Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate

[forummm]

But because the superdelegates haven't voted yet, and it's only their opinion at the convention that matters, you can't really count them. They all switched away from Clinton last time. That could easily happen again if she's indicted.

That is a fantasy.

That says much more about the Obama administration's corruption than it does about Hillary's lack of it.

I couldn't decide whether Cressida was continuing to be hyperbolic and loose with definitions of words or was commenting on the ability of the powerful to avoid the fate of the masses. My guess was the former. But if any random citizen had a dozen FBI agents investigating them for months, they would be indicted. They may not get convicted at trial, but there would have been enough there to indict (which is a very low threshold). Otherwise you don't put a dozen agents on the case. Normally I would think that politics would prevent her from getting indicted, but Obama really enjoys appointing Republicans to high-level positions (Treasury, Defense, FBI, SCOTUS, etc). His picking a Republican to be the director of the FBI may end up being Clinton's undoing. Comey could delay the indictment until after the convention and then here comes president Trump.

I still think it's most likely that Clinton will be the nominee. But that popular vote stat is bunk. It counts caucus votes as the same as primary votes. And they just aren't the same at all. And popular vote doesn't matter--it's delegates, and she is currently winning there. But because the superdelegates haven't voted yet, and it's only their opinion at the convention that matters, you can't really count them. They all switched away from Clinton last time. That could easily happen again if she's indicted.

Even without counting them, Clinton is very far ahead.

Not far enough ahead to win without the superdelegates. Which was my point. The superdelegates will decide the nomination. They could all decide to not give it to either candidate on the first ballot. Then on the second ballot, it could go to anyone (like Biden).

This was the tactic that people were trying to use against Trump. Except Trump was actually pretty far ahead. And it's actually possible to use it against Clinton. The party is unlikely to do it unless she gets indicted soon. Just pointing out that the superdelegates are still very powerful. And it's a dumb process to have unless something crazy happens (like an indictment).

[beltim]

But if any random citizen had a dozen FBI agents investigating them for months, they would be indicted. They may not get convicted at trial, but there would have been enough there to indict (which is a very low threshold). Otherwise you don't put a dozen agents on the case.

Do you have any evidence at all to support this assertion? 

[GuitarStv]

But if any random citizen had a dozen FBI agents investigating them for months, they would be indicted. They may not get convicted at trial, but there would have been enough there to indict (which is a very low threshold). Otherwise you don't put a dozen agents on the case.

Do you have any evidence at all to support this assertion?

Well, if it's up to a grand jury . . . 99.9% of the time they will choose to indict you.  https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/11/24/the-single-chart-that-shows-that-grand-juries-indict-99-99-percent-of-the-time/

[beltim]

But if any random citizen had a dozen FBI agents investigating them for months, they would be indicted. They may not get convicted at trial, but there would have been enough there to indict (which is a very low threshold). Otherwise you don't put a dozen agents on the case.

Do you have any evidence at all to support this assertion?

Well, if it's up to a grand jury . . . 99.9% of the time they will choose to indict you.  https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/11/24/the-single-chart-that-shows-that-grand-juries-indict-99-99-percent-of-the-time/

Yeah, that's not relevant.  FBI agents investigate, then hand off to a prosecutor.  The questions are what percentage of investigations get passed to a prosecutor, and in what percentage of those cases does the prosecutor decide to file charges?

[Cressida]

But because the superdelegates haven't voted yet, and it's only their opinion at the convention that matters, you can't really count them. They all switched away from Clinton last time. That could easily happen again if she's indicted.

That is a fantasy.

That says much more about the Obama administration's corruption than it does about Hillary's lack of it.

I couldn't decide whether Cressida was continuing to be hyperbolic and loose with definitions of words [...]

Fantasy = "the faculty or activity of imagining things, especially things that are impossible or improbable." I'd say the word is applicable as defined.

[forummm]

But because the superdelegates haven't voted yet, and it's only their opinion at the convention that matters, you can't really count them. They all switched away from Clinton last time. That could easily happen again if she's indicted.

That is a fantasy.

That says much more about the Obama administration's corruption than it does about Hillary's lack of it.

I couldn't decide whether Cressida was continuing to be hyperbolic and loose with definitions of words [...]

Fantasy = "the faculty or activity of imagining things, especially things that are impossible or improbable." I'd say the word is applicable as defined.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/fbi-director-questions-hillary-clintons-description-fbi-email/story?id=39048269

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/may/12/fbis-investigation-hillary-clintons-emails-recap/

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/fed-source-about-12-fbi-agents-working-clinton-email-inquiry-n548026

If someone is under active investigation by the FBI with about a dozen agents working on the case, it's not "fantasy" to imagine that they could be indicted. That's what investigations often lead to.

Again, I don't know if she actually broke any law (although she was certainly incredibly and shockingly foolish to setup her own server). And I have no personal interest in the indictment happening. And I will even be voting for her if she's the nominee vs Trump. But facts are facts. And an indictment is possible. And an indictment would be a political nightmare if she's the nominee.

[Cressida]

But because the superdelegates haven't voted yet, and it's only their opinion at the convention that matters, you can't really count them. They all switched away from Clinton last time. That could easily happen again if she's indicted.

That is a fantasy.

That says much more about the Obama administration's corruption than it does about Hillary's lack of it.

I couldn't decide whether Cressida was continuing to be hyperbolic and loose with definitions of words [...]

Fantasy = "the faculty or activity of imagining things, especially things that are impossible or improbable." I'd say the word is applicable as defined.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/fbi-director-questions-hillary-clintons-description-fbi-email/story?id=39048269

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/may/12/fbis-investigation-hillary-clintons-emails-recap/

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/fed-source-about-12-fbi-agents-working-clinton-email-inquiry-n548026

If someone is under active investigation by the FBI with about a dozen agents working on the case, it's not "fantasy" to imagine that they could be indicted. That's what investigations often lead to.

