Midterm Elections

PopePalpatine

Good luck with that when you're stuck with a two-party system thanks to FPTP.

s7ryf3925pivug

prawnsambo wrote: »

That's the point though. As long as Democrats wear Republican clothes, there's no danger of them getting any real power. The history of Dem presidents with hostile houses of congress is long and distinguished. Can't have them muddying up the waters coming out with policies that contrast them with the GOP and people might actually like.

Clinton was centrist. Biden was centrist, and was key to Obama getting stuff done. Carter was relatively leftwing, and was unpopular for it.

Don't know how a leftwing candidate would fare compared to a centrist, but there's no example of one getting into power and doing well, unless you count Obama, who benefitted from Bieen's ability to work across the aisle.

Harika

Arlo Bitter Wrongdoing wrote: »

More diverse candidates elected for the dems. Traditional conservatives replaced with far right candidates for the republicans. If both perties continue to move away from the centre, perhaps ground will open up there for a third party.

It's the "who will be next dem president" question. Will a moderate like Joe Biden have more chances, or will it be someone more rubbing like Warren or Sanders.
A third party in the US, could have only happened if like a Republican think tank recommended that Bernie went head to head with Clinton and Trump into the elections. That would have killed the Dems and Clintons chances anyway but would have opened the way in 2020.

Brian?

RobertKK wrote: »

Of course Texas will eventually become a blue state, the irony being the red state is very successful and its making Texan cities among the fastest growing cities in the US, so Republicans have made Texas a success and the people moving to Texas - a lot from blue states with problems and they vote Democrat and could end up making a mess of what has worked for Texas.

Actually it’s far more nuanced than the GOP are making Texas successful. It’s about demographic shifts as well as tax incentives. Texas is thriving because of it’s young highly educated work force and it’s pro business environment. Any democratic governor of Texas wouldn’t change that. There’s barely a lick of difference between most dems and republicans on economic policy, it’s social policy that really separates them at a state level.

s7ryf3925pivug

Harika wrote: »

It's the "who will be next dem president" question. Will a moderate like Joe Biden have more chances, or will it be someone more rubbing like Warren or Sanders.
A third party in the US, could have only happened if like a Republican think tank recommended that Bernie went head to head with Clinton and Trump into the elections. That would have killed the Dems and Clintons chances anyway but would have opened the way in 2020.

Well it will be the more extreme one, because of reflexive effects from rom Trump getting in. Just like Trump benefitted from following a black guy. Nothing to foster latent racism than a black president.

Hopefully it will be someone whose focus will be on profound global issues like climate change, and hopefully that will be tempered by more moderate ideas about other spcial and economic issues. Otherwise it will just swing bqck further to the right. For someone to succeed based on a climate change platform, the effects of it will need to be getting felt pretty acutely though, so maybe too late anyway.

s7ryf3925pivug

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Good luck with that when you're stuck with a two-party system thanks to FPTP.

Yeah the only way it would happen would be from mass defections from both parties, following a strong figure from each.

Quin_Dub

RobertKK wrote: »

That is what you are saying.
There are a lot moving from San Francisco.

A council survey of the San Francisco Bay area found 46% of residents planned on leaving the area soon.



http://uk.businessinsider.com/san-francisco-housing-high-cost-residents-leaving-2018-6?r=US&IR=T

So Nevada will go more blue too.


https://www.ktsa.com/californians-are-moving-to-texas-texans-are-moving-to-san-antonio/


All blue states...


Oh look all blue areas again...


Oh wow that RobertKK doesn't know what he is talking about...all from blue Democratic areas again...


Shock/horror, all coming from Democrat strongholds again...

As was saying Iit is people from overpriced Democrat states moving to Texas and into the suburbs of the big Texan cities and turning the state towards being blue.

Them being Democrat is not the reason they are over-priced (or at least not for the reason you think) , it's because they are successful and as such property prices have sky-rocketed.

Those people are moving to Texas to get cheaper housing and Companies are moving to Texas to get cheaper staff as they don't need to pay them as much in Texas because housing is cheaper!!.

Having said that , despite being a RED state , house prices in places like Austin have increased significantly in recent years..

Eric Cartman

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

Jaysus - a representative of US corporate financial capital is now regarded as 'on the left'

:rolleyes:

The world according to Eric

"on the left to centre scale" and shes very much a centerist in us politics, I have not called hillary a leftist, you just misread what I wrote.

prawnsambo

Arlo Bitter Wrongdoing wrote: »

Well it will be the more extreme one, because of reflexive effects from rom Trump getting in. Just like Trump benefitted from following a black guy. Nothing to foster latent racism than a black president.

Hopefully it will be someone whose focus will be on profound global issues like climate change, and hopefully that will be tempered by more moderate ideas about other spcial and economic issues. Otherwise it will just swing bqck further to the right. For someone to succeed based on a climate change platform, the effects of it will need to be getting felt pretty acutely though, so maybe too late anyway.

