2016 Democratic Thread

[bmags]

Has Hillary "Superpredator" Clinton released a statement on the recent murders of black men?

 

Do you not have access to Google?

[bmags]

You know what's really f***ed? When Hillary called out Sanders on "not being there for health care reform in the 90's" when he was like literally standing right behind her...I think she even thanked him in the damn video that was circulating...and her supporters still all pretend she's legit.

 

What a complete s***bag.

 

We all need to stop defending s*** politicians that don't care about us. And yes, I put both Trump and Hillary in that group, amongst many many others.

 

I'm not even a fan of Sanders socialist leanings, but I'd be willing to bet anything he cares more than either of them. Even I would sooner see him as president than what we're going to get.

 

There were many major players for health care reform in the 90s and Sanders was not one. I'm sure she stood in front of a lot of people as a first lady.

 

So just to be clear, Hillary actually tries to get health care reform done 20 years prior, leads the effort, but she doesn't care, but Sanders goes and fights civil rights in the heart of Vermont but he cares so much more. Got it.

 

Wellp, she may not give me the feels that Sanders can, but she does know legislation and can put together ideas to help a lot of people.

[StrangeSox]

Hillary released her college plan today that's pretty close to Sanders. I'm disappointed in the turn his campaign took starting in about May, but I'm glad that there was at least someone there to provide some resistance to Clinton and that he's pulled her and the Democratic platform leftward. Now he just needs to endorse her and rally his holdouts.

[Y2HH]

There were many major players for health care reform in the 90s and Sanders was not one. I'm sure she stood in front of a lot of people as a first lady.

 

So just to be clear, Hillary actually tries to get health care reform done 20 years prior, leads the effort, but she doesn't care, but Sanders goes and fights civil rights in the heart of Vermont but he cares so much more. Got it.

 

Wellp, she may not give me the feels that Sanders can, but she does know legislation and can put together ideas to help a lot of people.

 

Oh, really?

 

 

Then what the f*** is THAT?

Edited July 7, 2016 by Y2HH

[bmags]

I don't know what you think you are refuting with that? That sanders was the real architect of the early 90s legislation known as hillarycare? Is that your point?

[bmags]

Sure. My point is this. Sanders has some nice ideas but made a lot of hay about being generally around powerful people as he was off in vermont playing hackysack with burlington coffee owners. He acts like being at the march on washington makes him MLK, and he acts like standing behind hillary clinton on stage makes him the architect.

 

Healthcare reform was very important to me in 2008 as it was finally attainable and I was all about reading about why hillarycare failed only to find Obama make the same mistakes. But in all that reading I never once came across Sanders name as some great advocate or important role player int he legislation.

 

So while it may be a lie, in that sanders one time stood behind her, it's the truest lie I've ever heard. Sanders was much more relevant in 2008 pushing for single payer.

[Y2HH]

Sure. My point is this. Sanders has some nice ideas but made a lot of hay about being generally around powerful people as he was off in vermont playing hackysack with burlington coffee owners. He acts like being at the march on washington makes him MLK, and he acts like standing behind hillary clinton on stage makes him the architect.

 

Healthcare reform was very important to me in 2008 as it was finally attainable and I was all about reading about why hillarycare failed only to find Obama make the same mistakes. But in all that reading I never once came across Sanders name as some great advocate or important role player int he legislation.

 

So while it may be a lie, in that sanders one time stood behind her, it's the truest lie I've ever heard. Sanders was much more relevant in 2008 pushing for single payer.

 

Here is one place I'll agree with you on, because in the interest of being fair, Sanders did not fully support Clinton's health reform efforts in the 1990's. He's always been very adamant about single payer. Clinton is clearly the more flexible politician...does that make her a better politician given our system? Perhaps...but is it what we really want...again?

 

Also, keep in mind Sanders was just a jr. senator back then...he wasn't a very important person -- and I guess it could be argued he's still not.

 

My issue with Hillary is clear...it's more of the same.

 

It's the same government we had with Clinton, Bush Jr, Obama, etc...it's the safe choice...it's the wall street choice...but I thought we wanted change in this country? Or, is it really that we want to talk about change...but don't actually want it?

