any intention that the bipolarity should crystallize into two permanent parties (not that it would matter if that was their intention or not in terms of how we approach the system we have today, lest we become Originalists).

My Green Party example was aimed at the pragmatist side of your argument. I apologize if I assumed that you aligned yourself with those who believe that individuals should vote pragmatically in situations like this should their preferred candidate stand no immediate chance of victory. My argument is based around the present Green Party, though, which is comparatively much much weaker when compared to the Dems and Pubs at almost every level of government. Should a supporter of the Green party at level want to vote for a Green party candidate on the federal level now, they'll likely be assaulted with pragmatic arguments from other liberals, due inherently to the way our electoral system works right now. Under the pragmatic argument they have no moral option of voting for President until either the Green party is viable on the Federal level or the policies of the Green party they agree with become absorbed wholesale by the Democratic party.

I think we're in agreement on how you can, today, realistically hold some influence on politics at any levels without voting federally. I wish there was a greater uproar as to how you could influence politics one day and provide the individual more options for exercising their democratic initiative than we had 200 years ago or 2 years ago.

 

[MIMIC]

Nader voters, especially in Florida, have blood on their hands of the dead due to the Iraq War just as much as those who voted Bush. They both were equal participants in allowing it to happen.

This is such an awful argument. People see how damaging it is for Hillary to be out there all alone on that Iraq war branch that they're willing to engage in all sorts of mental gymnastics to bring everyone else down with her.

And while we're grasping at straws, why not blame Nader himself? Or Buchanan? Or the Supreme Court? And if we try hard enough, maybe we can credit Nader and his voters with 9/11, too.

 

[dave is ok]

Yeah, I should have specified. When it comes to financial crimes, like the kind that sunk Enron, I believe that should be not question that people need to be punished.

It absolutely should not be. We are humans and we have the ability to understand how situations and actions affect human behavior. We can use cognition to make decisions based off that. Black and white enforcement of laws would be horrendous.

Bush was a better president than Obama when it came to prosecutions like this.

Enron, WorldCom, Tyco, Adelphia Communications. People went to jail. The savings and loans crisis in the 80's sent hundreds people to jail and it was nothing compared to the 2008 crash.

Justice is supposed to be blind. When Eric Holder and his Justice Dept. start worrying about prosecutions might affect the market and don't prosecute based on that, you're sending the wrong signals.

 

[Macam]

Obama needs to come out and support Clinton soon because shes doing a poor job selling herself. It's ridiculous how many people I know who straight up dont like her. And not all of them are republicans.

She needs the party's big guys behind her who will go out and bat for her. Because at the moment whenever she touts her accomplishments or proposals she gets hit with pandering charges and is painted as someone who is willing to say anything to get elected. It will come off much better from someone like Obama who is very well liked and trusted in the party.

I understand why Obama is waiting for Sanders to drop out, but if Sanders is willing to drag this on until June then Obama must step in sooner than later. Republicans have already painted her as untrustworthy. We cant allow them to continue this rhetoric without objection any longer.

Most people don't like either of the front runners. This is basically just an election against people, and not for much of anything.

 

[Voysa Reezun]

Factionalism is strong, true. It feels like a primal driver of humanity to divide into tribes and war against one another (or ally up when convenient). It held sway over the founders, but in either side of the Federalist argument there didn't appear any intention that the bipolarity should crystallize into two permanent parties (not that it would matter if that was their intention or not in terms of how we approach the system we have today, lest we become Originalists).

My Green Party example was aimed at the pragmatist side of your argument. I apologize if I assumed that you aligned yourself with those who believe that individuals should vote pragmatically in situations like this should their preferred candidate stand no immediate chance of victory. My argument is based around the present Green Party, though, which is comparatively much much weaker when compared to the Dems and Pubs at almost every level of government. Should a supporter of the Green party at level want to vote for a Green party candidate on the federal level now, they'll likely be assaulted with pragmatic arguments from other liberals, due inherently to the way our electoral system works right now. Under the pragmatic argument they have no moral option of voting for President until either the Green party is viable on the Federal level or the policies of the Green party they agree with become absorbed wholesale by the Democratic party.

I think we're in agreement on how you can, today, realistically hold some influence on politics at any levels without voting federally. I wish there was a greater uproar as to how you could influence politics one day and provide the individual more options for exercising their democratic initiative than we had 200 years ago or 2 years ago.

