I will keep doing, but not worth it! The 2016 Presidential Primary Voting Thread

The range of presidential behavior on 'foreign policy' in the permanent war economy seems quite limited to me.

Am beginning to see the first outside confirmation of suspicions that tickle the back of my mind every time I pass a gas station. Big Oil is being crushed by the Saudi trade war. Since politics is by this point wholly a subsidiary of capitalism, this has significant implications for the race.

Cruz, for instance, is I believe significantly funded by rogue oil billionaires. If I were a rogue oil billionaire, I'd be really wanting some of that money back right about now.

Long-term, this could also be a boon for environmental policy, as climate change denialism is significantly funded by these institutions. Mind you, that's assuming we can weather the serious national security hazard of continuing to be dependent on Saudi and Russian energy resources...

"he's a sneering cad, there's got to be some awful skeletons in his closet, no?"

people know trump from t.v. but i don't know if they know about all the shady financial stuff/mob ties/federal investigations into his corrupt shit. but maybe they don't care.

DR.MORBZ did you at least crack a smile watching that bernie kissinger moment!!?? i know you hate all these people, but come on...give the mensch some credit for that one...

i liked what i read. i don't watch this stuff!

(there are rep movies in nyc, only reason for living at the moment)

i posted a clip of it above.

one more time...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCjQbTEuoDU

"a very good book by the way..."

i love that part.

I've noticed some FOX News types capitalizing the "D" in Bernie's "democratic socialism"

looking forward to the inevitable "Democrat socialism"

Big Oil is being crushed by the Saudi trade war.

Anyone else see/hear/read that Saudi Arabia has been cutting benefits and raising taxes (assuming they had any to begin with) for I think the first time ever? 50% gas tax hike. And (from ... CNN?):

The gas hike is just the beginning. Water and electricity prices are also going up, and the government is scaling back spending on roads, buildings and other infrastructure.
Those cuts might sound normal for any government that is running low on cash. But it's especially problematic in Saudi Arabia because the vast majority of Saudis work in the public sector.
About 75% of the Saudi government's budget comes from oil. The price of oil has crashed from over $100 a barrel in 2014 to around $36 currently. Most experts don't expect a rebound anytime soon.
The Saudi government used its vast oil wealth to provide generous benefits to its citizens. When the Arab Spring rocked the Middle East in 2011, the Saudi king spent even more in an effort to subdue any discontent in the country.

But yeah, back to foreign policy, I don't expect much from the US government, or at least from a Dem administration. Recent Dems seem to have had a flexible/ad hoc foreign policy, for better or for worse. Which is better than the intractable with or without you stance that drives the GOP, which is always for the worse. But I'd really like to hear from Sanders some sort of specifics. When someone asks him about, say, the Syrian civil war, I'd love to hear a strategy or solution (and maybe I missed it) beyond not voting to invade Iraq in 2002. When someone asks how he'd respond to Russian aggression, I want to hear more than stuff about Kissinger. If someone asked him how he'd handle refugees from South America, I'd love to hear a bit more from him than "break up the banks." Obviously the easy way out of these kind of questions is to demote ourselves from super-power/world police/exceptionalist mode and just go isolationist, but I'm not sure any president is prepared to do that.

And would Sanders, if he was elected, prove just as intractable on the world stage as he is on domestic economic positions? He needs to hold firm to his ideals to distinguish himself from Clinton's slipperiness, but that position also sort of boxes him in, doesn't it?

I'd really like to hear from Sanders some sort of specifics

it would be nice to hear this from any candidate ffs

what are Hillary's specifics? keep doing what we're already doing? brilliant plan, look where our foreign policy has gotten us in 15 years. THAT is being boxed in.

