***Official Political Discussion Thread***

[RustyShackleford]

We have so much money in politics because of right wing Supreme Court Justices.

If Dems were always in controlling those picks, stuff Citizen's United does not happen.

 

[AEA18]

Hijacking the dems like the tea party/freedom caucus did the gop would be much easier than hoping/waiting for large number of people to vote 3rd party.

 

[gry60]

Hijacking the dems like the tea party/freedom caucus did the gop would be much easier than hoping/waiting for large number of people to vote 3rd party.

I don't get why this is so difficult to understand.

 

[PatRiley]

Hijacking the dems like the tea party/freedom caucus did the gop would be much easier than hoping/waiting for large number of people to vote 3rd party.

Ok explain how this is done and how it would be better than having more than 2 options for president every time?

 

[PatRiley]

We have so much money in politics because of right wing Supreme Court Justices.

If Dems were always in controlling those picks, stuff Citizen's United does not happen.

But how much was Hillary paid by big corporations and finance in the past 4 years?

 

[RustyShackleford]

I am saying that the only way you get money out of politics is by voting in the most progressives Dems as possible.

They are not only the better option, your interest align with their interest platform. And policy-wise they are a far better option on so many issues.

I agree with you that they're the better option, but that's not what I'm talking about!!! You think me voting for them because they're the better option is a better protest than voting third party to show discontent with the party system. I just respectfully disagree with you.

In particular, I disagree that voting dem consistently will get $$ out of politics. Hillary taking $200,000+ payments for giving talks to Goldman Sachs? Didn't that happen? If I were her I'd take that payment in a second! But in my shoes I can never bring myself to vote for someone like that to be my president.

Citizen's United never happens if there were only liberal picked Justices.

Campaign Finance reform will be struck down in the Supreme Court unless Dems get to replace RGB, Kennedy, and Thomas.

I don't think the Dems are just this altruistic, idealistic party that wants to get money out of politics (some of them are though) but I know they support it because most of the Dark Money in the system goes to helping Republicans not Dems. Campaign fiance reform will help the Democratic Party, so the incentives align.

Oh god here we go with the wall Streets speeches. Listen, even in the Bernie Sanders/Elizabeth Warren wet dream of no money in politics, Clinton would see be able to make that money. It was stupid to take at the time because she was going to run for public office again but she took it as a private citizen.

Hillary Clinton, if she had a liberal progressive Congress, would reliably pass progressive policy on a large number of issues. Including campaign finance reform,

Read page 25 of this LINK . The Dems wanting to move to small donor matching. They ran on that.

 

[gry60]

All I know is, there is no longer a buffer between political donors and government... If you want proof, just look at Trump's cabinet.

Those who voted third party made a mistake just as big as those who voted Trump with the hope conviction that he wouldn't touch their low-skill and high-paying jobs, their disability checks, or their spouses without papers.

 

[RustyShackleford]

We have so much money in politics because of right wing Supreme Court Justices.

If Dems were always in controlling those picks, stuff Citizen's United does not happen.

But how much was Hillary paid by big corporations and finance in the past 4 years?

You are deflecting.

Hillary Clinton got a lot of corporate money, yes, and? She stated her policy positions, which ones do you not like? Huh?

She would not have been a queen, policy is dictated by the average ideology lead of the House, and the 60th vote in the Senate. Even if she was completely bought, the left could hold her feet to the fire. This is want people mean by Hijacking the Party, like the Tea Party did to the GOP.

You stay active in primaries. If a Democrat, at all levels not just President, is too corporate for you, then you vote against him/her in the primary and put in someone you agree with more. Then no matter what, even if you guy doesn't win in the primary, you vote Democrat in local, state, and national elections against the Republican candidate.

You shift the ideology average of the Party, and you let people that half step know that they will be punished come primary time. But the party stays in power so when you get enough of the people that support a certain issue, it will be easier to get policy done.

 

[PatRiley]

Citizen's United never happens if there were only liberal picked Justices.

Campaign Finance reform will be struck down in the Supreme Court unless Dems get to replace RGB, Kennedy, and Thomas.

I don't think the Dems are just this altruistic, idealistic party that wants to get money out of politics (some of them are though) but I know they support it because most of the Dark Money in the system goes to helping Republicans not Dems. Campaign fiance reform will help the Democratic Party, so the incentives align.

