You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 10, 2016, 04:47:39 AM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: In your honest opinion, who do you think has the best chance of becoming POTUS?  (Read 27125 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Online Cassandra LeMay

Not that surprising, he's maintained that he would support the chosen candidate from the beginning. Not quite sure about why now, however. They still have the convention before Clinton is offically chosen and Sanders seem to have kicked down the pillars he stand on by doing it now, weakening his position unnecessarily moving forward.
The "why now" is easily explained by the fact that the Democratic Party finished its official party platform on Saturday. While it still needs to be voted on at the convention, it seems highly unlikely to me that it won't be accepted by the convention delegates. I haven't seen the final text yet, but apparently it contains a number of Sanders' policies, or compromises influenced by Sanders' position.
https://www.thenation.com/article/how-bernie-sanders-delivered-the-most-progressive-platform-in-democratic-party-history/
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/democrats-advance-most-progressive-platform-party-history-n606646

He got from the party as much as he could and now probably figures it is time to endorse Clinton as early as possible, to avoid strive and debate at the convention. If the convention turns into a fight between Sanders supporters and the Clinton wing of the party it would only harm the Democrats chances of beating Trump and the GOP. Best to allow as much time as possible for the rift in the party to heal - or at least for some people to cool down.

Offline Beguile's Mistress

  • Time flies like an arrow ~ Fruit flies like a banana ~ Elliquiy's Fair-E Godmother
  • Dame
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Jul 2009
  • Location: Faeleacanvald ~ The Steeler Nation ~ Home of Lord Stanley's Cup 2016 ~ She won't stay throwed! ~ 48\22-5\1\11-5\7
  • Gender: Female
  • Perpetual Notion Machine ~ 'What if...?'
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
*nods* Now that Sanders has at least some of what he wants he doesn't have to hold the convention hostage and can give in to what the party wants.  He doesn't care about being graceful about it.  Hopefully, he'll make some strong campaign speeches in Clinton's favor and stir up support for her election in the fall.

Offline CuriousEyes

I suspect his stump speeches will focus much more on why Trump is bad for you than why Clinton is good. It'll be an interesting philosophical divide he's going ti have to cross.

Offline ReijiTabibito

  • Gatecrasher
  • Lord
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Jun 2009
  • Location: Titanian Autonomous University, Gate Studies Dept.
  • Gender: Male
  • There cannot be another Fall.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 2
So Sanders has officially endorsed Clinton.

*sighs*  You should have stayed out of it, Bernie.  I was willing to give you credit for the phrasing that 'Donald Trump must not be the next President of the United States,' but then you had to go and do all of this.

The "why now" is easily explained by the fact that the Democratic Party finished its official party platform on Saturday. While it still needs to be voted on at the convention, it seems highly unlikely to me that it won't be accepted by the convention delegates. I haven't seen the final text yet, but apparently it contains a number of Sanders' policies, or compromises influenced by Sanders' position.

Actually, what was finished on Saturday was the second draft of the party platform.  And yes, it contains a number of policies/positions influenced by the Sanders wing of the party, but as you'll see from the following video, there are fewer such positions in this new draft than there were in the previous one.  What Bernie won in concession, the DNC is slowly chipping away at because the positions don't agree with the real leaders of the party.

Plus, just to throw out, platform is not law.  Campaign promises get broken all the damn time in the name of political expediency, and if 'business as usual' Clinton is put into the executive's chair, you can bet that any initiatives like Bernie's are going to face an uphill battle.

Check this:
Spoiler: Click to Show/Hide

Offline TheGlyphstone

Even for someone on the left fringe of the Sanders camp, Reiji, do you really believe it's somehow better for Bernie to ride his platform down in flames out of raw principle and guarantee nothing he wants will come to pass (or worse, actually give Trump a strong fighting chance by dividing the Democrats), rather than get part of his goals into the platform and be able to use that for internal leverage from now on? Hillary is the ultimate pragmatist, which is her best and worst trait - if she knows that a large portion of the party is only backing her because she adopted some of their candidate's issues into her platform, she'll be under severe pressure to actually follow through on those promises or put her re-election bid at stake.

