Bernie Sanders Endorses Hillary Clinton (cnn.com) 644
It's official. U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders on Tuesday endorsed former presidential rival Hillary Clinton as the Democratic nominee ahead of the party's July convention. Sanders said Clinton will make an outstanding president and that he is proud to stand with her. "Hillary Clinton understands that if someone in America works 40 hours a week, that person should not be living in poverty," Sanders added. CNN reports: "I have come here to make it as clear as possible why I am endorsing Hillary Clinton and why she must become our next president," Sanders said at a joint rally here. "Secretary Clinton has won the Democratic nomination and I congratulate her for that." The 74-year-old self-described democratic socialist, who has been a thorn in Clinton's side over the last year, pledged his support to his former rival: "I intend to do everything I can to make certain she will be the next president of the United States." Clinton, speaking after Sanders, declared: "We are joining forces to defeat Donald Trump!" "I can't help but say how much more enjoyable this election is going to be when we are on the same side," she said. "You know what? We are stronger together!" Full remarks of Sanders can be found on this blog post.
Sigh. (Score:5, Informative)
Sorry, I know you hate people who put content in the subject, and I know we're looking for insightful commentary here, but... that's just all I've got at this point.
So thank you Donald Trump? (Score:2)
If not for Trump, Sanders would still be opposing Hillary?
For Clinton's sake I hope this helps (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
So some Sander supporters believe in conspiracies? So what? Some Clinton supporters believe she is not corrupt at all and that all the negative attitudes about her are only a result of right wing propaganda. That doesn't mean all Clinton supporters are this naive. Plenty of Clinton supporters realize exactly how bad she is, but think we need a powerful, vindictive, morally corrupt Washington insider to lead the fight against the republicans, employing unafraid to use whatever dirty tricks are most apt a
Can i still write in Bernie? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure. Gore didn't start any wars from 2000-2008 when he wasn't president, therefore he wouldn't have started any if he was... Makes sense. Also, is it fair to say that 9/11 wouldn't have happened if he was president? And even it did, I'm sure he would have shown as much restraint in using military force as his democratic predecessors (i.e. some). And even if he didn't maybe he wouldn't have invaded the wrong country.
I think it is very possible that had we elected Gore, some different terrible shit woul
Re:Can i still write in Bernie? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure. Gore didn't start any wars from 2000-2008 when he wasn't president, therefore he wouldn't have started any if he was... Makes sense. Also, is it fair to say that 9/11 wouldn't have happened if he was president? And even it did, I'm sure he would have shown as much restraint in using military force as his democratic predecessors
Let's assume that under Gore 9/11 still would have happened. The biggest problem in Bush's response was the horrible incompetence he showed. Part of that was his advisors fault (both their poor ideas and their arrogance), and after four years, with more experience, Bush did improve, but Gore already had quite a bit of experience in 2001, and it's unlikely he would have tried to colonize two countries as a result.
I'll give you an example that clearly shows Bush's incompetence. After 9/11, basically every country in the world supported America, and there was a lot of good will. Within a month, Bush had turned that around and nearly every country in the world was protesting the actions of America, even some of our strong allies. He failed to build on the good will, and turned it into opposition.
For a comparison, consider the actions of Bush Senior in Iraq.......the middle east was horribly divided, yet with careful diplomacy he managed to get every country in the region to accept if not actively aid in the Iraq invasion. The exact opposite of his son.
Now, arguably Gore might not have been as good as Bush Senior, but if you look at presidential skill as a bell curve, then Bush Junior was clearly two standard deviations below the average, and it's unlikely that Gore would have also been that bad.
Re: (Score:3)
All part of The Plan:
The Project For The New American Century [go.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Sure. Gore didn't start any wars from 2000-2008 when he wasn't president, therefore he wouldn't have started any if he was... Makes sense.
He might have started some wars in the way that Obama did Libya, some bombing and maybe some special forces but nothing major.
Iraq was a determined project by Bush and the neo-conservatives that surrounded him. That does not happen with a Democratic president.
Also, is it fair to say that 9/11 wouldn't have happened if he was president?
Very dubious, and even if 9/11 was a consequence of Bush's incompetence it's hard to reliably prevent one-off events.
I think it is very possible that had we elected Gore, some different terrible shit would have happened, and there'd be people saying, "who is the lesser of 2 evils now" (having no idea what would have happened under Bush).
I think this underestimates just how awful a thing the Iraq war was.
We're looking at at least 250k deaths.
Trillions of dollars.
A huge r
Re: (Score:3)
He might have started some wars in the way that Obama did Libya, some bombing and maybe some special forces but nothing major.
Iraq was a determined project by Bush and the neo-conservatives that surrounded him. That does not happen with a Democratic president.
I think you have a very short sighted view of history. Republicans being the warmongers of the 2 major parties is a new development with the neoconservative movement. That hasn't always been the case, and could easily change with one warmonger democrat president or a pacifist republican president.
In fact, Bush actually campaigned on a platform of "no nation building". You can look back in retrospect and call bullshit on that platform, but what you can't do is know that Gore wouldn't make some horrible foreignn policy mistakes equivalent to the Iraq war after a 9/11 type attack.