Again, I don't know if she actually broke any law (although she was certainly incredibly and shockingly foolish to setup her own server). And I have no personal interest in the indictment happening. And I will even be voting for her if she's the nominee vs Trump. But facts are facts. And an indictment is possible. And an indictment would be a political nightmare if she's the nominee.

OK, so those are some links from network news that make no predictions about whether Clinton will be indicted. Here's one from a law professor that argues at length that she will not:

http://prospect.org/article/why-hillary-wont-be-indicted-and-shouldnt-be-objective-legal-analysis

It's not going to happen.

[hoping2retire35]

VP PICKS

Trump/Sessions. why? it sounds good but more importantly its an old white southern gentleman; the opposite of what people think he will do. it definately will not be a latino or woman because that would be like trump pandering, which he will not do with his pick. Sessions was his first and for a long time his only Senate endorsor. he has said he wanted an experienced politician and sessions seems like he will keep trump between the ditches in case people are worried about that.

Clinton/Castro. why? because he checks the boxes for democrats and clinton does not want an all woman ticket, too much of a woman card vote. he is also young and good looking, to help swing back those bernie bro groupies. but I think will help national democrats build a legacy. young latino who will be the new party favorite and he is a texan and that is their big prize in the coming decades.

[Steve Rogers]

Does anyone think this holds any water? Personally for me as a younger voter it is just another strike against Clinton as a potential liberal/Democratic voter.

 http://www.mediaite.com/tv/mika-brzezinski-calls-on-debbie-wasserman-schultz-to-resign/

[Malaysia41]

VP PICKS

Trump/Sessions. why? it sounds good but more importantly its an old white southern gentleman; the opposite of what people think he will do. it definately will not be a latino or woman because that would be like trump pandering, which he will not do with his pick. Sessions was his first and for a long time his only Senate endorsor. he has said he wanted an experienced politician and sessions seems like he will keep trump between the ditches in case people are worried about that.

Clinton/Castro. why? because he checks the boxes for democrats and clinton does not want an all woman ticket, too much of a woman card vote. he is also young and good looking, to help swing back those bernie bro groupies. but I think will help national democrats build a legacy. young latino who will be the new party favorite and he is a texan and that is their big prize in the coming decades.

Not all Bernie supporters are 'bernie bro groupies.' I'm weary of this stupid, patronizing characterization. Please, just ... stop.

[Gin1984]

VP PICKS

Trump/Sessions. why? it sounds good but more importantly its an old white southern gentleman; the opposite of what people think he will do. it definately will not be a latino or woman because that would be like trump pandering, which he will not do with his pick. Sessions was his first and for a long time his only Senate endorsor. he has said he wanted an experienced politician and sessions seems like he will keep trump between the ditches in case people are worried about that.

Clinton/Castro. why? because he checks the boxes for democrats and clinton does not want an all woman ticket, too much of a woman card vote. he is also young and good looking, to help swing back those bernie bro groupies. but I think will help national democrats build a legacy. young latino who will be the new party favorite and he is a texan and that is their big prize in the coming decades.

Not all Bernie supporters are 'bernie bro groupies.' I'm weary of this stupid, patronizing characterization. Please, just ... stop.

Not all but many of them are and they are the ones speaking up.  When you are a part of a group with a majority or even vocal minority of a certain type you don't get to whine that people paint you with the same brush.  Tell them to stop acting in that manner, then people will stop using that expression.  I'm tired of Bernie bro behavior.

[hoping2retire35]

Bernie bros and the groupies are just the perception, i think Sander's real popularity is that he is promising free bread, and that appeals to anyone who thinks they have a smaller share than they deserve.

[forummm]

VP PICKS

Trump/Sessions. why? it sounds good but more importantly its an old white southern gentleman; the opposite of what people think he will do. it definately will not be a latino or woman because that would be like trump pandering, which he will not do with his pick. Sessions was his first and for a long time his only Senate endorsor. he has said he wanted an experienced politician and sessions seems like he will keep trump between the ditches in case people are worried about that.

Clinton/Castro. why? because he checks the boxes for democrats and clinton does not want an all woman ticket, too much of a woman card vote. he is also young and good looking, to help swing back those bernie bro groupies. but I think will help national democrats build a legacy. young latino who will be the new party favorite and he is a texan and that is their big prize in the coming decades.

Not all Bernie supporters are 'bernie bro groupies.' I'm weary of this stupid, patronizing characterization. Please, just ... stop.

Not all but many of them are and they are the ones speaking up.  When you are a part of a group with a majority or even vocal minority of a certain type you don't get to whine that people paint you with the same brush.  Tell them to stop acting in that manner, then people will stop using that expression.  I'm tired of Bernie bro behavior.

Can you point to any examples? I've literally never seen any and am interested in seeing what you are talking about.

I have seen claims that Bernie/supporters were "sexist". But when I looked into it, the actual behavior was nothing of the kind. I find it frustrating that Clinton surrogates would cry wolf like that against the most progressive senator in the country when they have a real misogynist running in the general. Their credibility of what's sexist is now decreased somewhat.

[Gin1984]

VP PICKS

Trump/Sessions. why? it sounds good but more importantly its an old white southern gentleman; the opposite of what people think he will do. it definately will not be a latino or woman because that would be like trump pandering, which he will not do with his pick. Sessions was his first and for a long time his only Senate endorsor. he has said he wanted an experienced politician and sessions seems like he will keep trump between the ditches in case people are worried about that.

