June 7 Primaries - "Clinton has applied Bern cream" edition - Polidicks

[QUOTE=OmniConsUme;50481448]No, she is not going to implement the TPP in her fucking first year. Obama walked back after it was found out the effect on the U.S. Economy was negligible at best.[/QUOTE] Nice crystal ball there

[QUOTE=OmniConsUme;50481448]No, she is not going to implement the TPP in her fucking first year. Obama walked back after it was found out the effect on the U.S. Economy was negligible at best.[/QUOTE] she hasn't said she wouldn't implement it. With trump she doesn't even need to make a stand because she can just poke fun at how he doesn't even know what TPP is. also it already looks like she's shifting to try to bring in moderate republicans, who DO support TPP. Not taking a stand on TPP helps her in the long run, but it says fuckall about whether it will or will not pass, and then there's the issue if obama would sign it because he will be a lame duck president with a lame duck congress, and the senate majority will most likely shift in this election. then what does she do if the lame duck congress gets it passed? judging by her character, she will wave her hands and say "the last congress did it and america honors its comitments!" or some spiel like that.

so odd's are tpp is getting passed?

none, all the presidential candidates are against it now i don't think hillary can change her mind again, it would ruin her unless Obama works with republicans on it before he goes, it won't happen

at, this point this is the only good thing is if that doesn't passt

[QUOTE=person11;50481932]i don't think hillary can change her mind again, it would ruin her[/QUOTE] Just like how "changing her mind" on a billion other things has ruined her before?

[QUOTE=person11;50481932]none, all the presidential candidates are against it now i don't think hillary can change her mind again, it would ruin her unless Obama works with republicans on it before he goes, it won't happen[/QUOTE] FOIA requests on her stance on TPP have been postponed by a year as they're allowed to do if that doesn't say "Hilary is for the TPP" to you, literally nothing will prove that to you

Can I get a 5 year old proof explanation of TPP and why it's bad

It's NAFTA 2.0 but with a ton of things the public isn't allowed to see that are based around internet security and freedoms, much of the TPP was written by lobbiests or in consultation with them.

Bernie managed to get a lot of people who otherwise wouldn't vote to get interested in the system, and my only concern is that when their golden boy doesn't win, they all go back to being apathetic citizens with an even greater disdain for our voting system.

[QUOTE=DepDirkson;50482224]Bernie managed to get a lot of people who otherwise wouldn't vote to get interested in the system, and my only concern is that when their golden boy doesn't win, they all go back to being apathetic citizens with an even greater disdain for our voting system.[/QUOTE] and that's what powers at be want I hope it's the other way around

[QUOTE=Jim Morrison;50479715]There is of course no evidence of deliberate suppression of Sanders' voters but that's largely irrelevant because they don't need to target them. A populist like Bernie requires high enthusiasm and high voter turnout (especially among millennials who normally have the lowest turnout) in order to beat a frontrunner like Clinton. The less people voting, the better Hillary does which is why she dominated closed primaries. Any "general fuckups" are going to invariably hurt Sanders more than Hillary. Again, there is no concrete evidence of an intentional conspiracy but there were quite a few suspicious fuckups. In the long run would Sanders still have lost anyways? Probably. But there should be an investigation to determine whether there really was any malicious wrongdoing.[/QUOTE] "The primary is tomorrow and I just started caring about politics today. Wait, I had to register a while ago? Disenfranchisement!!"

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50481516]Nice crystal ball there[/QUOTE] She backed off on the TPP [i]less than 48 hours after the draft was finalized[/i]. The debate with Sanders may have been a factor, but she hardly swapped her position on a bill she'd been championing since [i]2012[/i] simply because she might get a few Sanders voters. She changed her mind on TPP because [i]the bill was still in negotiations up until a day before the debate[/i]. The final bill did not reach her standards on labor protections, the exact same criticism she levied against CAFTA, [i]a free trade bill she actively fought against[/i]. The idea that Clinton flipped on the TPP is ludicrous and uneducated. It fits in with her stance on free trade bills 100%. She made a clear decision and backed off on her support when the final draft was not up to standards - the initial drafts before it was finalized may have been much more beneficial to American workers and had stronger labor protections. The final draft didn't. So she "flipped" on it - as in she made an educated, adult decision to revoke her support for a bill that was not strong enough on issues that mattered.

[QUOTE=DepDirkson;50482224]Bernie managed to get a lot of people who otherwise wouldn't vote to get interested in the system, and my only concern is that when their golden boy doesn't win, they all go back to being apathetic citizens with an even greater disdain for our voting system.[/QUOTE] To be fair, your voting system is completely beyond fucked. Ours isn't stellar either. Both our countries need reform. How can you blame people for being apathetic and disillusioned when there's nothing they can do to improve things?

[QUOTE=archangel125;50482355]To be fair, your voting system is completely beyond fucked. Ours isn't stellar either. Both our countries need reform. How can you blame people for being apathetic and disillusioned when there's nothing they can do to improve things?[/QUOTE] what's the issues with our's if you don't mind me asking?

