Presidential Election 2016

Introductions - Urban Issues - Miscellaneous News, Topics, Interests
amiller92
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1763
Joined: October 31st, 2014, 12:50 pm

Re: Presidential Election 2016

Postby amiller92 » February 10th, 2016, 11:51 am

Remember when TNC was "Team Hillary" for criticizing Bernie's reparations answer? http://www.vox.com/2016/2/10/10959622/t ... nders-vote

mplsjaromir
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1112
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 8:03 am
Location: Sommerset Knolls

Re: Presidential Election 2016

Postby mplsjaromir » February 10th, 2016, 12:05 pm

Clinton is more hawkish than the average democrat and she made sure to announce on the day that the Iran Nuclear deal went into place “I am deeply concerned about Iranian aggression and the need to confront it, It’s a ruthless, brutal regime that has the blood of Americans and many others, including its own people, on its hands.” Remember this is someone who voted to invade Iraq.

Four out of the five largest contributors to Clinton's campaign are Wall Street banks. You may think that only a conspiratorial person would believe that contributions equal influence. I for one do not think they give Clinton millions of dollars on a whim.

Her Support of the 1996 crime bill and financial support from companies profiting from the proliferation of prisons should make anyone questions her conviction. I consider myself a prison abolitionist, probably unfair to Clinton, since I am the one out of step from the mainstream.

She would be a okay president, especially if she follows what she has outlined in her platform. But her past makes me question her political instincts.

User avatar
Nathan
IDS Center
Posts: 4003
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 10:42 am

Re: Presidential Election 2016

Postby Nathan » February 10th, 2016, 12:06 pm

I was just going to post that with this.

Why Black People Should Think Twice Before Voting For Hillary Clinton - http://huff.to/1Xi8TBh

It's a big ship to turn but I think sanders can do it!

EOst
Capella Tower
Posts: 2315
Joined: March 19th, 2014, 8:05 pm
Location: North End, Saint Paul

Re: Presidential Election 2016

Postby EOst » February 10th, 2016, 12:25 pm

mplsjaromir wrote:Clinton is more hawkish than the average democrat and she made sure to announce on the day that the Iran Nuclear deal went into place “I am deeply concerned about Iranian aggression and the need to confront it, It’s a ruthless, brutal regime that has the blood of Americans and many others, including its own people, on its hands.” Remember this is someone who voted to invade Iraq.
Well, let's be quite honest about this, she's right! Iran's regime operates with only a thin veneer of democratic legitimacy, is deeply repressive, supports terrorist organizations throughout the Middle East, and actively undermines its neighbors. I think it's perfectly reasonable to look at those facts and still disagree with military action (as do I), but I don't think there's any question that they should concern us.
mplsjaromir wrote:Four out of the five largest contributors to Clinton's campaign are Wall Street banks. You may think that only a conspiratorial person would believe that contributions equal influence. I for one do not think they give Clinton millions of dollars on a whim.
Why shouldn't they? Remember, when people say "Goldman Sachs is a big contributor," they don't mean that Goldman Sachs (the corporation) donated a ton of money, they mean that people who work for Goldman Sachs have. And that's no surprise; it's an immensely wealthy company that pays a lot of money to its employees, many of whom are probably personally center-left. That doesn't mean that Goldman Sachs is conspiring with her, any more than the University of California (#9 of her largest donors).

Barack Obama's second- and third-biggest supporters in the 2012 election cycle were Microsoft and Google, and yet his administration vigorously pursued regulations (esp. net neutrality) which they absolutely hate. Do you think Obama colluded with major tech firms?
mplsjaromir wrote:Her Support of the 1996 crime bill and financial support from companies profiting from the proliferation of prisons should make anyone questions her conviction. I consider myself a prison abolitionist, probably unfair to Clinton, since I am the one out of step from the mainstream.
Well, in fairness to Clinton, she donated all money from private prisons to charity and has called for their abolition.
mplsjaromir wrote:She would be a okay president, especially if she follows what she has outlined in her platform. But her past makes me question her political instincts.
Of course. And to be certain, I'm not in any way saying that Hillary Clinton would be the next FDR, or that I agree with her on every issue, or that she's even the closest candidate to me in the race. But I don't see Sanders surviving attack ads like these if he made it to the general:





Are they misleading? Sure. But they're also extremely effective.

mattaudio
Stone Arch Bridge
Posts: 7941
Joined: June 19th, 2012, 2:04 pm
Location: NORI: NOrth of RIchfield