A few more hurricane seasons like the last couple may concentrate minds. And not just that. California has been going through a flood/wildfire cycle that seems to be getting exponentially worse with each passing year. The possibility of these events hitting levels where the financial and human costs become extreme are getting more and more likely.

Harika

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Them being Democrat is not the reason they are over-priced (or at least not for the reason you think) , it's because they are successful and as such property prices have sky-rocketed.

Those people are moving to Texas to get cheaper housing and Companies are moving to Texas to get cheaper staff as they don't need to pay them as much in Texas because housing is cheaper!!.

Having said that , despite being a RED state , house prices in places like Austin have increased significantly in recent years..

Our company has an office there, and it is getting madness there. Really hard to get and keep staff as when you leave the door you are already approached if you want to work with them with better pay and conditions. Hell yeah!

SimonTemplar

If I remember correctly, for the Presidential election, the results were known once the state's polls closed. Why does it take longer for the results of the congressional elections in the mid terms? Do they use a different system for a Presidential election?

RobertKK

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Them being Democrat is not the reason they are over-priced (or at least not for the reason you think) , it's because they are successful and as such property prices have sky-rocketed.

Those people are moving to Texas to get cheaper housing and Companies are moving to Texas to get cheaper staff as they don't need to pay them as much in Texas because housing is cheaper!!.

Having said that , despite being a RED state , house prices in places like Austin have increased significantly in recent years..

One can argue is it good we have Dublin which is overpriced and with a homeless crisis due to being overpriced/lack of adequately priced housing/rent.
Being overpriced is also a failure, irrespective of what other success a city has.

That said when I was in Austin, the one thing that really surprised me was the amount of homeless people on the street.
I looked it up and since I have been there the figure has risen to a 8 year high of over 1,000 people who sleep with no shelter in the city.

Podge_irl

SimonTemplar wrote: »

If I remember correctly, for the Presidential election, the results were known once the state's polls closed. Why does it take longer for the results of the congressional elections in the mid terms? Do they use a different system for a Presidential election?

That's just exit polls. Sometimes the race is called based on them if they are overwhelmingly favouring one candidate.

hill16bhoy

8-10 wrote: »

I don't think that is a realistic expectation. Republicans will gerrymander the crap out of everywhere they need to.

What needs to be done away with is the ridiculous electoral college altogether

The electoral college is a joke alright.

But in my time following US politics, which goes back to the early to mid-90s, several states have changed significantly in the way they vote.

Virginia used to be solid Republican but is now pretty solidly Democratic.

Colorado has changed from Republican leaning to being a solid enough Democratic state.

Same with Nevada.

New Mexico used to be a toss up but is now solidly Democratic.

Up to 2000 Missouri was coonsidered the ultimate toss-up state. Now it's deep red.

West Virginia has switched from deep blue to deep red.

And that's just in the last 20 years.

Most of those are small states, and Texas is huge, but the Democratic vote increased by a million between 2004 and 2016. Last night it increased by a further 200,000 on 2016.

Arizona, Georgia and North Carolina could flip in the next 20 years. Demographics are changing these states slowly, but relentlessly.

Across the US, Democrats need to become energised right from the bottom up. That means taking state houses and senates, governorships and concentrating on getting as many liberal judges installed as possible.

This year is a start, but this needs to be a 20 year project and it needs to be relentless.

The only way to deal with Republicans is to go to war with them - face them down at every level and ultimately grind them into the dust, which is exactly what deserves to happen to their quasi-fascist ideology.

spacecoyote

Whilst Klobucher & Harris may be popular & doing well, sadly I believe that the only way the Dems can win in 2020 Is to put forward a male candidate.

Watched a fair few bits around feedback from rust belt voters around 2016, and there was a large amount of people saying "I don't like Trump but I couldn't vote for a woman"

I think realistically they'll have to put forward a man with a female VP & work that way to try lay further groundwork for a future female presidency run

Dyr

hill16bhoy wrote: »

The only way to deal with Republicans is to go to war with them - face them down at every level and ultimately grind them into the dust, which is exactly what deserves to happen to their quasi-fascist ideology.

Full on fascist rhetoric aimed at quasi fascists. Funny old world American politics.

RobertKK

Whether one like or dislikes a party when it comes to the Democrats and Republicans, at present they need each other, the US is one party away from a one party country given how weak the rest are.
Anyone who wants one party to win everything is living in delusion if they think it will make things better.

Captain Obvious

RobertKK wrote: »

Whether one like or dislikes a party when it comes to the Democrats and Republicans, at present they need each other, the US is one party away from a one party country given how weak the rest are.
Anyone who wants one party to win everything is living in delusion if they think it will make things better.

The Republicans have shown that can't make sharing power or total power work.

RobertKK

Captain Obvious wrote: »

The Republicans have shown that can't make sharing power or total power work.

They got in two supreme courts judges.
Their tax cuts.