Ultimately, it's up to if you want Bernie Sanders in the Oval Office, or the Oval Office executing policies Bernie Sanders would approve of. Me, I'm in the second camp, the man himself isn't as important as what he stands for.

Offline ReijiTabibito

  • Gatecrasher
  • Lord
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Jun 2009
  • Location: Titanian Autonomous University, Gate Studies Dept.
  • Gender: Male
  • There cannot be another Fall.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 2
First off, I want to say that my support of Sanders is mainly because he is anti-establishment, same as how Trump is anti-establishment.  I simply preferred Sanders over Trump because Sanders has an actual plan for the country, as opposed to the big ideas and words of Trump.  So, please, refrain from referring to me as left-fringe.  But to other matters.

Of course I would rather prefer the enactment of Sanders' policies to the actual man himself being in the chair.  But at this point, I don't think either - him in the Oval Office or said office working to institute his policies - is going to happen.  Hillary's had 15 years to prove that she can be a representative of the people, and her favorability ratings show that she hasn't succeeded in that.  A third of her own party thinks she should be indicted for her role in the e-mail server fiasco.

Yes, Hillary is a pragmatist - she's also a master political player.  She'll say all the right things, promise the sky, and then very quietly jettison those parts of the platform that would be inconvenient for her when she thinks nobody is looking.  Or, a course I think is more likely to happen, she'll attempt to introduce those policies in ways that would cause their rejection in Congress, then blame Congress for not agreeing with her, and then campaign to 'continue the fight' during the next cycle.

Bernie's internal leverage only comes from the fact that his ideas and policies are hugely popular amongst the people - and Hillary's establishment, like the GOP establishment, has shown that it is utterly contemptive of those people, instead serving the vested interests who can pay for lobbyists in Washington.

I'm with you, Glyph, but I'm a lot more cynical about Hillary than you are.  I wouldn't trust her as far as she could throw the Capitol Building.

Offline Beguile's Mistress

  • Time flies like an arrow ~ Fruit flies like a banana ~ Elliquiy's Fair-E Godmother
  • Dame
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Jul 2009
  • Location: Faeleacanvald ~ The Steeler Nation ~ Home of Lord Stanley's Cup 2016 ~ She won't stay throwed! ~ 48\22-5\1\11-5\7
  • Gender: Female
  • Perpetual Notion Machine ~ 'What if...?'
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
I'd be willing to let the party guide me if I could believe anything they say.  Politicians have little in common with their constituents but much in common with each other.  First and foremost they don't speak unless and until they have weighed all the options and then they choose the most self-serving point to address or support.  They are not the kind of people I want telling me how to vote, should I be looking for anyone to fill that position in the first place. 

Along with a supposed financial genius (Trump) coming along to stir up all the dissension and hatred he is all we need is an angel of light in the form of a politician who tells the truth and is actually for the people.  That would make an interesting race.

Offline TaintedAndDelish

I see a more selfish motivation for Bernie to endorse Hillary. There is clear as day evidence that Hillary lied under oath to Congress several times and a request has been made for the FBI to investigate this. If they decide to prosecute her AND find her guilty, she could end up being disqualified from running depending on the charges. ( A prison sentence for perjury would definitely do it )  In that case, it would be better for Bernie to make nice with Hillary's fan club now in the event that she is disqualified and he needs their support for the Democratic party to win.
« Last Edit: July 13, 2016, 04:50:01 PM by TaintedAndDelish »

Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Donald Trump has selected his Veep:  Indiana Governor Michael Pence.

Some notable things about Pence:

1) He is anti-LGBT.  He signed the bill that gave businesses the right to deny service to LGBT people.
2) He is anti-women.  He signed the most restrictive bill against abortion in the nation.  Only one other state (North Dakota) has a provision that bans abortions sought for fetal anomaly.
3) He has compared the Supreme Court's ruling upholding the ACA to the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
4) As chairman of the Republican Study Committee in 2005, he backed a plan that cut funding to programs like school lunches, Medicaid, SCHIP (State Children's Health Insurance Protocol) and community health centers to 'offset' emergency funding for the Katrina disaster relief.

