• Super Tuesday - most polling booths close at 7pm EST
    665 replies, posted
[QUOTE=proboardslol;49845179]That's part of it. Really, I'm pretty cynical about the whole thing. At times I've been honest, dishonest, and semi-sarcastic about liking Hillary, but here's the bullet points for me: * Foreign Policy. Bernie has none. Where he does, it sucks. * College. I don't think Bernie can get free college in the United States. I think he overestimates his ability to close tax loopholes. If he knows that these are overestimations, then he's no better than any other politician. Hillary Wants a 20 year loan forgiveness and restructuring program, with a payment system based on after-tax discretionary spending. This, to me, sounds more achievable than trying to close tax loopholes. * Healthcare. Hillary has been for universal healthcare for a long time. Hillarycare seemed more reasonable than outright free medicare for all: those who can't pay, don't pay. Those who can pay, pay what they can. *I'm afraid that Bernie's goal to make the USA more like Europe will eliminate the United States as a private sector hub, weakening our economy as companies ship not only more jobs overseas, but move their headquarters overseas. There's others but they're eluding me right now. I don't have any illusions that Hillary isn't dishonest, but I do think she has the most reasonable ideas, with more reasonable plans. I mean, Obama is pretty dishonest, but look at all he's gotten done: he saved the Auto industry, got the ACA pushed through, became the first president to openly support gay marriage, drew back American troops from conflict zones, signed a landmark non-proliferation treaty with Russia, and brought unemployment in check. [editline]1st March 2016[/editline] if you want to convince someone of something, maybe don't cite a website that's obviously biased.[/QUOTE] Bernie has unreasonably high goals considering the president is not a dictator and republican legislators will probably oppose all his propositions. Still he actually seems to want the country to become better for all equally and to avoid war and conflict, which to me would make him the best candidate easily. Hillary is so inconsistent I don't know how you can have trust in her words or intentions at all. A candidate who knowingly tells lies is unacceptable to me.
[QUOTE=Ziron;49846366]Blacks do not fucking care that Sanders got arretested for civil rights in 1963. They are about what he's done for them, which is jack and shit. He is a non-presence among politically active blacks because he has never reached out to them until his nomination run. Meanwhile, the Clintons have been very close to the black community for at least two decades and are very involved in black events. They know blacks far, far better than Sanders ever will at this point. Sanders also [URL="http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/03/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-voting-history"]supported[/URL] the same 1994 bill that he's been slamming Clinton on, which makes him a huge hypocrite. He claims he voted for it only for the Assault Weapons Ban, but he voted for it before that was added to the bill. Stupid benevolent racist bullshit like "I know what's best for blacks!" (which you and the Canandian dude have posted) is one of the reasons why Sanders is not getting the black vote, BTW.[/QUOTE] [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4G4RFH2Qo1E[/media] shut up killer mike, stop being so racist and condescending to black people
[QUOTE=Ziron;49846126]A Canadian attempting to lecutre black Americans about who's REALLY best for them. Are you serious?[/QUOTE] yeah he probably knows more about whats good for us than we do, considering canada has actually at least fucking [I]tried[/I] some of the things being proposed by bernie. when people in canada, denmark, sweden, and whatever else country are all telling you "hey this healthcare is pretty great", im pretty inclined to believe they all might be on to something. but no, hurr my taxes
Hillary may be awful, but I don't see why anyone would push any Republican, Trump included, over her. Trump may have a more positive attitude towards universal healthcare and Social Security than most Republicans, but he'll still represent the interests of the party to a large degree while in office (unless he wants to be a one-term wonder). Trump would continue the Republican assault on the nation's poor and on civil liberties, and he'd gladly continue the U.S' murderous campaigns abroad and perhaps start new ones.
"It appears as though Sanders' policies benefit poor minorities the most compared against his opposition." "Stop being racist!" oh......
[QUOTE=CrumbleShake;49846687][media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4G4RFH2Qo1E[/media] shut up killer mike, stop being so racist and condescending to black people[/QUOTE] It's not Killer Mike - it's the people on reddit ranting about how "uneducated black voters" are idiots for voting for Hillary, as if civil rights and prison reform are [i]the only thing[/i] that black voters are allowed to care about. I completely agree that Sanders is the better candidate for prison reform and helping impoverished minorities. But going around saying "you're an idiot if you don't vote for sanders i'm white and i know what's good for black people" is the opposite of helping the Sanders campaign, and that's sentiment that I see online all the damn time.
