DeadlyVirus
Member
Why type of business? Trump digging up all the dirt on Hillary? You know that's going to happen...
Hillary Clinton to CNN: "I will be the nominee"
- Thread starter Fracas
- Start date
- Status
Why type of business? Trump digging up all the dirt on Hillary? You know that's going to happen...
You mean the dirt that's already been used against her the past thirty years by the Republicans? There's really nothing we don't already know about Hillary.
It's theoretically possible, but very unlikely. I came up with some scenarios to show how difficult it would be for him to win (this is only counting pledged delegates, you can assume superdelegates will back the winner of the voters). Click the images to enlarge them:
Each one gets progressively more generous to Bernie (even the first one has him beating the polls in California and New Jersey). Even if he wins every contest remaining, he won't win unless he gets massive margins. If you want to mess around with the numbers yourself, go to http://demrace.com/.
TheLostBigBoss
Banned
Rofl, did you just compare Trump, who hijacked the party and proved what liberals have thought about the Republican party for the last 40 years was right, to Hillary who IS part of the Democratic party and is winning in a delegate landslide and popular vote landslide?
Of course you did, because you're hanging on to the last bit of possible hope that Sanders is going to build a perpetual momentum machine and not only surpass Clintons lead in California, but get to a 90% victory and magically get more pledged delegates by actually physically shitting them out and then convincing the Democratic party, the one he has been shitting on with that very same asshole he's going to use to shit out those pledged delegates, that they should vote for him because a bunch of assholes who threaten people and their children think they know best for the party and the country at large.
Sounds like a solid plan to me
This system hasn't existed for a long time, and as you said even when it existed, there was discrimination.
I'm guessing you would disagree with Hillary on the public university Trump line?
In fairness, I doubt Trump will be able to find a tape of Hillary saying she believes she could have fucked Princess Diana, taken shortly after her death.
So I mean, I guess both sides have some dirt.
You got me there!
Tranqueris
Banned
Meanwhile in an alternate reality where Bernie Sanders is somehow winning the election..
"And furthermore, I want to say something to the people of Syria, Libya, Iran and Iraq. When I win the Presidency my first major foreign policy decision will be to send each of these countries a letter stating that I did not vote for the Iraq war and.. That's all I have prepared right now."
This idea that someone who is woefully uneducated about foreign policy matters and by all accounts hasn't had any interest in getting educated in these matters is by far the superior choice is absolutely ridiculous.
Wow, that's really helpful. Thank you.
RPGCrazied
Member
Fine with me, I'll gladly vote for her come November. Not my first choice, but over Trump? No question who to vote for.
It is mathematically possible in the same sense that it's mathematically possible that you could flip a quarter 10 times right now and have it come up heads all 10 times. Stastically speaking neither one is likely at all to happen.
Would you mind expanding on this? It seems to me that a ton of progress has been happening in recent years. Even if you only look at LGBTQ rights, the party has evolved and progressed incredibly fast. Gay marriage wasn't even on the agenda eight years ago. Today they're fighting for transgender rights, which took everyone by surprise. That's real progress. How are they being stubborn?
A Link to the Past
Banned
I just don't get this. Imagine if people were this gung-ho about change on the state level - 15, 20 years down the road the strongest candidates would be people even more liberal than Bernie!
The business of having the full might of the Clinton machine set on destroying Trump, and making strong gains in the House and Senate of course.
I am happy for those things. I just wish the general view on foreign policy and economics would move to the left and progress. I think it's good to have forces that put pressure on politicians and political power structures to actually look at those things. Income inequality has been a big issue in this country for a long time. The way that the political system operates on the money from those benefiting from the status quo prevents these issues from being addressed.
When the economy is more equal, there is more of an overall investment in the community, and things like schools improve. I think it's worth a try.
It is very nice to see the party be allies and fight for our rights. The Obama administration and Loretta Lynch's support (of trans people) is incredible and downright surprising personally speaking. Democrats are pretty progressive as far as I am concerned.
*I can understand some concerns on economic policy though. It doesn't help GOP obstructionism of Obama made the recovery less effective than it could have been if there were cooperation...
BoboBrazil
Member
It's been over. Bernie is just doing damage to the democratic party now by staying in. Obama should announce he supports Hillary so they can ramp up the attacks against Trump and get on with it. People also have the right to donate to him, but he is almost stealing the people donating to him's money now by continuing to mislead them.
I am sure Obama will endorse as soon as she actually passes the delegate threshold.