Sure, no problem. I appreciate your view.

I suppose that I don't see an easy way to amplify the individual's power outside of the government itself being smaller or the populace being smaller/less interested in governance. I am no comparative government or political science PhD, but from my view, living in a large country of millions makes more immediate options for direct influence on government untenable.

 

[Macam]

This is such an awful argument. People see how damaging it is for Hillary to be out there all alone on that Iraq war branch that they're willing to engage in all sorts of mental gymnastics to bring everyone else down with her.

And while we're grasping at straws, why not blame Nader himself? Or Buchanan? Or the Supreme Court? And if we try hard enough, maybe we can credit Nader and his voters with 9/11, too.

Nader voters have "blood on their hands"? That's a bit much, even for HillGAF. Save that level of ire for the people that actually prosecuted and supported the war.

 

[Averon]

Most people don't like either of the front runners. This is basically just an election against people, and not for much of anything.

Wouldn't be surprised if turnout in November is will be low. Hilary is uninspiring and Trump is just flat-out unacceptable.

 

[cowboyz89]

Originally Posted by HylianTom

This is an emotional argument, based on feelings. There are a multitude of options for letting your voice be known; the Presidency is but one of many avenues through which you can exert your voice. Work on the folks who actually author and negotiate laws, for instance.

Y'know what's asinine? Handing over the judiciary to folks who would see your vision buried for a generation.

Let's play-out a possible scenario, shall we?

Let's say that the temper tantrum throwers get their way here: Hillary loses here in 2016.
Great. The wench was too moderate anyway!
Trump or Cruz is elected instead.
The new President nominates Scalia's replacement, one in the mold of Scalia.
Ginsburg or Breyer are pretty old; odds are that one of them doesn't make it through the first term.
The new President replaces one. The court is now 6-3 conservative.
Anthony Kennedy turns 80 in a few months. He sees his shot at retiring when the new President takes office.
That 6-3 majority gets younger. The chance to flip the court to a liberal lean fades.
It'll be a few decades before the court could ever lean left again.

Then, in 2020, the voters have had enough of President Trump's asshattery - glorious backlash election occurs!
Bernie 2.0 is elected.
He brings with him coattails: a Democratic Congress!
The dream is being realized!

Bernie 2.0 and the new Congress set out immediately to enact their agenda.
The first batch of bills hits Bernie 2.0's desk. He takes out his pen and signs it, to great progressive celebration.
And as soon as the ink dries on Bernie 2.0's signature, the GOP or their corporate buddies file suit in court to stop this legislation from ever taking effect.

Ruling.
Appeal.
Appellate ruling.
Appeal.
SCOTUS, by a vote of 6-3 or 5-4, rules to kill Bernie 2.0's legislative achievement.

Repeat for anything remotely controversial that gets passed Bernie 2.0 and his Congress.

Liberals are horrified to realize: "what good is winning in 2020 and beyond if there's a judiciary in place, ready to kill anything that's challenged before them?"

..

I'm guessing that you consider yourself serious about the long-term viability of Bernie's policy agenda. In which case, I'd say it's foolish to condemn that agenda to judicial death for 20-30 years.

Don't give me a response on how you feel. Or how Hillary is too moderate, or too corporate, or too scheming. None of those responses substantively counter what I've plainly laid-out before you. The mechanics of how our system works don't give a damn about your feelings.

If you're at all serious about keeping Bernie's vision alive for the future, so that we can elect Bernie 2.0 knowing that his agenda is viable, there's only one logical choice in November.

Exactly. Im a Bernie supporter. But the second he drops out Im on the Hillary bandwagon HARD. It amazes me that people will even threaten to pout and take their ball and go home if they dont get their first choice. How often in life do we not get our first choice and have to go with the next best alternative. Bday presents, college acceptance letters, bf/gfs, dinner for the night, clothing, jobs, etc. Its part of life. Take the best you can get at the moment and try to improve when the next opportunity comes, not go back to step 0 and struggle to even get back to where you were before.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

Most people don't like either of the front runners. This is basically just an election against people, and not for much of anything.

This'll probably change for Hillary as Bernie and Obama come out to endorse her, and Obama actively campaigns with her.