[QUOTE=.Isak.;49846715]It's not Killer Mike - it's the people on reddit ranting about how "uneducated black voters" are idiots for voting for Hillary, as if civil rights and prison reform are [i]the only thing[/i] that black voters are allowed to care about. I completely agree that Sanders is the better candidate for prison reform and helping impoverished minorities. But going around saying "you're an idiot if you don't vote for sanders i'm white and i know what's good for black people" is the opposite of helping the Sanders campaign, and that's sentiment that I see online all the damn time.[/QUOTE] Yeah I got confused between your post and a few of the other posts who were calling us racist for trying to understand why black people vote for someone with such an awful civil rights record.
[QUOTE=Headhumpy;49846526]Jesus Christ, do you not realise how disgusting you sound now? "You just don't know what's good for you, you poor stupid black voters. If only you'd listen to us smarter people!"[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=EcksDee;49846276]Hillary has like over thirty years of experience, and yet during that time she's supported the programs that have [I]disproportionately[/I] jailed black Americans. (only when she's not being recorded or talking to an audience of voters, of course. Then she says whatever she needs to get elected) Meanwhile, Bernie got arrested in 1963 for protesting segregation, at a time when it wasn't comfortable to maintain the status quo, like Hillary has done her entire life. When Hillary needs the black vote (a weird term but we'll go with it for now) she says that black lives matter, but out of that context she supported policies that were responsible, to some extent, for mass incarceration. Same with her stance on gay marriage, her being a "moderate" etc etc.[/QUOTE] It's an extremely counter-intuitive thing to support a woman like this, not only if you were a black person from the perspective of issues like disproportionate incarceration rates and institutional racism, but moreover from the perspective of being an American citizen with the ability to see that the status quo of American politics in general... clearly is not working, and it's actually been damaging us significantly these last few years... and that Clinton herself is the embodiment of the status quo. She's the modern continuation of liberalesque, moneyed American politics, political dynasticism, and backroom corruption, and it really makes no sense to support her unless you're one of the privileged few which her election would somehow serve to benefit in some way; chances are good that you're not one of these individuals. You're trying to spin this as me saying, "I know better than blacks," when that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that this is the typical trend of our politics, I'm smart enough to see it (as are plenty of others, hence the general dissatisfaction in this country with our political system and the eruption in popularity of candidates like Trump and Sanders in the first place), and this trend is the exact same thing that's been dragging us downhill for a long time now: we elect people that talk change, but have no records to support any intention of initiating change. We elect people it makes no sense for us to be electing and clearly are not going to watch out for our best interests-- doesn't matter if you're a black person who has been personally affected by your community's racial problems, a student trying to make it through school or a graduate trying to deal with debt, a patient or the relative of someone who has serious medical issues and who has racked up tens of thousands or more likely hundreds of thousands of dollars of healthcare debts, etc.-- and then we stand around after their term in office is done and wonder why nothing got done, act all outraged because nothing got done and we're in the exact same position we were before (maybe a little better or a little worse, but overall no different; sometimes, we get somebody in office who [i]really[/i] fucks things up though), then do the exact same goddamned thing all over again the next election cycle without having learned a fucking thing. I'm not complaining that this is something unique to American politics, because history tells us it's not; this is true of human politics in general. What I'm saying is it's sad to see us go from a clear mentality fueled by dissatisfaction at the status quo of, "Hey-- let's push to nominate somebody for the election who won't fuck us over/do nothing for us next time," to apparently, "Hey-- let's completely flipflop on our justified dissatisfaction we had before and our desire to get somebody in office who will make necessary socio-economic and political reforms... and instead, let's push to nominate somebody who will not only uphold the status quo, which we've been bitching about for years now, but who will personally go so far as to [i]embody[/i] the status quo." We've got a real chance to change things with Sanders here. It's an opportunity that's been handed to us on a silver platter. And in spite of this, there's a very real possibility we're going to squander it and instead go for Clinton. That's depressing as fuck. I'm not one who believes she's going to ruin the country, which I think we could easily see if Trump is the one who wins, but I also don't believe she's going to do anything particularly great to benefit it or us either. She's not really going to do anything at all for us, but she'll do a lot to enrich herself. And again, that's a shame, especially when we had the opportunity of somebody like Sanders to appear and challenge her, and who could have prevented this. But again, it's whatever. We elect who we elect, and we get what we deserve in the end. That's how simple it is. I mean, the nomination process isn't even over with yet, but this is still disheartening. On the plus side of things, the intention by Sanders never needed to be winning decisive victories over Clinton-- just achieving close margins to prove himself as a formidable candidate. Considering the amount of money he's raised and the amount of popular support he's been shown, he's done that. But it may not be enough to get the nomination. And again, considering what he represents as the anti to what Clinton represents, that's disappointing.