Obama got in his healthcare program when he had both houses, you could level the same at accusation at him, and we await to see how the Democrats do with the House.

Larbre34

Biden Harris for America 2020 with Joe on a one- term agreement.

Captain Obvious

Warren O'Rourke could be another.

Harry Palmr

Just heard about that winning candidate for the republicans being dead.

hill16bhoy

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Just heard about that winning candidate for the republicans being dead.

To be fair, he was by far their best candidate in any race nationwide last night.

Eric Cartman

hill16bhoy wrote: »

To be fair, he was by far their best candidate in any race nationwide last night.

Found dead at 72 , by Ron Jeremy and a prossie no less, after a weekend on the sesh, in his brothel, and still wins an election.

That man is a real American hero.

RobertKK

Trump did really well in the House elections, going by past presidents.
At the midterms at this stage in previous presidencies, the losses were:

Clinton: lost 52 Democrat seats
GW Bush: lost 30 Republican seats
Obama: lost 63 Democrat seats
Trump: lost 27 Republican seats.

Only the third time in 100 years, the party of the President gained seats in the Senate at this stage of the presidency.

Manic Moran

Brian? wrote: »

Not really. I pointed out why I felt the system was undemocratic. The Senate is not democratically elected as it's decidedly against the concept of one person one vote.

Depends on how you look at it. If the House is the Body of the People, the Senate is the Body of the States. Fifty States, each of which has two votes. That makes it very democratic.

So, what you're saying is, the parts of Texas with Democratic administrations are thriving, and people are fleeing the Republican-run areas and flocking to them?

The single biggest influx are folks like me: Californians who are fed up with California and moving to Texas. (Other popular states are Ny, AZ, NV and, for some reason, ID). This is not necessarily a popular move from the locals, who worry "Those damned Californians broke their state, they come here, and they vote to make their new home just like the place they left". (One of my NV FB friends posted this morning that CA is an STD and has infected NV). If nothing else, they are having a disproprtionate effect on the housing market. It's not that we're buying the houses and depleting inventory, but that we can afford to pay a lot more for them. My house in Dublin, CA, is 1,280sqft, and valued at about $900k. I signed today for my house in San Antonio, a steal (for me) at $585k, 4,100sqft. Though I consider it very cheap and willingly pay it, Texas natives are not happy that they are being outbid by out-of-staters. (I say 'texas', but it applies every target state.)

https://www.idahostatesman.com/news/local/article164420672.html
Many Idahoans believe Californians come here with a sense of entitlement and big money that drives up home prices. Many conservative Idahoans think too many California ex-pats are too liberal. Many liberals think they’re conservative.

In fact, dislike for Californians has been around longer than some might think. In 1979, The Washington Post took a look at Idaho’s anti-California sentiment in a story, “To Most Idahoans, A Plague of Locusts is Californians.”

“Old-timers call them goats,” the story said. “The new generation calls them C.B.s (literal translation, ‘California Bastards’).”

Yet Californians keep coming. A 2015 U.S. Census report on state-to-state migration found that one in four people who moved to Idaho came from California.

https://www.dallasnews.com/business/real-estate/2018/06/25/see-many-californians-moved-dallas-just-3-months-last-year

Dallas-Fort Worth was one of the top destinations for domestic migrants from California in 2017, according to a recent study

Cost of living is not the only reason.
https://www.sfgate.com/expensive-san-francisco/article/Californians-leaving-Texas-Arizona-Nevada-migrate-12640684.php

Beyond the expense of living in California, there may be other factors for the move to Texas. When SFGATE interviewed some Bay Area natives for its "Grass Is Greener" series, Suzanne Kovach, who left for Texas after 61 years living here, gave three big reasons for moving away: "Crime, traffic, economy."

Many from California and elsewhere in the U.S. are drawn to Texas' lower home prices, but the state also has a strong job market -- both in terms of local employers and relocations from other states -- that is attracting migrants.

Texas is a big destination for job-to-job flows, a U.S. Census Bureau-designed statistic that measures flows of employees from one company to another when they've been at each company longer than three quarters. The biggest source of these flows is California, which contributed 6,884 in the first quarter of 2016.

Texas has also been the destination for several high-profile corporate moves from the California coast, perhaps most notably Toyota, which began moving its North American headquarters from Torrance, Calif., to Plano last year. It brought with it the bulk of its 4,200-strong national staff. (This includes my employer, who shut down the CA office and moved to Austin)

By way of example, some Democrats, especially the leadership, are suggesting the 2020 national convention be in San Francisco. https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/diaz/article/San-Francisco-should-go-for-2020-Democratic-12811214.php

Republicans are going "Please! We have no better advertisement for a good reason not to vote Democrat and make your town like San Francisco!"
https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2018/07/02/big-convention-pulls-out-san-francisco-citing-unsafe-streets/

SAN FRANCISCO (KPIX 5) — Tourists are turning away from the City by the Bay, while a huge medical convention has cancelled plans to meet in San Francisco, saying its members don’t feel safe on the streets.