Bush campaigned as a common sense regular-guy, ignoring experts and following his gut is exactly what lead to the Iraq war.
Trump is basically tripling down on the ignore-experts follow-your-instinct philosophy.
I don't know why we would associate Trump with the Iraq war. At least he actually claims (now) that it was a giant disaster. The only thing linking Trump to the Iraq war is that he's a republican. But Trump isn't really a republican. He could have just as easily been a democrat, if he decided that was better for his chances.
Trump supported Iraq, has been much more hawkish on Libya and Syria, and his foreign policy framework consists of using US power to push other countries around. Assuming he'd be more likely to get in a bad war is a very good bet.
I don't. I just don't see what any of this has to do with democrats vs. republicans. Trump is a disaster regardless of his party. Bush turned out to be a disaster. And we never really got the opportunity to know what a Gore presidency would have been like.
I'm not saying it has to do with D vs R, I'm saying it has to do with see
Duh (Score:5, Interesting)
Why bother reporting this? It's not even news. We've known all along that he'd get pressured into it.
I'm sure he just loves endorsing the one who pulled so many dirty tricks against his campaign...
I'm not voting for her or Trump. I'd rather write in my dog.
If I were him (Score:2)
Gary Johnson it is, then (Score:4, Insightful)
Trump is of course utterly unacceptable, and the Democratic Party has shown itself to be controlled by an unaccountable politburo that fixed the nomination. I wont be a part of either of these criminals' rise to power.
Im moving on from Feeling the Bern to Feeling the Johnson.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Democratic Party has shown itself to be controlled by an unaccountable politburo that fixed the nomination
The democratic party isn't organized enough to fix a pie-eating contest, much less 50+ primaries.
The primary results were generally very close to the pre-primary polls. The polls were done by many different groups.
I can see that you don't like the results of the primaries, but blaming it on corruption says much more about you than anything else.
Re:Gary Johnson it is, then (Score:5, Insightful)
You don't understand the issues these people/parties support. They're the complete polar opposites of the political spectrum box.
Maybe... Just maybe there are other reasons to vote for someone other than political platforms... Like integrity and honesty. Say what you want about Ron Paul he was honest and consistent in the decades he was in congress as was Sanders. They both were independents for much of their political careers and joined the major party because our system favors 2 parties. They wanted to change things from the inside and because of that there was an aurora of optimism around their camps.
The only thing I trust Clinton to do is be a dishonest politics-as-usual hack that epitomizes Machiavellian government. At least Trump is hated by Congress so hopefully nothing would get done.
You are the dumb-ass that thinks a professional liar is good so long as you agree with the lie they speak. Why don't you drink more kool-aid? Your cup is empty.
Re:Gary Johnson it is, then (Score:4, Interesting)
At least Trump is hated by Congress so hopefully nothing would get done.
The same congress controlled by Republicans who so effectively united to prevent him from getting the nomination, and even once he did, never walked back their criticisms of him at all?
You are the dumb-ass that thinks a professional liar is good so long as you agree with the lie they speak. Why don't you drink more kool-aid? Your cup is empty.
And you're the dumb-ass who wants to hand the Presidency to Trump! Do you realize how much power the president has? He hasn't finished the campaign and he's already threatening to put Amazon under anti-trust investigation because he didn't like the Washington Post's coverage [usatoday.com]. He's literally threatening to set law enforcement after media organizations for negative coverage!!
Re: (Score:3)
At least Trump is hated by Congress so hopefully nothing would get done.
The same congress controlled by Republicans who so effectively united to prevent him from getting the nomination, and even once he did, never walked back their criticisms of him at all?
Congress that is made up of both Republicans and Democrats hate Trump. It won't be one party trying to stop people voting how they see fit. It will be the Legislative branch against the Executive branch. Literally nothing wrong with two branches of government in disagreement.
And you're the dumb-ass who wants to hand the Presidency to Trump! Do you realize how much power the president has? !
Maybe if Congress hates the president so much they would actually limit the power of the Executive. Imagine that. That won't happen with Clinton. Yes, I know how much power the president has and aside from a few things like foreign rela
Re: (Score:3)
The same congress controlled by Republicans who so effectively united to prevent him from getting the nomination, and even once he did, never walked back their criticisms of him at all?
Congress that is made up of both Republicans and Democrats hate Trump. It won't be one party trying to stop people voting how they see fit. It will be the Legislative branch against the Executive branch. Literally nothing wrong with two branches of government in disagreement.
If Trump wins it will probably be a Republican legislative branch. And as I just pointed out Republicans haven't exactly demonstrated an ability to keep demagogues in check, they couldn't even stop Cruz from walking them into a Federal shutdown and almost default that no one except Cruz wanted.
Counting on Republicans to constrain Trump is like expecting a frat house to make an alcoholic go sober.
Maybe if Congress hates the president so much they would actually limit the power of the Executive. Imagine that. That won't happen with Clinton.
I'd put a lot more money on a Republican congress constraining a Clinton executive than a Trump executive.