Re: Presidential Election 2016

Postby mattaudio » February 10th, 2016, 12:36 pm

EOst wrote:Remember, when people say "Goldman Sachs is a big contributor," they don't mean that Goldman Sachs (the corporation) donated a ton of money, they mean that people who work for Goldman Sachs have. And that's no surprise; it's an immensely wealthy company that pays a lot of money to its employees, many of whom are probably personally center-left.
I'm glad I'm contributing to the storyline that a large too-big-to-fail bank is contributing money to Bernie Sanders, who vows to break it into pieces.

mplsjaromir
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1112
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 8:03 am
Location: Sommerset Knolls

Re: Presidential Election 2016

Postby mplsjaromir » February 10th, 2016, 1:37 pm

EOst wrote:Well, let's be quite honest about this, she's right! Iran's regime operates with only a thin veneer of democratic legitimacy, is deeply repressive, supports terrorist organizations throughout the Middle East, and actively undermines its neighbors. I think it's perfectly reasonable to look at those facts and still disagree with military action (as do I), but I don't think there's any question that they should concern us.
Iran's government is certainly not an example of an ideal government. I do not subscribe to the idea that Iran is worse actor in Middle East than anyone else, the US included. Sure the Guardian Council is a roadblock to true democratic expression, but Rouhani and the moderates are popular and will like have enough seats in the assembly to choose the next supreme leader. Iran distrusts the US because of distrustful things the US has done to Iran. I mean a movie about how the US tricked Iran won an Oscar for best picture.

The US has no problem with repressive, undemocratic Middle Eastern regimes, as long as they are aligned with the US military. The KSA is probably the most backward theocracy on Earth, Egypt is a military junta supported by billions in US aid, Israel routinely flouts international law.

The US tolerates the worst in Middle East as long as business interests benefit. Otherwise if a group opposes US economic and military hegemony you are labeled a terrorist group (Hezbollah) or a regime (Iran) and if you push Pan-Arabism your country gets invaded. Iran bashing sums up the hypocrisy of US foreign policy.

twincitizen
Moderator
Posts: 6208
Joined: May 31st, 2012, 7:27 pm
Location: Standish-Ericsson

Re: Presidential Election 2016

Postby twincitizen » February 10th, 2016, 2:02 pm

mulad wrote:My main problem is that we're getting too close to having presidential dynasties. We're the third-most populous country on the planet, with 320 million people -- there's little excuse for having a son follow a father into the job (and we still have another brother running this year) or for spouses to follow each other in the position. Hillary could do pretty much anything she wants -- Go back to the Senate! Run for Governor! Head a business! -- but I find it really hard to tolerate the presidential bid.
Even though I will vote for Hillary as a firewall against the GOP, I agree with this 100%. I've stated over and over again that I did not want her to run. I hoped and prayed (not really, lifelong atheist lol) through the past few years that she would not. I don't blame Bernie for why I hate this Democratic primary so much - that blame falls squarely on Hillary. Had she not run, the Democratic party would likely be in a much stronger position than it is today, because a bunch of good candidates would've come forward (Elizabeth Warren, et al). I too absolutely detest the idea of presidential family dynasties. It's disgusting...get out of the way and let someone else run. Instead we find ourselves in a position with two flawed Democratic candidates, neither of whom can unite the party or appeal to independents

User avatar
Tiller
Foshay Tower
Posts: 853
Joined: January 17th, 2015, 11:58 am

Re: Presidential Election 2016

Postby Tiller » February 10th, 2016, 2:53 pm

Snelbian wrote:
There is an argument to be had on how distinct Hillary is/isn't from conservatism
How on earth is Clinton indistinct from a conservative?
Besides the international comparisons, one idea that I've seen repeatedly on this topic (I don't know if there's a name for it, and if so it could be defined somewhat differently than I'm stating here) is that one way to stymie change is to allow a small amount of progress to either reduce the desire for change, and/or create the illusion that significant change has taken place. Sacrificing a portion to preserve the whole.

If one political party is reactionary (which the republican party clearly is), and the other is conservative, then over the long term our country will only slide backwards. Existing only to conserve the current administration's prior efforts, and maybe (*big* maybe) get a little incremental progress here and there is absolutely conservative given a long view, because such progress (especially when via executive order) is gone the moment reactionaries come to power.