Locals may feel comfortable, but visitors are often shocked when the reality of San Francisco’s streets is a far cry from its postcard image.

prawnsambo

Manic Moran wrote: »

The single biggest influx are folks like me: Californians who are fed up with California and moving to Texas. (Other popular states are Ny, AZ, NV and, for some reason, ID). This is not necessarily a popular move from the locals, who worry "Those damned Californians broke their state, they come here, and they vote to make their new home just like the place they left". (One of my NV FB friends posted this morning that CA is an STD and has infected NV). If nothing else, they are having a disproprtionate effect on the housing market. It's not that we're buying the houses and depleting inventory, but that we can afford to pay a lot more for them. My house in Dublin, CA, is 1,280sqft, and valued at about $900k. I signed today for my house in San Antonio, a steal (for me) at $585k, 4,100sqft. Though I consider it very cheap and willingly pay it, Texas natives are not happy that they are being outbid by out-of-staters. (I say 'texas', but it applies every target state.)
Texas has also been the destination for several high-profile corporate moves from the California coast, perhaps most notably Toyota, which began moving its North American headquarters from Torrance, Calif., to Plano last year. It brought with it the bulk of its 4,200-strong national staff. (This includes my employer, who shut down the CA office and moved to Austin)

So not really moving because you're fed up . Though I wouldn't particularly blame you. The congestion and sprawl in CA is obnoxious. Some wonderful scenery, brethtaking even. But not a fan of the rest of it.

Essentially what you're saying is that there are many different reasons, but it seems to me that CA is still a kind of gold rush state. Peopple rush in to make the gold and then get out when the endless commutes and urban sprawl becomes too much and there's enough gold to move somewhere else. And they've been doing it for decades.

hill16bhoy

RobertKK wrote: »

Trump did really well in the House elections, going by past presidents.
At the midterms at this stage in previous presidencies, the losses were:

Clinton: lost 52 Democrat seats
GW Bush: lost 30 Republican seats
Obama: lost 63 Democrat seats
Trump: lost 27 Republican seats.

Only the third time in 100 years, the party of the President gained seats in the Senate at this stage of the presidency.

Clinton and Obama didn't have the benefit of gerrymandering.

Democrats actually gained vote share from the corresponding 2012 Senate elections when they did exceedingly well.

They look set to win the popular vote in the House by around 9% with the biggest vote share and margin since 2008.

By all means feel free to ignore that.

RobertKK

hill16bhoy wrote: »

Clinton and Obama didn't have the benefit of gerrymandering.

Democrats actually gained vote share from the corresponding 2012 Senate elections when they did exceedingly well.

They look set to win the popular vote in the House by around 9% with the biggest vote share and margin since 2008.

By all means feel free to ignore that.

The comparisons are from the first terms of the presidents and their first midterms.

Fr Tod Umptious

hill16bhoy wrote: »

Clinton and Obama didn't have the benefit of gerrymandering.

Democrats actually gained vote share from the corresponding 2012 Senate elections when they did exceedingly well.

They look set to win the popular vote in the House by around 9% with the biggest vote share and margin since 2008.

By all means feel free to ignore that.

Why do people think that the Democrats are innocent when it comes to gerrymandering or other dark arts when it comes to electioneering?

It's a fine example of the 'Democrat good, Republican bad' stereotype that you get in this country.

Did it ever dawn on people why Democrats are so interested in getting more and more immigrants in the US.

It's simple really, it increases their voter base.

They don't care that much for their welfare, just get them.in, get them citizenship and you have a vote for life.

The HRC election campaign in 2016 just showed how corrupt a party they are.

Manic Moran

prawnsambo wrote: »

So not really moving because you're fed up . Though I wouldn't particularly blame you. The congestion and sprawl in CA is obnoxious. Some wonderful scenery, brethtaking even. But not a fan of the rest of it.

Essentially what you're saying is that there are many different reasons, but it seems to me that CA is still a kind of gold rush state. Peopple rush in to make the gold and then get out when the endless commutes and urban sprawl becomes too much and there's enough gold to move somewhere else. And they've been doing it for decades.

I am, actually. When the office shut down in April I was a little unique in that I was retained as a remote employee. Most were forced to leave or relocate by 01 April. I am under no compulsion from my employer to move to Texas or anywhere else. You'll note I'm moving to a different city than my office moved to.

The move was more a target of opportunity. Since my work no longer required me to be in California, I could move anywhere, including simply somewhere cheaper in California. With the wife, we sat down and looked at the options, and it turned out that San Antonio, TX simply proved to be the best option for us due to a combination of weather, tax structure, job opportunities, cost, atmosphere, and so on.

hill16bhoy

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Why do people think that the Democrats are innocent when it comes to gerrymandering or other dark arts when it comes to electioneering?