Edited July 7, 2016 by Y2HH

[StrangeSox]

Here is one place I'll agree with you on, because in the interest of being fair, Sanders did not fully support Clinton's health reform efforts in the 1990's. He's always been very adamant about single payer. Clinton is clearly the more flexible politician...does that make her a better politician given our system? Perhaps...but is it what we really want...again?

 

Also, keep in mind Sanders was just a jr. senator back then...he wasn't a very important person -- and I guess it could be argued he's still not.

 

He was in the House until the 90's, so even less important (1/435) than a Senator (1/100). I think he'll get some nice committee chairs at the start of the next Congress, assuming the Democrats ride Donald's Downticket Disaster to a Senate majority.

[Y2HH]

He was in the House until the 90's, so even less important (1/435) than a Senator (1/100). I think he'll get some nice committee chairs at the start of the next Congress, assuming the Democrats ride Donald's Downticket Disaster to a Senate majority.

 

If the Democrats cannot capitalize on this Trump hijack of the republican party, let's just declare both parties dead.

[StrangeSox]

It's the same government we had with Clinton, Bush Jr, Obama, etc...it's the safe choice...it's the wall street choice...but I thought we wanted change in this country? Or, is it really that we want to talk about change...but don't actually want it?

 

Locking in a liberal supreme court for the next generation is the most important thing in this election imo. The court has been conservative for a while now. Replacing Scalia with even a moderate like Merrick Garland would be a massive ideological shift. RGB probably leaves the court within the next four years as well, so replacing her with another solid liberal keeps that balance. If Kennedy, the next oldest, also leaves the court, suddenly we've got a relatively young 6-3 liberal court that will be in place for decades.

 

Winning Congress and the Presidency is important, but if you have a SC dead set against you, your policies can be struck down with some terribly convoluted arguments (e.g. Shelby County being one of the worst in recent memory). Obamacare with a slightly more conservative court is DoA, Obamacare with a slightly more liberal court means the Medicaid expansion isn't gutted and millions more low income Americans have access to health care.

[Y2HH]

Locking in a liberal supreme court for the next generation is the most important thing in this election imo. The court has been conservative for a while now. Replacing Scalia with even a moderate like Merrick Garland would be a massive ideological shift. RGB probably leaves the court within the next four years as well, so replacing her with another solid liberal keeps that balance. If Kennedy, the next oldest, also leaves the court, suddenly we've got a relatively young 6-3 liberal court that will be in place for decades.

 

Winning Congress and the Presidency is important, but if you have a SC dead set against you, your policies can be struck down with some terribly convoluted arguments (e.g. Shelby County being one of the worst in recent memory). Obamacare with a slightly more conservative court is DoA, Obamacare with a slightly more liberal court means the Medicaid expansion isn't gutted and millions more low income Americans have access to health care.

 

I think everyone on the Supreme Court should be as close to a centrist as possible. I don't want liberals or neocons on the bench. Ever. And I want term limits introduced to an appointed position of such awesome power. Our Supreme Court system sucks.

[StrangeSox]

If the Democrats cannot capitalize on this Trump hijack of the republican party, let's just declare both parties dead.

 

Presidential systems like ours don't handle rigid ideological parties very well. Up through the 60's, we didn't have strictly liberal and strictly conservative parties. That, plus the hugely unequal senate representation that greatly favors rural conservatives plus the House which does so to a lesser extent and is also very heavily gerrymandered by a 2010 Republican wave means the Democrats have the same sort of uphill battle that Republicans do to try to win the White House. IIRC in 2012 in aggregate vote totals Democrats had millions more votes for the House but Republicans ended up with a decent majority of seats.

 

Clinton being a less inspiring candidate herself in many ways doesn't help, either. Obama running for a third term would be absolutely crushing this race even more than Clinton's current +5-6% poll average and would have longer downticket coattails.

[greg775]

This is pretty laughable.

 

In one sentence he says, “We have no basis to conclude that [Clinton] lied to the FBI.”, and then continues to say the following:

 

Lie 1: On Clinton’s claim that nothing she sent or received was marked classified, he said, “That’s not true. … There was classified material emailed.” Clinton had made that claim repeatedly in public, and also in sworn testimony before the House Benghazi committee last October.

 

Lie 2: On her claim that she used one device, he said, “She used multiple devices.”

 

Lie 3: On her claim that she turned over all work-related emails, Comey said, “No, we found work-related emails, thousands that were not returned.”

