The Next President

[Vader]

The thing that always gets me with Hillary is people say she often signs of growth... except then she'll turn around and blatantly lie about things she said in the past or things someone else said. When called out on this, she deflects, rather than admitting she was wrong. She comes off as someone who only says what she has to say to please the greatest amount of people.

 

Yeah, I think that's a fair critique. My support for Clinton is a combination of my knowledge of the political process, my examination of her current policy proposals, my general sense of the telos of her career, and my gut feeling on how she will be once elected.

When I look at a presidential candidate I look for two things

(1) how capable are they of performing their job, which for me includes an attitude of thoughtfulness and intellectual curiosity about the wide range of things that a President has to deal with

 

(2) an ideological telos that has veered in the direction of favoring peace and the common good, even if I take issue with some of their individual decisions or compromises 

For me, Hillary clearly wins on the first count. On the second, I think there can be some reasoned debate. I would argue that she has overall shown to be good on that count as well, which is why I support her, but why I also don't begrudge people who are suspicious. On the other hand, Sanders has mostly been inarguably good on the second count, but on the first one has arguably come short

Clinton is certainly far from infallible, and again I begrudge no one for supporting Sanders for the reasons Twig and others have pointed out.

[Henroid]

 Are we denying that the government of the south (and federal level Republicans) are constantly giving the shaft to education all of a sudden?

 

Edit - I think some of you are misunderstanding that I'm pointing out that people are a victim of being denied a proper education (and the consequences of that). Pointing that out is not advocacy that it should continue or is a good thing. I refuse to be labeled a bad guy for saying people in an unfortunate position are being taken advantage of.

[Twig]

I've got no butt in this butt-basket, but it's true that there's no graceful way to say "uneducated" or even the less-extreme "under-educated" without it sounding like you're calling someone stupid. Ignorant holds a negative connotation as well, because people often use it in an accusatory tone, like "that person doesn't even try to learn!", even though all it really means is "lacks knowledge".

[jennegatron]

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2016/02/26/3753739/prri-black-homophobia-myth/

 

 

It's easy to pin homophobia on southern Black Christians, but the numbers aren't there. "voting against their own self interests" is a load of shit. Just because they value things that you don't doesn't make them dumb. Religion is important to people, and it gets to be important to people. Maybe talk about the systematic disenfranchisement of the south via the gutting of the VRA rather than saying that southern voters don't even know what's best for them or what they should actually want.

[Henroid]

I've got no butt in this butt-basket, but it's true that there's no graceful way to say "uneducated" or even the less-extreme "under-educated" without it sounding like you're calling someone stupid. Ignorant holds a negative connotation as well, because people often use it in an accusatory tone, like "that person doesn't even try to learn!", even though all it really means is "lacks knowledge".

In all fairness I did use the word "stupid" in a much earlier post, but I was speaking about a different demographic altogether. I'm not here or arguing out of hostility. I'm not gonna tell people not to be angry (I have a huge issue with people that do that to others), but if they're going to be mad at me, make sure it's for the right reasons and not misunderstandings or - worse - putting words in my mouth.

[Henroid]

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2016/02/26/3753739/prri-black-homophobia-myth/

 

 

It's easy to pin homophobia on southern Black Christians, but the numbers aren't there. "voting against their own self interests" is a load of shit. Just because they value things that you don't doesn't make them dumb. Religion is important to people, and it gets to be important to people. Maybe talk about the systematic disenfranchisement of the south via the gutting of the VRA rather than saying that southern voters don't even know what's best for them or what they should actually want.

We're not just talking about differing values. We're talking about things like Clinton actively gutting welfare programs that people in the south particularly depend on (not of their own fault; reminder that this is a matter of oppression) but somehow still garnering their support. It makes no logical sense to be hurt by a politician and throw your support by them.

 

Mind you, financially hurting those in poverty - like myself - is different than hurting the wealthy financially. When a multi-millionaire makes less millions of dollars, they are still millionaires and don't have to worry about housing or food or power or transportation. For people like me, any slap we take financially hurts tremendously. If someone did that to me, you can be sure as shit I wouldn't support them.