It's a fine example of the 'Democrat good, Republican bad' stereotype that you get in this country.

Did it ever dawn on people why Democrats are so interested in getting more and more immigrants in the US.

It's simple really, it increases their voter base.

They don't care that much for their welfare, just get them.in, get them citizenship and you have a vote for life.

The HRC election campaign in 2016 just showed how corrupt a party they are.

And that's some classic "both sidesism" that you get from an apologist for the indefensible.

It take a special kind of apologist to say the Democrats "showed they were corrupt" in 2016, while completely airbrushing the exponentially greater corruption and Russian-style disregard for truth of their opponents out of history.

A very special kind.

Dyr

hill16bhoy wrote: »

And that's some classic "both sidesism" that you get from an apologist for the indefensible.

It take a special kind of apologist to say the Democrats "showed they were corrupt" in 2016, while completely airbrushing the exponentially greater corruption and Russian-style disregard for truth of their opponents out of history.

A very special kind.

There's an irony in making a whataboutery argument while complaining about whataboutery. It might be a bit subtle to pick up for someone who wants to crush a a huge chunk of the US electorate into the dust

RobertKK

hill16bhoy wrote: »

And that's some classic "both sidesism" that you get from an apologist for the indefensible.

It take a special kind of apologist to say the Democrats "showed they were corrupt" in 2016, while completely airbrushing the exponentially greater corruption and Russian-style disregard for truth of their opponents out of history.

A very special kind.

Everyone knows the Democrats ran a campaign to get Hillary as their candidate. No one else had a hope.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/11/02/ex-dnc-chair-goes-at-the-clintons-alleging-hillarys-campaign-hijacked-dnc-during-primary-with-bernie-sanders/?utm_term=.fdfd1294d29e

https://twitter.com/TheLeadCNN/status/926189366426431488


Elizabeth Warren says 2016 DNC was rigged. Is one of the leading candidates for the Democrats telling lies?

hill16bhoy

RobertKK wrote: »

Everyone knows the Democrats ran a campaign to get Hillary as their candidate. No one else had a hope.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/11/02/ex-dnc-chair-goes-at-the-clintons-alleging-hillarys-campaign-hijacked-dnc-during-primary-with-bernie-sanders/?utm_term=.fdfd1294d29e

https://twitter.com/TheLeadCNN/status/926189366426431488


Elizabeth Warren says 2016 DNC was rigged. Is one of the leading candidates for the Democrats telling lies?

How was the primary rigged?

The superdelegate system does not amount to a "rigging". It was a poor system, but the DNC was quite up front about it and it had been in use for years. Everybody knew the rules of the game.

Neither does telling Hillary Clinton debate questions in advance amount to "a rigging".

Neither does the DNC having a preferred candidate amount to "a rigging", otherwise you'll have to say that every primary campaign for both parties in history was "rigged".

The fact is Clinton won the primaries fair and square, comfortably winning the popular vote, and that's coming from somebody who would have preferred to see Sanders as the candidate.

Clinton also won the popular vote in 2008 and lost the nomination.

Of course, all this nonsense about so called "rigging" is utterly hilarious coming from supporters of the most corrupt presidential candidate and campaign in history, something which you all seem only too willing to completely airbrush out of history.

But sure when you're a Trump supporter, you can convince yourself of anything you want to believe.

RobertKK

hill16bhoy wrote: »

How was the primary rigged?

The superdelegate system does not amount to a "rigging". It was a poor system, but the DNC was quite up front about it and it had been in use for years. Everybody knew the rules of the game.

Neither does telling Hillary Clinton debate questions in advance amount to "a rigging".

Neither does the DNC having a preferred candidate amount to "a rigging", otherwise you'll have to say that every primary campaign for both parties in history was "rigged".

The fact is Clinton won the primaries fair and square, comfortably winning the popular vote, and that's coming from somebody who would have preferred to see Sanders as the candidate.

Clinton also won the popular vote in 2008 and lost the nomination.

Of course, all this nonsense about so called "rigging" is utterly hilarious coming from supporters of the most corrupt presidential candidate and campaign in history, something which you all seem only too willing to completely airbrush out of history.

But sure when you're a Trump supporter, you can convince yourself of anything you want to believe.

It is easier if one just accepts there is no good and bad, and neither party has a halo...

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/25/us/politics/debbie-wasserman-schultz-dnc-wikileaks-emails.html

PHILADELPHIA —Democrats arrived at their nominating convention on Sunday under a cloud of discord as Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, abruptly said she was resigning after a trove of leaked emails showed party officials conspiring to sabotage the campaign of Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont.

the party was effectively an arm of Mrs. Clinton’s campaign. The messages showed members of the committee’s communications team musing about pushing the narrative that the Sanders campaign was inept and trying to raise questions publicly about whether he was an atheist.

