Il Douché and His Discontents: The 2016 Primary Voting Thread, Part 4

http://gui.afsc.org/birddog/bernie-sanders-lockheed-martin-f-35-jets-vermont

Josh: "...You work on limiting the influence of money in politics, yet at the same time you continue to support wasteful contracts from companies such as Lockheed Martin with the F-35 for instance. So what steps are you willing to take to limit the influence of companies in politics, not only on campaigns, but in policy making as well?”

Senator Sanders: "What part of the F-35? What are my options as a Senator? …if I said no to the F-35 coming to Burlington, for Vermont National Guard where would it go?... South Carolina?

My choice as a Senator, this is not a debate 20 years ago when we saw the F-35, which was very, very costly and is a huge cost overall. It’s the debate that the F-35 is here, it goes to South Carolina, or Florida, or in the state of Vermont. And I wanted it to come to the state of Vermont. Now in terms of the military spending in general, that’s another broader issue. Are we spending too much? Yes, we are. Have there been, more…well back up for a minute…we are spending too much, we should cut it.

The F-35, you have to in politics, it’s not and people do this I don’t mean to be critical, but you gotta look at where somebody is at the moment. If the debate is if somebody comes to you and says “Look, I’m thinking about building this super plane deal, it’s gonna cost huge sums of money, what do you think?” That’s, and maybe say no, no I think that’s a good idea, maybe we’ll go with the F-16. So then I responded. Are you about to say something?”

Josh: "No."

Sen. Sanders continues: “That’s where, in the real world, if the plan is built, and it is the plan that the U.S. Navy and the U.S. Air Force and of NATO, and if the choice is if that goes to Vermont, North Carolina-not North Carolina, South Carolina, or Florida, what is your choice as a United States Senator? Do you want it to go to South Carolina? You’re not saving anybody any money. So you have to look at these things in a, and it becomes complicated, and good friends can disagree on that. But my view is that given the reality of the damn plane, I’d rather it come to Vermont than to South Carolina. And that’s what the Vermont National Guard wants, and that means hundreds of jobs in my city. That’s it.”

The party base is divided here. It's not just that democrats and independents hate republicans to an exceptional degree.

i don't blame him tbh but if you don't know anything about the F-35 this is a very amusing breakdown:
https://pando.com/2014/12/18/the-war-nerd-more-proof-the-us-defense-industry-has-nothing-to-do-with-defending-america/

tread very fucking lightly, because what I’m going to do to you is going to be fucking disgusting. You understand me?”

umm I think maybe we have a general election thread title here

Sanders does right by his constituents I don't see that as a problem.

I don't either but I think it might not fit the image some of his supporters might have of him.

Maybe, although his decision there wasn't about doing what was best for Lockheed Martin, it was about what was best for the people of Vermont.

tread very fucking lightly, because you tread on my fucking dreams

The claim regarding Clinton is that money influences her in ways that lead her to value the interests of capital over labor

Sanders is a goddamn '70s liberal pro-pork egomaniacal Democrat, and light-years better than his opponent.

I find it interesting that the Democratic campaigns want to generate every possible fake-controversy about each other that they can possibly imagine except for "which one is likely to lose their faculties first and would it be while they were in office a la Reagan"

Lol that is like my favorite quote from the campaign. What type of lawyer talks like that on the record to the fucking media.

it fits the image i have of him bc he's not bsing his way out of it and pretend to be something he isn't.

it doesn't fit the image his naysayers have of him tho, which is of an out of touch idealist who shuns pragmatism.

xp over yonder to k3v

What type of lawyer talks like that on the record to the fucking media.

a mob lawyer.

i don't turn to susan sarandon for political advice; only posted it because a feminist telling her to 'act her age' was kinda gross

marcotte is a clown

KeV <3√√√

/long post alert, sorry

As we transition to a clean energy economy, we must ensure that the fossil fuel production taking place today is safe and responsible and that areas too sensitive for energy production are taken off the table. Hillary knows there are some places where we should keep fossil fuels in the ground or under the ocean.

