The election is wearing on me - Page 4

sunmaster14 · 23rd May 2016, 11:02 AM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

And just how did this "head start" change the popular vote? Do you really think voters looked at the superdelegate support to decide who to vote for?

Was this head start maybe because she's had more national experience ergo more recognition as a viable candidate?

Of course. It was in part Hillary's name recognition (Bernie had none, and people generally don't vote for somebody they've never heard of), and it was in part the self-fulfilling aura of inevitability. Hillary also had a ton of money and a very sophisticated campaign infrastructure, since she's been running off and on for President since 2006.

Quote:

Halfway through the final leg? Seriously?

Actually, the analogy is quite apt. If the Presidential campaign begins shortly after the mid-term elections, then it lasts about 2 years. The final leg is the last six months, and we're well into that. Bernie didn't throw his hat into the ring until about the halfway point, and, at the time, he didn't even have running shoes (or a hat, anymore).

Quote:

Why post this nonsense? All but Sanders most ardent minions know it's BS.

Not nonsense. I actually prefer Hillary to Bernie, but the fact is, Bernie is a better candidate for the Democrats. He is proving it when it counts, which is now. The reason we force sports teams to play a championship, rather than just award the trophy to the team with the best regular season record is because the fans care about finding out who the best team is at the end of the season. Not at the beginning or the middle. The end. Otherwise, you would have the Super Bowl in September and the World Series in April.

Now, although the Democratic primary doesn't have a series of postseason games, it does have the superdelegate system. There is nothing stopping the superdelegates from voting for whom they think is the best candidate. And as long as Hillary doesn't have a majority of delegates based on her pledged delegates alone, she doesn't have this thing wrapped up. That's just a simple fact of mathematics.

Skeptic Ginger · 23rd May 2016, 02:35 PM

Originally Posted by sunmaster14

Of course. It was in part Hillary's name recognition (Bernie had none, and people generally don't vote for somebody they've never heard of), and it was in part the self-fulfilling aura of inevitability. Hillary also had a ton of money and a very sophisticated campaign infrastructure, since she's been running off and on for President since 2006.

And yet in the first primary they came close to tying and Sanders won the next one. It wasn't until the southern states came into play that Clinton pulled ahead.

Your hypothesis fails.

Quote:

Actually, the analogy is quite apt. If the Presidential campaign begins shortly after the mid-term elections, then it lasts about 2 years. The final leg is the last six months, and we're well into that. Bernie didn't throw his hat into the ring until about the halfway point, and, at the time, he didn't even have running shoes (or a hat, anymore).

IOW cherry picked. Clinton is 90 delegates short of a win. and there is for all practical purposes, only one month left of a 5 month long primary. That is more than half over by a long way.

Quote:

Not nonsense. I actually prefer Hillary to Bernie, but the fact is, Bernie is a better candidate for the Democrats. He is proving it when it counts, which is now. The reason we force sports teams to play a championship, rather than just award the trophy to the team with the best regular season record is because the fans care about finding out who the best team is at the end of the season. Not at the beginning or the middle. The end. Otherwise, you would have the Super Bowl in September and the World Series in April.

Same argument Sanders makes. The big problem: he's lost the election. Pretty sure that is the better measure than Sanders likes his position better.

Quote:

Now, although the Democratic primary doesn't have a series of postseason games, it does have the superdelegate system. There is nothing stopping the superdelegates from voting for whom they think is the best candidate. And as long as Hillary doesn't have a majority of delegates based on her pledged delegates alone, she doesn't have this thing wrapped up. That's just a simple fact of mathematics.

I would call that a simple fact of fantasy.

angrysoba · 23rd May 2016, 03:48 PM

Originally Posted by Travis

I'm astonished how everyone keeps telling me to ignore the terrible thing rather than try and fix it.

Travis, it's your job to fix the moronosphere!

Skeptic Ginger · 23rd May 2016, 04:03 PM

Trump is SURGING AHEAD—oh for pity's sake. Gawd, both CNN and MSNBC are making up narratives based on meaningless polls. "Within the margin of error becomes "surging ahead."

Not to mention the polls are all pretty much even and don't count at this point anyway.

Travis · 23rd May 2016, 05:36 PM

Originally Posted by sunmaster14

Setting up a private email server and conducting 100% of her work as Sec of State through it, all for the purpose of evading FOIA disclosure, doesn't rise to that level, huh? I'd be interested in an example of something that would rise to that level with you. Consider carefully, though. You might end up finding out that she has already done it.

Nope, doesn't bother me a bit.

Things that would bother me would be her promising to not only not increase minimum wages but to abolish it. Or defund Planned Parenthood. Or work to undermine gay marriage. Or pretend Global Warming is a hoax.

If Hillary does any of that I will be mad. In the meantime I don't care if she mainlines the blood of cute puppies for kicks.

Axiom_Blade · 23rd May 2016, 06:22 PM

Originally Posted by Fudbucker

2. Take it from a Bernie supporter, we'll end up voting for Hillary.

Who's this "we"? Many Bernie supporters are independents, not Democrats, and they feel no allegiance to the Democrat Party.

Originally Posted by Tony Stark

I starting to worry that we might see a Tea Party of the left because of this primary. But at least the fanatical Bernie supporters don't have a Koch brothers type backer behind them so maybe not.

Why are you "worried" about a "Tea Party of the left"? Over the years, I've been told by various concern-trolling Democrats that we Greens need to get realistic, abandon our party, and work within the Democrat Party to move it to the left. You know, just like the Tea Party did with the Republicans.

Okay, so now somebody's done exactly that, and the Democrats are running around with their hair on fire. You just can't make some people happy.

Originally Posted by d4m10n

You think that the right wing did give up?

I think that it's a common handwaving technique when people bring up issues with Hillary. It's all just GOP propaganda, dontcha know.

Tony Stark · 23rd May 2016, 06:25 PM

Originally Posted by Axiom_Blade

Who's this "we"? Many Bernie supporters are independents, not Democrats, and they feel no allegiance to the Democrat Party.

Why are you "worried" about a "Tea Party of the left"? Over the years, I've been told by various concern-trolling Democrats that we Greens need to get realistic, abandon our party, and work within the Democrat Party to move it to the left. You know, just like the Tea Party did with the Republicans.

Okay, so now somebody's done exactly that, and the Democrats are running around with their hair on fire. You just can't make some people happy.

I think that it's a common handwaving technique when people bring up issues with Hillary. It's all just GOP propaganda, dontcha know.

We don't need a crazy, fanatical, and irrational faction of the Democrats.

DavidJames · 23rd May 2016, 06:55 PM

Originally Posted by Axiom_Blade

Who's this "we"? Many Bernie supporters are independents, not Democrats, and they feel no allegiance to the Democrat Party.

Enjoy life under Trump then. You'll have contributed to it.

TragicMonkey · 23rd May 2016, 06:56 PM

Originally Posted by Tony Stark

We don't need a crazy, fanatical, and irrational faction of the Democrats.

We don't get the parties we need, we get the parties we deserve.

sunmaster14 · 23rd May 2016, 07:20 PM

Originally Posted by Travis

Nope, doesn't bother me a bit.

Things that would bother me would be her promising to not only not increase minimum wages but to abolish it. Or defund Planned Parenthood. Or work to undermine gay marriage. Or pretend Global Warming is a hoax.

If Hillary does any of that I will be mad. In the meantime I don't care if she mainlines the blood of cute puppies for kicks.

Remember, the question wasn't whether there was something she has done which would make you reconsider your support for her. It was whether there was something she has done which would make you go "jeez, she shouldn't have done that, and I wish she hadn't."

I think you must have lost sight of that. Or maybe you just don't like puppies.

sunmaster14 · 23rd May 2016, 07:27 PM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Trump is SURGING AHEAD—oh for pity's sake. Gawd, both CNN and MSNBC are making up narratives based on meaningless polls. "Within the margin of error becomes "surging ahead."

Not to mention the polls are all pretty much even and don't count at this point anyway.

Fine. The polls are pretty much even. That's still a long ways from where the Dems thought they were a couple of months ago when Trump had a 70% disapproval rate, and Dems thought that meant he couldn't win the Presidency. If you're not panicking now, you're in denial.

Actually, this election is really feeling like 1992 to me. The electorate wants the shiny new thing, not the stodgy old reliable thing. There won't be any Ross Perot in the race to jumble things up, but Trump is kind of like Bill Clinton and Ross Perot all rolled into one.

Frank Newgent · 23rd May 2016, 07:38 PM

Originally Posted by sunmaster14

Originally Posted by Stacko

Needs an exclamation mark, worse spelling and more self adulation.

Also, a point would help.

via FakeTrumpTweet.com generator

Skeptic Ginger · 23rd May 2016, 07:53 PM

Originally Posted by sunmaster14

Fine. The polls are pretty much even. That's still a long ways from where the Dems thought they were a couple of months ago when Trump had a 70% disapproval rate, and Dems thought that meant he couldn't win the Presidency. If you're not panicking now, you're in denial.

Actually, this election is really feeling like 1992 to me. The electorate wants the shiny new thing, not the stodgy old reliable thing. There won't be any Ross Perot in the race to jumble things up, but Trump is kind of like Bill Clinton and Ross Perot all rolled into one.

My point was, this isn't news. A meaningless poll is not news that Trump is surging ahead.

angrysoba · 23rd May 2016, 07:56 PM

Trump is way too unpopular to get elected. Look at the favourability polls! He is finished.

Trump's pulling even? Who cares, the polls are meaningless at this stage.

sunmaster14 · 23rd May 2016, 07:58 PM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

My point was, this isn't news. A meaningless poll is not news that Trump is surging ahead.

Well, I agree with that bit. But it seems to me that the goalposts of Hillary supporters have been shifting over the last few weeks.

Skeptic Ginger · 23rd May 2016, 08:04 PM

Originally Posted by sunmaster14

Well, I agree with that bit. But it seems to me that the goalposts of Hillary supporters have been shifting over the last few weeks.

If you are talking about in this forum, post the contradicting quotes. I'm not seeing any shifting goalposts.

Axiom_Blade · 23rd May 2016, 08:29 PM

Originally Posted by DavidJames

Enjoy life under Trump then. You'll have contributed to it.

Nice try. I'm not voting for Trump. I'm voting for Jill Stein.

Skeptic Ginger · 23rd May 2016, 09:16 PM

Originally Posted by Axiom_Blade

Nice try. I'm not voting for Trump. I'm voting for Jill Stein.

Depending on the state you are in, that may be a vote for Trump.

d4m10n · 23rd May 2016, 09:18 PM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Depending on the state you are in, that may be a vote for Trump.

We all have fond memories of the Nader Administration. An idyllic time.

fuelair · 23rd May 2016, 10:36 PM

Originally Posted by Travis

Nope, doesn't bother me a bit.

Things that would bother me would be her promising to not only not increase minimum wages but to abolish it. Or defund Planned Parenthood. Or work to undermine gay marriage. Or pretend Global Warming is a hoax.

If Hillary does any of that I will be mad. In the meantime I don't care if she mainlines the blood of cute puppies for kicks.

On the other hand I am pretty sure mainlining dog blood would eliminate her from further existence.

Axiom_Blade · 24th May 2016, 11:26 AM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Depending on the state you are in, that may be a vote for Trump.

This is getting confusing. So, if I vote for Trump, then who am I voting for?

Many of Bernie's supporters have sworn they will never vote for Hillary. Would you rather have them vote for Trump or Jill Stein?

wareyin · 24th May 2016, 11:33 AM

Originally Posted by Axiom_Blade

This is getting confusing. So, if I vote for Trump, then who am I voting for?

Many of Bernie's supporters have sworn they will never vote for Hillary. Would you rather have them vote for Trump or Jill Stein?

What's the difference? Both votes are attempts to have the same outcome.

Skeptic Ginger · 24th May 2016, 12:05 PM

Originally Posted by Axiom_Blade

This is getting confusing. So, if I vote for Trump, then who am I voting for?

Many of Bernie's supporters have sworn they will never vote for Hillary. Would you rather have them vote for Trump or Jill Stein?

If they vote for Trump that would be foolish given he's worse than Clinton. If a vote for Stein is in a swing state it's the same as voting for Trump.

BobTheCoward · 24th May 2016, 12:17 PM

[quote=sunmaster14;11293257

Not nonsense. I actually prefer Hillary to Bernie, but the fact is, Bernie is a better candidate for the Democrats. He is proving it when it counts, which is now. The reason we force sports teams to play a championship, rather than just award the trophy to the team with the best regular season record is because the fans care about finding out who the best team is at the end of the season. Not at the beginning or the middle. The end. Otherwise, you would have the Super Bowl in September and the World Series in April.

Now, although the Democratic primary doesn't have a series of postseason games, it does have the superdelegate system. There is nothing stopping the superdelegates from voting for whom they think is the best candidate. And as long as Hillary doesn't have a majority of delegates based on her pledged delegates alone, she doesn't have this thing wrapped up. That's just a simple fact of mathematics.[/QUOTE]

The English premier league, one of the most popular organizations in sports, doesn't have a playoff.

sunmaster14 · 24th May 2016, 01:02 PM

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

The English premier league, one of the most popular organizations in sports, doesn't have a playoff.

Hence the American revolution. The Brits were all about resting on their laurels and expecting the gratitude to continue to pour in. They learned the hard way that what matters is what you've done for someone lately. Hillary Clinton is like King George III, or maybe like Grand Moff Tarkin. The more she tightens her grip, the more star systems will slip through her fingers.

Axiom_Blade · 24th May 2016, 01:51 PM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

If they vote for Trump that would be foolish given he's worse than Clinton.

Is he really, though? There's a pretty compelling argument that Trump, not Clinton, is the lesser evil.

Quote:

I do not need to trust Donald Trump in the same way I would have to trust Hillary Clinton were she elected. The reason for this is very simple: Trump represents the GOP brand, and Clinton claims the mantle of progressive. If Trump fails to accomplish anything in office, or if he manages to do whatever damage he can do, he will represent the Republicans. Moreover, rightly or wrongly, he represents America’s crypto-fascist element. The best way to discredit both of these groups is to let them fail on their own. Trump will not succeed as a president.

On the flip side, if Hillary Clinton screws up by compromising too much (which is likely) or doing too little (also likely), progressivism will take a big hit in the public eye, which is something we cannot afford.

Quote:

If a vote for Stein is in a swing state it's the same as voting for Trump.

If Stein got enough votes, she would win, just the same as any other candidate.

In short: No, I will not vote for your candidate just because that's what everybody else is doing. I have to be convinced that it's the right thing to do first. Right now, I'm convinced that voting for Stein is the right thing to do. And I'm not going to do the wrong thing due to threats, fear-mongering, or peer pressure.

Travis · 24th May 2016, 02:18 PM

Originally Posted by sunmaster14

Remember, the question wasn't whether there was something she has done which would make you reconsider your support for her. It was whether there was something she has done which would make you go "jeez, she shouldn't have done that, and I wish she hadn't."

I think you must have lost sight of that. Or maybe you just don't like puppies.

Nope. Not yet. These things always take me by surprise down the road when I discover that other people have issues with them. I'm always shocked that anyone would care.

Skeptic Ginger · 24th May 2016, 03:52 PM

Originally Posted by Axiom_Blade

Is he really, though? There's a pretty compelling argument that Trump, not Clinton, is the lesser evil....

There is no compelling argument that supersedes the fact Trump has a serious personality disorder that makes him an unacceptable risk.

I wondered how Paul Ryan was dealing with this and sure enough some talking head on the news today suggested he thinks he can control the Don. What a fool! That's like the abused spouse in denial, wishfully believing they can make the abuser stop.

Skeptic Ginger · 24th May 2016, 03:54 PM

Originally Posted by Axiom_Blade

....If Stein got enough votes, she would win, just the same as any other candidate.
...

And you think there's a chance in hell that could happen?

Does reality mean nothing to you?

Axiom_Blade · 24th May 2016, 08:43 PM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

And you think there's a chance in hell that could happen?

Does reality mean nothing to you?

I'm not interested in the political "reality" of Democrat spinmeisters. Of course the Democrats don't want me to vote for Jill. They want me to vote for Hillary. What's really dishonest is when they try to act like we're on the same side, and they "understand" me, but gosh gee golly, it's a shame that your candidate "can't win", so I guess you'll just have to vote for us, huh?

I'm not interested in Democrat opinions about the Green Party for the same reason I'm not interested in Christians' opinion about atheists. Democrats have a vested interest in seeing the Green Party fail, and they will do everything they can to stop us.

But, to answer your first question, whether or not Jill Stein wins is irrelevant to whether or not I vote for her. I think she is the best candidate, ergo I will vote for her. I'm not going to vote for a worse candidate. If you really want me to vote for Hillary, tell me why she is a better candidate than Jill. (And don't say "experience", because having experience is not good when you use it for bad things. I want to know platform.)

uke2se · 24th May 2016, 11:50 PM

Originally Posted by Axiom_Blade

Is he really, though? There's a pretty compelling argument that Trump, not Clinton, is the lesser evil.

Do you really think that's compelling?

He'll change the conversation? Yeah, dumb it down, at least.

His policies are DOA? That's a good thing? If his policies are that bad, he's not the lesser evil.

It's only four years anyway? Four years with several probable Supreme Court Justice appointments, probable wars, lots of people suffering, a complete retardation of every progress of civil rights.

Thinking that the article presents a compelling argument is frankly stupid.

Eddie Dane · 25th May 2016, 05:51 AM

There is a personality-type dynamic at work.

People who support Bernie like him becuase he's the outside-candidate (Just like trump). They really overestimate what he will be able to do. Thus Bernie becomes an over-valued idea and they go all religious on him.

People who support Hillary have more realistic expectations and prefer her for more rational and more cynical reasons (knows the system, has experience, is well connected, hard-nosed politician etc)

Of course Bernie has more starry-eyed and fanatical followers.

Axiom_Blade · 25th May 2016, 08:51 AM

Originally Posted by uke2se

It's only four years anyway? Four years with several probable Supreme Court Justice appointments, probable wars, lots of people suffering, a complete retardation of every progress of civil rights.

Probable wars? Lots of people suffering? Sounds like Hillary to me. She, unlike Trump, actually has a body count.

d4m10n · 25th May 2016, 11:01 AM

Originally Posted by Axiom_Blade

Probable wars? Lots of people suffering? Sounds like Hillary to me. She, unlike Trump, actually has a body count.

Truman's body count was pretty low prior to taking office as well, but then he dropped the atom bomb.

TragicMonkey · 25th May 2016, 12:48 PM

Originally Posted by Eddie Dane

There is a personality-type dynamic at work.

People who support Bernie like him becuase he's the outside-candidate (Just like trump). They really overestimate what he will be able to do. Thus Bernie becomes an over-valued idea and they go all religious on him.

People who support Hillary have more realistic expectations and prefer her for more rational and more cynical reasons (knows the system, has experience, is well connected, hard-nosed politician etc)

Of course Bernie has more starry-eyed and fanatical followers.

The people who paint others with such broad and shallow stereotypes are all delusional stoners who live with excessive numbers of cats.

Hlafordlaes · 25th May 2016, 12:52 PM

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

... delusional stoners who live with excessive numbers of cookies.

Fixed that for me.

dudalb · 26th May 2016, 12:37 PM

Originally Posted by Tony Stark

We don't need a crazy, fanatical, and irrational faction of the Democrats.

True, but you seem to getting one.
What is happenind with Sanders is sad. A classic case of Power..and fame...corrupting. I think he went into this campaign to promote his policies and ideas,but somehow his ego took over,and now he sees himself as some kind of a messiah.
The Berniacs are turning into a Bizarro version of the Tea party.

dudalb · 26th May 2016, 12:39 PM

Originally Posted by DavidJames

Enjoy life under Trump then. You'll have contributed to it.

I really think that people like Axiom...people on the militant left wing who seem to be de facto defending Trump....are of the "Elect Trump because that will bring on the Socialist Revolution" school of thought.

The Big Dog · 26th May 2016, 01:03 PM

Originally Posted by dudalb

True, but you seem to getting one.
What is happenind with Sanders is sad. A classic case of Power..and fame...corrupting. I think he went into this campaign to promote his policies and ideas,but somehow his ego took over,and now he sees himself as some kind of a messiah.
The Berniacs are turning into a Bizarro version of the Tea party.

do you think that repeating this makes it true?

As best I can tell, the entire basis for this is that Bernie won't concede to Hillary.

That is ridiculous, utterly ridiculous.

wareyin · 27th May 2016, 04:28 AM

Originally Posted by 16.5

do you think that repeating this makes it true?

As best I can tell, the entire basis for this is that Bernie won't concede to Hillary.

That is ridiculous, utterly ridiculous.

Yeah, Sanders staying in is utterly ridiculous. He never had a good shot, and he's basically had no shot at all since March, so he should have conceded long before now.

23rd May 2016, 03:48 PM	#123
angrysoba Philosophile Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Osaka, Japan Posts: 29,398	Originally Posted by Travis I'm astonished how everyone keeps telling me to ignore the terrible thing rather than try and fix it. Travis, it's your job to fix the moronosphere!
	__________________ "The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before." "Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)

23rd May 2016, 05:36 PM	#125
Travis Misanthrope of the Mountains Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 24,098	Originally Posted by sunmaster14 Setting up a private email server and conducting 100% of her work as Sec of State through it, all for the purpose of evading FOIA disclosure, doesn't rise to that level, huh? I'd be interested in an example of something that would rise to that level with you. Consider carefully, though. You might end up finding out that she has already done it. Nope, doesn't bother me a bit. Things that would bother me would be her promising to not only not increase minimum wages but to abolish it. Or defund Planned Parenthood. Or work to undermine gay marriage. Or pretend Global Warming is a hoax. If Hillary does any of that I will be mad. In the meantime I don't care if she mainlines the blood of cute puppies for kicks.
	__________________ "Because WE ARE IGNORANT OF 911 FACTS, WE DEMAND PROOF" -- Douglas Herman on Rense.com Zingiber Officinale Humor blog

23rd May 2016, 06:22 PM	#126
Axiom_Blade Guest Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 2,979	Originally Posted by Fudbucker 2. Take it from a Bernie supporter, we'll end up voting for Hillary. Who's this "we"? Many Bernie supporters are independents, not Democrats, and they feel no allegiance to the Democrat Party. Originally Posted by Tony Stark I starting to worry that we might see a Tea Party of the left because of this primary. But at least the fanatical Bernie supporters don't have a Koch brothers type backer behind them so maybe not. Why are you "worried" about a "Tea Party of the left"? Over the years, I've been told by various concern-trolling Democrats that we Greens need to get realistic, abandon our party, and work within the Democrat Party to move it to the left. You know, just like the Tea Party did with the Republicans. Okay, so now somebody's done exactly that, and the Democrats are running around with their hair on fire. You just can't make some people happy. Originally Posted by d4m10n You think that the right wing did give up? I think that it's a common handwaving technique when people bring up issues with Hillary. It's all just GOP propaganda, dontcha know.
Axiom_Blade Guest Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 2,979

23rd May 2016, 06:25 PM	#127
Tony Stark Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2014 Posts: 9,626	Originally Posted by Axiom_Blade Who's this "we"? Many Bernie supporters are independents, not Democrats, and they feel no allegiance to the Democrat Party. Why are you "worried" about a "Tea Party of the left"? Over the years, I've been told by various concern-trolling Democrats that we Greens need to get realistic, abandon our party, and work within the Democrat Party to move it to the left. You know, just like the Tea Party did with the Republicans. Okay, so now somebody's done exactly that, and the Democrats are running around with their hair on fire. You just can't make some people happy. I think that it's a common handwaving technique when people bring up issues with Hillary. It's all just GOP propaganda, dontcha know. We don't need a crazy, fanatical, and irrational faction of the Democrats.
Tony Stark Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2014 Posts: 9,626	Last edited by Tony Stark; 23rd May 2016 at 06:28 PM.

23rd May 2016, 06:55 PM	#128
DavidJames Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Front Range, CO Posts: 10,493	Originally Posted by Axiom_Blade Who's this "we"? Many Bernie supporters are independents, not Democrats, and they feel no allegiance to the Democrat Party. Enjoy life under Trump then. You'll have contributed to it.
	__________________ For 15 years I never put anyone on ignore. I felt it important to see everyone's view point. Finally I realized the value of some views can be measured in negative terms and were personally destructive.

23rd May 2016, 11:02 AM	#121
sunmaster14 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2014 Posts: 10,017	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger And just how did this "head start" change the popular vote? Do you really think voters looked at the superdelegate support to decide who to vote for? Was this head start maybe because she's had more national experience ergo more recognition as a viable candidate? Of course. It was in part Hillary's name recognition (Bernie had none, and people generally don't vote for somebody they've never heard of), and it was in part the self-fulfilling aura of inevitability. Hillary also had a ton of money and a very sophisticated campaign infrastructure, since she's been running off and on for President since 2006. Quote: Halfway through the final leg? Seriously? Actually, the analogy is quite apt. If the Presidential campaign begins shortly after the mid-term elections, then it lasts about 2 years. The final leg is the last six months, and we're well into that. Bernie didn't throw his hat into the ring until about the halfway point, and, at the time, he didn't even have running shoes (or a hat, anymore). Quote: Why post this nonsense? All but Sanders most ardent minions know it's BS. Not nonsense. I actually prefer Hillary to Bernie, but the fact is, Bernie is a better candidate for the Democrats. He is proving it when it counts, which is now. The reason we force sports teams to play a championship, rather than just award the trophy to the team with the best regular season record is because the fans care about finding out who the best team is at the end of the season. Not at the beginning or the middle. The end. Otherwise, you would have the Super Bowl in September and the World Series in April. Now, although the Democratic primary doesn't have a series of postseason games, it does have the superdelegate system. There is nothing stopping the superdelegates from voting for whom they think is the best candidate. And as long as Hillary doesn't have a majority of delegates based on her pledged delegates alone, she doesn't have this thing wrapped up. That's just a simple fact of mathematics.