Mr. Sanders said the situation was an “outrage” on Sunday before the resignation was announced, and called for Ms. Wasserman Schultz to step down. Afterward, he said it was the right decision.

“The party leadership must also always remain impartial in the presidential nominating process, something which did not occur in the 2016 race,”

A corrupt campaign was run by the DNC to make Sanders look bad and to get Hillary as their candidate. As Elizabeth Warren said, it was rigged.

Mr. Sanders’s supporters were elated by Ms. Wasserman Schultz’s decision, which they said had been long overdue.

“Thank God for WikiLeaks,” said Dan O’Neal, a delegate from Arizona who was wearing a “Bernie for President” T-shirt. “The party was stacked from the beginning with Debbie in charge.”

This is why Debbie Wassermann Schultz, the chairperson of the DNC had to resign, she was involved in a campaign inside the DNC against Bernie Sanders.

It is time to stop believing one party is good and another is bad, both parties have good people, and then not so good...
It is naive to see any party as good and not being involved in things one would consider not good.

I am not a Trump supporter, I said he was a better option than Hillary given her record for supporting every war going, and she pushed Obama into the Libya mess. I believe Trump has done some good but also a lot of things I would regard as wrong.
I am not married to any position, I take things as I see it.

hill16bhoy

RobertKK wrote: »

It is easier if one just accepts there is no good and bad, and neither party has a halo...

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/25/us/politics/debbie-wasserman-schultz-dnc-wikileaks-emails.html

A corrupt campaign was run by the DNC to make Sanders look bad and to get Hillary as their candidate. As Elizabeth Warren said, it was rigged.



This is why Debbie Wassermann Schultz, the chairperson of the DNC had to resign, she was involved in a campaign inside the DNC against Bernie Sanders.

It is time to stop believing one party is good and another is bad, both parties have good people, and then not so good...
It is naive to see any party as good and not being involved in things one would consider not good.

I am not a Trump supporter, I said he was a better option than Hillary given her record for supporting every war going, and she pushed Obama into the Libya mess. I believe Trump has done some good but also a lot of things I would regard as wrong.
I am not married to any position, I take things as I see it.

I asked you how the primary was rigged.

You haven't provided a satisfactory answer.

I quite clearly said there were issues. There were. That does not equal a rigged primary.

I don't think you or any other Trump supporters understand what a rigged primary or election is, given your curious silence about gerrymandering, voter suppression and so called "technical glitches" which benefit Republicans.

Elizabeth Warren withdrew her comments, by the way.

Also, please stop mendaciously putting words into my mouth and claiming I have beliefs which I do not have - especially when you can't even own your own demonstrable beliefs - precisely nobody believes you when you say you aren't a Trump supporter - your posting history demonstrably proves otherwise.

And again, it's absolutely hilarious that you claim to be concerned about corruption or anything else underhand, when you are so plainly not, given your consistent defence of Trump.

RobertKK

hill16bhoy wrote: »

I asked you how the primary was rigged.

You haven't provided a satisfactory answer.

I quite clearly said there were issues. There were. That does not equal a rigged primary.

I don't think you understand what a rigged primary is.

Elizabeth Warren withdrew her comments.

Also, please stop mendaciously putting words into my mouth and claiming I have beliefs which I do not have - especially when you can't even own your own demonstrable beliefs - precisely nobody believes you when you say you aren't a Trump supporter - your posting history demonstrably proves otherwise.

And again, it's absolutely hilarious that you claim to be concerned about corruption or anything else underhand, when you are so plainly not, given your consistent defence of Trump.

Not one comment on Debbie Wassermann Schultz's resignation I see and the reason for it.

I have seen your posts over the past 24 hours, you talk about wanting the US to end up with a one party state as you want the only opposition to the Democrats which are the Republicans to be wiped into dust.

Trump got it wrong on Iran, excessive drones strikes, Climate change agreement, his trade war, the lack of tact on illegal immigration, the over vilifying of the press, on the EU when he called it a 'foe', his disgraceful performance in Helsinki, Charlottesville, the apprentice like nature of the white house with the 'you're fired', his attitude towards Saudi Arabia and Israel, his naivety towards Kim Jong Un as if he is a good person, no doubt I forgot stuff...
But I am a Trump supporter says you. Seeing one candidate as being less dangerous than another and wanting them to win because of that doesn't mean I support them overall. I think he was a lesser evil, at least he did say the wars the US have been involved in have been stupid and a waste of money. I agree with that, on the other hand the alternative was a person who voted for all these wars and got involved and pushed for war in previous roles. That is was why I wanted Hillary to lose, I will say I am concerned about Trump's rhetoric towards Iran and how Netanyahu seems to control him.
Not everything is black and white.

Brian?

Manic Moran wrote: »

Depends on how you look at it. If the House is the Body of the People, the Senate is the Body of the States. Fifty States, each of which has two votes. That makes it very democratic.