tbf this on its own does not sound like it is going to reverse climate change

correct - it's written in a way so that people on all sides of the issue can hear what they want to hear. when i read that excerpt, i don't think about climate change specifically, but instead about the short-term dangers that can arise from off-shore drilling (ie., another Deepwater Horizon) and fracking. if you're a gung ho hillary fan that cares about climate change, you read that section as advocacy for reducing GHG emissions as quickly as possible ("transition to a clean energy economy"! "Keep fossil fuels in the ground"!). if you're on the coast, you read it as moving toward denying off-shore drilling permits (unlike obama). if you live above the marcellus formation, you read it as opposing fracking. if you're a republican fan of oil and gas and/or a climate change denier, you read it as a continuation of obama's "all of the above" approach, which is in itself a continuation of bush's "all of the above" approach (only areas that are "too sensitive" for energy production will be taken off the table); "there are some places where we should keep fossil fuels in the ground or under the ocean." that excerpt is everything to everyone, which is why to a lot of environmentalists it's meaningless, and an indication that she's just going to be Obama II on the environment.

yes, i've read the rest of her climate plan. there are things in there that sound good:

Set national goals to have 500 million solar panels installed; generate enough renewable energy to power every home in America; cut energy waste in homes, schools, and hospitals by a third; and reduce American oil consumption by a third.

Lead the world in the fight against climate change by bringing greenhouse gas emissions to 30 percent below what they were in 2005 within the next decade—and keep going.

but there's no way the solar panels thing will happen without republican support in the house, and that's not happening (unless trump brings everyone down with him). and i know it annoys everyone to hear, but the 30% below 2005 goal is likely not enough to mitigate millions and millions of people dying from climate change. those goals are set under heavy political pressure and are consensus driven - they represent the most conservative estimates from climate scientists. and hillary's record on environmental issues is mixed. it's not just her waddling on keystone (a textbook example of her refusing to take a position on principle, and instead holding a finger to the political winds). she sort of gets it, she sort of doesn't at all. again, she's obama II.

and that's why a lot of people who care about the environment, and climate change in particular, express deep skepticism that hillary clinton's positions add up to what it would take to produce a response that's commensurate to the scale of the problem. climate change isn't the kind of problem that can be solved in hedged, incremental steps.

anyway, my point is that the excerpt above is egregiously vague and could never be used as evidence of clinton's belief in the urgency of addressing climate change, one way or another, and that plenty of people who care passionately about climate change are not optimistic about her candidacy because it likely represents a continuation of incremental improvements (in the face of stonewalling by republicans, i know, i get that) which will not add up to the changes that are necessary. that's not a fringe position. that is a very common position among people who care about this.

thx KM

even when Clinton puts in an anti-fossil fuel applause line -- her recent vow "We're going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business" -- it's something not at all necessary for broadening her appeal, indeed will harden votes against her. Yeah, those damn unemployed miners....

i assumed this Marcotte is just some nitwit blogger xxxp

Sarandon went from appearing at Nader rallies with Tim Robbins in 2000 to calling him "your guy" on Bill Maher's show in 2004

meant to link this ICYMI

http://money.cnn.com/2016/03/14/news/economy/hillary-clinton-coal-out-of-business/

even when Clinton puts in an anti-fossil fuel applause line -- her recent vow "We're going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business" -- it's something not at all necessary for broadening her appeal, indeed will harden votes against her. Yeah, those damn unemployed miners....

on top of that, it's about as bold of a claim as "i will make the sun go down tonight", because the coal mines have been going out of business anyway for a few years now, for a variety of reasons that have nothing to do with hillary clinton.

http://grist.org/climate-energy/good-news-theres-bad-news-for-coal/

zackly, even CNNMoney made the same point. The more safer the topic, the more HRC wants to boldly stake claim to it. Then she flubs the presentation (ie, say sumthin nice at Nancy Reagan's funeral).

so my takeaway here is that if I actually want to have a conversation about this with someone, I should just talk to Karl as he seems to be the only one willing to engage beyond a surface level

thank you very much for your response Karl; I want to talk more but can't at the moment due to an impending presentation