Clinton/Castro. why? because he checks the boxes for democrats and clinton does not want an all woman ticket, too much of a woman card vote. he is also young and good looking, to help swing back those bernie bro groupies. but I think will help national democrats build a legacy. young latino who will be the new party favorite and he is a texan and that is their big prize in the coming decades.

Not all Bernie supporters are 'bernie bro groupies.' I'm weary of this stupid, patronizing characterization. Please, just ... stop.

Not all but many of them are and they are the ones speaking up.  When you are a part of a group with a majority or even vocal minority of a certain type you don't get to whine that people paint you with the same brush.  Tell them to stop acting in that manner, then people will stop using that expression.  I'm tired of Bernie bro behavior.

Can you point to any examples? I've literally never seen any and am interested in seeing what you are talking about.

I have seen claims that Bernie/supporters were "sexist". But when I looked into it, the actual behavior was nothing of the kind. I find it frustrating that Clinton surrogates would cry wolf like that against the most progressive senator in the country when they have a real misogynist running in the general. Their credibility of what's sexist is now decreased somewhat.

Let me see if I can figure out how to screen shot and block names from my facebook and I can post ones from my own page from when I was trying decide between Sanders and Clinton.  I don't think Sanders is a misogynist, I think many of his supporters are.  In fact, didn't Sanders address that?  Let me check...Yes here it is:
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2016/02/07/3746988/bernie-sanders-tells-berniebros-to-knock-it-off-we-dont-want-that-crap/
but now he is not standing up which does tell me something about him:
http://www.vox.com/2016/5/18/11700510/sanders-harassment-supporters-sexism and http://thedailybanter.com/2016/05/bernie-sanders-defiantly-defends-supporters/
That said, he has always been an activist but his activism has focused on poverty which often coincides with women's rights groups' work but not always.  He has made a mistake many allies seem to which is that his concerns now are the ONLY valid concerns (or at least he comes off that way).  If we only focused on HIS issue then women would be 100% better.  No.  Yes some women would improvement but there are other parts that he ignores that IMO would be just as helpful and it seems like he finds those issues to be irrelevant which I personally have an issue with.   

[forummm]

VP PICKS

Trump/Sessions. why? it sounds good but more importantly its an old white southern gentleman; the opposite of what people think he will do. it definately will not be a latino or woman because that would be like trump pandering, which he will not do with his pick. Sessions was his first and for a long time his only Senate endorsor. he has said he wanted an experienced politician and sessions seems like he will keep trump between the ditches in case people are worried about that.

Clinton/Castro. why? because he checks the boxes for democrats and clinton does not want an all woman ticket, too much of a woman card vote. he is also young and good looking, to help swing back those bernie bro groupies. but I think will help national democrats build a legacy. young latino who will be the new party favorite and he is a texan and that is their big prize in the coming decades.

Not all Bernie supporters are 'bernie bro groupies.' I'm weary of this stupid, patronizing characterization. Please, just ... stop.

Not all but many of them are and they are the ones speaking up.  When you are a part of a group with a majority or even vocal minority of a certain type you don't get to whine that people paint you with the same brush.  Tell them to stop acting in that manner, then people will stop using that expression.  I'm tired of Bernie bro behavior.

Can you point to any examples? I've literally never seen any and am interested in seeing what you are talking about.

I have seen claims that Bernie/supporters were "sexist". But when I looked into it, the actual behavior was nothing of the kind. I find it frustrating that Clinton surrogates would cry wolf like that against the most progressive senator in the country when they have a real misogynist running in the general. Their credibility of what's sexist is now decreased somewhat.

Let me see if I can figure out how to screen shot and block names from my facebook and I can post ones from my own page from when I was trying decide between Sanders and Clinton.  I don't think Sanders is a misogynist, I think many of his supporters are.  In fact, didn't Sanders address that?  Let me check...Yes here it is:
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2016/02/07/3746988/bernie-sanders-tells-berniebros-to-knock-it-off-we-dont-want-that-crap/
but now he is not standing up which does tell me something about him:
http://www.vox.com/2016/5/18/11700510/sanders-harassment-supporters-sexism and http://thedailybanter.com/2016/05/bernie-sanders-defiantly-defends-supporters/
That said, he has always been an activist but his activism has focused on poverty which often coincides with women's rights groups' work but not always.  He has made a mistake many allies seem to which is that his concerns now are the ONLY valid concerns (or at least he comes off that way).  If we only focused on HIS issue then women would be 100% better.  No.  Yes some women would improvement but there are other parts that he ignores that IMO would be just as helpful and it seems like he finds those issues to be irrelevant which I personally have an issue with.   

The "BernieBros" thing was started by Clinton's campaign and has been helpfully amplified by all the pro-Clinton media (which is most of the non-conservative outlets at this point). I have no idea what portion of his supporters are misogynist (or any other candidate's either). But he literally said he didn't want those people to support him. I'm not sure what more he could do.

Regarding the whole Nevada issue, yes there were a lot of (justifiably) angry people. But show me one video of a chair being thrown. That claim has been reported everywhere, but even though the room was full of Clinton supporters (half the delegates and most party officials), police, and the news media, there strangely isn't video of that. There was one guy who picked up a chair (NOT acceptable) but then other people quickly pulled it back down (as they should). It's been interesting to see how excited the media was to go along with the Democratic Party establishment and blow it out of proportion. Here's Sander's statement on how the violence is not OK:

Our campaign has held giant rallies all across this country, including in high-crime areas, and there have been zero reports of violence. Our campaign of course believes in non-violent change and it goes without saying that I condemn any and all forms of violence, including the personal harassment of individuals.

Maybe not the most eloquent. But seems like he was pretty clear.