I disagree. But it's a subjective matter of course. To me, the basic principal of any democracy is that every person's vote has exactly the same value. The key being person and not state. In the Senate one Alaskan's vote is worth about 200 Californian's vote (the maths might be wrong, but the point stands).

I know this is how the system was designed, but i can't see how that's democratic.

Podge_irl

Why shouldn't the DNC have preferred Clinton? Sanders isn't even a democrat.

The DNC "rigged" it for Trump to be the Republican candidate, but everyone forgets that. That non-stop media coverage didn't come from nowhere.

Pity they couldn't put the cat back in the bag.

Podge_irl

Brian? wrote: »

I disagree. But it's a subjective matter of course. To me, the basic principal of any democracy is that every person's vote has exactly the same value. The key being person and not state. In the Senate one Alaskan's vote is worth about 200 Californian's vote (the maths might be wrong, but the point stands).

I know this is how the system was designed, but i can't see how that's democratic.

Not everyone's vote has the same value anywhere there are sub-national vote counts due to vagaries in turnout and electoral size. It is less egregious sure but I think it is too simplistic to say anything that doesn't give every vote equal weighting is "not democracy".

It is not a million miles away from the concept of, for example, requiring unanimity in EU decision making. Many in the US would still view it as independent states that came together as equals to form a federal group. I'm not a big fan of the Senate but I wouldn't call it undemocratic.

hill16bhoy

RobertKK wrote: »

Not one comment on Debbie Wassermann Schultz's resignation I see and the reason for it.

I have seen your posts over the past 24 hours, you talk about wanting the US to end up with a one party state as you want the only opposition to the Democrats which are the Republicans to be wiped into dust.

Trump got it wrong on Iran, excessive drones strikes, Climate change agreement, his trade war, the lack of tact on illegal immigration, the over vilifying of the press, on the EU when he called it a 'foe', his disgraceful performance in Helsinki, Charlottesville, the apprentice like nature of the white house with the 'you're fired', his attitude towards Saudi Arabia and Israel, his naivety towards Kim Jong Un as if he is a good person, no doubt I forgot stuff...
But I am a Trump supporter says you. Seeing one candidate as being less dangerous than another and wanting them to win because of that doesn't mean I support them overall. I think he was a lesser evil, at least he did say the wars the US have been involved in have been stupid and a waste of money. I agree with that, on the other hand the alternative was a person who voted for all these wars and got involved and pushed for war in previous roles. That is was why I wanted Hillary to lose, I will say I am concerned about Trump's rhetoric towards Iran and how Netanyahu seems to control him.
Not everything is black and white.

Debbie Wassermann Schultz resigned. So what?

How does that equal "the primary was rigged"?

You're the one making the assertion.

Back it up. So far, you haven't.

So far, your entire basis for this claim is "everybody knows". Thanks for that.

Read this and tell me the primary was "rigged".

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/11/14/16640082/donna-brazile-warren-bernie-sanders-democratic-primary-rigged

The reality is that what went on in the Democratic primary was no different from any primary campaign in history.

Party establishments have a favoured candidate. In other news, tomorrow is Friday.

I won't bother responding to the rest of your post - reasonable people have already long made up their own minds about what you think of Trump.

B0jangles

Hey, don't let Robert deflect the conversation back to the democratic primaries for an election which took place in 2016!

That's comfy home territory for him, far far away from the undeniable chaos and corruption of the Trump presidency.

Eric Cartman

Podge_irl wrote: »

Why shouldn't the DNC have preferred Clinton? Sanders isn't even a democrat.

Well it showed them up didnt it. Hopefully they stand up to her now and don't give her the opportunity to go again. If you want trump re-elected then root for clinton to get the nomination again

RobertKK

hill16bhoy wrote: »

Debbie Wassermann Schultz resigned. So what?

How does that equal "the primary was rigged"?

You're the one making the assertion.

Back it up. So far, you haven't.

So far, your entire basis for this claim is "everybody knows". Thanks for that.

Read this and tell me the primary was "rigged".

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/11/14/16640082/donna-brazile-warren-bernie-sanders-democratic-primary-rigged

The reality is that what went on in the Democratic primary was no different from any primary campaign in history.

Party establishments have a favoured candidate. In other news, tomorrow is Friday.

I won't bother responding to the rest of your post - reasonable people have already long made up their own minds about what you think of Trump.

B0jangles wrote: »

Hey, don't let Robert deflect the conversation back to the democratic primaries for an election which took place in 2016!

That's comfy home territory for him, far far away from the undeniable chaos and corruption of the Trump presidency.

Maybe Bojangles if you bothered to read my previous reply you would see plenty of criticism of Trump.
I am not like some people who sees all that one side does as good and the other or bad, or vice versa, I take a far more nuanced look and can say that is good or that is bad and that I agree or disagree.
I see people here who only see one side as good and the other as bad and no middle ground, to me that is an extremely simplistic way of looking at things, and it allows bad judgement due to being blinded by a dislike or hate of the other side.