(I do plan to come back to it, just later)

well he's maybe the only one here who knows a lot about said issue, so yeah

when you feel your life's too hard
just go have a talk with Karl

oh, no prob. and i realize there are inconsistencies in what i said, too - chiefly that sanders would run into the same republican roadblock as clinton. but i do appreciate that his platform places an emphasis on policies that would be truly meaningful but aren't politically attractive - like a carbon tax - while clinton would probably run out of the room screaming if tried to force her to have an opinion on that. o'malley was vocal in his support of a carbon tax, too, for what it's worth.

xpost nah, no that's not true. there are lots of great posters in the climate change thread, i'd be kinda curious to see if they have an opinion on sanders/clinton/climate/the futility of it all

Not that I'm a good poster on climate change, but I figure that human civilization is irrevocably fubared, so just withdraw into your own insular world and enjoy it while it lasts.

those of us in Miami would like to thank all y'all's concern.

/vanity

intriguing

https://theintercept.com/2016/03/24/bernie-sanders-would-now-outraise-clinton-almost-2-to-1-with-small-donor-matching-funds/

great post, karl.

the sad thing is that anything short of a bill pullman independence day attitude, that fighting climate change is basically the existential threat of our age and needs to be treated like the biggest most important 'war' ever, damn the consequences and damn whoever disagrees, will likely leave the planet wrecked. sanders too falls short of this but i do think he gets it. at this point in a sane world we would basically be nationalizing all energy companies and forcing them to do what's necessary. i mean in world war ii we could basically take over detroit and even the walt disney company in order to see to it that hitler was defeated and soldiers had helpful cartoons explaining VD or whatever. we need that spirit here.

i'm becoming resigned to the idea that if most Americans can't see the enemy in human form, or it doesn't threaten them RIGHT NOW, it doesn't exist.

amanda marcotte is the same idiot who was attacking sanders for "propping up the sandinistas" in the 80s

i guess total ignorance of foreign policy is an asset if you want to feel good about supporting clinton

I don't usually catch up on the day's news till I get home. "Bruises," "lawyers," "incident"--thought maybe Trump and Cruz finally went at it, but I see it's something else.

gouge away

"It doesn’t matter who Susan Sarandon or Rosario Dawson or Killer Mike vote for, unless any of them also own homes in Miami and decide to register there (they have until 29 days before the election to do so).

"The most aggravating part of the entire aggravating conversation is that nearly every professional commentator pillorying Sarandon today is in the same boat as she—their votes in November will be purely performative. For a New Yorker or Washingtonian to march into the voting booth and pull the lever for the Democratic nominee is to engage in a symbolic gesture of political self-identification, not to participate in any meaningful way in the political process. Staying home is equally valid and equally consequential."

http://gawker.com/it-couldnt-possibly-matter-less-if-susan-sarandon-doesn-1767810152

sarandon: doesn't matter
lewandowski: really should matter but probably won't

the gross thing about Lewandowski is we'll be treated to him making it about *his* struggle and persecution and the ex-Breitbart reporter will probably get 3x the misogyny tossed her way.

trump has already said, out loud, if it was a big deal she would have screamed

if you want to know how the day is going in the life the republic

anyway, chew on this y'all:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/28/hillary-clinton-honest-transparency-jill-abramson

I would be “dead rich”, to adapt an infamous Clinton phrase, if I could bill for all the hours I’ve spent covering just about every “scandal” that has enveloped the Clintons. As an editor I’ve launched investigations into her business dealings, her fundraising, her foundation and her marriage. As a reporter my stories stretch back to Whitewater. I’m not a favorite in Hillaryland. That makes what I want to say next surprising.

Hillary Clinton is fundamentally honest and trustworthy.

Jill Abramson? LOL

"honesty" is not the problem i have with HRC, personally...

Live press conference on Air Force Trump rn

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b340UaWj_Bw

The guy is such an asshole it's almost impossible to put into words. It's like he's operating on an entirely new level of asshole. Just one thing after another.

Like every single day.

If you've somehow combed those 26 minutes already, please share any highlights...

At 26:12 the video ends

He's campaigning hard for the MRA vote