Yes, I know how much power the president has and aside from a few things like foreign relations, federal bureaucracies, etc. he has to follow the law the legislative passes. Perhaps, it speaks more about the laws the executive enforces than it does who enforces them.
He just
Re:Gary Johnson it is, then (Score:5, Insightful)
Despite the fact that Bernie said we should do everything we can to stop him?
Why would I care what Sanders thinks after his endorsement undermines one (or many) of the reasons I was voting for him? Well, at least a liar said she would adopt his positions that I may or may not agree on. There are many positions Sanders took that I disagreed with, why would I care that Clinton is adopting those positions? For example, free college.
So you're effectively voting for Trump then?
Never heard of a protest vote have you? One reason to vote for Trump during the primaries was to protest the GOP treatment of Ron Paul last election when they changed the rules to ignore his delegates. That rule change came back to haunt the GOP when Trump became the only person to be able win the nomination according to the rule change (win majority in X number of state).
If I want to throw a wrench in the political system with my vote, name a better wrench than Trump.
Re:Gary Johnson it is, then (Score:4, Informative)
So you're effectively voting for Trump then?
No, he's voting for the candidate he feels best represents his views. Which is precisely what we should all do, no matter which candidate that is.
Despite the fact that Bernie said we should do everything we can to stop him?
Ummm... why would Bernie's opinion be some kind of deciding factor? That's just nonsense.
Re:Gary Johnson it is, then (Score:5, Interesting)
So do you think that Bernie is corrupt for endorsing Hillary then?
Definitely lost my support and respect. This endorsement makes Sanders come across as a hypocrite, liar, paid off, or all the above.
He's not hypocritical, Sanders has been very consistent that Hillary is vastly better than Trump and they share a lot of important policy objectives.
Similarly it's not dishonest.
And he wasn't paid off except to the extent that his endorsement was in return for embracing some more of his policies.
Or it is possible that you've massively misjudged the "criminality" of Hillary's actions and the reasons that she got so many endorsements and votes?
Yes, because we all know how sweet and innocent Clinton is. Everything is a right wing conspiracy against her. Obviously, "should have known better" and "extremely careless" is something I want to promote, amirite? What is "is" anyway?
The emails were a huge screwup, no question.
But you don't get perfect candidates.
Whom you know won't possibly win, so you're basically giving a half-vote to Trump.
Have you ever heard of a protest vote? Voting for Johnson, Stein, or Mickey Mouse is not giving "half-vote" to Trump you disingenuous busy-body. Your partisan apologetics are why 3rd parties are a joke in the US.
But you're right, I should just shut up the fuck up and vote the way you say because you know better! You are the reason why we end up with the two shittiest candidates in US history because god forbid people actually vote on principle instead of listening to know-it-all-busy-bodies like you.
Yes I know what a protest vote is, it's a claim that both candidates are more-or-less equally bad so you can't in good conscience pick either.
But whatever you think of Clinton (I actually think she's be great) Trump is VASTLY worse and could have horrific consequences if he got in.
I mean protest voting for Nader in Florida gave you Bush over Gore. And that led to the Iraq war and at least a quarter-million needless deaths. You don't get the excuse of ignorance that your protest vote doesn't matter. If Trump wins and you threw your vote away saying "It was a protest vote!" doesn't let you dodge responsibility.
You wanted to protest against Clinton so you voted for Sanders. That was your protest vote, not only did everyone hear but you actually changed both the party platform and Clinton's platform. That's a pretty damn effective protest.
But you didn't win everything you wanted, too bad, welcome to reality. Now it's time to do what's necessary and not play Russian roulette with a Trump presidency because Hillary offends your sensibilities.
Re: (Score:3)
He's not hypocritical, Sanders has been very consistent that Hillary is vastly better than Trump and they share a lot of important policy objectives.
Similarly it's not dishonest.
I guess it depends on why someone would initially support Sanders in the first place doesn't it? If you disagree with a lot of Sanders positions then it doesn't matter what platform position Clinton adopts. I disagree with Sanders on many things including "vastly better than Trump". Shit is shit regardless of the nuttiness. Only one piece of shit has an unknown to it.
So then you don't think Sanders is "hypocritical, dishonest, or paid-off".
There are many different reasons for protest vote everyone can have a different one.
And if it's a bad one I can criticize it.
But whatever you think of Clinton (I actually think she's be great) Trump is VASTLY worse and could have horrific consequences if he got in.
It is pretty obvious you think she's great. I don't. I don't think Trump is "vastly worse". "could" is a weasel word. There can always be horrific consequences.
How is me not pretending to have a crystal ball a weasel word? What non-weasely word would you prefer?
You don't get the excuse of ignorance that your protest vote doesn't matter
WTF? I am the one arguing that a protest vote is not a "half-vote" for Trump, like you.
Outside of very specific circumstances in a national US election voting 3rd party is effectively a half-vote for each party.
I am not trying to undermine someones vote of principle with scare mongering defeatism. I am literally arguing for more opinions in the body politic by advocating for a 3rd party vote to try and break the duopoly we see with R/D. And you want to say I don't get an excuse of ignorance? You can keep your partisanship bullshit and I will keep my principled vote.
