Author Topic: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate  (Read 738108 times)

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2542
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1900 on: June 07, 2016, 01:51:17 PM »

The state department certainly wasn't playing politics and I don't believe the FBI is either. The fact is she made a poor decision that may or may not be criminal.  Obviously Secretary Clinton does not like the facts, but pointing out the facts is in no way sexist nor was the IG report or the ongoing FBI investigation.

For anyone who has ever had a security clearance, this point would not be in doubt.  I had a secret level clearance, and there are still things that I can't do or discuss as a result, even though I have not worked for government in any capacity since 1999.  If anyone other than the Secretary of State had done this exact thing, they would be in federal prison or maybe a 'black site'.

thd7t

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1348
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1901 on: June 07, 2016, 05:48:56 PM »
I will continue to see the persecution of Hillary for frickin TRIVIAL EMAIL STUFF as pure partisan shenanigans with a large side of misogyny.

Don't cry wolf. Save it for actual cases of sexism. This is pure politics. Playing the sexism card like this just makes people dismiss legitimately sexist actions.

Definitely not crying wolf here (and it's a little condescending for you to presume that I am).

Sexism isn't just stuff like blond jokes and "that woman is not pretty" just like racism isn't just "I hate that black guy." It's much more insidious and pervasive than that. Why do people shit on Hillary for doing exactly the same stuff that make politicians do all the freakin time? If you don't think underlying sexist attitudes are partially responsible, you are deluding yourself just as much as those who don't think the Obama birther business was racist.

The Obama birther stuff (and Muslim stuff) was entirely predicated on the idea of him being an "other". Clearly racist from start to finish. Very different. Hillary's email stuff is has no sexism undertones to it. It's entirely about "let's get the person who's likely to be the opposing nominee for president". Same with Benghazi. They harassed Bill the same way. Was that sexist? They investigated his Christmas card list. And his cat. He was impeached for having an affair (while the top GOPers were also having affairs). They accused him of murdering his friend Vince Foster, doctoring fundraising tapes, and selling burial plots in Arlington National Cemetary. Sexist? No, BS politics.

Now if the committee chair were talking about how she used a private email server because as a woman she was too stupid to understand and follow the rules, that would be different.
Well conservative commentators do laugh about her using the server for yoga. That's a pretty clear dog whistle.

forummm

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7374
  • Senior Mustachian
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1902 on: June 07, 2016, 06:45:15 PM »
Well conservative commentators do laugh about her using the server for yoga. That's a pretty clear dog whistle.

That could very well be true. But some right wing commentators saying something is a bit different than Congressmen or senior officials at the FBI and State Department--i.e. the people who decided to do the investigations.

thd7t

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1348
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1903 on: June 07, 2016, 07:26:11 PM »

Well conservative commentators do laugh about her using the server for yoga. That's a pretty clear dog whistle.

That could very well be true. But some right wing commentators saying something is a bit different than Congressmen or senior officials at the FBI and State Department--i.e. the people who decided to do the investigations.
Congressmen weren't the ones doing the brother investigations, either. They were (usually) tacitly endorsing them, but not initiating them. My main point is that a lot more ground work has been laid in sexist attacks on Clinton, including blaming her for decisions that men around her made, claiming the hasn't accomplished anything, and obvious ones, like calling her shrill or saying "she doesn't look presidential".

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2542
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1904 on: June 07, 2016, 09:34:24 PM »

Well conservative commentators do laugh about her using the server for yoga. That's a pretty clear dog whistle.

That could very well be true. But some right wing commentators saying something is a bit different than Congressmen or senior officials at the FBI and State Department--i.e. the people who decided to do the investigations.
Congressmen weren't the ones doing the brother investigations, either. They were (usually) tacitly endorsing them, but not initiating them. My main point is that a lot more ground work has been laid in sexist attacks on Clinton, including blaming her for decisions that men around her made, claiming the hasn't accomplished anything, and obvious ones, like calling her shrill or saying "she doesn't look presidential".

Hmm.  I'm not sure about your perspective that these criticisms are sexist, per se.  However, voters can discriminate for whatever reason that they see fit.  If the Trump campaign can successfully associate Hillary with an ex-wife or girlfriend in the minds of male voters, he stands a very good chance of winning more male votes than he loses in female votes.

jrhampt

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2016
  • Age: 46
  • Location: Connecticut
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1905 on: June 08, 2016, 04:50:18 AM »
Clinton won 4 states last night, including California.  Bernie is not dropping out of the race, but is there any good reason for him staying in it at this point?

ShoulderThingThatGoesUp

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3053
  • Location: Emmaus, PA
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1906 on: June 08, 2016, 05:18:54 AM »
Let's check in on Hillary Clinton's greatest accomplishment, the destruction of Libya.

Libya now has a single "government" for the nth time, the Government of National Accord. However, it is "making little progress in establishing its authority in Libya's east" (that is, Benghazi).

