U.S. Presidential debate

[kandrathe]

I am confused by this. The Democrats held a primary. Hillary won, by any count at all - the primary by the rules, the popular vote, the most states, the biggest states, without counting superdelegates, only counting superdelegates, etc. There is no way to slice the result of that election such that Bernie Sanders would have won it. That IS the Democrats nominating their candidate. They didn't pick Bernie, they did pick Hillary.

If Hillary (or the DNC) stacked the deck, they didn't need to. It was closer than I thought possible for someone as far left as Bernie, but it wasn't a photo finish.

-Jester

I'm just citing what the investigations of Election Justice USA Study Finds that Without Election Fraud Sanders Would Have Won by Landslide.

[LavCat]

Speaking as someone who voted for Sanders, I really don't see the fraud.

[Jester]

I'm just citing what the investigations of Election Justice USA Study Finds that Without Election Fraud Sanders Would Have Won by Landslide.

You will forgive me if I do not find a group founded by outraged Bernie Sanders supporters in the middle of the 2016 primary to be a credible, neutral source for legal and political analysis of the Sanders candidacy.

Do you?

-Jester

[FireIceTalon]

Point is just telling people they only can vote for one person or is not much different than letting them choose between two persons (giving them the idee they have something to say) who both basically work for the rich class.

This is the Marxist perspective of the state in a nutshell!

I always found it funny that critics of either Marxian perspectives in general, or more specifically of political parties that called themselves "Marxist" complained of a so-called 1-party State; when the 2-party system is virtually the same thing. The only difference is that in a 1-party state, the ruling party is the ruling class, while in the latter the multiple parties are the management committee for organizing and protecting the affairs of the ruling class; their representatives so to say. But the two party system is more effective in that its easy to put forth the illusion of choice, while simultaneously demonizing 1-party states as being "undemocratic". But at the end of the day, they both serve the same purpose and the result is the same - the ruling capitalist class maintains its power and position within society, the working class and poor remains exploited and oppressed.

[FireIceTalon]

The Democrats torpedoed the socialist their party probably would have nominated over Hillary. I think Sanders should have been the Democrats candidate. They've stacked their deck with super delegates so that the establishment party core gets a big hand in selecting their person. Sanders made them reveal their flawed system.

I am confused by this. The Democrats held a primary. Hillary won, by any count at all - the primary by the rules, the popular vote, the most states, the biggest states, without counting superdelegates, only counting superdelegates, etc. There is no way to slice the result of that election such that Bernie Sanders would have won it. That IS the Democrats nominating their candidate. They didn't pick Bernie, they did pick Hillary.

If Hillary (or the DNC) stacked the deck, they didn't need to. It was closer than I thought possible for someone as far left as Bernie, but it wasn't a photo finish.

-Jester

Make no mistake about it, I am not a Bernie supporter and am very far to his left. To me he is nothing more than your average social democrat at best, and merely wants to save capitalism from itself, nothing more.

However, things are not so cut and dry as you think.

I figured it was relatively common knowledge by now that the super delegates were put in place to reign in and/or prevent more "left-wing" democrats from being able to challenge more acceptable and mainstream friendly bourgeois candidates on equal terms. Because by bourgeois standards, Bernie's positions are considered radical (even if in the big scheme of things, calling him radical is rather an insult to socialism but its beside the point). Super delegates were put in place by the ruling class to keep exactly these types of democrats from being able to fairly challenge more moderate party members, let alone actually get them elected.

So, what you got is a 2-party system that is extremely rigid and undemocratic to begin with, and then its further compounded by the fact that both parties methods of selecting their respective candidates are extremely rigid and unfairly conducted as well, but especially in the case of the democrats from what I can see.

[Jester]

However, things are not so cut and dry as you think.

I figured it was relatively common knowledge by now that the super delegates were put in place to reign in and/or prevent more "left-wing" democrats from being able to challenge more acceptable and mainstream friendly bourgeois candidates on equal terms. Because by bourgeois standards, Bernie's positions are considered radical (even if in the big scheme of things, calling him radical is rather an insult to socialism but its beside the point). Super delegates were put in place by the ruling class to keep exactly these types of democrats from being able to fairly challenge more moderate party members, let alone actually get them elected.

The DNC (and especially the odious Debbie Wasserman Schultz) hated Bernie, and pulled out the stops to see him defeated, no doubt about it. And yes, the superdelegates were quite intentionally put in place to stop populist upstart candidates from unseating the party elite. All that is true.

But Hillary didn't need either. She won convincingly enough to make it a non-issue. It wasn't close. It wasn't close even if you don't count the superdelegates at all. She won by 3.5 million votes, by almost 12%. I'm not an American, so I don't get to vote in US primaries, and if I did, I would have voted for Bernie. But he lost, and no amount of chipping at the edges changes that.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

But Hillary didn't need either. She won convincingly enough to make it a non-issue. It wasn't close. It wasn't close even if you don't count the superdelegates at all. She won by 3.5 million votes, by almost 12%. I'm not an American, so I don't get to vote in US primaries, and if I did, I would have voted for Bernie. But he lost, and no amount of chipping at the edges changes that.

But... Overall vote count is meaningless in choosing delegates to the convention.

"...the joint fundraising structure allows Clinton to accept much larger individual donations than her campaign is legally allowed to receive, and that money is then being used to send out mailers and online ads to raise money from smaller donors who can contribute directly to the campaign multiple times." -- Bernie Sanders

The DNC and Clinton did many shady things to rig counties, and state outcomes in her favor. Including unfairly funding Clinton, and withholding money from Bernie's campaign, and hurting his ability to organize with the greater democratic party. It's not the final SUM, it's all the process of the 50+ partial sums, that made the final SUM inevitable.

Even looking at the final 3.5 million, it is only about 14% -- could the DNC lean on the scales by 14%? Yes, I think so. especially in the big closed state primaries (organized by the democratic party. e.g. NY, FL, TX, PA) where only registered democrats were able to vote.

Ergo, probably a good case for it being rigged.

“This is the type of mega, mega joint fundraising committee that we all feared would come into existence if McCutcheon were ruled the wrong way, which it was,” said Craig Holman with Public Citizen. “It makes maximum use of the loose rules governing joint fundraising. They’re using big checks to set up a small donor fundraising campaign and turning over the small donors to the Hillary campaign while keeping the large ones for the party. It is permissible, but it’s offensive, and it should be illegal.”

Both Holman and Larry Noble with the Campaign Legal Center emphasized that it’s extremely unusual and possibly unprecedented for a party to raise so much money for a candidate before the general election.

“It shows the DNC has clearly taken sides before they even have a nominee,” said Holman. “There’s an obvious bias.”

The Clinton camp argued that the same slimey mechanism was available to Sanders. I count it as a positive that he rebuffed it. If you are against Citizens United and McCutcheon, then it would be the height of hypocrisy to utilize them in campaign financing (like Wellstones weak attempt to not take any PAC money).

There’s no question that we need to make Washington work much better than it does today. And that means, in particular, getting unaccountable money out of our politics. … That’s why I’m so passionate about this issue, and I will fight hard to end the stranglehold that the wealthy and special interests have on so much of our government. Hillary, June 22, 2016

LOL. Ya, right.

Hillary -- https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/candi...=N00000019

Bernie -- https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/candi...=N00000528

[Jester]

Even looking at the final 3.5 million, it is only about 14% -- could the DNC lean on the scales by 14%? Yes, I think so. especially in the big closed state primaries (organized by the democratic party. e.g. NY, FL, TX, PA) where only registered democrats were able to vote.

Ergo, probably a good case for it being rigged.

You can believe what you like, but if Hillary Clinton had *that* much clout, how on earth did she lose to Obama?

The rules about open and closed Democratic primaries were set before the election season even started. This didn't just go one way; Hillary didn't get to overturn caucus states, where Sanders had a big edge because of the enthusiasm gap - he had fewer but more enthusiastic supporters, who would turn out to caucuses in the states that used them. Why would Sanders get to change the rules halfway through in the states that required you to be registered beforehand?

3.5 million is a gigantic number, and the results square with the rough predictions of the polls, which the DNC does not control. Indeed, Sanders usually *outperformed* the polls, sometimes by quite a lot, as in Michigan. This is a very odd result if there is widespread vote rigging! I'm sure Sanders diehards at Counterpunch and Election Justice USA disagree, and there are surely things to point to, considering how badly the DNC has behaved, but as I said before, it's just not enough. My conclusion? Lots of people voted for Sanders. But lots more voted for Hillary. (And more states. And more delegates. And more superdelegates. And more everything.)

-Jester

[Alram]

Early voting started today in Texas. Normally I vote early because it is a good way of avoiding long waits in line on election day; there is never a line for early voting. But the polling place was so crowded today that there was no place to park. And that was during working hours. I will try again tomorrow. It looks like we will have a record voter turnout if the early voting in my county is any indication.

[Jester]

Early voting started today in Texas. Normally I vote early because it is a good way of avoiding long waits in line on election day; there is never a line for early voting. But the polling place was so crowded today that there was no place to park. And that was during working hours. I will try again tomorrow. It looks like we will have a record voter turnout if the early voting in my county is any indication.

Wow! That would be a real shock - either it means that people are much more excited with Hillary (or terrified of Trump) than is commonly supposed, or it means the polling about Trump is camouflaging a *very* large number of shy voters who don't want to admit to voting for His Orangeness.

-Jester

[Chesspiece_face]

Wow! That would be a real shock - either it means that people are much more excited with Hillary (or terrified of Trump) than is commonly supposed, or it means the polling about Trump is camouflaging a *very* large number of shy voters who don't want to admit to voting for His Orangeness.

-Jester

For the people I have spoken with that rushed out to vote early it was more that they were completely tired of this election and voting early was the only thing they could control to get it over with.

[Alram]

Wow! That would be a real shock - either it means that people are much more excited with Hillary (or terrified of Trump) than is commonly supposed, or it means the polling about Trump is camouflaging a *very* large number of shy voters who don't want to admit to voting for His Orangeness.

Remember, we are talking about Texas. Most people here can't stand Hillary (except in Austin). My guess (and it is just a guess) would be that folks are afraid that Hillary has a chance of carrying Texas based on a recent poll; they are turning out to make sure that she does not win.

It is ironic that in a presidential election in which both candidates are thoroughly undesirable, we are getting a larger voter turnout -- at least in Texas.

I personally am still undecided as to whether to vote for Gary Johnson or Donald Trump. Gary Johnson is the best choice, but, alas, he doesn't have a chance of winning.

[Belix]

I personally am still undecided as to whether to vote for Gary Johnson or Donald Trump. Gary Johnson is the best choice, but, alas, he doesn't have a chance of winning.

I considered voting for Johnson myself, but since the polls show he has no practical chance of winning, I felt morally obliged to vote between the two leading candidates, along the lines of "whoever is likely to do significantly less damage we'll have to fix later."

As you're still undecided, you might exercise your judgment on the information and concerns presented in the following videos and see if they sway you to consider placing your vote in the same fashion. Each of them covers a different area/angle. The last two of these three provide supporting links/articles/video during the video or in the description.

Dear Mainstream Media (8 minutes)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GpLAzAZXi2A
This video is a little blunt and contains a couple colorful metaphors, but I felt it was a fair assessment and effective short summary of current potential media bias.

Will the US Elections be Rigged? (37 minutes)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VS40ox_2dqc
Suggests how the mere thought of the voting being 'rigged' is made to seem dirty, and shows why concern about it may be justified and not just 'crazy talk.'

America's Moment of Truth (8 minutes)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHCul_DIM_4
Talks about how policies similar to those of our current Democratic nominee have arguably resulted in disaster for other countries.


I'm not saying these fellows or their sources are 100% unbiased, or that they're correct about everything; As always, think for yourself. Scrutinize, analyze, utilize the amazing gift that is the human brain.


EDIT: p.s. For anyone who wants to dismiss the e-mail portion of evidence presented in some portions of those videos due to claims by the campaign that they are falsified, I would also suggest to read and consider this article (again supported by other stories and sources):

The Clinton Campaign Should Stop Denying That The Wikileaks Emails Are Valid; They Are And They're Real
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/201610...real.shtml

[FireIceTalon]

Hillary will not win Texas, @Alram. She does however, have a fair chance at winning Arizona, which has long been a conservative stronghold for years but has been turning more blue recently. Probably will become a battleground state in years to come. Either way, Trump will almost certainly lose pretty handily come election day.

Of course, none of this means anything to me. A victory for either party is a victory for capitalism and a loss for working people, women, and poc everywhere, but there you have it.

[Alram]

The drama continues.
The FBI is reopening the investigation into Mrs. Clinton.

Federal law enforcement officials said Friday that the new emails uncovered in the closed investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server were discovered after the F.B.I. seized electronic devices belonging to Huma Abedin, a top aide to Mrs. Clinton, and her husband, Anthony Weiner.The F.B.I. is investigating illicit text messages that Mr. Weiner sent to a 15-year-old girl in North Carolina. The bureau told Congress on Friday that it had uncovered new emails related to the Clinton case — one federal official said they numbered in the thousands...
Mr. Comey said the F.B.I. was taking steps to “determine whether they contain classified information, as well as to assess their importance to our investigation.” He said he did not know how long it would take to review the emails, or whether the new information was significant.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/29/us/pol....html?_r=0

[Jester]

The FBI is reopening the investigation into Mrs. Clinton.

The FBI is announcing they have obtained new evidence that may or may not have anything to do with the investigation, which was never closed.

-Jester

[Alram]

The FBI is reopening the investigation into Mrs. Clinton.

The FBI is announcing they have obtained new evidence that may or may not have anything to do with the investigation, which was never closed.

-Jester

From the Washington Post:

In July, Comey had testified under oath before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee that the FBI was finished investigating the Clinton email matter and that there would be no criminal charges.

Comey was asked at the hearing whether, if the FBI came across new information, he would review it. “My first question is this, would you reopen the Clinton investigation if you discovered new information that was both relevant and substantial?” Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Tex.) asked Comey.

It is correct that, as mentioned in my first post regarding the matter, that the FBI did not yet know "whether the new information was significant."

[kandrathe]

You can believe what you like, but if Hillary Clinton had *that* much clout, how on earth did she lose to Obama?

Because he was more of the *darling* of the DNC in 2008. Even though, her ~7 years (in 2006-07) as NY senator was more than Obama's ~2 years as Senator of Illinois. Obama was *all* non-specific "Hope and Change" while her (and Bill's) semi-progressive very neocon agenda was pretty clear. She was resoundingly attacked by left and right, the same as this time. Although, this time she managed to get leverage in the DNC (2016 DNC chair Tim Kaine was made into VP candidate, versus a 2008 political opponent Howard "YeeHaa" Dean). But, as much as you'd like to look at overall votes -- Sanders almost won. He just needed the oomph given to Clinton by the DNC favoritism.

The rules about open and closed Democratic primaries were set before the election season even started. This didn't just go one way; Hillary didn't get to overturn caucus states, where Sanders had a big edge because of the enthusiasm gap - he had fewer but more enthusiastic supporters, who would turn out to caucuses in the states that used them. Why would Sanders get to change the rules halfway through in the states that required you to be registered beforehand?

I'm not saying they should, but it's a factor that when preparation is needed, like a voter id, that you get more party loyalists, and not enthusiastic grass roots such as the kind Sanders attracted. The places he lost big, were places where a "get out the vote drive" would have been effective.

[FireIceTalon]

Because he was more of the *darling* of the DNC in 2008. Even though, her ~7 years (in 2006-07) as NY senator was more than Obama's ~2 years as Senator of Illinois. Obama was *all* non-specific "Hope and Change" while her (and Bill's) semi-progressive very neocon agenda was pretty clear. She was resoundingly attacked by left and right, the same as this time. Although, this time she managed to get leverage in the DNC (2016 DNC chair Tim Kaine was made into VP candidate, versus a 2008 political opponent Howard "YeeHaa" Dean). But, as much as you'd like to look at overall votes -- Sanders almost won. He just needed the oomph given to Clinton by the DNC favoritism.

Not only that, but if you compare the Republican nominee from those respective elections....most Republicans backed Mccain pretty faithfully in 2008. Had Hillary won the DNC over Obama, I think it would have been much more difficult for her to win the general election vs Mccain - at least compared to this years election. Granted she hasn't won this year yet, but its almost a foregone conclusion at this point that she will.

Trump is a complete buffoon who is disliked even by the majority of his own party, liked only by the most extremist of right-winged sociopaths and reactionaries or the brainless (well, same thing).

[kandrathe]

Trump is a complete buffoon who is disliked even by the majority of his own party, liked only by the most extremist of right-winged sociopaths and reactionaries or the brainless (well, same thing).

Hillary pretends to be a "Public Servant", Trump only ever has been about promoting himself. It's his only honest trait.