I'm saying there is a massive potential cost to exercising your principle in this way. And if Trump wins because of your decision I believe that makes you accountable.
What is necessary? For the good of The Party, right?
For
I felt a great disturbance in the force... (Score:2)
...as if millions of progressives suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced. I fear something terrible has happened.
Re: (Score:2)
Sanders sold out (Score:2)
Sanders was an outsider taking on the elites and the political establishment. Hillary is the establishment, she is the perennial insider candidate. It will be interesting to see how many of Sanders supporters stay true to their ideals and refuse to vote for the women they spent months campaigning against. /do Bernie Sanders fans care about corruption?
Yay, hypocrisy. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Yay, hypocrisy. (Score:4, Insightful)
What happened to "she's not fit" for the office?
She was cleared from indictment in the emails case. Note that this endorsement came shortly after that announcement.
That was Sanders' last chance for the nomination. At this point, an endorsement is just saying "I like her better than Trump" which is not an unreasonable position for Sanders to hold, and is not inconsistent with "She's not fit."
Re: (Score:3)
What happened to "she's not fit" for the office?
Yes, its almost as if he was just saying stuff he didn't really believe about an opponent to get himself elected, when the only real difference he had with her was political. Like he's a politician or something.
Re: (Score:3)
What happened to "she's not fit" for the office?
He didn't recant on that. The well crafted page implies it's the lesser of two evils.
What's she got on you, Bernie?
The nomination for the Democratic National Committee?
Re:Yay, hypocrisy. (Score:4, Insightful)
Or, he's level-headed and pragmatic enough to understand that for whatever Clinton's faults; genuine, imagined, or made up from whole cloth by the republicans:
1) Trump would be incomparably and catastrophically worse.
2) He's not going to be the Democratic party nominee.
3) We live in the real world, and not some Fantasyland where a third-party or write-in candidacy would be viable.
Clinton wasn't my first choice either. But I'm not going to sit at home pouting in November, content to let the country burn, because the majority of the Democratic party didn't also want Sanders to be the candidate. Apparently, Sanders agrees with that sentiment.
Credit where credit due (Score:4, Insightful)
Our country's two-party system gave us the following two choices to be the next President of the United States: Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton.
Does anybody else see a problem here?
But credit where credit due: the 350 or so million dumbed-down 'Murikuns will get one of them come November 8. And they will have earned the right.
Re:The DNC overlords always get their way (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure - but all this "principled opposition" that Sanders supposedly brought turned out to be no so principled as we thought.
Clinton and Trump both epitomize everything that is horrible and deporable about American politics. People like to pretend that they wouldn't vote for someone just for wearing a (D) or (R), but this election is the test. Will you vote for one of the worst two candidates ever, just because of their party affiliation?
If so, you can't complain about your choices ever again, because you put your stamp of approval on this.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:The DNC overlords always get their way (Score:4, Interesting)
If you support Hillary, you're supporting Hillary. It's obvious. If you give your approval to candidates like that, you're going to get candidates like that.
Both sides have a job to do this fall, which is to rise up and say that we will not just accept the most corrupt and reprehensible people imaginable for leadership in high offices, because that's what the party tells us to accept.
The question is whether a voter has principles, or whether they don't. It's simple.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If you support Hillary, you're supporting Hillary. It's obvious. If you give your approval to candidates like that, you're going to get candidates like that.
Both sides have a job to do this fall, which is to rise up and say that we will not just accept the most corrupt and reprehensible people imaginable for leadership in high offices
So Hillary is one of "the most corrupt and reprehensible people imaginable"? Citation needed.
She has been under investigation almost continuously for more than 20 years by both legal authorities and very rich political opponents. During that time, the only thing which has been proven is that she sucks at email security. If she had done anything serious, SOMEONE would have sold out and given proof.
I hear this sort of thing alot. People claim "I don't listen to the media! I'm too smart!" and then repeat
Re:The DNC overlords always get their way (Score:4, Insightful)
As I'd expected, my respect for Scott Adams is further diminished...but to a vastly greater degree than I could've imagined.
He first tries to nitpick away Trump's history of bigotry (arguing that most of it isn't technically *racist* therefore it's nothing to worry about) and then he goes into straight-up apologism on the topic of the subset of Trump's rhetoric which is unmistakably racist (and therefore not OK, unlike other forms of bigotry apparently?). He even praises Trump for using racist rhetoric, painting it as a clever tactic to be admired. Wow. Finally he plays the "colorblind" card, blames Trump's opposition for "talking about race" and trivializes dog-whistle racism in case my eyes weren't at full roll before. Does this stuff work on white American baby boomers? It doesn't work on me for sure.
He says that Trump isn't a loose cannon in business even though he's famous for "altering the deal" with construction contractors and other smaller companies. He makes the same mistake that Trump himself does, mistaking an overwhelming advantage in economic power for "deal-making skills."
Then I start reading his defense of Trump's proposed ban on Muslim travel and I feel like stopping, but I push on through this nonsense. This is boilerplate Islamophobic spiel that no intelligent person would take seriously. Fuck you and your Islamphobia, Scott Adams.