I can see why my friend whom I spoke of earlier in this thread can go to the polls and vote for each party in different elections. He doesn't marry himself to a party, but to whom he thinks is best, it isn't always the Democrat or Republican.
It is blind politics to just vote for someone based on the party. Manchin can get elected in West Virginia because he did something Trump voters there wanted and voted for Kavanaugh. This is Manchin being both practicable in doing what his voters want and what he needed to be re-elected, but also not being married to a party stance, a more independent minded thinking politician, too many politicians are sheep in a flock.

B0jangles

RobertKK wrote: »

Maybe Bojangles if you bothered to read my previous reply you would see plenty of criticism of Trump.
I am not like some people who sees all that one side does as good and the other or bad, or vice versa, I take a far more nuanced look and can say that is good or that is bad and that I agree or disagree.
I see people here who only see one side as good and the other as bad and no middle ground, to me that is an extremely simplistic way of looking at things, and it allows bad judgement due to being blinded by a dislike or hate of the other side.

I can see why my friend whom I spoke of earlier in this thread can go to the polls and vote for each party in different elections. He doesn't marry himself to a party, but to whom he thinks is best, it isn't always the Democrat or Republican.
It is blind politics to just vote for someone based on the party. Manchin can get elected in West Virginia because he did something Trump voters there wanted and voted for Kavanaugh. This is Manchin being both practicable in doing what his voters want and what he needed to be re-elected, but also not being married to a party stance, a more independent minded thinking politician, too many politicians are sheep in a flock.

Robert, I've seen plenty of your posts on a range of political topics, including your occasional faint criticisms of Trump when he does something extraordinarily, exceptionally corrupt, but you switch back around to claiming Clinton is all but the devil incarnate at the first opportunity. Clinton, who is and was a middle-of-the-road career administrator, not some crazed warmongering firebrand as you seem to believe.



Are you not essentially a one issue voter yourself? I've always gathered that the one issue you really care about is banning abortion; that you supported Trump and loathed Clinton because a republican presidency held out the usual carrot of repealing Roe vs. Wade.

Podge_irl

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Well it showed them up didnt it. Hopefully they stand up to her now and don't give her the opportunity to go again. If you want trump re-elected then root for clinton to get the nomination again

Showed them up for what? Supporting someone who is actually a member of their party?

RobertKK

B0jangles wrote: »

Robert, I've seen plenty of your posts on a range of political topics, including your occasional faint criticisms of Trump when he does something extraordinarily, exceptionally corrupt, but you switch back around to claiming Clinton is all but the devil incarnate at the first opportunity. Clinton, who is and was a middle-of-the-road career administrator, not some crazed warmongering firebrand as you seem to believe.



Are you not essentially a one issue voter yourself? I've always gathered that the one issue you really care about is banning abortion; that you supported Trump and loathed Clinton because a republican presidency held out the usual carrot of repealing Roe vs. Wade.

I have seen plenty of your posts and others to see the very simplistic look at politics where side is good and the other is bad.
The basic cover up of how unfit both candidates were for the presidency. A lot didn't care about the chaos of the Obama presidency in foreign affairs spearheaded by secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Remember this is the party that had Obama laugh at Romney in 2012 when Romney said Russia was the number 1 geopolitical issue. Four years later the Democrats were singing to Romney's tune.
Obama was against the attack/invasion of Libya. Hillary, Susan Rice and the idiots of the UK and France pushed for it, Obama was said to be disappointed with both the UK and France that they pushed for it with Hillary willing, and then they left it to decent into what Obama described as 'sh1t show'.


btw I do find it rather strange, the obsession some have with me for not sharing what some have here believes, I say some, if this offends then maybe one thinks it is them because they know it is the case.
Yesterday when I was right about people from blue cities/states moving to the suburbs of Texan cities and it was treated as being untrue by a lot of people, backed up with thanks to show the group mindset.
No one who disagreed had to the decency to say I was right, because people see it as being on sides. Then people talk about division and blame the other side for the divisions when basically most people on both sides are responsible but it is always the other side causing the divide.
If I challenge opinion it isn't an excuse to dismiss just because I believed Trump was the lesser evil due to the record in politics of Clinton.
I was in the US two weeks before the presidential elections, some Americans asked me what I thought, I told them they had really bad choices. There was never going to be a good outcome, Trump is a narcissist, rough, pursuing some really bad policies and Hillary wanted more war with her Syria plan which was a dangerous plan given Russia's involvement. There was never going to be a good president from the 2016 election.

Captain Obvious

I don't think it's a case that one side is good and one is bad. One is definitely bad though. There is nothing redeemable from a humanitarian, social or environmental perspective in Republicans at this time. They are typical bad guys. If you can pick a good guy among them I'd be impressed. Now that doesn't automatically make the democrats the good guys. They most certainly have their flaws in some individuals and policies. They are most certainly the lesser of two evils though.