Recent headlines:

How to Contain Libya's New Warlord
UK Tables Draft UN Resolution to Enforce Libya Arms Embargo
Libya needs $4.3 Million extra in humanitarian aid (Really? That seems like a...trivial number.)
On the Front Lines with the Militias Trying to Save Libya from ISIS

Keep up with the play-by-play in yet another pointless civil war the United States bears some moral responsibility for using Wikipedia's live map of zones of control in Libya. Then, vote to give the nuclear codes to one of two criminals who thinks the intervention in Libya was a good idea, despite President Obama saying it was the biggest mistake of his administration.

(Or vote Libertarian with me. Yes, Gary Johnson has a lot of downsides. He's not alone in that.)

thd7t

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1348
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1907 on: June 08, 2016, 05:32:49 AM »

Well conservative commentators do laugh about her using the server for yoga. That's a pretty clear dog whistle.

That could very well be true. But some right wing commentators saying something is a bit different than Congressmen or senior officials at the FBI and State Department--i.e. the people who decided to do the investigations.
Congressmen weren't the ones doing the brother investigations, either. They were (usually) tacitly endorsing them, but not initiating them. My main point is that a lot more ground work has been laid in sexist attacks on Clinton, including blaming her for decisions that men around her made, claiming the hasn't accomplished anything, and obvious ones, like calling her shrill or saying "she doesn't look presidential".

Hmm.  I'm not sure about your perspective that these criticisms are sexist, per se.  However, voters can discriminate for whatever reason that they see fit.  If the Trump campaign can successfully associate Hillary with an ex-wife or girlfriend in the minds of male voters, he stands a very good chance of winning more male votes than he loses in female votes.
That is exactly what sexism is. You are describing making a decision because a candidate is a woman, not based on her qualifications.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23129
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1908 on: June 08, 2016, 06:20:50 AM »
Can we get a reasonable third candidate?

HAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHA

no
I like Gary Johnson... But people who are fiscally liberal, socially conservative or warmongers will not, as almost any bill relating to increasing spending would get instantly vetoed by him, he is also very socially liberal so will allow no inequality, and he would make our "national defense" actually defense instead of offense.

Setting aside agreement/disagreement on his policy stance, Gary Johnson will never get traction with a broad audience because his personality will hinder him. He quite frankly lacks the air of professionalism and gravitas to hold the position.

Trump has rather handily proven that neither professionalism nor gravitas are important to do well while running for president.

forummm

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7374
  • Senior Mustachian
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1909 on: June 08, 2016, 07:26:04 AM »
Clinton won 4 states last night, including California.  Bernie is not dropping out of the race, but is there any good reason for him staying in it at this point?

Yes. He wants the party to make changes. If he drops out he loses his leverage. And, despite the claims of Clinton and the media, Clinton hasn't become the nominee yet. The superdelegates can vote for whoever they want to. It's incredibly likely they will vote for Clinton. But something could happen in the next couple months to change their mind.


Well conservative commentators do laugh about her using the server for yoga. That's a pretty clear dog whistle.

That could very well be true. But some right wing commentators saying something is a bit different than Congressmen or senior officials at the FBI and State Department--i.e. the people who decided to do the investigations.
Congressmen weren't the ones doing the brother investigations, either. They were (usually) tacitly endorsing them, but not initiating them. My main point is that a lot more ground work has been laid in sexist attacks on Clinton, including blaming her for decisions that men around her made, claiming the hasn't accomplished anything, and obvious ones, like calling her shrill or saying "she doesn't look presidential".

I don't know what you mean by "brother investigations". Trump saying she doesn't look presidential is intended to be sexist, sure. But it's entirely appropriate to link her to Bill's and Obama's policies and actions when she has explicitly endorsed those policies and actions. Just like it would be entirely appropriate to link Colin Powell to Bush's policies that Powell also supported and helped to make happen. Clinton is campaigning explicitly to be a continuation of the WJ Clinton and Obama administrations. Of course you can then provide criticism and analysis of those policies that she is endorsing, taking into account any nuance or modifications that she has provided in the interim.

And it's also entirely fair to criticize any public official (regardless of gender or race or whatever) for not getting things done. Those criticisms may not be accurate. But they aren't sexist without some additional component that makes it sexist. Saying someone sucks at their job is just politics--unless there's a 'because their a woman' stated or implied.

forummm

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7374
  • Senior Mustachian
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1910 on: June 08, 2016, 07:31:40 AM »
Trump has rather handily proven that neither professionalism nor gravitas are important to do well while running for president.

Unfortunately, being good at running for president tends to be a very different skill set and require different personal characteristics than being good at being president.

forummm

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7374
  • Senior Mustachian
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1911 on: June 08, 2016, 07:33:06 AM »
I believe you are correct that Clinton will win California and that she will go to the convention with enough deligates to get the nomination outright (probably without needing any of the 'super-deligates')

No, unless Sanders drops out, it's very unlikely she'll have enough pledged delegates to have a majority without any of the superdelegates. She would need about 2/3 of the remaining delegates, and Sanders will probably win at least another couple states (and likely 6 or more of the remaining 11 contests). As I said before, the superdelegates will be deciding the nomination (as they do anytime since 1984 when it's not a landslide).

Forumm, I was expressing my opinion on what would happen (see the phrase "I believe").  Can I be wrong?  Sure.  But your statement reads like my belief is not possible. I'm not discounting the possibility that Sanders will drop out before California in three weeks, or at least pull back somewhat as running a symboic and 'ideas' campaign (which he's actually already started to do somewhat).   Also, as a candidate's lead becomes insurmountable the opposition's turnout tends to diminish dramatically.  I expect we'll see that as soon as Clinton's total delegate count exceeds the 2383 mark. 
Mathematically, Clinton could win the nomination outright without the use of super-delegates by winning California and a few of the remaining states by double-digit margins.

 

I see. I saw "probably" to mean that it was more likely than not. Which I (and the polling) disagreed with. You could be right.

Looks like Clinton will be about 200 pledged delegates shy of the number needed for the nomination. So the superdelegates will decide the nomination (most likely by voting for her).

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4929
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1912 on: June 08, 2016, 07:38:25 AM »
Clinton won 4 states last night, including California.  Bernie is not dropping out of the race, but is there any good reason for him staying in it at this point?
No, at this point Clinton had stepped down and conceded to Obama because there is no point.  All he is doing now is harming the Democratic party as a whole and decreasing Clinton's chances on the national stage. 

thd7t

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1348
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1913 on: June 08, 2016, 07:50:19 AM »
Quote from: forummm link=topic=46619.msg1112464#msg1112464
[quote author=thd7t link=topic=46619.msg1112120#msg1112120 date=1465349171

Well conservative commentators do laugh about her using the server for yoga. That's a pretty clear dog whistle.

That could very well be true. But some right wing commentators saying something is a bit different than Congressmen or senior officials at the FBI and State Department--i.e. the people who decided to do the investigations.
Congressmen weren't the ones doing the brother investigations, either. They were (usually) tacitly endorsing them, but not initiating them. My main point is that a lot more ground work has been laid in sexist attacks on Clinton, including blaming her for decisions that men around her made, claiming the hasn't accomplished anything, and obvious ones, like calling her shrill or saying "she doesn't look presidential".

I don't know what you mean by "brother investigations". Trump saying she doesn't look presidential is intended to be sexist, sure. But it's entirely appropriate to link her to Bill's and Obama's policies and actions when she has explicitly endorsed those policies and actions. Just like it would be entirely appropriate to link Colin Powell to Bush's policies that Powell also supported and helped to make happen. Clinton is campaigning explicitly to be a continuation of the WJ Clinton and Obama administrations. Of course you can then provide criticism and analysis of those policies that she is endorsing, taking into account any nuance or modifications that she has provided in the interim.

And it's also entirely fair to criticize any public official (regardless of gender or race or whatever) for not getting things done. Those criticisms may not be accurate. But they aren't sexist without some additional component that makes it sexist. Saying someone sucks at their job is just politics--unless there's a 'because their a woman' stated or implied.
[/quote]
"Brother investigations" was a typo. I meant other investigations. The issue that I see is that when applied to Hillary is that her association with men is frequently used to diminish the independence of her actions. A good example from yesterday is that Trump announced that he is going to give "a major speech" on the Clintons. In this case, he acts like HRC isn't an individual. It is a dog whistle attached to the attack.

jrhampt

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2016
  • Age: 46
  • Location: Connecticut
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1914 on: June 08, 2016, 08:00:02 AM »
Clinton won 4 states last night, including California.  Bernie is not dropping out of the race, but is there any good reason for him staying in it at this point?
No, at this point Clinton had stepped down and conceded to Obama because there is no point.  All he is doing now is harming the Democratic party as a whole and decreasing Clinton's chances on the national stage.

This is my take, too.  I'll be curious to see if he concedes after his meeting with Obama Thursday.

forummm

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7374
  • Senior Mustachian
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1915 on: June 08, 2016, 08:05:49 AM »
Clinton won 4 states last night, including California.  Bernie is not dropping out of the race, but is there any good reason for him staying in it at this point?
No, at this point Clinton had stepped down and conceded to Obama because there is no point.  All he is doing now is harming the Democratic party as a whole and decreasing Clinton's chances on the national stage. 

No, she dropped out 3 days after the last primaries in 2008. So the accurate comparison point would be later this week. Since Sanders has laid off his staff and is no longer campaigning, (and the media has anointed her as the nominee) he is not decreasing her chances at all. And the policy changes he is pushing the Democrats to make will only make the party more popular. At this point, he's still helping them (whether they realize it or not). And by continuing to stick around, he's providing a very viable alternative just in case some of Clinton's legal issues come to a negative resolution in the next couple months. He's a free insurance policy.

infogoon

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 838
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1916 on: June 08, 2016, 08:11:11 AM »
This is my take, too.  I'll be curious to see if he concedes after his meeting with Obama Thursday.

I read somewhere that he's meeting with Reid as well. Bernie may have reached the "what will you give me to drop out?" phase of the campaign.

thd7t

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1348
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1917 on: June 08, 2016, 08:19:04 AM »
This is my take, too.  I'll be curious to see if he concedes after his meeting with Obama Thursday.

I read somewhere that he's meeting with Reid as well. Bernie may have reached the "what will you give me to drop out?" phase of the campaign.
I believe that it's normal for strong candidates to find a new role within the party. Sanders is now a Democrat and has more leadership opportunities, whether he remains in the Senate or pursues an administration role. He clearly has values that are strong within the party's electorate. He has a responsibility to ensure that the Democratic party embraces those values.

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1358
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1918 on: June 08, 2016, 08:35:42 AM »
"Brother investigations" was a typo. I meant other investigations. The issue that I see is that when applied to Hillary is that her association with men is frequently used to diminish the independence of her actions. A good example from yesterday is that Trump announced that he is going to give "a major speech" on the Clintons. In this case, he acts like HRC isn't an individual. It is a dog whistle attached to the attack.

One of the reasons they are speaking about "the Clintons" is because Hillary has stated Bill will be involved in her governance if she wins.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/05/17/should-we-worry-about-bill-clintons-role-in-a-hillary-clinton-administration/

In addition, they were referred to as the Clinton's in the 90's when Bill was president and Hillary was involved in governing despite her un-elected status at the time.

They have and continue to be a political unit.  She knows it and is attempting to use it to her advantage.  If she's is going to continue to use Bill on the campaign trail and in her government if she wins, then he's fair game.  That's not sexism, that's politics.
« Last Edit: June 08, 2016, 08:53:43 AM by Midwest »

MrStash2000

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 224
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1919 on: June 08, 2016, 08:44:03 AM »
This is my take, too.  I'll be curious to see if he concedes after his meeting with Obama Thursday.

I read somewhere that he's meeting with Reid as well. Bernie may have reached the "what will you give me to drop out?" phase of the campaign.

Bernie is not a "sell out" like the rest of the DNC.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8433
  • Age: 47
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1920 on: June 08, 2016, 11:03:19 AM »
This is my take, too.  I'll be curious to see if he concedes after his meeting with Obama Thursday.

I read somewhere that he's meeting with Reid as well. Bernie may have reached the "what will you give me to drop out?" phase of the campaign.

Bernie is not a "sell out" like the rest of the DNC.

I don't think it would be selling out to take an administration job where he can actually enact some of the policy changes he has been promoting.  Department of labor maybe, or council of economic advisors.  Cabinet level positions directly work with the president and oversee thousands of federal employees, they wield more power than a senator does.  Off he really cares about making changes, going back to the Senate is not the way to do it.

jrhampt

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2016
  • Age: 46
  • Location: Connecticut
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1921 on: June 08, 2016, 11:06:23 AM »

Glenstache

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3493
  • Age: 94
  • Location: Upper left corner
  • FI(lean) working on the "RE"
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1922 on: June 08, 2016, 11:13:10 AM »
This is my take, too.  I'll be curious to see if he concedes after his meeting with Obama Thursday.

I read somewhere that he's meeting with Reid as well. Bernie may have reached the "what will you give me to drop out?" phase of the campaign.

Bernie is not a "sell out" like the rest of the DNC.

Not using the leverage would be to squander his political capital. That is politics and will ultimately advance his agenda.

forummm

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7374
  • Senior Mustachian
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1923 on: June 08, 2016, 11:37:14 AM »
This is my take, too.  I'll be curious to see if he concedes after his meeting with Obama Thursday.

I read somewhere that he's meeting with Reid as well. Bernie may have reached the "what will you give me to drop out?" phase of the campaign.

Bernie is not a "sell out" like the rest of the DNC.

I don't think it would be selling out to take an administration job where he can actually enact some of the policy changes he has been promoting.  Department of labor maybe, or council of economic advisors.  Cabinet level positions directly work with the president and oversee thousands of federal employees, they wield more power than a senator does.  Off he really cares about making changes, going back to the Senate is not the way to do it.

I don't think he would accept (or be offered) an administration job. He wants the party to change and make platform changes. I think he's interested in too many issues for a single cabinet position to be a broad enough portfolio. And he would also be kept in check by his boss--who is not really interested in his kind of change. I think he can have a much greater impact staying in the Senate. Not just by voting on things, but by continuing to develop and drive the message of the party and cultivating the movement he has tapped into and developed. He could use his following to help promote and elect candidates who share his vision and policy preferences. He could be quite influential in ways that would be prohibited if he took an administration role. Plus, he could stay in the Senate for maybe 20 more years, instead of just a few years in the administration.

Jeremy E.

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1946
  • Location: Lewiston, ID
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1924 on: June 08, 2016, 11:42:26 AM »
This is my take, too.  I'll be curious to see if he concedes after his meeting with Obama Thursday.

I read somewhere that he's meeting with Reid as well. Bernie may have reached the "what will you give me to drop out?" phase of the campaign.

Bernie is not a "sell out" like the rest of the DNC.

I don't think it would be selling out to take an administration job where he can actually enact some of the policy changes he has been promoting.  Department of labor maybe, or council of economic advisors.  Cabinet level positions directly work with the president and oversee thousands of federal employees, they wield more power than a senator does.  Off he really cares about making changes, going back to the Senate is not the way to do it.

I don't think he would accept (or be offered) an administration job. He wants the party to change and make platform changes. I think he's interested in too many issues for a single cabinet position to be a broad enough portfolio. And he would also be kept in check by his boss--who is not really interested in his kind of change. I think he can have a much greater impact staying in the Senate. Not just by voting on things, but by continuing to develop and drive the message of the party and cultivating the movement he has tapped into and developed. He could use his following to help promote and elect candidates who share his vision and policy preferences. He could be quite influential in ways that would be prohibited if he took an administration role. Plus, he could stay in the Senate for maybe 20 more years, instead of just a few years in the administration.
Is that a joke?

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8433
  • Age: 47
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1925 on: June 08, 2016, 11:44:51 AM »
The man is already 74.  Committing to even 4 years of executive level policy changes would be a capstone accomplishment for a long and distinguished career, a chance to not only spread the message but actually make changes.

jrhampt

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2016
  • Age: 46
  • Location: Connecticut
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1926 on: June 08, 2016, 12:05:34 PM »
This is my take, too.  I'll be curious to see if he concedes after his meeting with Obama Thursday.

I read somewhere that he's meeting with Reid as well. Bernie may have reached the "what will you give me to drop out?" phase of the campaign.

Bernie is not a "sell out" like the rest of the DNC.

I don't think it would be selling out to take an administration job where he can actually enact some of the policy changes he has been promoting.  Department of labor maybe, or council of economic advisors.  Cabinet level positions directly work with the president and oversee thousands of federal employees, they wield more power than a senator does.  Off he really cares about making changes, going back to the Senate is not the way to do it.

I don't think he would accept (or be offered) an administration job. He wants the party to change and make platform changes. I think he's interested in too many issues for a single cabinet position to be a broad enough portfolio. And he would also be kept in check by his boss--who is not really interested in his kind of change. I think he can have a much greater impact staying in the Senate. Not just by voting on things, but by continuing to develop and drive the message of the party and cultivating the movement he has tapped into and developed. He could use his following to help promote and elect candidates who share his vision and policy preferences. He could be quite influential in ways that would be prohibited if he took an administration role. Plus, he could stay in the Senate for maybe 20 more years, instead of just a few years in the administration.
Is that a joke?
Sanders math

thd7t

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1348
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1927 on: June 08, 2016, 12:05:58 PM »
The man is already 74.  Committing to even 4 years of executive level policy changes would be a capstone accomplishment for a long and distinguished career, a chance to not only spread the message but actually make changes.
Sanders may be more motivated to campaign if the goal is taking back the Senate with a leadership position for him as a platform. If that's what he wants, it may work well. I don't know if it would motivate his most die-hard supporters to vote for Clinton, but he might be a lot of help down ballot.

Jeremy E.

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1946
  • Location: Lewiston, ID
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1928 on: June 08, 2016, 12:11:05 PM »
One thing about executive positions, I think most of them need confirmed by the senate.... and I'm guessing Republicans hate Sanders, and most other democrats would prefer an "establishment" democrat. Clinton would also have to nominate him for these positions where she would probably also choose a more "establishment" democrat.

Glenstache

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3493
  • Age: 94
  • Location: Upper left corner
  • FI(lean) working on the "RE"
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1929 on: June 08, 2016, 12:16:59 PM »
One thing about executive positions, I think most of them need confirmed by the senate.... and I'm guessing Republicans hate Sanders, and most other democrats would prefer an "establishment" democrat. Clinton would also have to nominate him for these positions where she would probably also choose a more "establishment" democrat.

Sanders is also popular with a large segment of your democrats right now. He is good branding for the future of the party, so keeping him in a visible position can have benefits. As to Republicans hating Sanders, it is more likely that we will see continued appointment obstruction because of Clinton as a continuation of their demonstrated behavior to Obama. It will likely be newsworthy if there *isn't* obstruction to any Clinton appointment, rather than the other way around.

Jeremy E.

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1946
  • Location: Lewiston, ID
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1930 on: June 08, 2016, 12:20:13 PM »
One thing about executive positions, I think most of them need confirmed by the senate.... and I'm guessing Republicans hate Sanders, and most other democrats would prefer an "establishment" democrat. Clinton would also have to nominate him for these positions where she would probably also choose a more "establishment" democrat.

Sanders is also popular with a large segment of your democrats right now. He is good branding for the future of the party, so keeping him in a visible position can have benefits. As to Republicans hating Sanders, it is more likely that we will see continued appointment obstruction because of Clinton as a continuation of their demonstrated behavior to Obama. It will likely be newsworthy if there *isn't* obstruction to any Clinton appointment, rather than the other way around.
Right now they are using the lame duck excuse or whatever right? They would have to come up with some other excuse when a fresh president was just elected by the people. I think they would consider a moderate democrat like Clinton over an extreme democrat like Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, etc.

deadlymonkey

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 400
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1931 on: June 08, 2016, 12:24:25 PM »
Obama is going to withdrawl his Supreme Court Nominee right before the election.  If Trump wins, it won't matter and if Clinton wins he is going to be make the Senate republicans stew in their own regret by allowing Clinton to nominate a very liberal justice rather than the middle of the road Garland.  They really won't have a leg to stand on after insisted on waiting until after the election to approve a justice in order to "let the people decide."

Glenstache

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3493
  • Age: 94
  • Location: Upper left corner
  • FI(lean) working on the "RE"
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1932 on: June 08, 2016, 12:56:54 PM »
One thing about executive positions, I think most of them need confirmed by the senate.... and I'm guessing Republicans hate Sanders, and most other democrats would prefer an "establishment" democrat. Clinton would also have to nominate him for these positions where she would probably also choose a more "establishment" democrat.