Then his apologism for Trump's mysogyny and homophobia ties it all together into a grand finale: He deflects by repeating Trump's Islamophobic and anti-Mexican bigoted arguments, argues that he can't be mysogynistic because he wants women to own guns (like everyone else), but also because he hires women in his companies and insults others equally (Also like everyone else! Is doing the same for women that he does for others noteworthy or not?), and finally he implies that hiring women is at least partially fashion-driven.
As a footnote he says that he's voting for Hillary because he's worried about his safety if he votes for Trump (uh, what?) and then notes that as a 1%er life is super-good for him right now and he's worried Trump could raise taxes on him while he's pretty sure Hillary couldn't.
Fuck Scott Adams. I had no idea he was this much of an awful human being until now. So thanks for linking that article. I'm still a "rabid anti-Trumper" but now I hate Scott Adams too.
Re:The DNC overlords always get their way (Score:5, Informative)
You're confused, and just plain wrong, which is typical of ACs. It's when you don't vote for the person you like most, that you're throwing away a vote.
Re:The DNC overlords always get their way (Score:5, Interesting)
Clinton is the most owned presidential candidate in history.
She is not only owned by wall street firms and big corporations, she is owned by foreign powers who "donated" money to the Clinton "Foundation". And the funniest part is, she may even be owned by Vladimir Putin!
Right now Putin and Trump are in a love-fest because Trump (having fascistic tendencies) expressed admiration for Putin. But if sometime before the election Putin does a U-turn and starts bashing Trump and says nice things about Clinton, you know something really strange is going on. Like, Russian intelligence got a full dump of the Clinton email server and found some pretty seedy stuff and want her to become president so they can blackmail her into signing treaties favorable to Russia.
Re:The DNC overlords always get their way (Score:4, Insightful)
Clinton is still on precarious legal ground,
She can still be charged with failing to safeguard classified information,
She can be charged 18 U.S. Code 2071 - Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally [cornell.edu],
The FBI still has an RICO investigation going on The Clinton Foundation and
There's at least two instances of perjury.
What could Putin add that was any more damning; Clinton supporters just don't care, they either think Hillary can do no wrong or they're in the #anybodybutTrump camp.
Re:The DNC overlords always get their way (Score:5, Insightful)
The Corporate Overlords want Clinton.
Also the people, since, you know, she got more votes.
Re:The DNC overlords always get their way (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, I rather doubt the "people" want Clinton. Democrats barely want her, and everyone else is pretty much given that she is a total and complete crook. Enough Democrats will hold their noses and vote for her, that she will likely win. There are very few people who actually "want" her, but that is all they have for the D. The fact that Trump, who has negatives almost equal to Hillary won the GOP sweepstakes is also very interesting, especially when you look at Bernie's campaign successes.
The fact that Bernie called Clinton "unqualified" throughout his campaign, and is now supporting her is a testament to the Party politics that both D and R people have expressed in the election this year. That alone helps two people, Trump (outsider) and Gary Johnson, the Libertarian.
My guess is, when push comes to shove, nobody gets close to 50 % of the popular vote. If Gary Johnson gets closer to 20%, there will be a HUGE uproar as neither Trump or Clinton will get 40%. My biggest hope is that Johnson gets very close to 30%, and wrecks the idea that the president (Clinton / Trump) has any sort of mandate to do anything.
Re:The DNC overlords always get their way (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, I rather doubt the "people" want Clinton. Democrats barely want her, and everyone else is pretty much given that she is a total and complete crook.
She has been under continuous investigation for over 20 years, by both legal authorities and by many billionaire political opponents (Scaife, Murdoch, the Kochs, and more). These investigators have pumped insane amounts of money, people, and political pressure into finding some way to indict her or her husband. And so far, they have proven that Bill gets blowjobs from other women, and that Hillary has no clue how to do secure email. Wow!
So sure, I realize that many people think that "she is a total and complete crook". Many people also believe that vaccines cause autism, that GMOs are unhealthy, and that the earth is only 6000 years old. People are gullible. Sounds like you are too. Unless you have some amazing proof that nobody else does?
It turns out that many people like facts rather than bombastic hearsay. And many people seem quite happy with Hillary. Coincidence?
Re: (Score:3)
Hillary is corrupt, and a criminal, and a terrible choice. Trump has proposed arming middle eastern despots with nuclear weapons, and is pro-nuclear proliferation. That is how you go beyond 100%.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
middle ground fallacy.
Re: The DNC overlords always get their way (Score:4, Informative)
Uh, no.
Dems controlled House & Senate for first two years, the Dems had to pass PPACA (Obamacare) before Scott Brown was sworn in, taking Ted Kennedy's vacated senate seat.
Then Republicans took the House and Dems controlled the Senate for 4 more years, until the republicans took control of the Senate for the last two years of Obama's second term.
Re: The DNC overlords always get their way (Score:4, Informative)
Democrats controlled the senate with a supermajority for about 17 weeks, from the delayed confirmation of Al Franken to the death of Ted Kennedy.