[Gin1984]

VP PICKS

Trump/Sessions. why? it sounds good but more importantly its an old white southern gentleman; the opposite of what people think he will do. it definately will not be a latino or woman because that would be like trump pandering, which he will not do with his pick. Sessions was his first and for a long time his only Senate endorsor. he has said he wanted an experienced politician and sessions seems like he will keep trump between the ditches in case people are worried about that.

Clinton/Castro. why? because he checks the boxes for democrats and clinton does not want an all woman ticket, too much of a woman card vote. he is also young and good looking, to help swing back those bernie bro groupies. but I think will help national democrats build a legacy. young latino who will be the new party favorite and he is a texan and that is their big prize in the coming decades.

Not all Bernie supporters are 'bernie bro groupies.' I'm weary of this stupid, patronizing characterization. Please, just ... stop.

Not all but many of them are and they are the ones speaking up.  When you are a part of a group with a majority or even vocal minority of a certain type you don't get to whine that people paint you with the same brush.  Tell them to stop acting in that manner, then people will stop using that expression.  I'm tired of Bernie bro behavior.

Can you point to any examples? I've literally never seen any and am interested in seeing what you are talking about.

I have seen claims that Bernie/supporters were "sexist". But when I looked into it, the actual behavior was nothing of the kind. I find it frustrating that Clinton surrogates would cry wolf like that against the most progressive senator in the country when they have a real misogynist running in the general. Their credibility of what's sexist is now decreased somewhat.

Let me see if I can figure out how to screen shot and block names from my facebook and I can post ones from my own page from when I was trying decide between Sanders and Clinton.  I don't think Sanders is a misogynist, I think many of his supporters are.  In fact, didn't Sanders address that?  Let me check...Yes here it is:
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2016/02/07/3746988/bernie-sanders-tells-berniebros-to-knock-it-off-we-dont-want-that-crap/
but now he is not standing up which does tell me something about him:
http://www.vox.com/2016/5/18/11700510/sanders-harassment-supporters-sexism and http://thedailybanter.com/2016/05/bernie-sanders-defiantly-defends-supporters/
That said, he has always been an activist but his activism has focused on poverty which often coincides with women's rights groups' work but not always.  He has made a mistake many allies seem to which is that his concerns now are the ONLY valid concerns (or at least he comes off that way).  If we only focused on HIS issue then women would be 100% better.  No.  Yes some women would improvement but there are other parts that he ignores that IMO would be just as helpful and it seems like he finds those issues to be irrelevant which I personally have an issue with.   

The "BernieBros" thing was started by Clinton's campaign and has been helpfully amplified by all the pro-Clinton media (which is most of the non-conservative outlets at this point). I have no idea what portion of his supporters are misogynist (or any other candidate's either). But he literally said he didn't want those people to support him. I'm not sure what more he could do.

Regarding the whole Nevada issue, yes there were a lot of (justifiably) angry people. But show me one video of a chair being thrown. That claim has been reported everywhere, but even though the room was full of Clinton supporters (half the delegates and most party officials), police, and the news media, there strangely isn't video of that. There was one guy who picked up a chair (NOT acceptable) but then other people quickly pulled it back down (as they should). It's been interesting to see how excited the media was to go along with the Democratic Party establishment and blow it out of proportion. Here's Sander's statement on how the violence is not OK:

Our campaign has held giant rallies all across this country, including in high-crime areas, and there have been zero reports of violence. Our campaign of course believes in non-violent change and it goes without saying that I condemn any and all forms of violence, including the personal harassment of individuals.

Maybe not the most eloquent. But seems like he was pretty clear.

I can't find anything online to support the statement that BernieBros" thing was started by Clinton in fact I think it was started by a reporter.  And frankly, even if Clinton's campaign used the term to describe a certain group within Sander's supporter their behavior is an issue.  And I don't think you can blow out of proportion stalking/doxxing women because you disagree with their political views, or multiple people leaving voice mails like:
"MALE CALLER: Hi Roberta Lange. This is a citizen of the United States of America and I just wanted to let you know that I think people like you should be hung in a public execution to show this world that we won’t stand for this sort of corruption. I don’t know what kind of money they are paying to you, but I don’t know how you sleep at night. You are a sick, twisted piece of shit and I hope you burn for this! You can return my call at 619-838-9222. I’d love to go into further detail with you about this, though I am sure you don’t have courage to do so. You cowardless bitch, running off the stage! I hope people find you."
How exactly can you blow that out of proportion?  And honestly, I have not check for video because I know Senator Boxer and I trust her word. I also trust that if she felt unsafe, it was because she has been at rallies that have gone bad and dealt. 
Sanders could have responded on stage when his supporter who was introducing him call Clinton a whore.  He could have spoken up again after multiple accounts of harassment including to children at Clinton events by those who said they were there to support him.
But you asked me to examples of sexism and of the bernie bro, the behavior is an example.  You may be fine with downplaying it, I'm not.  Btw, even the bbc is writing about it: http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-35422316

[forummm]

To the extent that it's happening, he has denounced the behavior repeatedly. Told them to stop. Told them not to support him. Not sure what more he can do.

Boxer is a politician and a Clinton supporter. I know her too and I've seen her shade the truth often. Maybe she did feel unsafe. But she also taunted the crowd, so maybe she felt safe enough to do that while still unsafe.

[Jeremy E.]

VP PICKS

Trump/Sessions. why? it sounds good but more importantly its an old white southern gentleman; the opposite of what people think he will do. it definately will not be a latino or woman because that would be like trump pandering, which he will not do with his pick. Sessions was his first and for a long time his only Senate endorsor. he has said he wanted an experienced politician and sessions seems like he will keep trump between the ditches in case people are worried about that.