To put into perspective how impossible his path to victory is, Sanders needs to win 68% of the remaining pledgeable delegates to tie Clinton. So far he has only won one primary by that margin, his home state of Vermont. 97% of the remaining delegates come from primaries as opposed to caucuses.
The house, the senate and the majority of the states are controlled by Republicans. We're not going to move further to the left by attacking Democrats for not being liberal enough while most of the government is controlled by individuals far to the right of the most conservative Democrat.
Makes sense, and I generally agree with this. I think it is moving left, just slowly. My running theory is that these issues are a lot more boring, complex and have base fears working against them. (in addition to any problems money may actually be causing) At the end of the day as long as things are moving left on a long term scale, I'm happy.
excelsiorlef
Member
Gnome Scat
Member
Well I mean yeah.
Azure Dream
Member
Something like 400 Superdelegates declared for her Day 1, I believe before the first Primary was even held. When the party leaders are sending that clear a sign right from the start of "We've chosen her, this is the candidate," it's not a race, no. It actively discouraged voting for Sanders, because why bother?
I'm not saying get rid of the Superdelegates, or that Sanders would win without them (He basically showed up to the foot race late, wearing the wrong pair of shoes and refused to change them), but there was clearly a chosen candidate from the start, and all I kept seeing for a while was "get out of her way" and "you're only causing trouble Republicans will use." As if it was such an inconvenience he was running in this democratic primary!
Ultimately, if the system weren't so focused around these two parties at this point, Bernie would've run as the Independent he is, and a "real" Republican would probably break away from Trump's pack, and we would have a better voting system to accommodate having more candidates than the current FPTP, letting you pick preferred order. (Also, cell phone voting, because you can already vote by mail, and young people already otherwise live and die by their cell phones.) Instead, he had to compromise and run under a party he clearly has some issues with, and they had no reservations about treating him with similar contempt. He still got a large chunk of the vote, so at the least Clinton and the party should take his topics of focus to heart, as they clearly resonated with a chunk of the voting base.
brainchild
Banned
First of all, just because some of the planks of Bernie's platform are similar to Hillary's/DNC's, it doesn't mean that Hillary and the DNC are just as effective as Bernie in communicating those ideas to the public. After all, Bernie is winning all out the GE polls right now. That may not mean much by November, but it says something about the public opinion of Bernie Sanders and his policies RIGHT NOW.
Furthermore, pretending like there are no differences between Bernie's healthcare, education, and racial justice platforms and Hillary's/DNC's platforms is completely disingenuous.
In fact, it would seem that Americans would prefer Bernie Sanders healthcare plan over ACA:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/poll...prefer-medicare-health-care/story?id=39148652
It seems that calling single payer "Medicare for all" was the magic phrase, because Americans seem to love the idea of it now, compared to before when "government funded healthcare" was a taboo phrase for Americans.
Anyway, Bernie's racial justice platform is ridiculously more comprehensive than Hillary's or the DNC's so I don't know how you could say with a straight face that there aren't any significant differences.
I don't see any of the following points being addressed (either in general or as comprehensively as Bernie's platform does) on Hillary's racial justice platform or the DNC's (I also checked the criminal justice platforms in cases of overlap).
- We must create a police culture that allows for good officers to report the actions of bad officers without fear of retaliation and allows for a department to follow through on such reports.
- We need police forces that reflect the diversity of our communities, including in the training academies and leadership.
- States and localities that make progress in this area [proper use of force] should get more federal justice grant money. Those that do not should get their funding slashed.
- We need to make sure federal resources are there to crack down on the illegal activities of hate groups.
- We need to re-enfranchise the more than two million African-Americans who have had their right to vote taken away by a felony conviction, paid their debt to society, and deserve to have their rights restored.
- We need to make Election Day a federal holiday to increase voters ability to participate.
- We must make no-fault absentee ballots an option for all Americans.
- We need to take marijuana off the federal governments list of outlawed drugs.
- We need to allow people in states which legalize marijuana to be able to fully participate in the banking system and not be subject to federal prosecution for using pot.
- We must investigate local governments that are using implicit or explicit quotas for arrests or stops.
- Police departments must investigate all allegations of wrongdoing, especially those involving the use of force, and prosecute aggressively, if necessary. If departments are unwilling or unable to conduct such investigations, the Department of Justice must step in and handle it for them.
- We need to give our children, regardless of their race or income, a fair shot at attending college. Thats why all public universities should be made tuition free. We should pay for that with a tax on Wall Street speculators.
- We must increase the minimum wage to a livable wage of $15 an hour by 2020 which will increase the wages of about half of African-Americans and nearly 60 percent of Latinos.