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;49846292][img]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cce94hbXIAUudb7.jpg[/img] Twitter cracks me up sometimes.[/QUOTE] I'm surprised that Sanders is not as left as I thought. I'm more left than him and I sometimes think he's a little extreme. Here's the non-parody version if anyone is curious [img]http://i.imgur.com/ZArtCqm.png[/img]
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;49846742]I'm surprised that Sanders is not as left as I thought. I'm more left than him and I sometimes think he's a little extreme. Here's the non-parody version if anyone is cuious [media]http://i.imgur.com/ZArtCqm.png[/media][/QUOTE] On a global scale he's very much a centrist. Compared to past European social projects, his policies are tame.
How are things like "the black vote", "the woman vote", "the gay vote" etc not considered offensive these days. You're lumping in everyone in that demographic as if they can only care about race/gender/sex issues and nothing else. You're assuming all blacks/females are one issue voters which is demonstrably incorrect. Sure it might be a huge part of their choice but it's not the only issue. Compromise is a thing in politics and it's okay for a black person to vote for someone that isn't a social justice poster-child because they have other matters on mind other than race relations. You might as well say that the only people that can vote for issues across the board are well off white men.
I never understood the concept of "The x vote" Like for example, for the black vote, does that imply that there are black people only vote because of racial issues and nothing else? Is that really what "the black vote" is?
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;49846772]I never understood the concept of "The x vote" Like for example, for the black vote, does that imply that there are black people only vote because of racial issues and nothing else?[/QUOTE] "X Vote" concept relates to the tendency voters have to operate in a consistent accordance with identity politics. Not all of X will behave in accordance with their group, but human beings in general do organize themselves into groups with which they feel their identities belong to, particularly through social organizations like economic class and race, and care about their interests as both an individual and as a member of their group(s) will be represented/their concerns addressed/etc. It's not a matter of them necessarily only belonging to one group either. Most people can be divided up into belonging to multiple groups, and they see themselves as such. A few people though choose to prioritize single groups over others; think of racial/ethnic nationalists, for example, or the really militant and vocal individuals who identify with the LGBT community (so-called "queer nationalists"; this is an actual term used to describe them, just so we're clear). Again though, it's a bit strange to be supporting someone like Clinton if you really belong to... any group, honestly. She's not going to revolutionize anything, and she's just going to enrich herself and her associates. So unless you're a part of that small circle of people who are going to get something out of her winning (and like I said before, chances are good that you're not), I cannot understand how you could possibly feel she's got your best interests at heart and why you would choose to support her willingly. If you're black and care about things like problems in this country with institutional racism and disproportionate incarceration rates, it's definitely counter-intuitive to support her. That's just one example, but it's true-- especially given her record compared to Sanders'.
[QUOTE=OvB;49846759]How are things like "the black vote", "the woman vote", "the gay vote" etc not considered offensive these days. You're lumping in everyone in that demographic as if they can only care about race/gender/sex issues and nothing else. You're assuming all blacks/females are one issue voters which is demonstrably incorrect. Sure it might be a huge part of their choice but it's not the only issue. Compromise is a thing in politics and it's okay for a black person to vote for someone that isn't a social justice poster-child because they have other matters on mind other than race relations. You might as well say that the only people that can vote for issues across the board are well off white folk.[/QUOTE] Study voting patterns and you'll find that these demographics do exist, and they're important for political strategy. Different people have different reason for voting, whether it's because you've got a lot of money, or if its because you've been more affected by certain issues than others, or if its because you've got children to worry about, or if you're a member of a minority group with a history of persecution. Candidates are successful when they appeal to certain types of voters. I'd love to live in a world where people didn't have different experiences influencing their voting behaviour based on their race/gender/sexuality/etc but sadly we live in a world where black people are disproportionately locked up, largely thanks to a bill championed by the Clintons, to name one example. Nobodys suggesting anyone votes on single issues, nobody's expecting all black people to vote for Sanders because he protested for civil rights, nobody ever earns anywhere near 100% of a demographic. To call demographics offensive is ridiculous. Though, obviously what you'd expect demographically here hasn't happened. Black voting patterns are the result of historical institutionalised racism. Studying that from a demographic perspective is not racism.