[Problem Machine]

The thing about 'stupid' is it doesn't actually explain anything. Stupid isn't a reason why people do things, it's just a potential factor in the reasoning that makes them do things. It's a thought terminating cliche. 'stupid' is stupid. And inflammatory. And, moreover, ignorance is something that is often specifically fostered for political purposes, and is effect as well as cause. Discussing ignorance or 'stupidity' as though they are the source of problems, rather than the product of problems, is not a very helpful approach I think. It neither explains why that cognitive gap exists nor why it leads to the reasoning that you disagree with. And, again, is inflammatory.

 

Henroid, the core assumption you seem to be making is that if a decision someone else makes makes no sense to you it is therefore definitely the result of their flawed reasoning, rather than differing belief systems or flawed reasoning on your part. Do you not see how this seems condescending?

[Henroid]

Henroid, the core assumption you seem to be making is that if a decision someone else makes makes no sense to you it is therefore definitely the result of their flawed reasoning, rather than differing belief systems or flawed reasoning on your part. Do you not see how this seems condescending?

The subject at hand is the presidency of the country I reside in, and by extension the government of the country I reside in. If we were talking about most anything else, whatever, people are different and that's fine. However, we're talking about a situation that will impact millions of lives to great effect. President Barack Obama ran a campaign based on issues people wanted resolved at home, rather than a campaign of keeping things as they are or regressing them or making the nation a warmongering state. Bernie Sanders is campaigning on the same thing. Hillary Clinton says she is campaigning in the same fashion, but unfortunately has a record of harming the impoverished in the country and taking an excessive amount of money from people who desire that to continue. It's not in question that politicians get bought by corporations or other wealthy interests. We see it all the time when NRA funded politicians responds to mass murders or killing sprees with "guns aren't the problem!" Or when John McCain writes a bill to kill net neutrality and names it "the Internet Freedom Act," but he takes money from the telecoms (AT&T most predominate of them in his case).

 

So yeah. When people throw support behind Clinton, who openly operates in that way, I'm confused and disturbed and angry. And that's the precise count of chances I give people to justify it to me in a way that even I can go, "Alright, no argument there" (which I guess is the part that makes me an asshole). I've seen precisely one argument to defend her that I did not have a problem with (pertaining to a speech she gave about LGBT people having just as much right to, well, rights as anyone else). Nothing else is clear to me. My viewpoint is that support of Clinton is about getting a woman into the office of the presidency. Yes, that would be a tremendous stride, but at what cost should we do this? It's a shallow, hallow symbolism people are wanting. Elizabeth Warren would not only accomplish that symbolism, but she actually fights for what's wanted in this country and has a career track of doing so. So why isn't she being elevated? Or called on to run?

 

As much as I want to see our country break its trend of only men as president, I have to weigh that against other problems I see going on. Clinton gives me no reason to trust she will resolve those issues, and there's evidence she will actually push us further into the hole. Anything she has going on that I actually support, Sanders supports as well and has been from either the start of the campaign or - even better - the start of his career as a politician. Sanders not only talks about what the issues are, but he has a plan to tackle them. Any questions about funding for those plans have answers and have the whole time. The "impossibility" of his plan is only as much as people forget that most of the congress is up for election and a good portion of the senate is. You change those seats out with Sanders supporters, and suddenly his "impossible" plans become a reality.

[Problem Machine]

Okay something you don't seem to be getting: This conversation, the one we're having right now? Isn't about Clinton vs Sanders, her voting history, anything like that. This conversation is about how you've framed the narrative about people who disagree with her. The validity of criticism of HRC has no bearing on whether its demeaning or productive to speak of the electorate in the ways you have.

[Vader]

https://www.yahoo.com/politics/how-hillary-clinton-won-the-battle-for-the-black-205650975.html

(For whenever we're able to talk about substance rather than needing to address condescension, that links to an article that I thought did a good job of explaining Hillary's success in SC and with Black voters more broadly. The meat of the article appear when you click "read more")

[thefncrow]

yeah the filibuster was starting to be used more often prior to obama, but it wasn't until the rule changed where you don't have to keep talking to maintain a filibuster (or remain germane to the topic) that things went to whole other level.  Something like half of the filibusters ever used in the history of the country have happened under Obama, which lead to the 2013 rule change where filibusters were disallowed for appointments.  It's gotten to the point where any bill going through the house that is even remotely contested gets filibustered, so a simple majority in the houses doesn't really matter anymore.

 

FYI, there was no such rule change where a talking filibuster was made no longer a requirement.  People assume that there had to be a standard of talking filibusters because of things like Mr. Smith Went To Washington, but the talking filibuster has never been required.  All you need are 1 objector who remains in the Senate chamber and 41 Senators who are disinclined to vote for cloture.