- We must fundamentally re-write our trade policies and rebuild factories that were closed as a result of bad trade deals.
- We need to address the inadequate environmental cleanup efforts of Superfund hazardous waste sites in communities of color.
- The environmental analysis for a permit for a polluting facility must consider the disparate and cumulative environmental burden borne by a community.
- We need to mitigate climate change and focus on building resilience in low-income and minority communities.
And these are just the distinctions I've listed from Bernie's RACIAL JUSTICE platform. I could do this for all of the planks for his overall platform and the list would be exhaustive.
Now, I've done my due diligence. If you cannot see what new ideas Bernie would bring to the table after comparing his platform with Hillary's/DNC's, then that's YOUR fault, not mine.
The same thing is happening to the DNC that should've happened to the RNC but didn't.
I knew the GOP was good at getting in lockstep, but the speed at which they've fallen in line is mind blowing. Especially after shit Trump flung their way. No matter how unfairly Bernie has been treated, it's nowhere near the level of disrespect Trump showed individuals in the GOP and in a matter of days, they're on board.
I'm not sure whether to have more or less respect for the GOP.
Lmao
Election day holiday, climate and enviornmental justice, grow manufacturing jobs, police reform.
You're not even looking to see where, if at all, Sanders disagrees with Clinton, you're just copying and pasting his platform. Clinton and Sanders agree on the vast majority of issues, almost everything, and where they do disagree it often isn't on the underlying issue but on how much to do to correct it, such as with gun control.
You have yet to outline the major difference between Sanders and Hillary/Democrats or what you think needs to be changed about the platform, aside from marijuana decriminalization, which Hillary isn't against, and a $15 minimum wage instead of $12.
Big Baybee
Member
It's kind of hilarious. You continuously asking him to point out the differences between the dnc/Clinton and Sanders platform. It's a tough question because there virtually is none. Hence the repeated copying and pasting of his platform without actually answering the question that you keep asking.
JesseEwiak
Member
Hillary's 2016 platform is more liberal on economics (and yes I know, Hillary is lying and will repeal Obamacare on her first day!) than Obama's 2008 platform which was more liberal on economics than John Kerry's 2004 platform (and Howard Deans too) which was more liberal than Al Gore's 2000 platform which was more liberal than Bill Clinton's 1996 platform.
Is it as liberal as I want? Nope. But, millions have access to health insurance that didn't and millions more won't get thrown off their insurance, millions of people will have better overtime rules, and so on, and so forth.
Again, maybe because it's an old man and actually remember the late 90's Democratic Party that actually did sound like moderate Republican's, but this idea that the Democratic Party in 2016 is some center-right party, even by international stands, is just sort of weird.
...Scatter...
Banned
I hope she excavates Al Gore. Clinton/Gore 2016.
brainchild
Banned
I have been more than forthcoming with the evidence that there are substantial differences between their platforms in terms of HOW they will handle the issues.
Furthermore, there has been no actual counter-argument to any of my points. Linking me to articles that blatantly show clear differences between how they'll get things done and claiming that they're exactly the same is just flat out intellectually dishonest.
I have yet to see any rebuttal to the fact that Americans prefer Sanders healthcare plan over Clinton's, despite you all pretending like there aren't any major differences between the two.
If that is going to be the discourse here, I'll have no part in it.
You have the evidence, it's up to you to actually evaluate it.
Big Baybee
Member
There aren't substantial and major differences, both have the same goals with different routes of getting there. Sanders way is frankly almost impossible. Building on the ACA is the only viable way forward. Pretending like democrats aren't for universal healthcare does you no favors here.
JesseEwiak
Member
The Affordable Care Act had 72% approval rating when Obama first proposed it. Weirdly, that went down. Lot's of things are popular until a party actually proposes it.
Read this from Lawyers, Guns, and Money and get back to me - http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com...ly-impossible-to-pass-single-payer-in-the-u-s
brainchild
Banned
If they have different routes of getting there then their plans are not exactly the same, which has been my point the entire time.
So you're admitting there's a difference between ACA and Single payer. Good. That was my point.
JesseEwiak
Member
Yes, the ACA was even more popular among the general public than single payer was before the GOP, the media, and the entire health care industry turned its guns on it.
Big Baybee
Member
But the goal is the same. lol. Why does it matter if we we get there? That's all I'm saying. I feel like if the goals are common then is there really that much of a difference?
But think about this: why wouldn't supers overwhelmingly support Hillary over Bernie?
