|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On July 26 2016 03:00 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2016 02:21 farvacola wrote:
I doubt that; if DWS was demanding something in exchange for her silence, she got shortshrifted hardcore lol I'm sure that other arrangements were made for her as well -- hookups for future employment, etc. The bottom line is that DWS was doing the bidding of the party, so the party is going to take care of her while doing the minimum necessary to ameliorate public outrage.
I actually get into disagreements with Samizdat about that very thing; I don't think "the party" is nearly as organized and monolithic as you're implying, and I think all this DWS nonsense is a good example of just how disorganized organizations can be. In any case, if there really were lots of good stuff being tossed at her in exchange for cooperation, it seems silly to jeopardize that through the needless and toothless "honorary chair" appointment.
In some sense, I think we're seeing the beginnings of a real movement to reform how political parties work, but maybe I'm just being optimistic.
|
On July 26 2016 03:07 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2016 03:00 xDaunt wrote:On July 26 2016 02:21 farvacola wrote:
I doubt that; if DWS was demanding something in exchange for her silence, she got shortshrifted hardcore lol I'm sure that other arrangements were made for her as well -- hookups for future employment, etc. The bottom line is that DWS was doing the bidding of the party, so the party is going to take care of her while doing the minimum necessary to ameliorate public outrage. I actually get into disagreements with Samizdat about that very thing; I don't think "the party" is nearly as organized and monolithic as you're implying, and I think all this DWS nonsense is a good example of just how disorganized organizations can be. In any case, if there really were lots of good stuff being tossed at her in exchange for cooperation, it seems silly to jeopardize that through the needless and toothless "honorary chair" appointment. In some sense, I think we're seeing the beginnings of a real movement to reform how political parties work, but maybe I'm just being optimistic.
I think that the parties are fairly monolithic at the upper echelons when it comes to things like presidential elections -- even moreso when it comes to giving Hillary her shot at the presidency and avoiding the nomination of someone like Bernie. There is simply no way that the DNC was going to give Bernie an even playing field.
Edit: and lest anyone forget, I think that it is obvious that the RNC tried to pull similar shit on Trump.
|
It depends on what you mean by monolithic; are they acting by intentional planned agreement, or do they simply have a lot of similar views, and are thus aiming for the same things?
Not surprising for party regular to be displeased with the outsiders coming in to try to "steal" part of the party they've put so much work into.
|
On July 26 2016 01:31 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2016 01:21 VayneAuthority wrote:
Can some one explain to me why I should care about the general election? I'm an undecided moderate and I fail to see how my life has changed in the last 12 years regardless of who has been president.
I only closely follow/vote religiously for state/local government because that has a real effect on my life.
Anyone willing to tackle this? This election is a pretty big one for that outlook. On the one side you have Clinton with the tagline of "basically more of the same, if you think America is pretty great then good for you, 4 more years of great". On the other you have Trump with "everything sucks and I will dramatically change everything and it'll be amazing, if you think America should be great again then vote for me". Trump is attacking the trade agreements that put cheap goods, food, clothes and so forth in stores, the stable postwar international peace dominated by American strength and NATO, the agreements that keep us out of Iran, the good relations with our southern neighbor and pretty much everything else about the status quo. Whether or not you agree with Trump you have to acknowledge that he has very big plans on pretty much every subject. Even on things that aren't even a part of the political discussion like the 14th Amendment which nobody thought would be an election issue until Trump mentioned in passing that he wanted to dispose of it. So if you don't really care, Clinton. If you want everything to change then Trump. But unless you live in one of the key battleground states then you might as well stay home either way.
Pretty much the first time ive ever seen a post on this election without corruption/racism/sexism/etc being thrown around so thanks for that.
|
The parties should probably have a way of preventing so one who has little prior membership and ties, and little in common (Sanders and Trump) from just declaring themselves a party member and getting on every Republican primary ballot. I'm surprised they didn't have this already.
|
On July 26 2016 03:17 VayneAuthority wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2016 01:31 KwarK wrote:On July 26 2016 01:21 VayneAuthority wrote:
Can some one explain to me why I should care about the general election? I'm an undecided moderate and I fail to see how my life has changed in the last 12 years regardless of who has been president.
I only closely follow/vote religiously for state/local government because that has a real effect on my life.
Anyone willing to tackle this? This election is a pretty big one for that outlook. On the one side you have Clinton with the tagline of "basically more of the same, if you think America is pretty great then good for you, 4 more years of great". On the other you have Trump with "everything sucks and I will dramatically change everything and it'll be amazing, if you think America should be great again then vote for me". Trump is attacking the trade agreements that put cheap goods, food, clothes and so forth in stores, the stable postwar international peace dominated by American strength and NATO, the agreements that keep us out of Iran, the good relations with our southern neighbor and pretty much everything else about the status quo. Whether or not you agree with Trump you have to acknowledge that he has very big plans on pretty much every subject. Even on things that aren't even a part of the political discussion like the 14th Amendment which nobody thought would be an election issue until Trump mentioned in passing that he wanted to dispose of it. So if you don't really care, Clinton. If you want everything to change then Trump. But unless you live in one of the key battleground states then you might as well stay home either way. Pretty much the first time ive ever seen a post on this election without corruption/racism/sexism/etc being thrown around so thanks for that.
really? i'm surprised; while those tehings are mentioned a bunch; I thought i'd seen a decent smattering of other such posts in this thread without those things being thrown around; I'm sure I've made a few at least myself.
|
So if the DNC is smart they probably need to toss Debbie Wasserman Schultz out on her right now and not mince words with the Clinton campaign. They have to drop her. Today. Now. By the end of the hour.