Sanders is also popular with a large segment of your democrats right now. He is good branding for the future of the party, so keeping him in a visible position can have benefits. As to Republicans hating Sanders, it is more likely that we will see continued appointment obstruction because of Clinton as a continuation of their demonstrated behavior to Obama. It will likely be newsworthy if there *isn't* obstruction to any Clinton appointment, rather than the other way around.
Right now they are using the lame duck excuse or whatever right? They would have to come up with some other excuse when a fresh president was just elected by the people. I think they would consider a moderate democrat like Clinton over an extreme democrat like Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, etc.

I was thinking more globally than just the SCOTUS vacancy. For example: as of 2013, 79 of the 147 total blocked nominations in the history of the US were during Obama's terms. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/nov/22/harry-reid/harry-reid-says-82-presidential-nominees-have-been/

I would not be surprised if there was obstruction to whomever Clinton may appoint simply as a matter of political theater for their base as it has become the new expected normal.

forummm

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7374
  • Senior Mustachian
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1933 on: June 08, 2016, 01:31:40 PM »
Obama is going to withdrawl his Supreme Court Nominee right before the election.

I don't think this is likely.

Plus, he could stay in the Senate for maybe 20 more years, instead of just a few years in the administration.
Is that a joke?
Sanders math

I said "maybe" 20 years. But people stay in the Senate a long time. There have been literally dozens of 90+ year old Senators. Thurmond was 100. I don't see Bernie ever losing Vermont. He probably has that seat as long as he wants it and can stay alive.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2542
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1934 on: June 08, 2016, 01:36:07 PM »

Well conservative commentators do laugh about her using the server for yoga. That's a pretty clear dog whistle.

That could very well be true. But some right wing commentators saying something is a bit different than Congressmen or senior officials at the FBI and State Department--i.e. the people who decided to do the investigations.
Congressmen weren't the ones doing the brother investigations, either. They were (usually) tacitly endorsing them, but not initiating them. My main point is that a lot more ground work has been laid in sexist attacks on Clinton, including blaming her for decisions that men around her made, claiming the hasn't accomplished anything, and obvious ones, like calling her shrill or saying "she doesn't look presidential".

Hmm.  I'm not sure about your perspective that these criticisms are sexist, per se.  However, voters can discriminate for whatever reason that they see fit.  If the Trump campaign can successfully associate Hillary with an ex-wife or girlfriend in the minds of male voters, he stands a very good chance of winning more male votes than he loses in female votes.
That is exactly what sexism is. You are describing making a decision because a candidate is a woman, not based on her qualifications.

I am describing a campaign that influences the voter base by manipulating sexist dispositions.  That does not make the campaign manager sexist, it makes him shrewd.  He could still be sexist also, but this would not be evidence of that, per se.  The only qualification between Trump & Clinton that matters for POTUS is the ability to get elected.  Lacking that, Clinton's other qualifications, regardless of her gender, are irrelevant.  Appealing to the latent discrimination of the voter base is as valid a strategy as debating foreign policy from a superior perspective.  Trump has already changed the rules of this campaign, and when he wins he will have made those new rules & methods the standard for the next 30 years.  Clinton is already pivoting to her own version of emotional and/or latent discriminatory appeals by conflating Trump with an angry, unstable man-boy who might be inclined to get into a nuclear conflict with Russia.  That's a pretty damn good counter-move, I must say, and it's not important how true it may or may not be; it only matters if it clicks with the voters' subconscious pre-conception about a man they have never met.  This is already starting to get good.

forummm

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7374
  • Senior Mustachian
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1935 on: June 08, 2016, 01:54:59 PM »

Well conservative commentators do laugh about her using the server for yoga. That's a pretty clear dog whistle.

That could very well be true. But some right wing commentators saying something is a bit different than Congressmen or senior officials at the FBI and State Department--i.e. the people who decided to do the investigations.
Congressmen weren't the ones doing the brother investigations, either. They were (usually) tacitly endorsing them, but not initiating them. My main point is that a lot more ground work has been laid in sexist attacks on Clinton, including blaming her for decisions that men around her made, claiming the hasn't accomplished anything, and obvious ones, like calling her shrill or saying "she doesn't look presidential".

Hmm.  I'm not sure about your perspective that these criticisms are sexist, per se.  However, voters can discriminate for whatever reason that they see fit.  If the Trump campaign can successfully associate Hillary with an ex-wife or girlfriend in the minds of male voters, he stands a very good chance of winning more male votes than he loses in female votes.
That is exactly what sexism is. You are describing making a decision because a candidate is a woman, not based on her qualifications.

I am describing a campaign that influences the voter base by manipulating sexist dispositions.  That does not make the campaign manager sexist.

Nope, that's exactly describing an example of a sexist act.

Just like manipulating racist voters to vote for you by saying things intended to tell them you're "on their side" or to remind them to vote against the black guy is a racist act. By definition.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2542
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1936 on: June 08, 2016, 01:57:54 PM »

Well conservative commentators do laugh about her using the server for yoga. That's a pretty clear dog whistle.