Just exactly how much legislation do you think they should have crammed in to those weeks? The fact that they only got one piece of major legislation through is to me testament to the fact that they were taking their time to do things right instead of pushing through more pre-written, unread garbage.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Democrats controlled the senate with a supermajority for about 17 weeks, from the delayed confirmation of Al Franken to the death of Ted Kennedy.
Just exactly how much legislation do you think they should have crammed in to those weeks? The fact that they only got one piece of major legislation through is to me testament to the fact that they were taking their time to do things right instead of pushing through more pre-written, unread garbage.
HAHAHAHAHA...oh, you're serious. You've actually forgotten "You'll need to pass it to know what is in it?"
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, they took their time so much they were voting on Christmas Eve.
Re: The DNC overlords always get their way (Score:4, Informative)
Just exactly how much legislation do you think they should have crammed in to those weeks?
A whole lot if they'd been united and competent.
Re: The DNC overlords always get their way (Score:4, Insightful)
It took them so long to pass Obamacare because the legislation was so far left that even the moderate members of their own party wouldn't vote for it, and they spent weeks negotiating and offering concessions to each one of those members to assure they'd have the votes to pass it. If the Republicans had passed legislation in a similar fashion, the Left would be screaming about how corrupt and an affront to democracy the whole process was.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act#Senate [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
More importantly, you can override a filibuster. A supermajority can rule without compromise or deals with the minority.
Re: (Score:3)
as I recall - it only takes 51 votes to pass legislation in the Senate.
If no one launches a filibuster.
Re: (Score:3)
The Democrats had to negotiate with senators in their own party.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re:The DNC overlords always get their way (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
For some reason, the FBI agrees. Rules don't apply to her, but those exact same rules do apply to everyone else and would end lesser peoples careers. I guess she should feel entitled?
Re:The DNC overlords always get their way (Score:4, Insightful)
the same way they obstructed Obama for the last eight years.
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid just cried a little bit as you forgot the years they ran Congress...
Re: (Score:3)
The DNC just lost the election IMHO.
The electoral map disagree with you. Hillary needs to flip two states, probably Florida and Ohio, to win the election. Trump will have to flip over quite a few more states to come in striking distance of winning the election.
Re: The DNC overlords always get their way (Score:2)
So you are saying Trump has Florida and Ohio, unless Hillary can flip them? Keeping states is easier than flipping them in my opinion.
Re: (Score:2)
The election is starting to solidify between Trump and Clinton, and people realize you have to choose one of them; tribal instinct will kick in and they'll choose a side (I won't: I've already chosen third party). People will forget they ever supported Cruz, and find new reasons to support Trump ("oh, I realized he isn't actually Hitler, and look, he has an R, my preferred
Re:The DNC overlords always get their way (Score:4, Interesting)
"(I won't: I've already chosen third party)" .. Then you have chosen to support Crooked Hillary. Plain and simple. This is only a 2 person race.
Unless he lives in a swing state (most people don't) then a vote for either Hillary or Donald is "wasted". In the short run, it is a race between 2 people. In the long run, it is about ideas, and a vote for a third party is more likely to bring new ideas into the Overton Window.
Re:The DNC overlords always get their way (Score:5, Insightful)
I /hate/ this argument.
The election is not a game where you root for one of two sides and you "lose" if the other side wins. It is one of the few opportunities where "The People" get to give their say on which sort of government they want. By voting for a candidate, you say, "this person represents my interests best, he is the one I want to lead the government for the next 2 (representatives)/ 4 (president) / six (senator) years.
Even if the person you support does not win, your are still expressing your opinion on which things you want the government to support. The other candidates /will/ take notice of these opinions if it threatens their own chance of victory. If a significant percentage of people vote for the third-party candidate who promised to ban H1Bs, you can be that the major candidates will take that up as their rallying cry too (especially the one most threatened by that third-party candidate). It might not happen overnight, or even during the next election cycle, but if enough votes are at risk, the other candidates will modify their own platforms rather than lose the election.
Yes, it's probably true that ultimately only a Democrat or a Republican will get into office; historically and mathematically, the odds are in their favor. However, that's no reason to throw away one of your few opportunities to control your own government. Vote for the candidate who best reflects your own beliefs - whether he (or she) is a member of the two major parties or represents a third party. Yes, by doing so the "wrong guy" might get into office this year but honestly, that isn't as horrible as is often suggested (if the Republicans win this election, they aren't going to ship all homosexuals off to Gitmo, nuke Iran and forcibly return women to the kitchens; similarly, if the Democrats win, they aren't going to take away our guns, make us all take gay lovers and declare universal socialism).
The only ones who benefit from the idea that "voting for a third party is a waste" are the major political parties, who would prefer to maintain the status quo.
It's also important to remember that change takes time, especially since our political system is designed to be inefficient (and we should be grateful for that; you should be scared whenever government makes fast and sweeping changes. It will either be poorly thought out policy that will have a lot of negative repercussions or policy designed to benefit a very few). Just because "your side" doesn't "win" this round doesn't mean you should give up on them and vote for a candidate who doesn't represent you as well. If you - and enough other people - believe in something, your voice will eventually be heard.