 

I don't think our definition of liar match here, SS.

 

LOL it's like another Saturday Night Live skit. Why did they bother with this charade? Clinton's are above the law and that is scary considering she has 8 years of Presidential Power coming up. Hillary needs to borrow somebody's phone to call Comey and set up a party in a plane on a tarmac somewhere to toast his support of her. It's scary what so many people will do in support of somebody as unimpressive and outwardly elitist as Hillary Clinton.

[StrangeSox]

I think everyone on the Supreme Court should be as close to a centrist as possible. I don't want liberals or neocons on the bench. Ever. And I want term limits introduced to an appointed position of such awesome power. Our Supreme Court system sucks.

 

What is a "centrist" isn't a well-defined position but is instead defined by what position other people take. And there's always going to be sharp scholarly ideological legal disagreements on what's even the appropriate way to interpret the Constitution, case law, bills, administrative rulings etc.

 

Long term limits for federal judges, something like 25-30 years might make sense, but then that's only going to politicize those positions more explicitly. This year's election is a little odd because we know there's a SC right now (there shouldn't be, the Senate should do its damn job and hold a vote on the President's nominee), but if we knew that Judge A's position was up in 2017, you're more explicitly making the Presidential election about filling that judge's spot.

[Y2HH]

LOL it's like another Saturday Night Live skit. Why did they bother with this charade? Clinton's are above the law and that is scary considering she has 8 years of Presidential Power coming up. Hillary needs to borrow somebody's phone to call Comey and set up a party in a plane on a tarmac somewhere to toast his support of her. It's scary what so many people will do in support of somebody as unimpressive and outwardly elitist as Hillary Clinton.

 

While I agree in this instance, the republicans lie just as much as she does. And they don't care, either.

[StrangeSox]

LOL it's like another Saturday Night Live skit. Why did they bother with this charade? Clinton's are above the law and that is scary considering she has 8 years of Presidential Power coming up. Hillary needs to borrow somebody's phone to call Comey and set up a party in a plane on a tarmac somewhere to toast his support of her. It's scary what so many people will do in support of somebody as unimpressive and outwardly elitist as Hillary Clinton.

 

8? Haha, we all know they'll repeal that crappy amendment so that hillary gets 12 before Chelsea gets the next 21 (she will resign in disgrace a year into her glorious fifth term).

[bmags]

Here is one place I'll agree with you on, because in the interest of being fair, Sanders did not fully support Clinton's health reform efforts in the 1990's. He's always been very adamant about single payer. Clinton is clearly the more flexible politician...does that make her a better politician given our system? Perhaps...but is it what we really want...again?

 

Also, keep in mind Sanders was just a jr. senator back then...he wasn't a very important person -- and I guess it could be argued he's still not.

 

My issue with Hillary is clear...it's more of the same.

 

It's the same government we had with Clinton, Bush Jr, Obama, etc...it's the safe choice...it's the wall street choice...but I thought we wanted change in this country? Or, is it really that we want to talk about change...but don't actually want it?

 

I don't understand your last point because I view Bush and obama as radically different in the context of politics. But both preferable to trump who is radically different in a sense out of politics. I've never seen anyone who hates america and americans more than him.

[Y2HH]

What is a "centrist" isn't a well-defined position but is instead defined by what position other people take. And there's always going to be sharp scholarly ideological legal disagreements on what's even the appropriate way to interpret the Constitution, case law, bills, administrative rulings etc.

 

Long term limits for federal judges, something like 25-30 years might make sense, but then that's only going to politicize those positions more explicitly. This year's election is a little odd because we know there's a SC right now (there shouldn't be, the Senate should do its damn job and hold a vote on the President's nominee), but if we knew that Judge A's position was up in 2017, you're more explicitly making the Presidential election about filling that judge's spot.

 

I think if your record shows you've made many judgements that go with and against a specific political leaning, you should then become eligible for the job. Anyone with a staunch record of judging on the liberal or neocon side should be disqualified...which eliminates exactly 7 of the people currently sitting.

 

I have no use for a liberal bench, nor do I have a use for a neocon one...I think it does a great disservice to this country.

[Y2HH]

I don't understand your last point because I view Bush and obama as radically different in the context of politics. But both preferable to trump who is radically different in a sense out of politics. I've never seen anyone who hates america and americans more than him.

 

I think this country has largely followed the same course for decades. While different decisions have been made here or there, we're largely on the same course.

[StrangeSox]

http://jewishinsider.com/8694/advisor-as-m...emitic-support/

 

Trump Advisor: Jews Can’t Expect Swift Rebuke of Anti-Semitic Support

 

 

[StrangeSox]

This is one of trumps main TV surrogates

 

 

Edited July 7, 2016 by StrangeSox

[brett05]

Locking in a liberal supreme court for the next generation is the most important thing in this election imo. The court has been conservative for a while now. Replacing Scalia with even a moderate like Merrick Garland would be a massive ideological shift. RGB probably leaves the court within the next four years as well, so replacing her with another solid liberal keeps that balance. If Kennedy, the next oldest, also leaves the court, suddenly we've got a relatively young 6-3 liberal court that will be in place for decades.

 

Winning Congress and the Presidency is important, but if you have a SC dead set against you, your policies can be struck down with some terribly convoluted arguments (e.g. Shelby County being one of the worst in recent memory). Obamacare with a slightly more conservative court is DoA, Obamacare with a slightly more liberal court means the Medicaid expansion isn't gutted and millions more low income Americans have access to health care.

I agree, only it needs to be conservative. The SC has made too many mistakes already because of it's liberal lean. We need one right now just for balance.

[StrangeSox]

I agree, only it needs to be conservative. The SC has made too many mistakes already because of it's liberal lean. We need one right now just for balance.

 

The court has been majority conservative for at least a couple of decades now.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/02...in-decades.html

Edited July 8, 2016 by StrangeSox

[Y2HH]

I agree, only it needs to be conservative. The SC has made too many mistakes already because of it's liberal lean. We need one right now just for balance.

 

The SC doesn't have a liberal lean, and hasn't for eons. Up until recently there have been 4 staunch neocons and 4 staunch liberals on the bench, and one right of center republican, as I'd call him.

 

Notice I didn't call 8 of them republicans or democrats, because those ones are extreme leaning.

 

We don't need that s*** on the supreme court. Justice shouldn't be determined with a liberal or neocon slant. They need to be above that. People talk about holding police to a higher standard, well...the supreme court should be held to the highest of a high standards, and if they can't make decisions based on the strict interpretation of constitutional law without whatever modern lean they may have, then they shouldn't be doing it at all.

 

We should strive for right of center or left of center judges on all accounts...as close to independents as possible, entirely based on their well vetted and past judicial records.

 

Both of these parties are poison, and no, I don't care if you're liberal or a neocon, you're ideologically poisoned if either.

 

And don't tell me judgements cannot be passed without liberal/neocon infection, either.

Edited July 8, 2016 by Y2HH

[StrangeSox]

The SC doesn't have a liberal lean, and hasn't for eons. Up until recently there have been 4 staunch neocons and 4 staunch liberals on the bench, and one right of center republican, as I'd call him.

 

Notice I didn't call 8 of them republicans or democrats, because those ones are extreme leaning.

 

Even then, it still mixes up sometimes. There was an important 4th amendment case a couple of weeks ago with Breyer joining the more conservative wing of the court.

 

We don't need that s*** on the supreme court. Justice shouldn't be determined with a liberal or neocon slant. They need to be above that. People talk about holding police to a higher standard, well...the supreme court should be held to the highest of a high standards, and if they can't make decisions based on the strict interpretation of constitutional law without whatever modern lean they may have, then they shouldn't be doing it at all.

 

We should strive for right of center or left of center judges on all accounts...as close to independents as possible, entirely based on their well vetted and past judicial records.

 

How the constitution/laws/administrative rulings/case law should be interpreted and understood isn't agreed upon, though. Conservative legal institutions like the Federalist Society and have a staunchly different view of how the constitution should be understood, and this filters back to ideological preferences. Being a liberal probably means that you're going to disagree with a "strict constitutionalist" legal position that holds most federal regulations are unconstitutional.

 

Both of these parties are poison, and no, I don't care if you're liberal or a neocon, you're ideologically poisoned if either.

 

And don't tell me judgements cannot be passed without liberal/neocon infection, either.

 

Neoconservatism is mainly focused on foreign policy and wouldn't really have much to do with court decisions.

 

I'm definitely much more of a legal realist than a legal formalist, though.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_realism