That could very well be true. But some right wing commentators saying something is a bit different than Congressmen or senior officials at the FBI and State Department--i.e. the people who decided to do the investigations.
Congressmen weren't the ones doing the brother investigations, either. They were (usually) tacitly endorsing them, but not initiating them. My main point is that a lot more ground work has been laid in sexist attacks on Clinton, including blaming her for decisions that men around her made, claiming the hasn't accomplished anything, and obvious ones, like calling her shrill or saying "she doesn't look presidential".

Hmm.  I'm not sure about your perspective that these criticisms are sexist, per se.  However, voters can discriminate for whatever reason that they see fit.  If the Trump campaign can successfully associate Hillary with an ex-wife or girlfriend in the minds of male voters, he stands a very good chance of winning more male votes than he loses in female votes.
That is exactly what sexism is. You are describing making a decision because a candidate is a woman, not based on her qualifications.

I am describing a campaign that influences the voter base by manipulating sexist dispositions.  That does not make the campaign manager sexist.

Nope, that's exactly describing an example of a sexist act.

Just like manipulating racist voters to vote for you by saying things intended to tell them you're "on their side" or to remind them to vote against the black guy is a racist act. By definition.

Uh, no.  That's an opinion.

forummm

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7374
  • Senior Mustachian
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1937 on: June 08, 2016, 02:02:03 PM »

Well conservative commentators do laugh about her using the server for yoga. That's a pretty clear dog whistle.

That could very well be true. But some right wing commentators saying something is a bit different than Congressmen or senior officials at the FBI and State Department--i.e. the people who decided to do the investigations.
Congressmen weren't the ones doing the brother investigations, either. They were (usually) tacitly endorsing them, but not initiating them. My main point is that a lot more ground work has been laid in sexist attacks on Clinton, including blaming her for decisions that men around her made, claiming the hasn't accomplished anything, and obvious ones, like calling her shrill or saying "she doesn't look presidential".

Hmm.  I'm not sure about your perspective that these criticisms are sexist, per se.  However, voters can discriminate for whatever reason that they see fit.  If the Trump campaign can successfully associate Hillary with an ex-wife or girlfriend in the minds of male voters, he stands a very good chance of winning more male votes than he loses in female votes.
That is exactly what sexism is. You are describing making a decision because a candidate is a woman, not based on her qualifications.

I am describing a campaign that influences the voter base by manipulating sexist dispositions.  That does not make the campaign manager sexist.

Nope, that's exactly describing an example of a sexist act.

Just like manipulating racist voters to vote for you by saying things intended to tell them you're "on their side" or to remind them to vote against the black guy is a racist act. By definition.

Uh, no.  That's an opinion.

Quote
Full Definition of sexism

1 :   prejudice or discrimination based on sex; especially :   discrimination against women

2 :   behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex


Feel free to explain how making sexist statements to get sexist people to vote a specific way isn't engaging in prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination on the basis of sex, and also doesn't foster stereotypes.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2542
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1938 on: June 08, 2016, 02:10:50 PM »

Well conservative commentators do laugh about her using the server for yoga. That's a pretty clear dog whistle.

That could very well be true. But some right wing commentators saying something is a bit different than Congressmen or senior officials at the FBI and State Department--i.e. the people who decided to do the investigations.
Congressmen weren't the ones doing the brother investigations, either. They were (usually) tacitly endorsing them, but not initiating them. My main point is that a lot more ground work has been laid in sexist attacks on Clinton, including blaming her for decisions that men around her made, claiming the hasn't accomplished anything, and obvious ones, like calling her shrill or saying "she doesn't look presidential".

Hmm.  I'm not sure about your perspective that these criticisms are sexist, per se.  However, voters can discriminate for whatever reason that they see fit.  If the Trump campaign can successfully associate Hillary with an ex-wife or girlfriend in the minds of male voters, he stands a very good chance of winning more male votes than he loses in female votes.
That is exactly what sexism is. You are describing making a decision because a candidate is a woman, not based on her qualifications.

I am describing a campaign that influences the voter base by manipulating sexist dispositions.  That does not make the campaign manager sexist.

Nope, that's exactly describing an example of a sexist act.

Just like manipulating racist voters to vote for you by saying things intended to tell them you're "on their side" or to remind them to vote against the black guy is a racist act. By definition.

Uh, no.  That's an opinion.

Quote
Full Definition of sexism

1 :   prejudice or discrimination based on sex; especially :   discrimination against women

2 :   behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex


Feel free to explain how making sexist statements to get sexist people to vote a specific way isn't engaging in prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination on the basis of sex, and also doesn't foster stereotypes.

I can see #2 as a valid application of the term in this case.  Still, it doesn't matter if I concede.  It's still a valid campaign strategy.  And it seems to be working.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8433
  • Age: 47
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1939 on: June 08, 2016, 02:53:53 PM »
Still, it doesn't matter if I concede.  It's still a valid campaign strategy.  And it seems to be working.