The fact that Republicans coming to power is so threatening, and Hillary's largest argument in her favor is keeping them out, if anything, shows a way in which the Obama administration has failed. Social Security and Medicare (despite the attacks on them) have been very difficult to get rid of. Obamacare? The majority doesn't like it because of how flawed it is. We could have had a Single-Payer system if it was pushed through in reconciliation like Obamacare was, and it would have been durable, but instead Obama kept much of our current system in place.

twinkess
Rice Park
Posts: 478
Joined: November 26th, 2012, 10:46 am

Re: Presidential Election 2016

Postby twinkess » February 10th, 2016, 3:17 pm

Tiller wrote:We could have had a Single-Payer system if it was pushed through in reconciliation like Obamacare was, and it would have been durable, but instead Obama kept much of our current system in place.
Wow what revisionist history. The presidency isn't a dictatorship. ACA barely got the 60 votes it needed to overcome the filibuster as it was. Democrats had 59, plus Joe Liberman - an independant who refused to vote for anything if it included a public option.

How do you get to 60 votes for single payer in winter of 2010. Show your work.

amiller92
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1763
Joined: October 31st, 2014, 12:50 pm

Re: Presidential Election 2016

Postby amiller92 » February 10th, 2016, 3:30 pm

Tiller wrote: We could have had a Single-Payer system if it was pushed through in reconciliation like Obamacare was
No we couldn't have. The votes were not there.We didn't even have the votes for a public option.

User avatar
Tiller
Foshay Tower
Posts: 853
Joined: January 17th, 2015, 11:58 am

Re: Presidential Election 2016

Postby Tiller » February 10th, 2016, 4:03 pm

If I recall correctly, Ted Kennedy died before the process was through, and they had to push it through in reconciliation without the 60 votes anyways. I don't have links on hand since I'm on mobile, but looking into this a couple weeks ago Single-payer would have had (according to one of the senators who was part of the process, idr who) a simple majority of 51 votes, meaning they could have passed it along those lines if they really wanted to push it through.

EOst
Capella Tower
Posts: 2315
Joined: March 19th, 2014, 8:05 pm
Location: North End, Saint Paul

Re: Presidential Election 2016

Postby EOst » February 10th, 2016, 4:19 pm

Tiller wrote:If I recall correctly, Ted Kennedy died before the process was through, and they had to push it through in reconciliation without the 60 votes anyways. I don't have links on hand since I'm on mobile, but looking into this a couple weeks ago Single-payer would have had (according to one of the senators who was part of the process, idr who) a simple majority of 51 votes, meaning they could have passed it along those lines if they really wanted to push it through.
The whole bill could not have been pushed through using reconciliation, because it touched more than spending. This is known as the "Byrd rule." Try again.

amiller92
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1763
Joined: October 31st, 2014, 12:50 pm

Re: Presidential Election 2016

Postby amiller92 » February 10th, 2016, 4:27 pm

EOst wrote:
Tiller wrote:If I recall correctly, Ted Kennedy died before the process was through, and they had to push it through in reconciliation without the 60 votes anyways. I don't have links on hand since I'm on mobile, but looking into this a couple weeks ago Single-payer would have had (according to one of the senators who was part of the process, idr who) a simple majority of 51 votes, meaning they could have passed it along those lines if they really wanted to push it through.
The whole bill could not have been pushed through using reconciliation, because it touched more than spending. This is known as the "Byrd rule." Try again.
You don't even need that, because the blue dogs Dems - Ben Nelson is the particular name that comes to mind but there were others - were not going to vote for it.

twinkess
Rice Park
Posts: 478
Joined: November 26th, 2012, 10:46 am

Re: Presidential Election 2016

Postby twinkess » February 10th, 2016, 4:44 pm

Tiller wrote:If I recall correctly, Ted Kennedy died before the process was through, and they had to push it through in reconciliation without the 60 votes anyways. I don't have links on hand since I'm on mobile, but looking into this a couple weeks ago Single-payer would have had (according to one of the senators who was part of the process, idr who) a simple majority of 51 votes, meaning they could have passed it along those lines if they really wanted to push it through.
Ah. You are thinking of the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act, which was passed later that year to modify the ACA after it had already been passed. It only contained budgetary changes like changes to subsidy levels and eliminating the "Cornhusker Kickback", and so wasn't subject to the filibuster which Democrats could no longer break due to the election of Scott Brown. Remember Dems only had like 6 months with 60 votes (including the independent votes) because of the recount for Sen. Frankin's seat and the death of Kennedy.

User avatar
Tiller
Foshay Tower
Posts: 853
Joined: January 17th, 2015, 11:58 am

Re: Presidential Election 2016

Postby Tiller » February 10th, 2016, 5:54 pm

http://www.theattackdemocrat.com/2012/0 ... d.html?m=1

I won't quote the entire relevant part due to its length, but Obamacare only got through without blowing up the 60 vote requirement by the skin of its teeth. They were going to pass it normally, reconciliating differences between the Senate and house versions in committee and approving the modified version in both chambers, but they lost the 60th vote before the Senate could approve it. They then passed the Senate version in the house and passed the changes that would have been made if they reconciled the bill in committee through the budgetary reconciliation process.

