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

'I genuinely couldn’t believe what I was hearing. The tiptoeing had vanished. She wasn’t trying to win everyone’s vote by flying as close to the middle as possible. And even though the room was markedly black, these thoughts were now on her permanent electoral record for all to see. The use of “imagine” was powerful, because it comes with an almost implied, You can’t imagine it, because that shit wouldn’t fly. She was finally just saying it, bluntly.'

One of the reasons I'm more positive on Hilary than most - apart from distance - is exactly because she's a hypocrite. Because she's the only candidate who really needs the black vote, which I'd guess is why she holds speeches like this.

she actually goes on to mention goals 40 and 41 so it's hard to know how many there in fact are. presumably, if elected, these will be enumerated in the new improved middle-school textbooks on a fiery red page at the back.

― shandemonium padawan (Doctor Casino), Wednesday, February 17, 2016 11:18 AM (58 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g5xpNBs-km0&t=1m7s

ah, drat, start at 1:08.

how come that doesn't work on this site?

One of the reasons I'm more positive on Hilary than most - apart from distance - is exactly because she's a hypocrite.

Because Hilary is a terrible person who say or do anything to get elected, I support her.

finally a hypocrite politician, we have been waiting a long time for this

see, things like that Harlem speech make me start to love Hillary, but then... http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/2/16/1486076/-Hillary-Clinton-is-spending-today-fundraising-from-bankers-capitalizing-on-the-housing-crisis

xp in context it's pretty clear what the person meant was "she needs our support, so she has to make promises to us, which we can then hold her to (or at least use as leverage to get something out of her)." That's a reasonable conclusion to reach, although I don't know if there's any history to back it up since she's never really "needed" any voting constituency before. So it's guesswork what she'd actually do in office.

I'm pretty sure evidence is thin on the ground that this kind of "leverage" has ever actually resulted in much demonstrable return for a constituency on any president's part.

Far more common to pay lip service to a constituency's concern while needing their vote and ignore them once in office. Unless that constituency is the Finance sector.

"she needs our support, so she has to make promises to us, which we can then hold her to (or at least use as leverage to get something out of her)."

she's hearing this at Wall St. today.

My read on the basic facts of the differences between Clinton and Sanders:

- Hillary Clinton is better than her detractors say she is and not as good as her evangelists say she is.
- Bernie Sanders is better than his detractors say he is and not as good as his evangelists say he is.
- The difference between them is one of approach rather than degree of sincerity.
- If your sympathies lie with either of their platforms but you refuse to vote for the other one in a general election should the primary not go your way, you are an idiot.

unless your November vote means jackjackjackshit, like in NY or MA

i generally agree w/ you, but i don't think that sanders and clinton share the same goals, near or long term

xpost

'xp in context it's pretty clear what the person meant was "she needs our support, so she has to make promises to us, which we can then hold her to (or at least use as leverage to get something out of her)."'

My point exactly. She'll need them again in 2016, though. She's going way beyond lip-service, afaict.

My read on the basic facts of the differences between Clinton and Sanders:

- Hillary Clinton is better than her detractors say she is and not as good as her evangelists say she is.
- Bernie Sanders is better than his detractors say he is and not as good as his evangelists say he is.
- The difference between them is one of approach rather than degree of sincerity.
- If your sympathies lie with either of their platforms but you refuse to vote for the other one in a general election should the primary not go your way, you are an idiot.

― its subtle brume (DJP), Wednesday, February 17, 2016 1:45 PM (4 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Not sure if I agree with your third point. Sanders' sincerity is pretty much impeccable, because he has stuck with the same views for so long even against long political odds, whereas Clinton's at least can be called into question -- it's possible to read her as a progressive at heart who just really believes in compromise and the system, and it's possible to read her as someone for whom the politics has overtaken or outstripped the progressiveness. I'm genuinely not sure.

authenticity, man!

Like "she's not as bad as any of the republicans" is an unassailable conclusion. What I don't know is whether she's actually now moved left of the DLC consensus on most economic issues or not.

FWIW, I feel like there are probably at least a handful of convicted murderers that aren't as bad as any of the republicans.

Not much of a fan of Hillary, but generally agreeing with DJP.

Most of the 125 billion in her weirdly named 'Breaking Every Barrier Agenda' seems aimed at 'underserved' communities, which seems almost a way of saying 'reparations' without saying it.

- The difference between them is one of approach rather than degree of sincerity.