Clinton/Castro. why? because he checks the boxes for democrats and clinton does not want an all woman ticket, too much of a woman card vote. he is also young and good looking, to help swing back those bernie bro groupies. but I think will help national democrats build a legacy. young latino who will be the new party favorite and he is a texan and that is their big prize in the coming decades.

For Trumps VP I'm guessing Joni Ernst, maybe Newt Gingrich
For Clintons VP I'm guessing probably Tim Kaine, but it could be Castro, Tom Perez, or even Sanders

[Cressida]

To the extent that it's happening, he has denounced the behavior repeatedly. Told them to stop. Told them not to support him. Not sure what more he can do.

Sanders criticized the sexist behavior of his supporters exactly once, on February 7. If you can find another example of him mentioning sexism and his supporters in the same statement, I'll retract the previous sentence.

Things don't become true just because you say them.

[ShoulderThingThatGoesUp]

Castro is a ridiculous choice for VP. He has very little real experience - being mayor of San Antonio is mostly a ceremonial job.

A fun list of warmongers for Hillary. Trump just isn't bloodthirsty and irresponsible enough for them.

[forummm]

To the extent that it's happening, he has denounced the behavior repeatedly. Told them to stop. Told them not to support him. Not sure what more he can do.

Sanders criticized the sexist behavior of his supporters exactly once, on February 7. If you can find another example of him mentioning sexism and his supporters in the same statement, I'll retract the previous sentence.

Things don't become true just because you say them.

I don't track his statements so I don't know how many times he's remarked on it. I saw him make one on TV. And then there's the statement he just released that I quoted above. It doesn't say the word "sexist", but that's included in "I condemn any and all forms of violence, including the personal harassment of individuals".

[forummm]

Well, the polling is continuing to be alarming for the more likely race.

Last 4 polls for the general, Clinton vs Trump: Clinton +2, Clinton +6, Trump +3, Trump +5

Last 4 polls for the general, Sanders vs Trump: Sanders +16, Sanders +11, Sanders +4, Sanders +13

Swing states
NH TvC C+2
NH TvS S+16
AZ TvC T+4
AZ TvS S+1
OH TvC T+4
OH TvS S+2
PA TvC C+1
PA TvS S+6

Sanders is even up +5 in Georgia! That race would be a landslide.

[ShoulderThingThatGoesUp]

It's amazing what horrible candidates and people Clinton and Trump both are.

[GuitarStv]

Democracy ensures that the people get the government they deserve.

[Cressida]

To the extent that it's happening, he has denounced the behavior repeatedly.

I don't track his statements so I don't know how many times he's remarked on it.

OK then.

[forummm]

Democracy ensures that the people get the government they deserve.

Yes and no. You can really only run for president if you 1) have some kind of national recognition, and 2) you can attract hundreds of millions of dollars to back you. Those are 2 very high barriers to entry. And the kinds of people who can get over those barriers are usually not that reflective of what typical people want. Studies show that general public opinion on issues has essentially no effect on what the federal government does. What does matter is what the opinion of the donor class is. That has a strong correlation with government action.

To the extent that it's happening, he has denounced the behavior repeatedly.

I don't track his statements so I don't know how many times he's remarked on it.

OK then.

By "the behavior" I meant negative and undesirable behavior generally (which was the context of the conversation). Not specifically sexism. But I also did show you at least 2 statements where he denounced it.

[Jeremy E.]

Well, the polling is continuing to be alarming for the more likely race.

Last 4 polls for the general, Clinton vs Trump: Clinton +2, Clinton +6, Trump +3, Trump +5

Last 4 polls for the general, Sanders vs Trump: Sanders +16, Sanders +11, Sanders +4, Sanders +13

Swing states
NH TvC C+2
NH TvS S+16
AZ TvC T+4
AZ TvS S+1
OH TvC T+4
OH TvS S+2
PA TvC C+1
PA TvS S+6

Sanders is even up +5 in Georgia! That race would be a landslide.

Why are we still talking about Sanders? It's Clinton vs Trump

Edit:
And speaking of Trump vs Clinton,
In Ohio Clinton is beating Trump,
In Florida Clinton is beating Trump,
In Virginia Clinton is beating Trump,
In Pennsylvania Clinton is beating Trump,
In North Carolina Clinton is beating Trump,
Those are all the biggest most important swing states and Clinton is winning in all of them, a lot can happen between now and the election but nothing currently shows indication of Trump doing well.
Clinton will take CA, WA, OR, MN, IL, MI, NY, DC, MD, DE, NJ, VT, CT, MA, ME with ease as they are generally democrat states, and she will likely take the mentioned states above as well, giving her way more than the 270 needed. It would require Clinton to do something(or to have done something) very stupid to lose her gigantic lead. I think she takes the presidency with ease.

[Cressida]

By "the behavior" I meant negative and undesirable behavior generally (which was the context of the conversation). Not specifically sexism. But I also did show you at least 2 statements where he denounced it.

[sigh]

Here's the "context":

But you asked me to examples of sexism and of the bernie bro, the behavior is an example.  You may be fine with downplaying it, I'm not.

To the extent that it's happening, he has denounced the behavior repeatedly. Told them to stop. Told them not to support him. Not sure what more he can do.

You know, you *could* just admit that you said something incorrect.

[edit: clarity]

[hoping2retire35]

Well, the polling is continuing to be alarming for the more likely race.