So yes, they used a loophole to get a half-baked and unpopular multi-payer health insurance bill through the Senate. A bill which was supported by a massive advertising blitz by the health insurance and pharmaceutical companies which stood to profit handsomely from it, because Obama sold us down the river on Healthcare.

If he wasn't a timid centrist in dealing with Republicans (which I can only half blame him for, as he didn't know what he'd have to deal with), he should/would have blown up the Senate and shoved comprehensive reforms down Lieberman's throat (not just in Healthcare, but also in other areas. An example being a stimulus package that was less tax breaks and much much more infrastructure spending).

Edit: I was vague when I said "along those lines", I was referring to the 51 votes, not the reconciliation process.

EOst
Capella Tower
Posts: 2315
Joined: March 19th, 2014, 8:05 pm
Location: North End, Saint Paul

Re: Presidential Election 2016

Postby EOst » February 10th, 2016, 6:21 pm

There were never 51 votes in the Senate for eliminating the filibuster, which is what you're suggesting would have required. Lieberman, Inouye, Byrd, Pryor, Landrieu, Lincoln, Levin, both Nelsons, and Hagen all publicly (IIRC--going from memory on this list) stated that they would not vote for such a thing.

mulad
Moderator
Posts: 2802
Joined: June 4th, 2012, 6:30 pm
Location: Saint Paul
Contact:

Re: Presidential Election 2016

Postby mulad » February 10th, 2016, 11:18 pm

Both Carly Fiorina and Chris Christie dropped out of the race today. It's always amazed me that Christie was on such a different trajectory than Trump for this cycle, since they seemed to have very similar personalities. There's probably something I'm missing, though.

Jim Gilmore is still in, but he got fewer votes than Rand Paul, Mike Huckabee, and Rick Santorum -- who are all out of the race -- as well as someone named Andy Martin, who is apparently a perennial candidate who lives in New Hampshire. He also got fewer votes than the 4th-place finisher on the Democratic side, Vermin Supreme -- a guy who goes out campaigning/performing with a boot on his head. So Gilmore can basically be considered a lower-rung protest candidate at this point.

And with that, let's say that the Republican side is down to a relatively manageable six candidates: Bush, Carson, Cruz, Kasich, Rubio, and Trump.

Edit: Also, the next caucuses and primaries will be in Nevada and South Carolina, with intertwined event dates for the two parties. The most recent polls in Nevada were in late December, so I'd caution against using any of the polling averages there to guess how well candidates are going to do -- Rachel Maddow said on her show that there might not be any more polls either, since Nevada hasn't been such an early state for very long and the pollsters mostly don't want to take the hit for being wrong there. South Carolina has had more consistent polling, but there still hasn't been anything new in the last two weeks (before Iowa).

twincitizen
Moderator
Posts: 6208
Joined: May 31st, 2012, 7:27 pm
Location: Standish-Ericsson

Re: Presidential Election 2016

Postby twincitizen » February 11th, 2016, 8:55 am

I'm convinced that Kasich could defeat either Hillary or Bernie quite easily. We're completely ****ed if he becomes the nominee. Rubio would be a bit closer fight, and I think either Dem could best him on "experience". I'm still of the mind that Democrats should be rooting for Trump or Cruz to be the nominee. Carson is a non-factor...I can't believe he's still in the race. He was a Herman Cain-esque flash in the pan and seems to be the only one who doesn't realize his moment has passed. I thought his campaign was in all sorts of trouble a while back...is he just holding on through S. Carolina?

EOst
Capella Tower
Posts: 2315
Joined: March 19th, 2014, 8:05 pm
Location: North End, Saint Paul

Re: Presidential Election 2016

Postby EOst » February 11th, 2016, 9:11 am

Carson has nothing to lose from staying in. His campaign is mostly a direct-mail get-rich scheme masquerading as a presidential candidacy, so as long as he keeps raking in absurd sums why would he get out?

amiller92
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1763
Joined: October 31st, 2014, 12:50 pm

Re: Presidential Election 2016

Postby amiller92 » February 11th, 2016, 9:58 am

Tiller wrote:he should/would have blown up the Senate and shoved comprehensive reforms down Lieberman's throat
This is a nice fantasy (sort of), but it was not possible. He does not have magic powers to make the Nelsons and Lieberman's of the world vote for things.


Return to “Anything Goes”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest