In your honest opinion, who do you think has the best chance of becoming POTUS?

[Cassandra LeMay]

So I shall apologize for the crappy reference....and go back to lurking and reading instead.  :-)

Don't. I love an easy target.  :P

In all seriousness - don't. Don't stop posting in the PROC board. Things might get heated once and then, and the current election cycle is bound to get pretty hot. But the political debates happening here on E are still the most fact-based and civil I have ever encountered around the internet. Posting can always lead to something new, provide food for thought - or challenge others to question their convictions.

When in doubt I can only say that you should post, but consider voicing your post as a question. Is it true? How many people agree? Where is the evidence? Asking never hurt no one. 

[gaggedLouise]

UK Sunday paper: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Observer

It's published jointly with the Guardian and they have the same owners. Free for unlimited reading through the Guardian website.

[Mithlomwen]

Don't. I love an easy target.  :P

Pfffffffft!  Thanks a lot.  ;D 

In all seriousness - don't. Don't stop posting in the PROC board. Things might get heated once and then, and the current election cycle is bound to get pretty hot. But the political debates happening here on E are still the most fact-based and civil I have ever encountered around the internet. Posting can always lead to something new, provide food for thought - or challenge others to question their convictions.

When in doubt I can only say that you should post, but consider voicing your post as a question. Is it true? How many people agree? Where is the evidence? Asking never hurt no one.

Well, the main reason I don't post, is because usually, I'm not very well versed in whatever is being discussed.  I actually learn more about it from reading what everyone posts.  Usually if I have a question, I'll poke my head in and ask....but debating is/was never a strong suit of mine.  *laugh*

[Beguile's Mistress]

You do raise a lot of good points, though, and coming at something from a different angle generates discussion, too.

[HannibalBarca]

I watched convention coverage of the RNC last week and the DNC this week through The Young Turks on Youtube, just as an explanation of where I got my feed of the material.  I also supported Bernie Sanders during the primary.  As far as my own political leanings...I don't belong to any party.  I'd prefer an economic system more like Denmark or Sweden, nations with the highest levels of happiness among citizens...so that would put me somewhat more to the Left than even Bernie.

I'm a fairly level-headed person.  I've observed things that occurred during the Democratic primary with at least an eyebrow raise, however.  The smears of Bernie delegates at the Nevada caucus and the DNC emails showing bias against his campaign are a couple of the points of evidence that I find lend to a pattern of dishonesty and favoritism by the DNC for Hillary. It doesn't surprise me, though--this is American politics we're talking about.  George Washington, in his farewell address, warned against becoming enamored of any particular political party.  Add to that becoming enamored of any particular political figure as well.  We don't need any more cults of personality, whether Trump or Sanders.  The ideals Bernie espouses are what I am for.

For all of that, however, there needs to be additional perspective on the entire election.  I see a lot of people, Clinton or Sanders supporters, caught up in the moment.  Demographics are changing for the better in the U.S.  More people are liberal, more people support LGBTQ rights...heck, more people aged 18-29 believe in socialism more than capitalism.  Change is coming, because...change always comes.  Just read history to see how far we've come.  Life is change, so the saying goes.  The question is just how fast that change comes.

A good example of people disagreeing on the pace of change is the civil rights movement...but not just in the 50s and 60s.  Dr. King and Malcolm X were that era's example of different paces of change, but the better example would be Booker T Washington and W. E. B. DuBois and their desires to move the fledgling NAACP in different directions.  Some want change to come now, and some think that would be counterproductive and push for change to be manageable.  You see that in comparison with many Hillary supporters and Bernie supporters...and even among Bernie supporters themselves.

My personal belief, what I strive for, is practicality.  I don't honestly expect the U.S. to become a model Scandinavian socialist state any time soon, but I want concrete steps in that direction.  I don't like how much Hilary and much of the Democratic establishment are beholden to moneyed interests, like you would expect any establishment to become over time, as history has borne out so many times.  And yet...I don't like the calls to 'burn it all down' like some Bernie supporters want.  That's a fine thing to call for in abstract, from the comfort of middle-class homes or relative safety...but it doesn't take into account the lives of millions who would suffer because of that.  Not to mention putting a fascist and his enablers in control of the government...something that has never worked well in history.  Those particular Bernie supporters are not the first people to suggest or even push for bringing the whole structure down by seeing the enemy elected or put into power.  You just don't risk putting people like them in any position of authority.  Things tend to escalate much faster and for much worse than anyone expects.

I see some handful of good things in Hillary.  Mostly, though, I see a corporate enabler who is socially center-left and economically center-right...exactly the same as President Obama.  Trump, though, I see as a demagogue.  He would be even worse than Dubya as far as letting his handlers run the show, while maintaining his populist face to the public.  Most terrifying, though, would be his likely ability to name enough Supreme Court Justices to create a hard-right court for two decades.  That would throw a wrench in the works of any positive gains in the Congress or Presidency for that amount of time as well.  What would be the point of turning the entire Congress and Presidency liberal in four or eight years if the Supreme Court could just declare their enacted laws as unconstitutional?  No...as much as I dislike Hillary, there are more things at stake than just overturning Citizen's United and the systemic corruption of money in politics.  Just turning the Supreme Court Liberal would be a huge step forward.

The changing demographics of the country cannot be stopped.  Time cannot be turned back, as history has shown.  And, like a fault line, the longer the forces of Conservatism try to hold back the inevitable march of progress, the larger the quake will be when it finally hits.  It can go down like the British Empire...or it can go down like the Roman Empire.  I'd prefer the Brits.

[Mithlomwen]

You do raise a lot of good points, though, and coming at something from a different angle generates discussion, too.

I didn't look at it like that....so that makes me feel a little better.  ;D

[TaintedAndDelish]

This article gives a good rundown on the misconduct against Sanders.

For those anemic to the Observer, here's the class action lawsuit filed against Debbie Wasserman Schultz that the article spoke of.
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/2016_0722_dnc_wilding2.pdf

I haven't read it  yet, as I just found it now. 

[Beguile's Mistress]

Martin O'Malley just totally fired up the convention!

[Cassandra LeMay]

I've been thinking about Hillary Clinton and why she seems so disliked by many people. Here's what I came up with and I would like to know if my outsider, non-American, perspective is on the money or not:

Hillary is too slick.

She comes across as someone who is too focused on the letter of the law when she should show at least some empathy for the spirit of the law. She seems to be the kind of person who might follow "I never said that" with a "not literally". In short, she strikes me as the kind of lawyer who gives lawyers a bad name.

Is that it? And is it all?

What is it that really makes people dislike Clinton?

[CuriousEyes]

Literally decades of smear campaigns that have influenced a generalized bias even when specific, credible incidents are pretty damn hard to come by doesn't help.

[Warlock]

Scratching the exterior of it. A good case study would be her revision on her stance of Homosexual Marriage and DOMA recently.

Read the following then compare it to the rhetoric and language she used in 2004 with the clip below.

“On Defense of Marriage [Act], I think what my husband believed — and there was certainly evidence to support it — is that there was enough political momentum to amend the Constitution of the United States of America, and that there had to be some way to stop that. And there wasn’t any rational argument — because I was in on some of those discussions, on both ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ and on DOMA, where both the president, his advisers and occasionally I would — you know, chime in and talk about, ‘You can’t be serious. You can’t be serious.’ But they were. And so, in a lot of ways, DOMA was a line that was drawn that was to prevent going further. It was a defensive action.”
-Hillary Clinton

Youtube Clip

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6I1-r1YgK9I

To drive the point home on her on switching positions.

Youtube Clip

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

She tries very hard for the ''We did the best we could, during the circumstances.'', or even denial, when its quite clear her beliefs were different then (like many others). With Bill himself saying the following in 1996:

"I remain opposed to same-sex marriage. I believe marriage is an institution for the union of a man and a woman. This has been my long-standing position, and it is not being reviewed or reconsidered."
-Bill Clinton

She feels and acts fake, or ''slick'' as you put it.

Edit:
“I don't know…where was he when I was trying to get health care in '93 and '94?”
-Hillary Clinton

Youtube Clip

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNVi1wXPEto

Her memory is quite selective, like being under sniper fire while at the same time calmly shaking hands with a child. She's not above lying to improve her apperance or drag a competitor through the mud.

[Beguile's Mistress]

Basically, I don't trust a person in office who isn't capable of switching positions since that is almost always driven by what the voters want.  Rigid, hidebound stands on things such as attitudes against same-sex marriage, womens rights, a woman's control over her own reproductive health, integration and others have done nothing but cause grief for many of us.  The fact that she can be flexible where it is needed is one of the things I admire about Hillary.  She'll fight to the death for women, children and our senior citizens and supports our military in a way most men don't but when it's time to redirect her thinking and her influence she doesn't hesitate to make that change. 

Also, it isn't only the issues she sees when she works for something, it is the people.  I have a friend who is one of the many people in this country who has a personal connection to Mrs. Clinton.  They have never met but my friend has had a couple letters from her - not her staff but her personally - offering sympathy and compassion at a very difficult time.

At the same time, I know a family that went through hell for nearly five years because the other guy welched on an agreement.

[Warlock]

Switching positions is a good thing, doing so but denying you ever held the opposite is not. Reeks of political oppertunism rather than a genuine change of heart.

[Beguile's Mistress]

That often comes about because of those people out there who just want to throw rocks at your head no matter what you say. 

Too much time gets wasted that way.  Look at the Bernie Sanders dissidents who are behaving more like domestic terrorists every day.  They are an embarrassment to him.

[Thesunmaid]

Umm just in case anyone needs it...

http://www.dailydot.com/layer8/moving-to-canada-to-escape-donald-trump-hillary-clinton/


But also no offense guys the fact that trump has gotten this far is sort of fucking terrifying to me. And well we have a pretty damn cool prime minister now so..he would probably meet you at the border to say come on in lol

Oh and you don't actually have to speak french here but it does help at times. Also...poutine...this is reason enough to move here. :P

[Warlock]

That often comes about because of those people out there who just want to throw rocks at your head no matter what you say. 

She. Supported. DOMA.

This is insulting to the actual civil rights activist that fought against it and the harm it did toward the community. She has no claim to the achivements of the marriage equality for LGBT community before 2013, a point when public opinion had already begun to shift.

Lying is not ok.

[Oniya]

Oh and you don't actually have to speak french here but it does help at times. Also...poutine...this is reason enough to move here. :P

And Timbits.

[Cassandra LeMay]

Look at the Bernie Sanders dissidents who are behaving more like domestic terrorists every day.

Terrorists all over the world kill people every day.

Accusing Sanders supporters of acting like terrorists puts them on the same page as killers.

I find your statement rather troubling, to say the least.

[Beguile's Mistress]

Terrorists all over the world kill people every day.

Accusing Sanders supporters of acting like terrorists puts them on the same page as killers.

I find your statement rather troubling, to say the least.

The ones who refuse to back down are now attacking people physically and destroying property and needed to be arrested.  Okay.  Maybe not terrorists.  I guess they are a minor inconvenience even when they take over a media center and refuse to let the people who they've trapped inside leave the area.  Hope I don't run into any of those nice people.

I can understand their frustration but not taking it out on others with physical attacks and vandalism.  Considering what is going on in the world today they aren't doing a very good job of projecting sanity.

http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/Day-2-of-DNC-Protests-Includes-March-Against-Police-Brutality-388295732.html

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/politics/dnc/20160728_Despite_fatigue__DNC_protesters_regroup__resolve_to_push_key_issues.html

These are just two of the many stories.  I live in Pittsburgh, on the other side of the state from Philadelphia, and some of our local media people were trapped inside the media center and held hostage.

[TaintedAndDelish]

Regarding dislike for Hillary - a few comments:

In one sentence? She's a lying, crooked, untouchable chameleon.

1. With regard to switching positions, there is a big difference between someone shifts their position over the years as they adapt and grow, and someone who lies about their positions just to get their way. Hillary has a long history of lying about her positions. She'll say she's a moderate to one crowd just to get their votes, then claim to be a conservative or progressive to another to get their votes. She also hijacked some of Bernie's positions just try to steal some of his crowd.

2. There's too many scandals involving Hillary to count. Just google it and you'll get a list.

3. The fact that she's "untouchable" is another irritating thing about her. She's one of those people who can get away with anything because she's got friends in high places. I don't think people like seeing some politician getting away with murder when ordinary citizens are getting hit with the heavy hand of the law for minor offenses. This unfairness is appalling.

4. There's a perception that she'll bring another 4 to 8 years of disaster to our economy. People who are well to do will claim that the economy is just fine. Those who are struggling to get by will have a very different perspective. Some of us are genuinely scared about where our economy is going with regard to the national deficit. Since Obama came into office, it went through the roof.

There's more, but I think those are some of the larger things.

[TheGlyphstone]

As far as flip-flopping goes, I was poking around and found this website:

http://2016election.procon.org/view.source-summary-chart.php

It looks reasonably non-partisan, summarizing each candidate's current position on each of 65 different issues, and if they've previously expressed a different opinion. Assuming they're correct, Clinton has reversed her stance on 6 issues (the Keystone XL pipeline, sending ground troops against ISIS, medical marijuana, trade with Cuba, the TPP, and racial profiling in Law enforcement). Comparatively, Trump has reversed his stance on 10 issues (the War on Drugs, federal taxes, gun-free zones in schools, abortion, Planned Parenthood, universal health care, immigration, the federal minimum wage, recreational marijuana, transgender use of bathrooms). Five of Trump's reversals were moving from a strong Pro/Con opinion to an ambiguous middle-ground stance, though, leaving him with five outright reversals to Clinton's six.

[Warlock]

There's also something known as the general election pivot in the USA. With democracts holding a relatively left stance in the primary to attract voters before going to the right in the primary.

So expect Hillary's stances to change further.

[Cassandra LeMay]

...

There's more, but I think those are some of the larger things.

Among those other points, how much does her being a Clinton play a part? How much does the idea that she might be part of a "political dynasty" figure into it? Is that something people talk about, something that influences people's opinions of her, or does that pale before other problems people might have with Hillary Clinton? I thought that might come up more often, but perhaps it is still early days and/or I just missed a few things.

These are just two of the many stories.  I live in Pittsburgh, on the other side of the state from Philadelphia, and some of our local media people were trapped inside the media center and held hostage.

What I find "funny" - to use the term in a less-than-literal sense - is how the media calls those people "Sanders followers" when he asked his followers to keep calm and get behind the party line. They are about the opposite of Sanders followers in many ways. Guess the media just hasn't found a better term to describe them. Or is that something part of the media does on purpose to paint the Democrats as a divided party?

[Oniya]

Does anyone remember a guy by the name of Gary Hart?

For those that insist on making me feel old, he was a Presidential candidate from a few runs back.  Told the press 'I've got nothing to hide, go on and follow me around.'  Got caught with someone who wasn't his wife in his townhouse.  Seen his political career lately?  No.  He basically disappeared from the scene for a couple of decades.  (He got appointed to an ambassador position in 2014, and that's the extent of things.)

Now, look at the stuff being reported about the current election.  The reports in the news should have torpedoed a number of careers, and I'm not even limiting this to one particular person.

[Valerian]

Any even remotely successful politician is going to be presenting an image pretty much all the time.  It's the same thing actors and other public figures do -- spend enough time in front of cameras and sooner or later you're going to realize that they're always projecting what they think people want to see, one way or another.  Sanders creates the image of the grandfatherly type, for example, while Hilary has to work against centuries of prejudice as to what women should be like in society.  It's still considered "unnatural" for women to be in positions of power, so she's automatically starting from a negative position and has to work harder to overcome that bias.  Female CEOs face the same issues -- what in a man would be viewed as being forthright and having a 'take-charge' attitude, in a woman is considered being shrill and demanding.

The Republican side does the same gradual shift as election time gets closer, and I suspect it happens just as much in other countries, so that's hardly anything new or unique to Clinton, or even the Democrats.  Everyone is going to try to spin what they're saying to their audience; that's human nature, and also good politics.  It's rough on the objective truth, of course, if there even is such a thing any more, but Clinton doesn't seem to do it any more than any other politician.  Take a look at the stats on Politifact, for example: 23% of Clinton's statements are ranked as True and 29% as Mostly True, whereas Sanders has 13% True and 39% Mostly True.  That seems to suggest Sanders is doing at least as much spinning as Clinton, if not more.  (For comparison, Trump has 4% True and 11% Mostly True, not to mention 17% Pants on Fire.  ::))