You are disgusting. MOD NOTE: REFRAIN FROM PERSONAL ATTACKS

Just like trump, you have forsaken all accountability.  Your argument is essentially "sexism isn't bad if it's effective" and I don't know how either of you keep a straight face while saying that.
« Last Edit: June 30, 2016, 11:59:26 AM by swick »

MDM

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11477
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1940 on: June 08, 2016, 02:57:16 PM »
Racism, Classism, Sexism, Religionism and Nationalism*

Each major party generally attempts to spin all five of these isms (and probably more) to the extent possible to get more votes.  E.g.,
           "Vote for _____ because that person is (or isn't or supports or is against) ______"
  "Don't vote for _____ because that person is (or isn't or supports or is against) ______"


*From https://rodclarken.wordpress.com/2012/03/17/five-impediments-to-prosperity-racism-classism-sexism-religionism-and-nationalism/.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2542
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1941 on: June 08, 2016, 02:58:21 PM »
Still, it doesn't matter if I concede.  It's still a valid campaign strategy.  And it seems to be working.

You are disgusting.

Just like trump, you have forsaken all accountability.  Your argument is essentially "sexism isn't bad if it's effective" and I don't know how either of you keep a straight face while saying that.

I have made no value judgements.  I simply said it was a valid strategy, and it is.  You are letting your desires cloud your judgements, as you usually do, Sol.  That is your greatest fault.

Glenstache

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3493
  • Age: 94
  • Location: Upper left corner
  • FI(lean) working on the "RE"
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1942 on: June 08, 2016, 03:18:34 PM »
Still, it doesn't matter if I concede.  It's still a valid campaign strategy.  And it seems to be working.

You are disgusting.

Just like trump, you have forsaken all accountability.  Your argument is essentially "sexism isn't bad if it's effective" and I don't know how either of you keep a straight face while saying that.

I have made no value judgements.  I simply said it was a valid strategy, and it is.  You are letting your desires cloud your judgements, as you usually do, Sol.  That is your greatest fault.

Saying it is effective would be a value-neutral assessment. Saying it is valid implies that you think it is reasonable. Word choice matters.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2542
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1943 on: June 08, 2016, 03:27:26 PM »
Still, it doesn't matter if I concede.  It's still a valid campaign strategy.  And it seems to be working.

You are disgusting.

Just like trump, you have forsaken all accountability.  Your argument is essentially "sexism isn't bad if it's effective" and I don't know how either of you keep a straight face while saying that.

I have made no value judgements.  I simply said it was a valid strategy, and it is.  You are letting your desires cloud your judgements, as you usually do, Sol.  That is your greatest fault.

Saying it is effective would be a value-neutral assessment. Saying it is valid implies that you think it is reasonable. Word choice matters.

It's both effective and legitimate within our political system.  So valid was the best word I could come up with.  I think you are reaching with this one.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8433
  • Age: 47
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1944 on: June 08, 2016, 03:31:21 PM »
Sol.  That is your greatest fault.

I see you have been taking lessons from your master.  Totally ignore all substantive critique, instantly resort to personal attacks on a person's character instead.

Real nice.  I expected nothing less from you.

Jeremy E.

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1946
  • Location: Lewiston, ID
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1945 on: June 08, 2016, 03:32:51 PM »
Still, it doesn't matter if I concede.  It's still a valid campaign strategy.  And it seems to be working.

You are disgusting.

Just like trump, you have forsaken all accountability.  Your argument is essentially "sexism isn't bad if it's effective" and I don't know how either of you keep a straight face while saying that.

I have made no value judgements.  I simply said it was a valid strategy, and it is.  You are letting your desires cloud your judgements, as you usually do, Sol.  That is your greatest fault.

Saying it is effective would be a value-neutral assessment. Saying it is valid implies that you think it is reasonable. Word choice matters.

It's both effective and legitimate within our political system.  So valid was the best word I could come up with.  I think you are reaching with this one.
I don't know if your sexist, I think it but I don't know. I do know however that you're delusional, thinking Trump has a 100% chance of being next POTUS

MDM

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11477
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1946 on: June 08, 2016, 03:43:31 PM »
You are disgusting.
You are letting your desires cloud your judgements

One could debate which is the greater personal attack...but see rule #2: Attack an argument, not a person.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8433
  • Age: 47
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1947 on: June 08, 2016, 04:18:26 PM »
You are disgusting.
You are letting your desires cloud your judgements

One could debate which is the greater personal attack...but see rule #2: Attack an argument, not a person.

I am well aware that I sank to his level, but at least I followed up with an actual critique explaining why I passed judgment.

Have we become so PC around her that I can't even say that blatant sexism is disgusting?  Really?  Some opinions and some people are less deserving than others.

MDM

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11477
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1948 on: June 08, 2016, 05:20:47 PM »
Some opinions and some people are less deserving than others.
I'll agree with that.

Of course some people think some opinions are less deserving, while other people think that of other opinions.  At least, that's what I think.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2542
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1949 on: June 08, 2016, 07:07:46 PM »
Sol.  That is your greatest fault.

I see you have been taking lessons from your master.  Totally ignore all substantive critique, instantly resort to personal attacks on a person's character instead.

Real nice. I expected nothing less from you.

I should expect better from you, Sol; but I've long ago learned that your are not as analytical as the image that you present.  I'm not the one that called you disgusting.