So if the other guy stands for what you believe in better than the Democrats or Republicans, vote third party, even if you feel that by doing so you might be helping Clinton or Trump lose because they don't have your vote. It's the only real way you have to get the politicians to notice you.
Re: (Score:3)
This is certainly a good election to vote Libertarian as well. They are polling in the double digits. Personally, I feel that seeing a third party rise to be a major party is more important than choosing between two obvious tyrants.
And this time, the Libertarians have 2 popular two-term governors on the ticket. Both with more experience actually governing than either Trump or Hillary. And both are far more likely to leave you the hell alone.
Re: (Score:3)
The congress has been the only thing standing in the way of letting Obama ruin us further and fundamentally change everything that made the US great to begin with.
Yet it was the Republican Party that made Obama one of the most powerful presidents in U.S. history by not doing their jobs and abandoning the power of the purse.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/04/barack-obama-gop-most-powerful-213814 [politico.com]
Hell, look how much a challenge a self proclaimed Socialist did in the primaries??!?!?
You do realize that "Socialist" is an empty label that doesn't mean anything?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
no, its those who keep thinking we are stopping him because of his color and not his horrible horrible policy is flat out racebaiting scumbaggary
It that the only source of opposition? Absolutely not.
But Trump, one of the most prominent birthers, just won the Republican Primary on a platform of keeping out Mexicans and Muslims.
To think that race didn't play a major part in a lot of anti-Obama sentiment is to be in massive denial of the current state of the political right.
Re:The DNC overlords always get their way (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
but considering we were being told there would be dozens of 9/11-level attacks on the country if Obama became president,
and i would argue that DID happen. dallas, orlando, ft hood. boston, san bernadino sure number of casulaties dont match but i just pulled 6 terroristic acts out of my ass that took place under obama. i would guess you are using 9/11 level to refer to total deaths but id argue its the fear instilled that counts not the numbers
Re:The DNC overlords always get their way (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe you don't remember what happened after 9/11. The economy crashed. Two wars were started. Air travel was halted.
None of the events in the past eight years even come close to that sort of effect on us as a nation. I mean, we're talking about jetliners being flown in skyscrapers and the Pentagon, for chrissake. Are you so mental over a black president that you don't see the vast difference?
Re: (Score:3)
No, Obama and Hillary took what Bush started and destabilized the Muslim world to the point that it's causing a refugee crisis which has the potential to take down Europe. Not to mention using drones more than Bush, and locking up more whistleblowers than all previous administrations combined.
But you're right, it has to be racism...
You're an easily led buffoon.
Re:The DNC overlords always get their way (Score:5, Informative)
Horrible policy? He's the first president since WWII that hasn't taken the nation into a recession. Instead, he took the nation out of one and there has been steady, if slow, growth every quarter since.
Only if you fudge the inflation numbers (which this Administration has been doing). Run the numbers with the same CPI calculations [shadowstats.com] as used back in the 70s and 80s and you'll find inflation is running about 7-8%, and that puts the economy still in a recession.
But hey, it's OK we're still running a real deficit of $1.4 trillion, annually, so it's all good!
Re:The DNC overlords always get their way (Score:4, Informative)
Nah.
http://money.cnn.com/2015/10/1... [cnn.com]
Re:The DNC overlords always get their way (Score:5, Informative)
When Obama took over the White House, we were running a deficit FOUR TIMES what we're running now.
If you found a drug that could cure 3/4 of cancers, you would call that a success, wouldn't you? You still wouldn't celebrate the remaining 1/4 of cancer cases, but you would doubtless say we were moving in the right direction, and you'd almost certainly win a Nobel.
Re:The DNC overlords always get their way (Score:4, Informative)
It is his radical policies that were blocked.
Like appointing Merritt Garland to the Supreme Court.
Re:The DNC overlords always get their way (Score:5, Informative)
How did republicans obstruct Obama for 8 years?
Filibuster in the Senate. Foot dragging on judicial nominations. Passing legislation that appeals to the base but has poison pills that won't attract Democratic votes. Etc., etc., etc.
Re: (Score:2)
flipped them into supporting a warmongering, corporatist, Wall Street shill.
Um, no.
Re: (Score:2)
1) He gets to keep the left-over money, and since he'll likely be retiring soon he won't even have to hide it in his wife's name like he does the rest of his assets.
I thought there were strict limits on what campaign contributions could be spent on. Do you have any information to the contrary that would corroborate your claim?
Re: (Score:2)
How is this even news? Was there anyone paying attention who doubted this would happen?
Thieves of a feather flock together.
Re: (Score:3)
Or Jill Stein depending on how you think things should go.
read the polls (Score:5, Informative)
The most accurate polling analysis in the two most recent presidential cycles has been done by http://projects.fivethirtyeigh... [fivethirtyeight.com] They carefully look at all polls on a state by state basis and then build a national electoral model based on that data. It's updated every few days as new polls come out. Right now, Hillary is winning the electoral college by 338 to 199 with 1 vote for Gary Johnson of the Libertarian Party. Of course things can change, but that's a pretty big lead for this point in the race.
And note that Bernie did not walk away empty handed. He has already moved Hillary to his positions on free college and universal health care.