 

[Drek]

Another ringing endorsement of Hillary Clinton: The GOP hasn't let up from attacking her since the Clinton's first presidential campaign in the early 90's. When the Clintons left the White House they most stopped smearing Bill but never stopped with Hillary. When she ran for the senate they redoubled efforts. When she ran in the '08 primary they were attacking her well before the primary was close to any real decisions. They continued that into an unprecedented level of attacks on a Sec. of State.

So why has the conservative side of the ledger so ardently and consistently focused on her as their great nemesis for now over 20 years? (until a black dude moved into 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.)

Because they recognize what Clinton is: A pragmatic progressive who can and will peel off their weaker members with individual gives for national gets. Someone who is not fixated on her own views and agendas, instead focused on pushing forward public policy (for the sake of her legacy mind you, that's what she really cares about). She is a conservative nightmare. She's been able to kick their asses from far less powerful posts than the POTUS and the last thing they want is to square up with her with all the powers associated with the highest office in the land.

To make matters worse for them, they'll be dealing with a Hillary Clinton likely emboldened with regards to progressive policy because of Sanders' primary run, the popularity of Elizabeth Warren, and the steady turning of the demographics in favor of those stances.

I'm not saying we should all just blindly apply "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" but we really should consider the fact that our enemy's single greatest fear of the last two decades is staring them straight in the face and we can all help realize it for them at a time when they're most vulnerable.

Which leads me into the next part of this rant: if you want to see a better political process vote Clinton and landslide the GOP. A Clinton landslide coupled with Trump stealing their primary nomination is the perfect storm to finally force the Republican party back to the middle of American politics, which then pushes the Democratic party to the left that much faster. That or the GOP dies and we likely see a new party rise up, one that might be socially left of the dems. Voting Green doesn't help with that. Neither does a write-in. Crush the repugnant bigotry coming from the far right in 2016 and they'll likely be in such disarray come 2020 that a Green candidate, an independent, or some other party can fill some of the vacuum on their way to crossing the public financing threshold.

Yeah, I should have specified. When it comes to financial crimes, like the kind that sunk Enron, I believe that should be not question that people need to be punished.

But the only way we get there is with a left leaning SCOTUS because until then we'll see corporations working as a firewall between people and their actions.

This is the real flaw in Citizen's United and is why I keep saying that Sanders doesn't get it. Political action is only one risk of corporations as independent actors. The next logical step is that the executives of those companies aren't responsible for executing corporate strategy even if that strategy is illegal, and we already see that effect today so the last thing we need is a re-affirmation of it. It's only a matter of time until another Enron comes up and if the deciding SCOTUS pick is decided by Donald Trump, a man who's career is built on shielding himself from liability via corporations, how do you think that would go?

 

[balladofwindfishes]

When she ran in the '08 primary they were attacking her well before the primary was close to any real decisions.

They went so far as to sue for the right to attack her even more than they already were.

It's why when people say they don't trust Hillary to add justices who would repeal Citizen's United... it's just weird. Since for her, it's more than just political finance reform. It's personal.

 

[ahoyhoy]

Sure, no problem. I appreciate your view.

I suppose that I don't see an easy way to amplify the individual's power outside of the government itself being smaller or the populace being smaller/less interested in governance. I am no comparative government or political science PhD, but from my view, living in a large country of millions makes more immediate options for direct influence on government untenable.

Thanks. Good discussion!

I studied Constitutional/International Law in college but the more I learned the more embittered I became to the entire process. It sort of discouraged me from participating in political discourse for a while, but I'm slowly coming to realize that what I'm really interested about, beyond the actual politics themselves, is trying to find ways to better help enfranchise individuals to participate in every level of government.

Might research local PACs focused on issues like this now.

 

[Macam]

This'll probably change for Hillary as Bernie and Obama come out to endorse her, and Obama actively campaigns with her.

Probably. She's still less disliked than Trump, and all she really needs to do is keep it that way and make sure her people turn out to vote. She's certainly popular with older voters, who are more reliable voters.

 

[Alex_Mexico]

Here's something I don't understand. In the GOP Missouri Primary there were 52 delegates at stake right? Then why is this Washington Post graph showing Trump got 25 of those and only 5 for Cruz and 0 for everyone else? Where are the remaining 22 delegates? Is the graph wrong or am I missing something?