23rd May 2016, 02:35 PM	#122
Skeptic Ginger Nasty Woman Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 87,032	Originally Posted by sunmaster14 Of course. It was in part Hillary's name recognition (Bernie had none, and people generally don't vote for somebody they've never heard of), and it was in part the self-fulfilling aura of inevitability. Hillary also had a ton of money and a very sophisticated campaign infrastructure, since she's been running off and on for President since 2006. And yet in the first primary they came close to tying and Sanders won the next one. It wasn't until the southern states came into play that Clinton pulled ahead. Your hypothesis fails. Quote: Actually, the analogy is quite apt. If the Presidential campaign begins shortly after the mid-term elections, then it lasts about 2 years. The final leg is the last six months, and we're well into that. Bernie didn't throw his hat into the ring until about the halfway point, and, at the time, he didn't even have running shoes (or a hat, anymore). IOW cherry picked. Clinton is 90 delegates short of a win. and there is for all practical purposes, only one month left of a 5 month long primary. That is more than half over by a long way. Quote: Not nonsense. I actually prefer Hillary to Bernie, but the fact is, Bernie is a better candidate for the Democrats. He is proving it when it counts, which is now. The reason we force sports teams to play a championship, rather than just award the trophy to the team with the best regular season record is because the fans care about finding out who the best team is at the end of the season. Not at the beginning or the middle. The end. Otherwise, you would have the Super Bowl in September and the World Series in April. Same argument Sanders makes. The big problem: he's lost the election. Pretty sure that is the better measure than Sanders likes his position better. Quote: Now, although the Democratic primary doesn't have a series of postseason games, it does have the superdelegate system. There is nothing stopping the superdelegates from voting for whom they think is the best candidate. And as long as Hillary doesn't have a majority of delegates based on her pledged delegates alone, she doesn't have this thing wrapped up. That's just a simple fact of mathematics. I would call that a simple fact of fantasy.

23rd May 2016, 04:03 PM	#124
Skeptic Ginger Nasty Woman Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 87,032	Trump is SURGING AHEAD—oh for pity's sake. Gawd, both CNN and MSNBC are making up narratives based on meaningless polls. "Within the margin of error becomes "surging ahead." Not to mention the polls are all pretty much even and don't count at this point anyway.

23rd May 2016, 06:56 PM	#129
TragicMonkey Poisoned Waffles Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Monkey Posts: 59,523	Originally Posted by Tony Stark We don't need a crazy, fanatical, and irrational faction of the Democrats. We don't get the parties we need, we get the parties we deserve.
	__________________ You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.

23rd May 2016, 07:20 PM	#130
sunmaster14 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2014 Posts: 10,017	Originally Posted by Travis Nope, doesn't bother me a bit. Things that would bother me would be her promising to not only not increase minimum wages but to abolish it. Or defund Planned Parenthood. Or work to undermine gay marriage. Or pretend Global Warming is a hoax. If Hillary does any of that I will be mad. In the meantime I don't care if she mainlines the blood of cute puppies for kicks. Remember, the question wasn't whether there was something she has done which would make you reconsider your support for her. It was whether there was something she has done which would make you go "jeez, she shouldn't have done that, and I wish she hadn't." I think you must have lost sight of that. Or maybe you just don't like puppies.

23rd May 2016, 07:27 PM	#131
sunmaster14 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2014 Posts: 10,017	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger Trump is SURGING AHEAD—oh for pity's sake. Gawd, both CNN and MSNBC are making up narratives based on meaningless polls. "Within the margin of error becomes "surging ahead." Not to mention the polls are all pretty much even and don't count at this point anyway. Fine. The polls are pretty much even. That's still a long ways from where the Dems thought they were a couple of months ago when Trump had a 70% disapproval rate, and Dems thought that meant he couldn't win the Presidency. If you're not panicking now, you're in denial. Actually, this election is really feeling like 1992 to me. The electorate wants the shiny new thing, not the stodgy old reliable thing. There won't be any Ross Perot in the race to jumble things up, but Trump is kind of like Bill Clinton and Ross Perot all rolled into one.

23rd May 2016, 07:38 PM	#132
Frank Newgent Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 6,800	Originally Posted by sunmaster14 Originally Posted by Stacko Needs an exclamation mark, worse spelling and more self adulation. Also, a point would help. via FakeTrumpTweet.com generator
	__________________ Disturbances of the semantic reactions in connection with faulty education and ignorance must be considered as sub-microscopic colloidal lesions - Alfred O. Korzybski

23rd May 2016, 07:53 PM	#133
Skeptic Ginger Nasty Woman Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 87,032	Originally Posted by sunmaster14 Fine. The polls are pretty much even. That's still a long ways from where the Dems thought they were a couple of months ago when Trump had a 70% disapproval rate, and Dems thought that meant he couldn't win the Presidency. If you're not panicking now, you're in denial. Actually, this election is really feeling like 1992 to me. The electorate wants the shiny new thing, not the stodgy old reliable thing. There won't be any Ross Perot in the race to jumble things up, but Trump is kind of like Bill Clinton and Ross Perot all rolled into one. My point was, this isn't news. A meaningless poll is not news that Trump is surging ahead.

23rd May 2016, 07:56 PM	#134
angrysoba Philosophile Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Osaka, Japan Posts: 29,398	Trump is way too unpopular to get elected. Look at the favourability polls! He is finished. Trump's pulling even? Who cares, the polls are meaningless at this stage.
	__________________ "The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before." "Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)

23rd May 2016, 07:58 PM	#135
sunmaster14 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2014 Posts: 10,017	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger My point was, this isn't news. A meaningless poll is not news that Trump is surging ahead. Well, I agree with that bit. But it seems to me that the goalposts of Hillary supporters have been shifting over the last few weeks.

23rd May 2016, 08:04 PM	#136
Skeptic Ginger Nasty Woman Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 87,032	Originally Posted by sunmaster14 Well, I agree with that bit. But it seems to me that the goalposts of Hillary supporters have been shifting over the last few weeks. If you are talking about in this forum, post the contradicting quotes. I'm not seeing any shifting goalposts.

23rd May 2016, 08:29 PM	#137
Axiom_Blade Guest Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 2,979	Originally Posted by DavidJames Enjoy life under Trump then. You'll have contributed to it. Nice try. I'm not voting for Trump. I'm voting for Jill Stein.
Axiom_Blade Guest Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 2,979

23rd May 2016, 09:16 PM	#138
Skeptic Ginger Nasty Woman Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 87,032	Originally Posted by Axiom_Blade Nice try. I'm not voting for Trump. I'm voting for Jill Stein. Depending on the state you are in, that may be a vote for Trump.

23rd May 2016, 09:18 PM	#139
d4m10n Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: Mounts Farm Posts: 6,435	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger Depending on the state you are in, that may be a vote for Trump. We all have fond memories of the Nader Administration. An idyllic time.
	__________________ "Well, a statement like that is all the better for proof, but go on, anyway." - Salvor Hardin

23rd May 2016, 10:36 PM	#140
fuelair Banned Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 58,581	Originally Posted by Travis Nope, doesn't bother me a bit. Things that would bother me would be her promising to not only not increase minimum wages but to abolish it. Or defund Planned Parenthood. Or work to undermine gay marriage. Or pretend Global Warming is a hoax. If Hillary does any of that I will be mad. In the meantime I don't care if she mainlines the blood of cute puppies for kicks. On the other hand I am pretty sure mainlining dog blood would eliminate her from further existence.
fuelair Banned Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 58,581

24th May 2016, 11:26 AM	#141
Axiom_Blade Guest Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 2,979	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger Depending on the state you are in, that may be a vote for Trump. This is getting confusing. So, if I vote for Trump, then who am I voting for? Many of Bernie's supporters have sworn they will never vote for Hillary. Would you rather have them vote for Trump or Jill Stein?
Axiom_Blade Guest Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 2,979

24th May 2016, 11:33 AM	#142
wareyin Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2013 Location: Georgia, USA Posts: 8,363	Originally Posted by Axiom_Blade This is getting confusing. So, if I vote for Trump, then who am I voting for? Many of Bernie's supporters have sworn they will never vote for Hillary. Would you rather have them vote for Trump or Jill Stein? What's the difference? Both votes are attempts to have the same outcome.

24th May 2016, 12:05 PM	#143
Skeptic Ginger Nasty Woman Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 87,032	Originally Posted by Axiom_Blade This is getting confusing. So, if I vote for Trump, then who am I voting for? Many of Bernie's supporters have sworn they will never vote for Hillary. Would you rather have them vote for Trump or Jill Stein? If they vote for Trump that would be foolish given he's worse than Clinton. If a vote for Stein is in a swing state it's the same as voting for Trump.

24th May 2016, 12:17 PM	#144
BobTheCoward Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 20,258	[quote=sunmaster14;11293257 Not nonsense. I actually prefer Hillary to Bernie, but the fact is, Bernie is a better candidate for the Democrats. He is proving it when it counts, which is now. The reason we force sports teams to play a championship, rather than just award the trophy to the team with the best regular season record is because the fans care about finding out who the best team is at the end of the season. Not at the beginning or the middle. The end. Otherwise, you would have the Super Bowl in September and the World Series in April. Now, although the Democratic primary doesn't have a series of postseason games, it does have the superdelegate system. There is nothing stopping the superdelegates from voting for whom they think is the best candidate. And as long as Hillary doesn't have a majority of delegates based on her pledged delegates alone, she doesn't have this thing wrapped up. That's just a simple fact of mathematics.[/QUOTE] The English premier league, one of the most popular organizations in sports, doesn't have a playoff.

24th May 2016, 01:02 PM	#145
sunmaster14 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2014 Posts: 10,017	Originally Posted by BobTheCoward The English premier league, one of the most popular organizations in sports, doesn't have a playoff. Hence the American revolution. The Brits were all about resting on their laurels and expecting the gratitude to continue to pour in. They learned the hard way that what matters is what you've done for someone lately. Hillary Clinton is like King George III, or maybe like Grand Moff Tarkin. The more she tightens her grip, the more star systems will slip through her fingers.

24th May 2016, 01:51 PM	#146
Axiom_Blade Guest Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 2,979	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger If they vote for Trump that would be foolish given he's worse than Clinton. Is he really, though? There's a pretty compelling argument that Trump, not Clinton, is the lesser evil. Quote: I do not need to trust Donald Trump in the same way I would have to trust Hillary Clinton were she elected. The reason for this is very simple: Trump represents the GOP brand, and Clinton claims the mantle of progressive. If Trump fails to accomplish anything in office, or if he manages to do whatever damage he can do, he will represent the Republicans. Moreover, rightly or wrongly, he represents America’s crypto-fascist element. The best way to discredit both of these groups is to let them fail on their own. Trump will not succeed as a president. On the flip side, if Hillary Clinton screws up by compromising too much (which is likely) or doing too little (also likely), progressivism will take a big hit in the public eye, which is something we cannot afford. Quote: If a vote for Stein is in a swing state it's the same as voting for Trump. If Stein got enough votes, she would win, just the same as any other candidate. In short: No, I will not vote for your candidate just because that's what everybody else is doing. I have to be convinced that it's the right thing to do first. Right now, I'm convinced that voting for Stein is the right thing to do. And I'm not going to do the wrong thing due to threats, fear-mongering, or peer pressure.
Axiom_Blade Guest Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 2,979