Oh god here we go with the wall Streets speeches. Listen, even in the Bernie Sanders/Elizabeth Warren wet dream of no money in politics, Clinton would see be able to make that money. It was stupid to take at the time because she was going to run for public office again but she took it as a private citizen.

Hillary Clinton, if she had a liberal progressive Congress, would reliably pass progressive policy on a large number of issues. Including campaign finance reform,

Read page 25 of this LINK . The Dems wanting to move to small donor matching. They ran on that.

Bro, I voted democrat down the ballot minus Hillary, I support the initiatives and policies. But the fact is Hilary was paid more than my entire household for one speech to Wall Street. I'm not against her taking thT money, good for her. But if she wants to run a campaign and try to convince me that that money won't influence her decisions, I disagree.

 

[PatRiley]

You are deflecting.

Hillary Clinton got a lot of corporate money, yes, and? She stated her policy positions, which ones do you not like? Huh?

She would not have been a queen, policy is dictated by the average ideology lead of the House, and the 60th vote in the Senate. Even if she was completely bought, the left could hold her feet to the fire. This is want people mean by Hijacking the Party, like the Tea Party did to the GOP.

You stay active in primaries. If a Democrat, at all levels not just President, is too corporate for you, then you vote against him/her in the primary and put in someone you agree with more. Then no matter what, even if you guy doesn't win in the primary, you vote Democrat in local, state, and national elections against the Republican candidate.

You shift the ideology average of the Party, and you let people that half step know that they will be punished come primary time. But the party stays in power so when you get enough of the people that support a certain issue, it will be easier to get policy done.

I wasn't against any of her policies really, I'm against taking money from greedy bankers and Wall Street. As a matter of fact, her policies would have resulted in more taxes for my business than republican. But I'd rather pay more in taxes than have another racist, rich white guy in office again. I draw the line at taking money from corporations and Wall Street and then running for office. That's just my line, it doesn't have to be yours. You think that money wouldn't influence her decisions, I do. Simple.

 

[RustyShackleford]

Citizen's United never happens if there were only liberal picked Justices.

Campaign Finance reform will be struck down in the Supreme Court unless Dems get to replace RGB, Kennedy, and Thomas.

I don't think the Dems are just this altruistic, idealistic party that wants to get money out of politics (some of them are though) but I know they support it because most of the Dark Money in the system goes to helping Republicans not Dems. Campaign fiance reform will help the Democratic Party, so the incentives align.

Oh god here we go with the wall Streets speeches. Listen, even in the Bernie Sanders/Elizabeth Warren wet dream of no money in politics, Clinton would see be able to make that money. It was stupid to take at the time because she was going to run for public office again but she took it as a private citizen.

Hillary Clinton, if she had a liberal progressive Congress, would reliably pass progressive policy on a large number of issues. Including campaign finance reform,

Read page 25 of this LINK . The Dems wanting to move to small donor matching. They ran on that.

Bro, I voted democrat down the ballot minus Hillary, I support the initiatives and policies. But the fact is Hilary was paid more than my entire household for one speech to Wall Street. I'm not against her taking thT money, good for her. But if she wants to run a campaign and try to convince me that that money won't influence her decisions, I disagree.

Well guess what, because Neil Gorsuch is now a SCOTUS Justice, and there is a good chance the Republican will get to replace RBG. If that happens then any progressive policy you want including campaign finance reform may be DOA.

Hillary Clinton could have been counted on to nominate a liberal non corporate friendly Justice. Hell even Bill Clinton pulled that off and he is way more right wing.

So the cost of protesting voting Hillary with the Green Party is potentially losing 1/3 of the federal government for the 30-50 years. And putting all progressive policy that is ever passed in that timeframe at risk or being struck down before it is even implemented. See the ACA Medicaid expansion.

THAT IS A LONG TERM THREAT

So many lives will be destroyed that would not have under Hillary, not matter how you cut it, flaws and all.

You have convinced yourself that Hillary was so bought that you could not bring yourself to vote for her, but you missed the bigger picture.

 

[AEA18]

Hijacking the dems like the tea party/freedom caucus did the gop would be much easier than hoping/waiting for large number of people to vote 3rd party.