[QUOTE=Headhumpy;49846357] If the product was more expensive than before then less of it would be sold. If I bought 12 widgets a year at $10 dollars each, and suddenly the price rose to $15 per widget because they are now manufactured locally, I would now be buying just 8 widgets a year. Or if I absolutely must have 12 widgets a year, then I'd be spending more on widgets and less on other things. Neither case is beneficial on the whole because although the company enjoys greater revenues, I get to enjoy less widgets, or my cost of living goes up.[/QUOTE] The case is completely beneficial. The consumer spends more money on domestic products which helps domestic business and the domestic economy. There is DWL as you point out, but it is wholly better for jobs and domestic businesses to have a tariff. You can read about it [URL="https://faculty.washington.edu/danby/bls324/trade/tariff.html"]here[/URL] to avoid more derailing on tariffs because we could spend weeks talking about implications. The only way a tariff is bad for a product is if the domestic product is so minor that it has no effect on the international price - for instance, plastic fork production. Tariffs work well in large industries such as manufacturing.
I had CNN on and literally all they were doing as talking about the racial makeup of the super tuesday states.
[QUOTE=Headhumpy;49846473]Same applies for female voters too. "You're just voting for Hillary because she's a woman!"[/QUOTE] Not saying that automatically gives her female voters, but people in general may vote for Hillary because she's a woman, like how people voted for Obama because he wasn't white.
[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;49846926]Not saying that automatically gives her female voters, but people in general may vote for Hillary because she's a woman, like how people voted for Obama because he wasn't white.[/QUOTE] Barely anyone voted for or against Obama because of race. I can't find the source I had a couple years ago, but roughly only 0.06% of the entire nation voted based on race, being divided by 0.02% voting [I]for[/I] Obama because he was black and 0.04% voting [I]against[/I] Obama because he was black. That's right, a third of race based voting was for him due to his color. [editline]1st March 2016[/editline] This was for 2008 mind you, not 2012
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;49846742]I'm surprised that Sanders is not as left as I thought. I'm more left than him and I sometimes think he's a little extreme. Here's the non-parody version if anyone is curious [img]http://i.imgur.com/ZArtCqm.png[/img][/QUOTE] How are the GOP closer to the extreme authoritarian fascist parties than they are to Hillary? It makes no sense.
:snip: misread
Just came back from voting. I hope it's a good sign that this primary was more crowded than the last state election. I'm worried it's a bad sign.
[QUOTE=gman003-main;49847056]Just came back from voting. I hope it's a good sign that this primary was more crowded than the last state election. I'm worried it's a bad sign.[/QUOTE] I was like the only person in my polling location
[QUOTE=Waffle cones.;49847064]Yeah, I giggled at that, too. I went with a group of friends, some of which voted Republican, and they were equally amused by all of the former candidates still on their much more crowded ballot.[/QUOTE] Texas, here seconding this being a thing as well when I got my card. So in my guess these things were made before candidates started dropping, so instead of reprinting new ones they just keep em' cause a reprint would take time.
[QUOTE]UPDATE: 5:12 p.m. EST — Former President Bill Clinton got into trouble Tuesday after he went into a polling location in Boston, local media reported. The state’s Secretary of the Commonwealth’s office sent Hillary Clinton’s campaign a reminder not to solicit votes near polling sites after her husband addressed election workers and voters at a polling location in the West Roxbury neighborhood. Under Massachusetts election law, the solicitation of a vote for or against a candidate, party or position within 150 feet of a polling place is prohibited.[/QUOTE] From IBTimes
[QUOTE=fruxodaily;49847238]From IBTimes[/QUOTE] Woops. Oh well, goofy Bill. Boys will be boys.
[QUOTE=thelurker1234;49843678]A lot of these are relatively conservative states making me think hillary will do quite well unfortunately. Trump will of course dominate pretty much all of them. He's got a chance of even picking up Texas from Cruz. Oh well I'll be out voting tho.[/QUOTE] I drove to the wrong polling station and had to go to another, so that sucks (Assumed that I had to go to the same one my friend went to. nope). My home state being Texas, the republican line was easy 5x or more longer than the democrat one. I enjoyed being able to skip pretty much the entire line I suppose.
[QUOTE=fruxodaily;49847238]From IBTimes[/QUOTE] They also couldn't vote at some polling spots [B]because[/B] Bill showed up and blocked the road: [video=youtube;pLPq5gV7kXY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pLPq5gV7kXY[/video] He went to four polling locations today
Clinton won Georgia and Virginia
[QUOTE=lope;49847292]Clinton won Georgia and Virginia[/QUOTE] And Bernie won Vermont.
if cnn's your source right now, those are just exit poll projections
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.