Online Cassandra LeMay

Plus, just to throw out, platform is not law.  Campaign promises get broken all the damn time in the name of political expediency, and if 'business as usual' Clinton is put into the executive's chair, you can bet that any initiatives like Bernie's are going to face an uphill battle.
In all fairness to politicians I would like to quote Otto von Bismarck: Otto von Bismarck “Politics is the art of the possible”. If promises are not kept it is not necessarily the fault of the one who made the promise. Now I am the first one to say that politicians should be more honest about this (as I have pointed out in the "Democracy..." thread here at PROC), but not every time a promise is broken it is because of expediency.

Plus, just to throw out, it is a good thing that party platforms are not law. If they were that would run contrary to the whole idea of democracy, that being that politicians represent the people who elected them. If party platforms were enforceable like contracts or laws, politicians could be forced to make decisions that run counter to the interests of their constituents. Granted, they might well make those decisions anyway, but at least they can not be forced to do so by a court of law just because some party leadership decided on something. if party platforms were legally binding it could be the end of democracy as we know it.
« Last Edit: July 15, 2016, 04:36:51 AM by Cassandra LeMay »

Offline Beguile's Mistress

  • Time flies like an arrow ~ Fruit flies like a banana ~ Elliquiy's Fair-E Godmother
  • Dame
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Jul 2009
  • Location: Faeleacanvald ~ The Steeler Nation ~ Home of Lord Stanley's Cup 2016 ~ She won't stay throwed! ~ 48\22-5\1\11-5\7
  • Gender: Female
  • Perpetual Notion Machine ~ 'What if...?'
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Donald Trump has selected his Veep:  Indiana Governor Michael Pence.

Some notable things about Pence:

1) He is anti-LGBT.  He signed the bill that gave businesses the right to deny service to LGBT people.
2) He is anti-women.  He signed the most restrictive bill against abortion in the nation.  Only one other state (North Dakota) has a provision that bans abortions sought for fetal anomaly.
3) He has compared the Supreme Court's ruling upholding the ACA to the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
4) As chairman of the Republican Study Committee in 2005, he backed a plan that cut funding to programs like school lunches, Medicaid, SCHIP (State Children's Health Insurance Protocol) and community health centers to 'offset' emergency funding for the Katrina disaster relief.

Trump is seriously working on ticking off everyone. 

Offline TheGlyphstone


Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
So many jokes.  So little time.

Offline Beguile's Mistress

  • Time flies like an arrow ~ Fruit flies like a banana ~ Elliquiy's Fair-E Godmother
  • Dame
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Jul 2009
  • Location: Faeleacanvald ~ The Steeler Nation ~ Home of Lord Stanley's Cup 2016 ~ She won't stay throwed! ~ 48\22-5\1\11-5\7
  • Gender: Female
  • Perpetual Notion Machine ~ 'What if...?'
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
TP - Really?  Really?  Sweet lord where is SNL when you need them.  All we have are reruns and we have to wait until Monday for the late night talk shows.  Thank you, Comcast.  I have On Demand.  Might get the monologues late but I'll get them all.

TRUMPENCE

Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
The TP aspect is the cleanest joke I can come up with, unless I start referencing outdated British coinage.

(I just want to know if Pence is consenting in that logo...)

Offline TheGlyphstone

So the RNC has begun. Is it really as much of a chaotic screwjob as some sources are implying? (and by some sources I mean Cracked and Cheezburger, so I'm not talking anything reliable here).

Online Cassandra LeMay

So the RNC has begun. Is it really as much of a chaotic screwjob as some sources are implying? (and by some sources I mean Cracked and Cheezburger, so I'm not talking anything reliable here).
I haven't watched any of it, but from what I read I wouldn't go nearly as far. My primary source is fivethirtyeight,com's coverage, for example: http://fivethirtyeight.com/live-blog/gop-convention-day-one/ (and a few more pieces on their politics page)

But, as fivethirtyeight's Nate Silver pointed out in that linked lifeblog, it may not matter much anyway:

Quote
To get a little inside-baseball here: one thing that makes it tough to cover the conventions is that our political staff isn’t experiencing them the way most Americans do. We’re watching every speech — some of us on C-SPAN, and some of us live from the convention hall.