 

There is not and never has been a mechanism in the Senate's rules to automatically move to a vote simply because no one wants to speak on a bill under consideration.  In order to move to a vote, you have to actually motion to close debate.  In the original Senate rules, there existed a Motion to Move the Previous Question, which, if carried, halted debate and moved you to voting on the bill under consideration.  In 1806,  Aaron Burr suggested that this motion was irrelevant (it had not been used in the short history of the Senate) and moved to strike it from the rules, which happened.  This inadvertently created the filibuster, because now the only method for closing debate was for the Senate to come to a unanimous consensus that debate was over, and any single Senator who wished to remain in the chamber and object to closing debate could keep it open indefinitely. 

 

Eventually, cloture was added to the rules in 1917, adding a method by which 2/3rds of Senators present and voting could cap the remaining debate and restrict what could be discussed.  That was amended in 1975 to change it to 3/5ths of Senators seated, which is where the modern 60 vote figure comes from. 

 

Talking filibusters happen because Senators want to be seen as standing up for their constituents, nothing more and nothing less.  Actual filibustering has never required such theatrics.

[Badfinger]

Just got this from one of the many internet-famous people I follow on Twitter. Sanders is still in it, especially when you look at the info in this form.

 

 

I mentioned this in the Slack channel, but the framing of something like this is important. It is not impossible for Bernie to catch up. That's true. But it's frankly very unlikely.

 

I used this analogy. If you predicted a sporting contest where the percentage of winning was 55/45, that's a tossup. If you predict a political election to break that way, it's a thrashing. Bernie is further behind than 55/45. Again, I don't want to be a downer or a killjoy or anything like that. I think it's very important to have the proper framing. I'm not talking about anything but math. Mathematically in the sphere of politics he's really, really far behind.

 

e: Clinton is ahead by more delegates than Obama was ahead at this point in 2008

 

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/clinton-is-following-obamas-path-to-the-nomination/

[sclpls]

The thing that always gets me with Hillary is people say she often signs of growth... except then she'll turn around and blatantly lie about things she said in the past or things someone else said. When called out on this, she deflects, rather than admitting she was wrong. She comes off as someone who only says what she has to say to please the greatest amount of people.

 

I've seen a lot of people make this complaint about Clinton. But I remember what reporting on the Clintons was like in the 90s, and I think that family's paranoid relationship to the media, and how they present themselves is kind of justified? Because total nothings frequently got blown up out of proportion. And this is all the worse for Hillary who has been a prominent woman in the media eye and she is just not allowed to act human at all, anything will be interpreted by the media in the most negative light possible.

 

So it drives me a little nuts when people are overly harsh on Clinton about this kind of stuff. Bernie Sanders gets to play the guy with integrity, but he's also a white dude from the state of Vermont, and that gives him an enormous amount of privilege that Hillary lacks. And I'm not saying this to try and get anyone to change their mind about which candidate they are supporting, but on this count at least I really don't think it is fair to turn Hillary into this villain because the decks are pretty stacked.

[Gormongous]

I've seen a lot of people make this complaint about Clinton. But I remember what reporting on the Clintons was like in the 90s, and I think that family's paranoid relationship to the media, and how they present themselves is kind of justified? Because total nothings frequently got blown up out of proportion. And this is all the worse for Hillary who has been a prominent woman in the media eye and she is just not allowed to act human at all, anything will be interpreted by the media in the most negative light possible.

 

So it drives me a little nuts when people are overly harsh on Clinton about this kind of stuff. Bernie Sanders gets to play the guy with integrity, but he's also a white dude from the state of Vermont, and that gives him an enormous amount of privilege that Hillary lacks. And I'm not saying this to try and get anyone to change their mind about which candidate they are supporting, but on this count at least I really don't think it is fair to turn Hillary into this villain because the decks are pretty stacked.

 

All you say is true, but Clinton has other issues with honesty that aren't a matter of past history. For instance, I have no idea what the hell she was trying with her attempt last week to cast doubt on Sanders' commitment to universal healthcare by literally saying, "I don't know where he was when I was trying to get health care in '93 and '94." The answer, of course, is that he was right behind her during one of her televised speeches (and she not only thanked him personally in the video from which that screencap comes, but wrote him a thank-you note on a Polaroid of them together). Furthermore, he wasn't just an incidental supporter, but

about universal healthcare in general and Clinton's plan in particular.