I would agree with this if the difference you speak of is measured by outcomes, because those outcomes would depend on externals over which neither has much control. I do think that Sanders and Clinton have different visions of their eventual goals. I think Clinton does not look much beyond amelioration of current conditions and incremental changes to the existing economy, while Sanders would gladly remake our economy in fundamental ways, if he had the power (which, of course, he would not have).

i won't be looking too closely at HRC's polyurethane platform because i have come to believe every word of hers, as Mary McCarthy said of Lillian Hellman, is a lie including "and" and "the"*

*except for "Kissinger" "likes" "me"

Gov Haley to endorse Rubio!

ie here comes the Establishment

It's Pat invites Talking Yam to sue him

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/17/politics/ted-cruz-donald-trump-marco-rubio-south-carolina/index.html

xpost to aimless

yeah, i agree. i think they have fundamentally different goals, but the uncertainty there points to a difference between them - i have a decent idea about sanders' fundamental values that drive his policies (even if he won't be able to come close with congressional opposition), whereas i can only guess at clinton's underlying goals. i can see her incremental short-term goals, sure. but say it was somehow magically possible for a new healthcare system to be created from scratch, and single payer was in reach. obviously sanders would support it. would clinton? beats me. when she's forced to talk about it she dismisses it because of the political hell that would be necessary to even attempt it, but i never get a feel for what she actually thinks about single payer. i dunno, i guess that's a bad example, but that's the general vibe i get with these two - sanders is more clear about what he actually wants, clinton is always calculating. that's a difference of approach, but it also puts a cloud over clinton's sincerity.

It's Pat invites Talking Yam to sue him

lol

Strangely, Hillary's completely tone deaf trumpeting of her friendship with Kissinger makes her seem a little more guileless to me.

yeah, she's not as good at this ("this" = being a tilting-with-the-wind hypocrite) as some other folks.

See if you can spot the typo in the CNN story on Pat vs. Yam:

Trump has since evolved on the issue and now says he opposes abortion rights.

i think she'd have been guileful about it if the idea that there'd be blowback had penetrated her Bubble by Oscar de la Renta.

xxp

Many years ago I read G.Stephanopoulos's memoir and iirc he made the Clinton White House sound like a battle between Gore and the political advisers (pushing to the center) and Hillary (pushing to the left) Nearly identical to takes about Obama WH btw

I believe our schools should get back to basics teaching phonics , grammar rules, spelling rules, cursive handwriting, traditional math, and Texas values.

Ah. I get it. So if Texas requires a Texas-specific school curriculum, then it will need Texas-specific school books.

Fine, but we'll need to be a place to put them. Like, maybe some kind of... School Book Depository.

What could go wrong?

lol

Conservative radio host Mark Levin said Monday on his program that Trump's criticisms of Bush made him sound like a "radical kook."

"I know too many Gold Star families who lost sons over there to hear this 9/11 truther crap, which is pretty close to it. Pretty damn close to it," Levin said. "If George Bush went to war in Iraq and was lying about weapons of mass destruction there could not be a worse thing a president of the United States could do, or human being for that matter. And there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

Levin was THIS CLOSE to figuring it out

meaning biden v clinton? xxp

- If your sympathies lie with either of their platforms but you refuse to vote for the other one in a general election should the primary not go your way, you are an idiot.

lol i am not voting for someone who i think would do a shit job, sorry.

Sanders is not the same as Clinton. she is an insider and a big money person. i think economics drive all issues at the federal level hence Sanders would be the best pick simply because when budgets come up he will make a place for the "unrealistic" ideas i want to support. Clinton would just not even consider them. so my voice as a citizen would not be heard through my vote. call me an idiot but i'm still not voting for her.

like I said

yeah that's crazy

their differences in "approach" are substantive, maybe. And for the most part, as Stephin Merritt once said of "sincerity" in cooking, it doesn't matter. Actions matter.

you guys want another pro-corporate pro-war supreme court justice?

lol i am not voting for someone who i think would do a shit job, sorry.

you do realize that should clinton obtain the nomination, the alternative would not be "a good job" but likely one of the following: donald trump, ted cruz, marco rubio. right?

when they discontinue your favorite frozen dinner, do you stop eating food altogether?

you guys want another pro-corporate pro-war supreme court justice?

― AdamVania (Adam Bruneau), Wednesday, February 17, 2016 1:40 PM (28 seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

we're going to get one no matter what we "want"

xxxxxxp No, there was an Obama book that had Michelle clashing with centrist advisers

you do realize that should clinton obtain the nomination, the alternative would not be "a good job" but likely one of the following: donald trump, ted cruz, marco rubio. right?

oh i didn't realize we were talking about the future. If she obtains the nomination then i will reconsider. I am not in the habit of predicting how I will feel in advance. When do they finalize this stuff?

when they discontinue your favorite frozen dinner, do you stop eating food altogether?

― wizzz! (amateurist), Wednesday, February 17, 2016 2:40 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

i don't eat frozen dinner.

I want the book where Michelle clashes with Barack.

I am not voting for a democrat that I like less than another democrat, so I guess I'll just settle for 4-8 years of a maniac spitefully pulling the country apart with his bare hands.

Hillary 2016: Vote for Me, Idiot!

and they say Trump is mean

I am not in the habit of predicting how I will feel in advance.

Oh, come on. That's how you avoid stepping on rakes. "Is that going to hurt? Not my problem at the moment."

4-8 years of a maniac spitefully pulling the country apart with his bare hands

oh don't be so dramatic. chances are they will be far less connected to people like Kissinger so the world may actually be a safer place

this rakes thing is great, Hillary should use that. amazing stuff.