Most people around the country, however, are seeing bits and pieces instead, halfway paying attention, and the networks are sometimes cutting away from the speeches to promote their talking heads. So maybe Michael Flynn’s speech wasn’t very good, but how many people saw it? Was it bad enough that people are going to be talking about it tomorrow? My guess is that they’ll remember a poised Melania, an angry Rudy, Trump coming out to “We Are The Champions,” and not a whole lot else.

Offline CuriousEyes

My understanding is that by design, Conventions are chaotic affairs under the best of circumstances.

They're also glorified pep rallies in many ways, as they try to drum up enthusiasm for a candidate. With someone as bombastic as Trump, you probably have to respond in kind.


Generally speaking, I meant to drop this tracker off. 538 has been one of my favorite sources of Election 2016 projections. Just been much more nuanced and less knee jerk than "Random Poll shows X with a lead!"

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=mobilebar

Offline ReijiTabibito

  • Gatecrasher
  • Lord
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Jun 2009
  • Location: Titanian Autonomous University, Gate Studies Dept.
  • Gender: Male
  • There cannot be another Fall.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 2
In all fairness to politicians I would like to quote Otto von Bismarck: Otto von Bismarck “Politics is the art of the possible”. If promises are not kept it is not necessarily the fault of the one who made the promise. Now I am the first one to say that politicians should be more honest about this (as I have pointed out in the "Democracy..." thread here at PROC), but not every time a promise is broken it is because of expediency.

I understand that people trying to reach the White House don't have all the information they need to be able to make accurate and always-true promises.  Example: a candidate promises that when they get into the office, they'll repair, let's say, all the dams in the country.  They get to the White House and find out that there isn't actually enough money in the budget.  So the promise goes unfilled while they're there.

And even when promises are kept, they don't necessarily turn out the way we want them to.  Obama rode into office on a promise of a universal healthcare system for all Americans.  Did we get Obamacare?  Yes, we did.  Was it the Obamacare we wanted?  No, to pretty much everyone involved.

So no, campaign promises are not broken every time simply because of political expediency, but I'm willing to be with the current crop of politicians, cases of where keeping a promise doesn't happen because of actual, real circumstances are in the vast minority.

Plus, just to throw out, it is a good thing that party platforms are not law. If they were that would run contrary to the whole idea of democracy, that being that politicians represent the people who elected them. If party platforms were enforceable like contracts or laws, politicians could be forced to make decisions that run counter to the interests of their constituents. Granted, they might well make those decisions anyway, but at least they can not be forced to do so by a court of law just because some party leadership decided on something. if party platforms were legally binding it could be the end of democracy as we know it.

The very fact that this statement can be made already portends problems for the future of democracy.  The whole idea of the party platform is that it is a series of statements revolving around the goals of the party's presidential candidate for the time they are in office.  The candidate should be riding in on the most popular (not the best, simply the most popular ideas) ideas, and those ideas should be reflected within the party platform.  Quite simply put, the platform is simply another aspect of the popularity contest that is democracy - the most popular candidate will have the most popular ideas, etc.

If the party leadership can wrest control of the platform - in effect, change the goals of their candidate away from the most popular ideas - then that represents a pathway for party leadership/insiders/elites to subvert the democratic process.  You pointed something else out - that there is absolutely nothing stopping a candidate from going against their platform, to make decisions that go against the best interests of their voters.  The problem there is that (in theory) what will happen the next time around is that the people won't vote for that candidate.  The only thing to be feared from having party platforms become legally binding is if the party laymen and the party leadership are at a total disconnect on their goals (which they are as of right now), or if portions of the party platform cannot be upheld for informational reasons.  Though, for that second one, I would think there should be a proviso in there about that.

Offline CuriousEyes

Unrelated, if you want a good chuckle...

https://m.

The current conspiracy theory is that some intern went rogue. There's an un-featured line that sounds an awful lot like a rickroll.

Offline TheGlyphstone

Interesting. I was seeing things like delegates from Colorado and Iowa walking out in protest. Colorado I can sort of see making sense, since the GOP just up and canceled their caucus, but was Iowa just whining because their preferred candidate, Cruz, wasn't going to get the nomination? FiveThirtyEight doesn't appear to mention that kerfluffle at all.