Re:read the polls (Score:5, Insightful)
He has already moved Hillary to his positions on free college and universal health care.
Considering how many times she's changed her position on just about everything, he's only succeeded in getting her to talk about supporting those positions until she decides not to in a few months. I didn't agree with him on some of his positions, but I knew where he stood on them. Sanders had the integrity that suggested he would hold to his word. The only integrity Hillary would know is an LLC by that name that's contributed to her campaign.
Re:read the polls (Score:4, Insightful)
Inside the Democratic Party? He's barely a member himself. He only registered as a democrat in 2015 so he could run on the ticket. The 30 years before that he was an independent.
And I highly doubt he's going to try and fracture the Democrats by forming a new party. I mean, that's turned out SO WELL for the GOP and the TEA partiers.
I've little doubt that once Hilary gets into power, she'll simply ignore him. Hell, now that she has his endorsement, and the primaries are all but over, it's the traditional time to flip your party the bird and move yourself on over to the moderate center to appeal to the swing voters.
What I want to know is what does a political mover and shaker do once they reach the top? When there's no longer anyone you have to kiss up to.
Re:read the polls (Score:4, Insightful)
Or just bet on the candidate with CIA ties. It's been sure money since '80.
Re: (Score:3)
As everyone on the democratic side has been saying for a year now, it's all about the electoral college math.
To win all the democratic nominee has to do is take every state the Dem's have won for the last 12 presidential elections and pick up either Ohio or Florida and they're guaranteed to win. The election math is against Republicans and they have to be very careful if they want to win the whitehouse.
The only way the democrats can lose is to alienate the Latino vote, Bush won enough of that vote to win, T
Re: (Score:3)
The Democrats only won DC and Minnesota in 1984, and only DC and Massachusetts in 1972. They're going to have to do much better than that.
Re:read the polls (Score:4, Interesting)
Democratic enthusiasm is pretty low, whereas there was record turnout for the republican primary.
That certainly works in Trump's favour. Hispanic turnout is relatively low historically, and Obama got 71% of the latino vote the last time around.
Trump is doing better than any recent GOP politican with black voters getting around 15%, compared to Romneys 6%.
If Romney had gotten 5% more of the white vote he would have won. Of course down the line with different demographics, Republicans will have a harder time.
Re: (Score:3)
Trump cannot win the election if he doesn't win ~35% of the Latino vote. This is an absolute mathematical certainty. The only reason Bush beat Gore was because he was able to score iirc 31% of the Latino vote. Because of the changing demographics of the US electorate the percentage of Latino voters the GOP needs increases with each presidential election. During the 12 years Obama has been president that's increased more than 5%. It increased 3-4% during Bush and a smaller percentage during Clinton. This is
Re:read the polls (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:read the polls (Score:5, Informative)
Define: "The most accurate polling analysis..."
In 2008, Nate correctly predicted the outcome in 49 of 50 states. In 2012, he correctly predicted the outcome in 50 of 50.
Keep in mind that the main stream media has been providing slanted poll results in abundance because those poll results meet their agenda.
Slanted polls are still useful. As long as they slant consistently in the same direction, you just need to apply a deskewing factor. You can get good results by aggregating a lot of individually bad polls.
Try asking 333 (or 3333, etc.) of each and see what the results are.
1. The electorate is not 1/3 Democrat, 1/3 Republican, and 1/3 Independent, so your poll would not be representative.
2. Democrats, Republicans, and Independents are not equally likely to agree to participate in your poll. R's and I's are more likely to refuse.
3. Democrats, Republicans, and Independents are not equally likely to actually vote, so your poll would need to account for that.
4. Not all Democrats (or Republicans or Independents) vote the same. For instance, younger people, regardless of party registration, vote differently than older voters. Black Democrats vote more consistently partisan than white Democrats, but have lower turnout, etc. So it is not sufficient to have the right fraction of Democrats, but it also matters who they are.
Re: (Score:3)
Amazing to me people still think Nate Silver is any good. Hell, even a parody account is more accurate [vocativ.com].
Re: (Score:3)
My point isn't that he's bad, he's really good. It's that you shouldn't blindly follow what he says: do your own analysis.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Hillary has obviously always wanted universal health care
Then she shouldn't have worked so hard to impeach Nixon.
Re: (Score:3)
In our version of Fascism, the labor movement has been declawed and decimated.
Corporations have taken control of government through the economic strong-arm method of campaign donations and lobbying.
Would you argue that we don't have a rabid nationalist bend? How about all of the military service hero worship? The you're either with us or against us mentality? The Patriot Act?...
There are many ways to arrive at Fascism.
Re: (Score:3)
Did you know there are polls that show Johnson leading Trump in at least one state?
Re:Rubbing my hands together.. (Score:5, Funny)
Screw you, you stinking SJW fascist! Why don't you go play Pokemon Go with Hitler?
Re: (Score:3)
Pretty sure you're the one who just whooshed.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm going to guess this is a move to be on a short list for VP. Bernie might not even be on the list, but mending fences may give him some influence in the VP process. Perhaps Bernie did this to get Al Franken on Hillary's short veep list?