DWS was booed in Florida at the DNC breakfast.
|
Trump's platform is indeed very susceptible to attack outside of accusations of racism/sexism/whatever. His tax policy is extremely regressive and like KwarK pointed out, his stance on free trade agreements would place a huge strain on the poor as they suddenly are forced to contend with more expensive consumables and durable consumer goods.
|
Trump is also going to close down the internet. Don’t forget that. Him and Bill Gates will get together and shut it down.
|
On July 26 2016 03:18 Doodsmack wrote:
The parties should probably have a way of preventing so one who has little prior membership and ties, and little in common (Sanders and Trump) from just declaring themselves a party member and getting on every Republican primary ballot. I'm surprised they didn't have this already.
disagree since going through a major party primary is the only good way to become president, even if you're not ideologically aligned with a major party.
independents are at a huge disadvantage since if they get a plurality of electoral votes but not a majority, the election goes to the House who almost certainly won't vote for an independent.
this goes for third parties too, bernie had a much higher chance of becoming president than ralph nader ever did.
|
On July 26 2016 03:26 Plansix wrote:
Trump is also going to close down the internet. Don’t forget that. Him and Bill Gates will get together and shut it down.
I honestly can't imagine those two ever meeting. Would probably be the stuff of legends.
|
What I'd be curious to see is how many self identifying independents vote in Dem or Rep state/local politicians. Contrary to popular sentiment, the two party system here is very much a bottom to top dynamic through which the national party basically lives on local/state political successes. Accordingly, something tells me that independents are not voting straight independent tickets.
|
United States42978 Posts
On July 26 2016 03:26 Plansix wrote:
Trump is also going to close down the internet. Don’t forget that. Him and Bill Gates will get together and shut it down.
When an unstoppable force meets an immovable object. Today we examine the case of master negotiator and silver tongued genius President Donald Trump as he attempts to persuade rich nerd Bill Gates to flip the internet switch, a switch Mr. Gates claims "does not exist" and "wouldn't even make any sense if you think about it". Can Trump best the richest man on earth? Find out later tonight on the politics channel.
|
California delegates booed a lineup of speakers Monday at a breakfast for the state's delegation when urged to unite to elect Hillary Clinton, while the mention of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) elicited cheers, Roll Call reported.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Rep. Michael Honda (R-CA) were among the speakers who were booed. The crowd began protesting whenever uniting to elect Clinton was mentioned, Roll Call reported.
Some delegates also began chanting, "Bernie, Bernie, Bernie!" during Rep. Barbara Lee's (D-CA) speech, according to the report, and a sign supporting Sanders was thrust into Pelosi's face.
"I don't consider it a discourtesy even if it is intended as one," the minority leader reportedly said.
The uproar comes after it was revealed in leaked internal emails posted online Friday by Wikileaks that some DNC officials had potentially plotted against Sanders' campaign. DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who announced Sunday that she'd resign after the convention is over, was also booed Monday morning at a breakfast for the Florida delegation.
Source
|
Third parties in US politics have pretty much always been most successful as single issue parties. When they start getting ~10% of the vote the major parties realize that they're missing out on a ton of votes and alter their positions accordingly. Personally I'm a little surprised it hasn't happened with marijuana legalization.
Personally, I think we're in a new gilded age. 1870s-early1900s US politics are the most similar in my view to the current political processes. Nominally it's less overtly corrupt and without party bosses, but the same massive economic inequality and social unrest is stirring. It's also the time when the US had a string of awful presidents. Now we just need no one to win the electoral college and for the 1876 election to happen again.
|
Yeah, Nancy Pelosi is going to give a lot of shits about being booed. That is the meaning thing that has ever happened to her in politics... Just lets these folks get it out of their system.
|
DWS no longer has on stage duties at DNC
|
On July 26 2016 03:32 farvacola wrote:
What I'd be curious to see is how many self identifying independents vote in Dem or Rep state/local politicians. Contrary to popular sentiment, the two party system here is very much a bottom to top dynamic through which the national party basically lives on local/state political successes. Accordingly, something tells me that independents are not voting straight independent tickets.
yea, we don't. I've voted both parties and it always comes back to who has the better economic policies because for me that is the most important thing by far. Everything else is trivial if you don't have money unfortunately. Be a racist/socialist/whatever just have a good plan for bringing jobs/money back into the state.
|
Good, begone devil woman.
On July 26 2016 03:39 VayneAuthority wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2016 03:32 farvacola wrote:
What I'd be curious to see is how many self identifying independents vote in Dem or Rep state/local politicians. Contrary to popular sentiment, the two party system here is very much a bottom to top dynamic through which the national party basically lives on local/state political successes. Accordingly, something tells me that independents are not voting straight independent tickets. yea, we don't. I've voted both parties and it always comes back to who has the better economic policies because for me that is the most important thing by far. Everything else is trivial if you don't have money unfortunately. Be a racist/socialist/whatever just have a good plan for bringing jobs/money back into the state.
Well then I'll do the work of my good friend who campaigns for the Green Party in NW Ohio and say that change starts at the local level 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