Offline CuriousEyes

A party platform is meant as a broadly representative view of the beliefs of a political party as a whole. Sometimes with generalized recommendations for a course of action, although sometimes its as simple as saying "We dont like X." It isn't (and shouldn't be) an immediate series of legislative measures to be enacted in conjunction with a given Presidential candidate. That would be absolute chaos.

Its just a generalization, really. Candidates can (and do) differ from the party platform based on any number of factors. But broadly you should be prepared as a candidate to at least lean loosely in the direction of a position, especially a hot button one.

Fun aside, here are some things the Republican party believes a Good Republican in 2016 should believe/support:

Cannabis is bad
Porn is a public health crisis
Gay marriage and adoption are wrong
That a wall should be built between the US and Mexico (no mention of Canada, I believe)
Back to the gays - that conversion therapy (being "turned straight") is viable and desirable
That abortion should be illegal in cases of rape and incest


Offline TaintedAndDelish

Unrelated, if you want a good chuckle...

The current conspiracy theory is that some intern went rogue. There's an un-featured line that sounds an awful lot like a rickroll.

The portions of of the speech that are in question are mostly cliché and general blather. Nothing of significant substance was repeated. As a potential first lady, she's going to say a lot of the same things that other potential first ladies would be expected to say and with the same level of formality. Similar words are going to be used simply because they are suitable for the speech and are fairly common. I really don't see this as a big issue, but rather as an attempt to smear Trump's wife.

Offline CuriousEyes

The portions of of the speech that are in question are mostly cliché and general blather. Nothing of significant substance was repeated. As a potential first lady, she's going to say a lot of the same things that other potential first ladies would be expected to say and with the same level of formality. Similar words are going to be used simply because they are suitable for the speech and are fairly common. I really don't see this as a big issue, but rather as an attempt to smear Trump's wife.

At the end of the day, the speechgate plagiarism drama is less important to me than just about any other part of the nutshow going on at the RNC. At its best its an amusing anecdote that suggests some systemic flaws in the Trump organization (such as a lack of sufficient professional speechwriters) that are concerning but not fresh news or likely to sway anyone's votes. Melania Trump (who didn't write the speech despite all the doubletalk on that point) doesn't personally deserve to be attacked for it - and HRC has said nothing on the subject accordingly. Most of what I have seen amounts to lighthearted humor.


But to me, judging the word choice, syntax and structure of the speech... yes, there was pretty blatant mosaic plagiarism at work.

Not saying that similar themes aren't touched on in speeches generally, but those speeches side-by-side are too similar for too long. Would you have been willing to turn that in to a college professor and not expect to get dinged?

Offline Beguile's Mistress

  • Time flies like an arrow ~ Fruit flies like a banana ~ Elliquiy's Fair-E Godmother
  • Dame
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Jul 2009
  • Location: Faeleacanvald ~ The Steeler Nation ~ Home of Lord Stanley's Cup 2016 ~ She won't stay throwed! ~ 48\22-5\1\11-5\7
  • Gender: Female
  • Perpetual Notion Machine ~ 'What if...?'
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
The portions of of the speech that are in question are mostly cliché and general blather. Nothing of significant substance was repeated. As a potential first lady, she's going to say a lot of the same things that other potential first ladies would be expected to say and with the same level of formality. Similar words are going to be used simply because they are suitable for the speech and are fairly common. I really don't see this as a big issue, but rather as an attempt to smear Trump's wife.


If the phrases has been few and far between and sprinkled throughout the speech it could be taken that way.  However, it looked like whole paragraphs were lifted from one speech and inserted into another and repeated verbatim with a few casual changes.  The words are powerful and worth quoting but to offer them as original thoughts is a touch naive.  Anyone with half a brain can see the connection and even a hack speech writer would have rewritten those sections to avoid even an appearance of repetition.  In the grand scheme of things it is minor but taking amid all of the other gaffs the T-P coalition is offering it is one more example of a poorly run campaign and the inability of the candidate to select a good supporting cast.  Maybe that is why he went bankrupt so many times.