Last 4 polls for the general, Clinton vs Trump: Clinton +2, Clinton +6, Trump +3, Trump +5

Last 4 polls for the general, Sanders vs Trump: Sanders +16, Sanders +11, Sanders +4, Sanders +13

Swing states
NH TvC C+2
NH TvS S+16
AZ TvC T+4
AZ TvS S+1
OH TvC T+4
OH TvS S+2
PA TvC C+1
PA TvS S+6

Sanders is even up +5 in Georgia! That race would be a landslide.

Why are we still talking about Sanders? It's Clinton vs Trump

Edit:
And speaking of Trump vs Clinton,
In Ohio Clinton is beating Trump,
In Florida Clinton is beating Trump,
In Virginia Clinton is beating Trump,
In Pennsylvania Clinton is beating Trump,
In North Carolina Clinton is beating Trump,
Those are all the biggest most important swing states and Clinton is winning in all of them, a lot can happen between now and the election but nothing currently shows indication of Trump doing well.
Clinton will take CA, WA, OR, MN, IL, MI, NY, DC, MD, DE, NJ, VT, CT, MA, ME with ease as they are generally democrat states, and she will likely take the mentioned states above as well, giving her way more than the 270 needed. It would require Clinton to do something(or to have done something) very stupid to lose her gigantic lead. I think she takes the presidency with ease.

CLINTON NEEDS HIS SUPPORT AND AS LONG AS HE REMAINS POPULAR, SHE NEEDS HIS SUPPORT EVEN MORE.

[forummm]

By "the behavior" I meant negative and undesirable behavior generally (which was the context of the conversation). Not specifically sexism. But I also did show you at least 2 statements where he denounced it.

[sigh]

Here's the "context":

But you asked me to examples of sexism and of the bernie bro, the behavior is an example.  You may be fine with downplaying it, I'm not.

To the extent that it's happening, he has denounced the behavior repeatedly. Told them to stop. Told them not to support him. Not sure what more he can do.

You know, you *could* just admit that you said something incorrect.

[edit: clarity]

I do when I make a mistake. I was replying to a paragraph about many kinds of unacceptable behavior (sexist-oriented remarks, perceived threat of violence generally, harassment, trolling, etc), and that was my intent to respond broadly to all those things (which did include 2 separate statements from Sanders that I felt also addressed the sexism issue). You may have focused on something specific in Gin's paragraph or read it a different way. You may disagree with the interpretation of what Sanders meant by being against "all forms of violence including the harassment of individuals". Your choice. I've explained a couple times what I see in it. You can disagree. Not sure why this is an issue.

But it's an interesting comment from someone who wouldn't admit that something that is entirely possible (even if there's only a 10% chance to make up a number) is not a fantasy.

[Cressida]

[blah blah]

yeah, OK dude. I think the record speaks for itself here. I don't feel a need to rewrite history.

[Jeremy E.]

Well, the polling is continuing to be alarming for the more likely race.

Last 4 polls for the general, Clinton vs Trump: Clinton +2, Clinton +6, Trump +3, Trump +5

Last 4 polls for the general, Sanders vs Trump: Sanders +16, Sanders +11, Sanders +4, Sanders +13

Swing states
NH TvC C+2
NH TvS S+16
AZ TvC T+4
AZ TvS S+1
OH TvC T+4
OH TvS S+2
PA TvC C+1
PA TvS S+6

Sanders is even up +5 in Georgia! That race would be a landslide.

Why are we still talking about Sanders? It's Clinton vs Trump

Edit:
And speaking of Trump vs Clinton,
In Ohio Clinton is beating Trump,
In Florida Clinton is beating Trump,
In Virginia Clinton is beating Trump,
In Pennsylvania Clinton is beating Trump,
In North Carolina Clinton is beating Trump,
Those are all the biggest most important swing states and Clinton is winning in all of them, a lot can happen between now and the election but nothing currently shows indication of Trump doing well.
Clinton will take CA, WA, OR, MN, IL, MI, NY, DC, MD, DE, NJ, VT, CT, MA, ME with ease as they are generally democrat states, and she will likely take the mentioned states above as well, giving her way more than the 270 needed. It would require Clinton to do something(or to have done something) very stupid to lose her gigantic lead. I think she takes the presidency with ease.

CLINTON NEEDS HIS SUPPORT AND AS LONG AS HE REMAINS POPULAR, SHE NEEDS HIS SUPPORT EVEN MORE.

According to the polls, she doesn't need his support. Caps lock doesn't make false statements true.

[RangerOne]

We should at best be at least luke warm about the narrow margins by which Clinton is polling better than Trump...

Its Donald fucking Trump. Even most of the people saying they will vote for him think he is an ass. This man is such a wildly polarizing figure he should be getting destroyed in the polls. Instead he swept the GOP nom, and Clinton's campaign and the media better get their heads out of their asses and start figuring out why Trump is polling so closely if this is supposed to be an easy win.

According to current polls only about 1/4 of current Sanders supporters say they wont vote for Clinton. I suspect that number will shrink as we keep hearing Trump talk...

More likely is that those completely put off the bullshit democratic stunts will simply either not vote, or vote 3rd party and become inconsequential. Meanwhile those that come out to vote in the general election will barely remember there even was a primary and will simply vote democratic.

I don't believe for a second Hillary will become more progressive in any meaningful way. Maybe she will drum up some bullshit social liberal program to burn some more money and appease young people, but she will stay loyal to the her legacy, hear donors and party first and foremost, none of whom give a shit about any of Sanders pie in the sky socialist policies.

[Northwestie]

I don't believe for a second Hillary will become more progressive in any meaningful way. Maybe she will drum up some bullshit social liberal program to burn some more money and appease young people, but she will stay loyal to the her legacy, hear donors and party first and foremost, none of whom give a shit about any of Sanders pie in the sky socialist policies.

This is it in a nutshell.   