 

I have to conclude one of two things: either Clinton cannot remember who her allies were in the struggle of a lifetime over an issue near and dear to her heart, or she can and has chosen to lie about them were in order to make them look bad. Neither reflects well on her.

 

And, lest you say that this was an isolated incident, this was the second in four solid days of gaffes by Clinton. The HIV/AIDS comment at the Reagan funeral, then impugning Sanders' record with healthcare, then stating her intention to put "a lot of coal miners... out of business," and finally claiming that not a single American life was lost in Libya. At least now that the internet is a thing, the presidency is not a job where you can say whatever you want, off the cuff, and apologize if it doesn't land the way you want it, but that's certainly how Clinton's treating it lately, which doesn't speak too well to me of her two decades of political experience.

[Vader]

I think primary elections are tough because often the candidates are searching for things to distinguish themselves from their opponents, when in reality they probably worked as allies on most issues. Bernie giving a floor speech in favor of Clinton's healthcare bill doesn't necessarily mean he was a super essential part of that process (though he could have been, I honestly haven't looked into it much because I just generally find these little spats during the horserace super uninteresting. It'll all be water on the bridge when the primary ends anyways, just look at the crap she and Bill gave Obama and now they're all apparently best friends.)

Yeah, most of her critiques of Sanders have been misguided and weak, mostly because the strongest pro-Clinton/anti-Sanders arguments are pragmatic rather than ideological, and pragmatism is like, the least sexy thing to any party base (especially in a year when anti-establishment sentiment is so strong).

[Gormongous]

Yeah, most of her critiques of Sanders have been misguided and weak, mostly because the strongest pro-Clinton/anti-Sanders arguments are pragmatic rather than ideological, and pragmatism is like, the least sexy thing to any party base (especially in a year when anti-establishment sentiment is so strong).

I'm glad we agree! I honestly wonder if there's just someone high up in Clinton's campaign pushing her to attack, because if you're not attacking you're being attacked or something, and it's a misstep every time. Outside of an organized debate, Clinton's not good on the attack. She's so much better at being this reasoned presence, the kind who rolled her eyes at the Benghazi hearings. I hope she learns lessons about how to campaign effectively against Sanders and that they help her against Trump. I'm not sure she's ready for the full force of that hate machine...

[Vader]

Yeah, she was so good during the Benghazi hearings. My favorite Hillary moments are when she's just being the smart adult in the room and not trying to go for awkward attacks on Sanders, who really is a guy that doesn't seem to have a lot of blemishes on his record if you are a liberal.

I'm really not looking forward to Trump going after her. I'm sure he's going to bring up Bill's affairs during their debates and it is going to be really uncomfortable and gross...

(assuming she and Trump are the nominees, I still think it is possible though unlikely it will be not-trump and/or Sanders)

[Cordeos]

I've seen a lot of people make this complaint about Clinton. But I remember what reporting on the Clintons was like in the 90s, and I think that family's paranoid relationship to the media, and how they present themselves is kind of justified? Because total nothings frequently got blown up out of proportion. And this is all the worse for Hillary who has been a prominent woman in the media eye and she is just not allowed to act human at all, anything will be interpreted by the media in the most negative light possible.

Well if she becomes the nominee or gets elected this isn't going to get better. She is going to have to deal with the media at some point.

[YoThatLimp]

I mentioned this in the Slack channel, but the framing of something like this is important. It is not impossible for Bernie to catch up. That's true. But it's frankly very unlikely.

 

I used this analogy. If you predicted a sporting contest where the percentage of winning was 55/45, that's a tossup. If you predict a political election to break that way, it's a thrashing. Bernie is further behind than 55/45. Again, I don't want to be a downer or a killjoy or anything like that. I think it's very important to have the proper framing. I'm not talking about anything but math. Mathematically in the sphere of politics he's really, really far behind.

 

e: Clinton is ahead by more delegates than Obama was ahead at this point in 2008

 

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/clinton-is-following-obamas-path-to-the-nomination/

Keep in mind Hilary has 26% of the delegates and Bernie has 18.8%, there is still a little hope as there are still a bunch of delegates to be won.

[thefncrow]

Keep in mind Hilary has 26% of the delegates and Bernie has 18.8%, there is still a little hope as there are still a bunch of delegates to be won.