Hilary Clinton is a life-long Democrat. She has worked for years stumping for the party. Supporting the party. Raising money for the party. Helping to get more democrats elected. Bernie has not done this. A vote from a superdelegate effectively says, "this is the candidate who I believe most represents the interests of the Democratic party and who I think can win in November." Considering that, it's a no-brainer that they chose Hillary over Bernie overwhelmingly.
Supers going for Hillary is not a sign that the game is rigged in her favor. If anything, it's an indictment of Bernie Sanders for thinking that he could be a stubborn Independent senator for most of his political career, join the party last minute SPECIFICALLY to legitimize his run for President, and wrestle away significant support from a candidate who has done everything in the world to earn it by his mere presence.
sturgboski
Member
That would make me vote for her. I mean, you meant that she is saying that in the context of a Trump presidency right?
Let's not also forget that Supers vote with the will of the people. If Bernie somehow beats her in pledged delegates AND popular votes, I imagine the super delegates will then throw to Bernie. At least historically, I believe that has always been the case. See the problem here is that Clinton is beating Bernie in pretty much every metric: number of wins, pledged delegates, popular votes (I believe she still beats even Trump here) AND super delegates. Unlike what Bernie keeps claiming for the last month, there is no word yet for the "mountain" in front of him. If he continues to tie or eek out minor victories and aspires to clinch thanks to Cali, he would need over 70% of the vote which is not happening. BUT as I stated earlier, if he magically does pull it out with higher pledged and popular votes, I would expect supers to go his way.
brainchild
Banned
I'm not arguing otherwise, only that the planks that Bernie would be bringing to the DNC platform are different than what would already be coming to the platform by the party itself or Hillary Clinton. And it deserves a chance to be debated on at the convention considering how well he's done in the primaries.
The plan to achieve a goal is very important. A plan could be really efficient or somewhat efficient, very effective or kind of effective, extremely comprehensive or barely comprehensive, etc.
Not all of Bernie's ideas need to be adopted by the DNC platform, but he deserves the chance to debate them at the convention so that the DNC can come up with the most efficient, effective, and comprehensive plans for the party's shared goals of the future. That's all I'm arguing here.
JesseEwiak
Member
He's had a chance to argue them for the last year. He lost. Mitt Romney doesn't get to put forth 47% of his policies during Obama's 2nd term because he won 47% of the vote.
You want to write the platform? Win the nomination.
And even then, just because the party leadership wants something means it's the right thing for the party if it wants to win elections.
excelsiorlef
Member
It hasn't been a race since Feb 27th when it became clear he was going to get annihilated in the South
brainchild
Banned
Thankfully, the DNC will give him that chance anyway, despite what you say. The 10 million+ people that voted for him deserve that much.
Azure Dream
Member
Did I argue this? Yes, of course she serves the party more favorably, so yes, they clearly sided with her. This doesn't elude me.
Notice you used "rigged", which is that word a lot of people are mocking "Bernie Bros" for. I didn't use it.
My problem isn't that they voted for the person that obviously serves their party best. Given their choices, of course that's who they opted for. My problem was that before anybody else got to cast their vote, they put out a clear, defined arrow pointing at a specific candidate. If they came out at the end of the primaries and said "We ultimately choose Clinton," yes, there may be some fussing and moaning that they decided the primary, that in itself could be bad, but at least the initial voting and caucusing could have happened without that handicap making a dent into voters. It's hard to say how much of a dent, but there's no question it had to have discouraged some voters. Not to mention people like to side with a winner, so if you paint someone a presumptive winner early on, and they can run with that (unlike Jeb), that does give them a leg up. I just don't think it's ok that before any state had voted, Clinton was already 1/6th of the way to guaranteed nomination.
NeuAscension
Banned
I didn't say anything of the sort. Comparatively Hillary is doing poorly: WV 41 point win in '08 to an 8 Point loss, Kentucky she barley broke even after winning the state by 36 pts in '08. Indiana she had 90% projected win, magically turned in to an 8 pt loss. Same with Oregon. I'm not saying Sanders is going to win the nomination, as much as I would like him to, but you can't win a general election when you don't have support of 47% of your party and very little support from independents. It's not likely to happen. The numbers show her support is dwindling, and this whole "Sanders' supporters are violent" narrative is just a deflection from that discussion. The most violent accusatory shit I've seen online, on forums and in discussions comes from Hillary supporters. Look in the mirror and you'll see exactly why the Democratic Party is so divided. Having been a discussion with you is futile without it turning in to selective hearing, wild assumptions, and foul language.
I'm from WV, and I can tell you that the win in '08 was because she was against a black man, sadly.
This time it's a man vs a woman, and the vitriol was as such in my lovely state.
- Status