Trump wants to build a wall!

hit the dump button on all campaign rhetoric the second the election is over

eg the vital question of Quemoy and Matsu btwn JFK-Nixon

Anyway, that's what I was saying: Sanders is about holding steady to his ideals, but he has offered nothing specific to hold steady to beyond what he has not voted for in the past, which is only an opposition strategy (see: GOP congress) and not a real option when you are in charge of making big decisions. But Hillary's position is totally consistent in its messy ad hoc inconsistency with recent policy, Dem or otherwise, which is both big stick and hammer waved in the same clenched fist. Blow up, rebuild, replace, remove, repeat, as the direction of the wind dictates.

Like, I know exactly what I'd get from Hillary internationally, and I doubt I'd like it. But no idea what I'd get from Sanders. Has anyone given him the same Name the Leaders of the Middle East quizzes that have stumped the likes of Trump et al.?

Ubek-Beki-Beki-Stan-Stan

My impression is that pretty much no presidential candidate is ever able to tell you exactly what s/he would do about anything in a debate that actually coincides perfectly with their post-election reality. Not to mention that if you actually had a genuinely good strategic idea on foreign policy that wasn't already well-known, there might be reasons not to spell it out. I agree that under Obama foreign policy has felt a little "ad hoc" -- we're backing away from something that seems like it hasn't worked, or at least hasn't worked by liberal standards, but we aren't quite sure what to replace it with.

in a debate *in a way that* actually coincides...

I can't tell you what a hoot it was to hear Kissinger condemned.

'events, my dear boy, events'

Pierce:

...(C)ynic that I am, I also am Catholic enough to believe in redemption, and I also am an adherent of the political philosophy espoused by Benjamin Bow Hannaford, the fictional president created by the late Drew Pearson in two novels: in a democracy, the right things always get done for the wrong reasons. For whatever the reasons, sincere or strategic or something in between, HRC has gotten right where she needs to be going into South Carolina. However, even as she uses the Obama presidency as both sword and shield, she also has to hope that the African-American voters down in the home office of American sedition don't remember what she and her husband said about the president before she went to work for him....

(Clinton:) "I am not a single-issue candidate, and I do not believe we live in a single-issue country."

Now, it's preposterous in the extreme to say that Bernie Sanders, of all people, is a one-issue candidate in this context. He was fighting for LGBT rights when the previous president Clinton was signing DOMA. He was railing against the monied interests when the previous president Clinton was signing away Glass-Steagall. He was standing up for unions when the previous president Clinton was pushing NAFTA. It also is preposterous in the extreme to believe that Sanders doesn't realize that economic inequality is the only form of inequality that needs to be addressed in the country. But HRC did an exceptional job making that argument on Thursday and, maybe, she has put away the things of her husband's presidency and truly has been moved by the populist ferment that, in truth, began on the lawn of the Wisconsin state capital five years ago this week. Anything's possible. What is undeniable, however, is that, absent the presence of Bernie Sanders in this campaign, we'd never know any of that for sure.

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a42081/democratic-debate-milwaukee-recap/

"the right things always get done for the wrong reasons"

I always figured someone said this before I did btw

Calling Sanders a "one-issue candidate" is like saying abortion is a 'social issue.'

money runs the world

i'm not even going to bother but u kno what thread that belongs

no i think u need to tell me.

read that sentence literally. it is not code for something.

the populist ferment that, in truth, began on the lawn of the Wisconsin state capital five years ago this week.

I took part in those protests and I really don't agree with this analysis

lol mordy

heh

http://www.sfgate.com/news/politics/article/Cruz-campaign-pulls-ad-featuring-softcore-porn-6825320.php

plz amplify, eephus

I took part in those protests and I really don't agree with this analysis

― Guayaquil (eephus!), Friday, February 12, 2016 10:16 AM (27 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

yeah i was there too, and i have no idea what he's driving at. the WI protests weren't the start of anything, i don't think.

I think those protests were very specific to union organizing and were not really aimed at economic inequality generally. I think the line that gets you to the mass of energetic young voters/campaigners who are excited about sanders 16 starts at obama 08 not madison 11. Maybe a way to put it is that I think of "populist ferment" as having a flavor of "there's a system in place that's stacked by design against everybody except the rich, many establishment people in both major parties are in on it, we need something new, and something new is possible." Obama 08 has that to some extent, Occupy definitely has it, Sanders 16 has it more than Obama 08 does, Trump in his way has it too.