I actually was listening to Bernie early in the campaign but I just got turned off by the shrillness of the campaign and no roadmap of how to get from A to Z for any of his wide-ranging programs.  And then the whinning about the process made me tune him out.

[Malaysia41]

We should at best be at least luke warm about the narrow margins by which Clinton is polling better than Trump...

Its Donald fucking Trump. Even most of the people saying they will vote for him think he is an ass. This man is such a wildly polarizing figure he should be getting destroyed in the polls. Instead he swept the GOP nom, and Clinton's campaign and the media better get their heads out of their asses and start figuring out why Trump is polling so closely if this is supposed to be an easy win.

Have you seen HRC's website? It looks like an advertisement for Trump. It has "LOVE TRUMP" plastered all over the banner. A pop up talks about a Trump presidency. All the reasons FOR voting for her are buried on sub-sites, on the issues site, and then I have to push down to each issue individually. Just awful. Her campaign team, at least the online campaign team, is face-planting. Also, Trump's playing a completely different game - online, on the stump, in the media. Truth and facts and experience don't matter in the game he's defined. She's getting worked over. Yeah she'd better step up her game. Her campaign, at least to the degree I see it, is just ... incompetent. Not a great quality for a presidential candidate.

[ShoulderThingThatGoesUp]

Now it's being stated very clearly: Clinton violated the email rules set by the Federal Records Act.

What should happen to people who violate the law?

Maybe Trump could get indicted for the fraudulent Trump University and Clinton could get indicted for hurting national security and the whole farce would be laid bare.

[Gin1984]

Now it's being stated very clearly: Clinton violated the email rules set by the Federal Records Act.

What should happen to people who violate the law?

Maybe Trump could get indicted for the fraudulent Trump University and Clinton could get indicted for hurting national security and the whole farce would be laid bare.

That is not what the link stated.  Rules and LAW are very different.

[ShoulderThingThatGoesUp]

Now it's being stated very clearly: Clinton violated the email rules set by the Federal Records Act.

What should happen to people who violate the law?

Maybe Trump could get indicted for the fraudulent Trump University and Clinton could get indicted for hurting national security and the whole farce would be laid bare.

That is not what the link stated.  Rules and LAW are very different.

So nothing happens to people who violate rules made under the FRA?

[nereo]

Now it's being stated very clearly: Clinton violated the email rules set by the Federal Records Act.

To be fair the report has indicated that compliance has been poor across all five of the previous secretary of states, and was particularly critical of Colin Powell (GW Bush). (fair to assume email wasn't that big of a deal back when Reagan was President)

I was also a bit shocked to read that, according to current standards, Clinton "Should have printed and saved her emails during her four years in office.."   The report continues to mention the need for federal agencies to adapt “decades-old record-keeping practices to the email-dominated modern era.”
Printing?  Seriously?  ~60,000 email threads over 4 years?  No wonder compliance is so poor...

[nereo]

IN keeping with the title of this thread:

 Trump's latest twittering:
"The protesters in New Mexico were thugs who were flying the Mexican Flag.  The rally inside was big and beautiful, but outside, criminals!"

He's still shamelessly linking Mexicans and immigrants to being criminals.

[infogoon]

The most ironic part of the whole Clinton email furor is that information security in government departments is widely known to be pretty terrible, outside of the DoD; they have a top-heavy bureaucracy that's obsessed with meeting out-of-date standards, and not nearly enough actual security practitioners to implement anything useful. It's entirely possible that her dodgy homebrew email solution was both complete crap and still not worse than the official system.

[ShoulderThingThatGoesUp]

IN keeping with the title of this thread:

 Trump's latest twittering:
"The protesters in New Mexico were thugs who were flying the Mexican Flag.  The rally inside was big and beautiful, but outside, criminals!"

He's still shamelessly linking Mexicans and immigrants to being criminals.

What part of that statement isn't true? The protesters outside were flying Mexican flags, and clearly some criminal acts went down. Doesn't make some other things Trump has said right, but holding signs like "Make America Mexico Again" (think I saw that in pictures of the California anti-Trump protests that got a little riot-y) isn't a great look.

[nereo]

IN keeping with the title of this thread:

 Trump's latest twittering:
"The protesters in New Mexico were thugs who were flying the Mexican Flag.  The rally inside was big and beautiful, but outside, criminals!"

He's still shamelessly linking Mexicans and immigrants to being criminals.

What part of that statement isn't true? The protesters outside were flying Mexican flags, and clearly some criminal acts went down. Doesn't make some other things Trump has said right, but holding signs like "Make America Mexico Again" (think I saw that in pictures of the California anti-Trump protests that got a little riot-y) isn't a great look.

It's the linkage between Mexicans and criminals that I object to.  He's calling people waving the Mexican flag "thugs."  Saying some protestors turned violent may be fair.  Linking those violent protesters with being Mexican is not, unless there is amble evidence.  To me it's just a clear shot at stirring up racism.  When I watch the video what I see is mostly white people.

From what I have read on CNN there were no arrests made outside the rally, and no indication that Mexicans were disproportionately involved with criminal activity.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/24/politics/donald-trump-albuquerque-protesters-police/

[forummm]

That is not what the link stated.  Rules and LAW are very different.

Not really. Rules are law. Congress passes a bill and that usually requires the administrative branch to conduct a rulemaking to interpret what Congress wanted and make very specific rules using the framework that Congress provided. Those rules have the force of law. That's why rules must be promulgated in specific ways (such as those dictated by the Administrative Procedures Act) to allow notice and public comment. Not all of these rules have specific penalties attached. Some definitely do, and they are legally enforceable.

Now it's being stated very clearly: Clinton violated the email rules set by the Federal Records Act.