24th May 2016, 02:18 PM	#147
Travis Misanthrope of the Mountains Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 24,098	Originally Posted by sunmaster14 Remember, the question wasn't whether there was something she has done which would make you reconsider your support for her. It was whether there was something she has done which would make you go "jeez, she shouldn't have done that, and I wish she hadn't." I think you must have lost sight of that. Or maybe you just don't like puppies. Nope. Not yet. These things always take me by surprise down the road when I discover that other people have issues with them. I'm always shocked that anyone would care.
	__________________ "Because WE ARE IGNORANT OF 911 FACTS, WE DEMAND PROOF" -- Douglas Herman on Rense.com Zingiber Officinale Humor blog

24th May 2016, 03:52 PM	#148
Skeptic Ginger Nasty Woman Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 87,032	Originally Posted by Axiom_Blade Is he really, though? There's a pretty compelling argument that Trump, not Clinton, is the lesser evil.... There is no compelling argument that supersedes the fact Trump has a serious personality disorder that makes him an unacceptable risk. I wondered how Paul Ryan was dealing with this and sure enough some talking head on the news today suggested he thinks he can control the Don. What a fool! That's like the abused spouse in denial, wishfully believing they can make the abuser stop.

24th May 2016, 03:54 PM	#149
Skeptic Ginger Nasty Woman Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 87,032	Originally Posted by Axiom_Blade ....If Stein got enough votes, she would win, just the same as any other candidate. ... And you think there's a chance in hell that could happen? Does reality mean nothing to you?

24th May 2016, 08:43 PM	#150
Axiom_Blade Guest Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 2,979	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger And you think there's a chance in hell that could happen? Does reality mean nothing to you? I'm not interested in the political "reality" of Democrat spinmeisters. Of course the Democrats don't want me to vote for Jill. They want me to vote for Hillary. What's really dishonest is when they try to act like we're on the same side, and they "understand" me, but gosh gee golly, it's a shame that your candidate "can't win", so I guess you'll just have to vote for us, huh? I'm not interested in Democrat opinions about the Green Party for the same reason I'm not interested in Christians' opinion about atheists. Democrats have a vested interest in seeing the Green Party fail, and they will do everything they can to stop us. But, to answer your first question, whether or not Jill Stein wins is irrelevant to whether or not I vote for her. I think she is the best candidate, ergo I will vote for her. I'm not going to vote for a worse candidate. If you really want me to vote for Hillary, tell me why she is a better candidate than Jill. (And don't say "experience", because having experience is not good when you use it for bad things. I want to know platform.)
Axiom_Blade Guest Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 2,979

24th May 2016, 11:50 PM	#151
uke2se Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 14,181	Originally Posted by Axiom_Blade Is he really, though? There's a pretty compelling argument that Trump, not Clinton, is the lesser evil. Do you really think that's compelling? He'll change the conversation? Yeah, dumb it down, at least. His policies are DOA? That's a good thing? If his policies are that bad, he's not the lesser evil. It's only four years anyway? Four years with several probable Supreme Court Justice appointments, probable wars, lots of people suffering, a complete retardation of every progress of civil rights. Thinking that the article presents a compelling argument is frankly stupid.
	__________________ Before you say something stupid about climate change, check this list. "If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. " Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1 Last edited by uke2se; 25th May 2016 at 12:02 AM. Reason: Random punctuation from spellcheck

25th May 2016, 05:51 AM	#152
Eddie Dane Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 6,681	There is a personality-type dynamic at work. People who support Bernie like him becuase he's the outside-candidate (Just like trump). They really overestimate what he will be able to do. Thus Bernie becomes an over-valued idea and they go all religious on him. People who support Hillary have more realistic expectations and prefer her for more rational and more cynical reasons (knows the system, has experience, is well connected, hard-nosed politician etc) Of course Bernie has more starry-eyed and fanatical followers.
Eddie Dane Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 6,681	__________________ Death to Videodrome! Long live the new flesh!

25th May 2016, 08:51 AM	#153
Axiom_Blade Guest Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 2,979	Originally Posted by uke2se It's only four years anyway? Four years with several probable Supreme Court Justice appointments, probable wars, lots of people suffering, a complete retardation of every progress of civil rights. Probable wars? Lots of people suffering? Sounds like Hillary to me. She, unlike Trump, actually has a body count.
Axiom_Blade Guest Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 2,979

25th May 2016, 11:01 AM	#154
d4m10n Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: Mounts Farm Posts: 6,435	Originally Posted by Axiom_Blade Probable wars? Lots of people suffering? Sounds like Hillary to me. She, unlike Trump, actually has a body count. Truman's body count was pretty low prior to taking office as well, but then he dropped the atom bomb.
	__________________ "Well, a statement like that is all the better for proof, but go on, anyway." - Salvor Hardin

25th May 2016, 12:48 PM	#155
TragicMonkey Poisoned Waffles Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Monkey Posts: 59,523	Originally Posted by Eddie Dane There is a personality-type dynamic at work. People who support Bernie like him becuase he's the outside-candidate (Just like trump). They really overestimate what he will be able to do. Thus Bernie becomes an over-valued idea and they go all religious on him. People who support Hillary have more realistic expectations and prefer her for more rational and more cynical reasons (knows the system, has experience, is well connected, hard-nosed politician etc) Of course Bernie has more starry-eyed and fanatical followers. The people who paint others with such broad and shallow stereotypes are all delusional stoners who live with excessive numbers of cats.
	__________________ You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.