 

Not as much as you might think.  None of the Democratic primary contests are winner take all, they all assign delegates proportionally, some of which is done by splits at the Congressional District level and the state level.  The result is that 50.x/49.x and such splits will come out as damn near ties in pledged delegates. 

 

Bernie needs a 58/42 split in his favor of the remaining pledged delegates to pass Hillary.  If he were to run the board and win every primary left but only by 5% each, he would still come out behind.

 

Hillary's lead is actually quite large, given the circumstances.

[feelthedarkness]

If there is one thing I'm sure Clinton is ready for, it's the GOP hate machine! haha. She's been living under their microscope since the 90s! 

 

Also, to jump back to something a few pages ago, I believe the media kind of buried Sanders. He was packing large venues well before anybody else. I saw pictures of friends in full stadiums well before Trump paid actors to stand around his rallies. The media has built a huge story around Trump's appeal to populist anger, but Sanders was doing a reasoned version of the same thing, and succeeding with no coverage. I guess I can envision a world where they covered that organic growth and things went a different way. Also, see the NY Times treatment of him. 

[Twig]

Yeah it's frustrating to see people say the media treated Bernie fairly when there's plenty of evidence to the contrary.

 

It's also frustrating when people tell me I'm buying into the GOP hate machine when I have legitimate criticisms of Hillary.

 

This is my first time trying to be this involved with politics, and it's really fucking exhausting and, well, frustrating. I hate it.

[sclpls]

All you say is true, but Clinton has other issues with honesty that aren't a matter of past history. For instance, I have no idea what the hell she was trying with her attempt last week to cast doubt on Sanders' commitment to universal healthcare by literally saying, "I don't know where he was when I was trying to get health care in '93 and '94." The answer, of course, is that he was right behind her during one of her televised speeches (and she not only thanked him personally in the video from which that screencap comes, but wrote him a thank-you note on a Polaroid of them together). Furthermore, he wasn't just an incidental supporter, but

about universal healthcare in general and Clinton's plan in particular.

 

I have to conclude one of two things: either Clinton cannot remember who her allies were in the struggle of a lifetime over an issue near and dear to her heart, or she can and has chosen to lie about them were in order to make them look bad. Neither reflects well on her.

 

And, lest you say that this was an isolated incident, this was the second in four solid days of gaffes by Clinton. The HIV/AIDS comment at the Reagan funeral, then impugning Sanders' record with healthcare, then stating her intention to put "a lot of coal miners... out of business," and finally claiming that not a single American life was lost in Libya. At least now that the internet is a thing, the presidency is not a job where you can say whatever you want, off the cuff, and apologize if it doesn't land the way you want it, but that's certainly how Clinton's treating it lately, which doesn't speak too well to me of her two decades of political experience.

 

Yes, absolutely. I wasn't trying to claim there aren't valid, substantive criticisms about Clinton. She is very much a politician in the full sense of the term. But when people complain about the way she talks that gets into some messy territory with how women in powerful positions are perceived compared to men.

[sclpls]

If there is one thing I'm sure Clinton is ready for, it's the GOP hate machine! haha. She's been living under their microscope since the 90s! 

 

Also, to jump back to something a few pages ago, I believe the media kind of buried Sanders. He was packing large venues well before anybody else. I saw pictures of friends in full stadiums well before Trump paid actors to stand around his rallies. The media has built a huge story around Trump's appeal to populist anger, but Sanders was doing a reasoned version of the same thing, and succeeding with no coverage. I guess I can envision a world where they covered that organic growth and things went a different way. Also, see the NY Times treatment of him. 

 

This definitely reminds me of the double standard with how the media covered Tea Party rallies vs Occupy Wall St. The media was definitely ready to jump on board the Tea Party movement as an "authentic expression of American anger" or whatever garbage phrases they were using at the time, but it took months before Occupy Wall St. was treated as anything more than a curiosity. The media definitely loves going for the smelly-hippy-punching-bag trope.

[Mangela Lansbury]

Well if she becomes the nominee or gets elected this isn't going to get better. She is going to have to deal with the media at some point.

 

Clinton served in maybe the most opaque administration since the whole White House Press Secretary bit became a thing. She learned how to not deal with the press from the best, and she's been using that training well. She went almost 100 days on the campaign trail without taking questions from the press already. I don't see how this could change.