To be fair the report has indicated that compliance has been poor across all five of the previous secretary of states, and was particularly critical of Colin Powell (GW Bush). (fair to assume email wasn't that big of a deal back when Reagan was President)

I was also a bit shocked to read that, according to current standards, Clinton "Should have printed and saved her emails during her four years in office.."   The report continues to mention the need for federal agencies to adapt “decades-old record-keeping practices to the email-dominated modern era.”
Printing?  Seriously?  ~60,000 email threads over 4 years?  No wonder compliance is so poor...

I believe that all federal employees are required to take federal records management training every year. And an agency head's emails are almost all going to fall under the requirement to be preserved in specific ways under the Act. Yes, very antiquated though.

[MDM]

IN keeping with the title of this thread:

 Trump's latest twittering:
"The protesters in New Mexico were thugs who were flying the Mexican Flag.  The rally inside was big and beautiful, but outside, criminals!"

He's still shamelessly linking Mexicans and immigrants to being criminals.

What part of that statement isn't true? The protesters outside were flying Mexican flags, and clearly some criminal acts went down. Doesn't make some other things Trump has said right, but holding signs like "Make America Mexico Again" (think I saw that in pictures of the California anti-Trump protests that got a little riot-y) isn't a great look.

It's the linkage between Mexicans and criminals that I object to.  He's calling people waving the Mexican flag "thugs."  Saying some protestors turned violent may be fair.  Linking those violent protesters with being Mexican is not, unless there is amble evidence.  To me it's just a clear shot at stirring up racism.  When I watch the video what I see is mostly white people.

From what I have read on CNN there were no arrests made outside the rally, and no indication that Mexicans were disproportionately involved with criminal activity.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/24/politics/donald-trump-albuquerque-protesters-police/

A Trump supporter: "Trump didn't say 'Mexicans and immigrants' - he said 'thugs who were flying the Mexican Flag.'  If you want to read into that statement something that isn't there, that is your problem."

A Trump opponent: "It is clear what he meant.  If you don't understand that, you are naive."

Each will think the other is being deliberately obtuse....  Isn't politics fun?

[nereo]

A Trump supporter: "Trump didn't say 'Mexicans and immigrants' - he said 'thugs who were flying the Mexican Flag.'  If you want to read into that statement something that isn't there, that is your problem."

A Trump opponent: "It is clear what he meant.  If you don't understand that, you are naive."

Each will think the other is being deliberately obtuse....  Isn't politics fun?

Huh.  I suppose you are right.  Sometimes I think Trump just says whatever happens to pass through his brain - other times I wonder if his words aren't very carefully chosen.
Yes, one could argue that "thugs who were flying the Mexican Flag" didn't imply that said thugs were Mexican. Touché.

As a retort - In the news coverage that I saw I did not see any evidence of people who were waving a Mexican flag acting in "thug-like" behavior or participating in criminal activity.  Other people yes, but not the ones outside holding the flag.

Isn't politics fun? It would be if it weren't so damn serious at the same time.

[MDM]

True, "fun" might not be exactly the right characterization.  Some things do indeed have serious consequences.  One should work to separate the wheat of the serious from the chaff of the laughable.

[MoonShadow]

Isn't politics fun? It would be if it weren't so damn serious at the same time.

This is fun for me regardless.  And I am going to remind you all that I warned this thread that Trump was the great influencer, and would win both the nomination & the presidency regardless of what you all think of him.  Those of you who would never vote for Trump will simply not vote, out of disgust or whatever; but those of you that are not hard set against him already will end up voting for him, no matter how you would poll today.  The man is that good at this; he has simply been testing the waters for the past several cycles till the right moment.  This is his moment, as should be obvious by now.  The Clintons will count themselves lucky to avoid prison before the end of 2016, and even that is likely to require some significant "fines" taken from the Clinton Foundation coffers & a permanent ban on holding public office, due to what the email scandal has exposed about the foundations funding sources.  The debates are going to be a riot!  Maybe literally.  If Austin Peterson gets the Libertarian nomination, the debates might be better than pay-per-view!

[HPstache]

Just because no one was arrested didn't mean they weren't breaking the law.  I was watching it on TV last night and they were throwing rocks at the police, jumping on the police car, fighting, and yes acting like criminals... pretty pathetic in my opinion.

[nereo]

Isn't politics fun? It would be if it weren't so damn serious at the same time.

This is fun for me regardless.  And I am going to remind you all that I warned this thread that Trump was the great influencer, and would win both the nomination & the presidency regardless of what you all think of him.  Those of you who would never vote for Trump will simply not vote, out of disgust or whatever; but those of you that are not hard set against him already will end up voting for him, no matter how you would poll today.  The man is that good at this; he has simply been testing the waters for the past several cycles till the right moment.  This is his moment, as should be obvious by now.  The Clintons will count themselves lucky to avoid prison before the end of 2016, and even that is likely to require some significant "fines" taken from the Clinton Foundation coffers & a permanent ban on holding public office, due to what the email scandal has exposed about the foundations funding sources.  The debates are going to be a riot!  Maybe literally.  If Austin Peterson gets the Libertarian nomination, the debates might be better than pay-per-view!

well, i hope you are wrong about rioting, though recent skirmishes at rallies aren't very encouraging.  I disagree that people who won't vote for trump simply won't vote - by that logic Trump would win all 50 states.  I must admit that Trump has been very adapt at keeping the media narrative focused on him.  I also don't see how Clinton would wind up in prison.  Censureship and fines perhaps, but I've yet to see anything that rises to 'harm' - one of the legal standards for imprisonment. I'm not sure that they will allow any LIbertarian candidate to participate in nationally televised debates.
Time will tell...