The Madison protests by contrast are fundamentally CONSERVATIVE in nature: "There's a system in place, historically accepted by both major parties, it protects us and it works, there's a bad actor trying to tear it down for his own purposes, let's stand up for our traditional Wisconsin way of life."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Syln8IkOIqc

.... damn.

good ad. Bernie's rhetoric on the topic is kinda leaden, unfortunately.

shhh Frederic will hear you!

Not a good look to shush a young black man like that, Alfred.

I don't know how it's supposed to slot in typical 2+ minute commercial breaks but that is a spectacular ad.

i was 50/50 on the campaign-ad part of it, but just thought it was really great and powerful to open with her words and just give her space to speak to what could be an enormous audience. this very down-to-earth but ennobling portrait of a female black activist, in the present-day, feels very rare to me in terms of what you're likely to turn on TV and see. and over top of that the weight of her actual story, putting me into thinking about the case again... that hits very hard. i kinda couldn't care less if it gets anybody to vote for bernie sanders but if it gets anybody to think about police violence differently then i consider my sanders campaign donation dollars well spent.

Kasie Hunt Verified account @kasie Sanders campaign has a 2-minute Erica Garner vid they will air on national cable. They tried to buy 4 min on CNN, MSNBC, BET -- turned down

^^^ which is interesting if not utterly unsurprising. i can't find the 2-minute version online; either it's not out yet or, more likely, the point is to make sure the 4-minute one you see (and hopefully, the one that goes viral).

That is the best ad I've seen of the campaign season.

to bring you down: fixers at work...

The Democratic National Committee has rolled back restrictions introduced by presidential candidate Barack Obama in 2008 that banned donations from federal lobbyists and political action committees.

The decision, which may provide an advantage to Hillary Clinton’s candidacy, was viewed with disappointment Friday morning by good government activists who saw it as a step backward in the effort to limit special interest influence in Washington.

“It is a major step in the wrong direction,” said longtime reform advocate Fred Wertheimer. “And it is completely out of touch with the clear public rejection of the role of political money in Washington,” expressed during the 2016 campaign....

Since it was introduced, lobbyists and corporate advocates in Washington have complained about the ban and other limitations imposed by Obama. The only portion of the old rules now remaining in place is that lobbyists and PAC representatives will still not be able to attend events that feature Obama, Vice President Biden or their spouses, according to Mark Paustenbach, deputy communications director for the DNC.

“The DNC’s recent change in guidelines will ensure that we continue to have the resources and infrastructure in place to best support whoever emerges as our eventual nominee,” Paustenbach said in an email.

Let's just call that guy "Pus."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/dnc-allowing-donations-from-federal-lobbyists-and-pacs/2016/02/12/22b1c38c-d196-11e5-88cd-753e80cd29ad_story.html

you guys are aware that's not gonna run on TV right

xp

it's way too long for one thing

welcome to Trenchant Observations with Οὖτις

just got my absentee ballot for the Illinois dem primary and there are other possibilities I didn't know of! I may vote for Willie Wilson, who ran for mayor of Chicago in 2015 and came in third with 10% of the vote. his website gives no platform, just his life story, but that sounds good to me. I was thinking about voting for Rocky de la Fuente, who owns car dealerships in southern California, but he's a conservative Dem, no need for that.

also I can vote for delegates to the national convention but only for Clinton or Sanders so I may sit that one out.

I mean I'll probably vote for Clinton in the real election, but this is for Illinois, where I don't even live anymore, and I think treating this like I treat most ILX polls makes sense.

you guys are aware that's not gonna run on TV right

xp

― Οὖτις, Friday, February 12, 2016 5:34 PM (5 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

lol

you guys are aware that's not gonna run on TV right

xp