Ok explain how this is done and how it would be better than having more than 2 options for president every time?

http://people.howstuffworks.com/tea-party.htm

http://www.salon.com/2015/05/23/the...rmed_with_all_the_wrong_lessons_from_history/


Never stated that it would be better than having more than 2 options but it is more realistic than people ditching their party loyalties on both sides to vote 3rd party.

I myself am not loyal to any party but I definitely had no problem choosing Hillary over the orange clown.

I knew he would be the WOAT, so it really wasn't a difficult decision. Also took into consideration the supreme court pick.

 

[RustyShackleford]

I want competent third parties too. I would much rather support a national Progressive/Social Democratic Party than the center left Democrats (no matter how left the are currently moving)

But I know that will not happen, and be a productive coalition, until we get major electoral reform.

 

[rolaholic]

Oh boy another one...

@AJEnglish: US-led coalition strikes kill over 106 civilians, including 42 children, in eastern Syrian town of Mayadeen http://aje.io/lltg

 

[everysingletime]

Dude's standing by his decision because he was so worried that Hilary was paid off by Golden Sachs.

I don't think Hilary would've straight up hired a Golden Sachs employee like Trump did. In the meantime, who knows how many WH staff are in Russia's pocket. And because of the Neil Gorsuch pick conservative judges will outnumber liberal judges for how long?

 

[RustyShackleford]

Apparently while Trump was in Belgium he stuffed his face with chocolate (can't blame him there) and complained about it being difficult to set up golf courses in the EU.

 

[osh kosh bosh]

I wasn't against any of her policies really, I'm against taking money from greedy bankers and Wall Street. As a matter of fact, her policies would have resulted in more taxes for my business than republican. But I'd rather pay more in taxes than have another racist, rich white guy in office again. I draw the line at taking money from corporations and Wall Street and then running for office. That's just my line, it doesn't have to be yours. You think that money wouldn't influence her decisions, I do. Simple.

this is a fundamental misuderstanding of the way money actually influences politics.





Politicians are far more likley to lie in private to a rich doner than they are to lie in public.

 

[PatRiley]

Are you guys arguing to protect the democrats decision to nominate Hillary? If you're trying to say that my vote is worthless because I voted third party, fine, but so was yours because Hillary lost. If the democrats had put up just about any other competent politician instead of her, your vote would have counted because it would have been that easy to win the election over the cheetoh

 

[Based Jesus]

What state do you live in Heirjordan?

 

[Belgium]

That's just where we differ I guess. I respect your beliefs and political alliances but I refuse to follow any "party" that is so clearly run by $$$ and special interests, which means I refuse to follow both republicans and democrats. Suggesting to vote democratic because it's just the better option of the two is exactly what I'm against.

I don't understand this logic. Really can't wrap my head around it.

In the current US political system, the third parties are mostly irrelevant. That's just the reality. Presidential elections are between republicans and democrats. There aren't anywhere near enough people voting third party to have a real "protest vote". It's almost literally throwing your vote away at this point.

In my country we have mandatory voting in national elections, so we are forced to vote for something either way. Technically you can write a blank vote but all blank votes are added to the party/individual with the most votes. So it's pointless and you might end up helping a party you dislike the most.

I believe our government system is deeply flawed for a numbers of reasons I have detailed in the past, and have no allegiance to any particular party.

My first national election vote was for a centrist party, my latest vote was for our conservative party.

In each election year, I examine the various parties' platforms, policy proposals, candidates, past actions, ...

I wouldn't say I particularly like any party, so my decision making would be better characterized as finding out which party I have the least disagreements with. If I voted blank because I don't fully support any specific party, my vote would simply be added to whichever party has the most votes. So instead of wasting it and potentially indirectly voting for a party I may have even more disagreements with, I pick the party that is closest to my ideological beliefs and values.

Hypothetically, if I were a US citizen I would always vote democrat. Social issues are high on my list of top priorities so that alone would already categorically exclude the GOP in its current state. I also don't believe in trickle down economics and am disgusted by their stance on abortion, healthcare, equal rights, ...

I wouldn't say I like Hillary but I don't hate her or anything. I preferred Bernie. But in this example let's assume I was deeply disappointed with Hillary's nomination and the state of the DNC. Taking into account my views I listed above, in what world would it make sense for me to vote third party or abstain because I was dissatisfied with the current nominee and status of the party? Knowing that plays right into the hands of the republicans, who are unified and vote for their candidates in large numbers.

I would then have contributed to a possibly victory of a candidate or party who stands firmly against everything I believe in, all because I wasn't satisfied with the current state of the DNC. Regardless of that dissatisfaction, the party's platform and policies would still be far more aligned with my views than the GOP could ever hope to resemble. So it would make zero sense to play into the hands of the GOP.

I would assume that for black people, or people of color in general, playing into the hands of the GOP because of dissatisfaction with the DNC seems even more ridiculous and backwards. I think it's fair to say that the DNC does not do enough for people of color and African-Americans in particular. However the GOP actively supports voter suppression, which primarily targets African-Americans, have a long history of racism and dog whistling, and a generally awful track record on race issues. Sessions is ramping up the war on drugs again, Betsy Devos sees no problem with taxpayer funded schools discriminating against people of color, lgbt citizens, ...

Instead of criminal justice reform, Sessions is making private prisons great again. Police reform? Only blue lives matter.

Science? That's not in da bible b

The point is, the GOP generally stands firmly against key values and beliefs of someone who identifies as liberal or on the left. And since voting third party at this time plays right into the hands of the GOP, by doing that or abstaining you're indirectly voting for a party whose views and policies are likely the polar opposite of yours. There is no scenario in which this makes sense. Whether you're dissatisfied with the DNC or whatever, what other choice do you have as a leftist that aligns best with your views and values? Maybe the third parties do, but they have zero power in presidential elections, so the DNC would be the closest alternative.

In short, I really can't think of any scenario in which a leftist playing into the hands of the GOP because of dissatisfaction with the DNC makes sense.

 

[noskey]

Are you guys arguing to protect the democrats decision to nominate Hillary? If you're trying to say that my vote is worthless because I voted third party, fine, but so was yours because Hillary lost. If the democrats had put up just about any other competent politician instead of her, your vote would have counted because it would have been that easy to win the election over the cheetoh

Do you live in a swing state?

 

[RustyShackleford]

Are you guys arguing to protect the democrats decision to nominate Hillary? If you're trying to say that my vote is worthless because I voted third party, fine, but so was yours because Hillary lost. If the democrats had put up just about any other competent politician instead of her, your vote would have counted because it would have been that easy to win the election over the cheetoh

-There was a primary, she won by a large margin, you have to get over it. There is no guarantee that another Dem would have won.

-Our vote was worthless too is a bull **** excuse. We voted for the best candidate, you didn't not. Your split ticket helps the GOP, ours don't

You are dismissing people trying to educate you on the electoral process and the realities of politics just because you don't like Hillary Clinton and are hung up about her winning the nomination.

 

[PatRiley]

Cmon guys, I do appreciate the education on the subject because I know I'm not well versed. I am learning from this thread and I appreciate it. I'm not trying to tell you guys how to think or vote, but it seems like you are trying to tel me how I should vote. You say my vote as a third party is worthless, which you are right. My point is that it shouldn't be worthless, the system is flawed and I'm not ok with choosing "the better of the two options." The facts that I have brought up have been ignored: Hillary took significant payments from Wall Street before being elected and all I've read is how that somehow wouldn't influence her (I disagree). To me it's no different than all the corruption I've seen in South American countries, it's just more subtle here in the states.

I'm in Florida btw

 

[Belgium]

Cmon guys, I do appreciate the education on the subject because I know I'm not well versed. I am learning from this thread and I appreciate it. I'm not trying to tell you guys how to think or vote, but it seems like you are trying to tel me how I should vote. You say my vote as a third party is worthless, which you are right. My point is that it shouldn't be worthless, the system is flawed and I'm not ok with choosing "the better of the two options." The facts that I have brought up have been ignored: Hillary took significant payments from Wall Street before being elected and all I've read is how that somehow wouldn't influence her (I disagree). To me it's no different than all the corruption I've seen in South American countries, it's just more subtle here in the states.

I'm in Florida btw

A multi-party system is always more ideal. And hopefully something that you country can eventually experience. You are right in saying that your third party vote shouldn't be worthless, but unfortunately that is what it is at this time. 

Ask yourself this then, do you prefer Hillary over Trump and whose policies do you think align more with your views and values? 

 

[aepps20]

Florida was a HUGE state for Da Don B. WE DID IT B.