[QUOTE=theevilldeadII;50482392]what's the issues with our's if you don't mind me asking?[/QUOTE] It works in a very similar manner. People vote for federal representatives who in turn vote for the Prime Minister. People are also only allowed to vote for one party. While Canada has three (arguably four if you REALLY want to count the Greens, I guess) major parties, there's no way to vote for multiple people in order of choice. Therefore, split votes of the sort that led to Stephen Harper's long reign happen all the time. The solution to this would be to have people pick the candidates they want in order of choice. If, for example, the liberals, the NDP, and the Conservatives are running, and Joe Schmoe wants to vote Liberal first, then NDP, he can write that in. IF his first choice, the liberals, are the party with the least amount of votes, they're eliminated under this system, and since his second choice was NDP, the NDP gets his vote. This means no more strategic voters, and allows elections that much more accurately represent the views of the people. Basically, people will no longer have to choose which candidate they think is most likely to win and not be awful, instead of the candidate they really want.

[QUOTE=archangel125;50482355]To be fair, your voting system is completely beyond fucked. Ours isn't stellar either. Both our countries need reform. How can you blame people for being apathetic and disillusioned when there's nothing they can do to improve things?[/QUOTE] I can't blame people. I was one of the people that was very pro-bernie when the election season first started, and then early on my state swung Hillary and suddenly it was on the rest of the country to make the right choice. I am fully aware of my broken voting system, but it also isn't likely to change. I hope a Hillary or Trump presidency wakes people up that something needs to change, but it probably won't.

[QUOTE=archangel125;50482404]It works in a very similar manner. People vote for federal representatives who in turn vote for the Prime Minister. People are also only allowed to vote for one party. While Canada has three (arguably four if you REALLY want to count the Greens, I guess) major parties, there's no way to vote for people in order of choice. Therefore, split votes of the sort that led to Stephen Harper's long reign happen all the time. The solution to this would be to have people pick the candidates they want in order of choice. If, for example, the liberals, the NDP, and the Conservatives are running, and Joe Schmoe wants to vote Liberal first, then NDP, he can write that in. IF his first choice, the liberals, are the party with the least amount of votes, they're eliminated under this system, and since his second choice was NDP, the NDP gets his vote. This means no more strategic voters, and allows elections that much more accurately represent the views of the people. Basically, people will no longer have to choose which candidate they think is most likely to win and not be awful, instead of the candidate they really want.[/QUOTE] If the Liberals don't change any of that I'm going to be pissed

[QUOTE=Daniel Smith;50482513]If the Liberals don't change any of that I'm going to be pissed[/QUOTE] I wouldn't hold my breath. It'd mean reducing their chances of winning in the future, and they want to hold on to that power.

Looks like there's still around 1.3m provisional ballots to be counted. It could end up flipping and being 60% Sanders. We'll see for certain by the 8th of july [editline]9th June 2016[/editline] In California*

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50482250]"The primary is tomorrow and I just started caring about politics today. Wait, I had to register a while ago? Disenfranchisement!!"[/QUOTE] "A while ago" aka 6 months in the case of New York. Don't pretend that shit is okay. That wasn't the only issue in this election either.

[QUOTE=TheDestroyerOfall;50482548]Looks like there's still around 1.3m provisional ballots to be counted. It could end up flipping and being 60% Sanders. We'll see for certain by the 8th of july [editline]9th June 2016[/editline] In California*[/QUOTE] It's over man

[QUOTE=DepDirkson;50482224]Bernie managed to get a lot of people who otherwise wouldn't vote to get interested in the system, and my only concern is that when their golden boy doesn't win, they all go back to being apathetic citizens with an even greater disdain for our voting system.[/QUOTE] I don't see it that way. Sanders literally went from "Bernie who?" to "Holy shit, rad political grandpa gets it!" over the course of this campaign. I myself had only seen snippets of what he had done prior, regarding trade deals and homosexuals in the military (oooh man, when he tore into that guy over that subject, fucking golden), and it seemed the more I learned about him the more I liked him. Even when I learned that he had trouble holding a steady job and received welfare off-and-on, he was doing volunteer work at psychiatric hospitals and the like, so even when he had little he was giving back in a way. His message, demeanor, and vision resonated well within me, even if I don't agree 100% with ALL of his ideas. And so, "Bernie who?" managed to run a campaign against the well-recognized Clinton brand, and not only managed to make it this far, but also got a lot of people who wouldn't give two shits otherwise to go out and vote, on top of his campaign performing as surprisingly well as it did.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50481986]FOIA requests on her stance on TPP have been postponed by a year as they're allowed to do if that doesn't say "Hilary is for the TPP" to you, literally nothing will prove that to you[/QUOTE] i know she likes it, but i also know that this election has made people much more aware of her attitude, and she won't be able to change her stance on anything as easily as she could before

[QUOTE=Jim Morrison;50483048]"A while ago" aka 6 months in the case of New York. Don't pretend that shit is okay. That wasn't the only issue in this election either.[/QUOTE] "They set the registration before Bernie even became a major contender, clearly it was all against him"

Sanders has managed to flip a superdelegate [media]https://twitter.com/Marshall_Cohen/status/740722875972374528[/media]

:snip:

/r/s4p still thinks they will win California [url]https://www.reddit.com//r/SandersForPresident/comments/4n8u0t/how_bernie_will_win_california_crucial_info/[/url] [editline]9th June 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50483931]Oh god here we go For the next week, this guy will be used as a premise to why Bernie will still win I want to get off the ride :suicide:[/QUOTE] Read the tweet again

[QUOTE=smurfy;50483956] Read the tweet again[/QUOTE] Woops, I need to finish my coffee

[QUOTE=smurfy;50483891]Sanders has managed to flip a superdelegate [media]https://twitter.com/Marshall_Cohen/status/740722875972374528[/media][/QUOTE] Oh man. Wouldn't it just be the sweetest irony if the remaining ~50 supers backing Sanders flipped and went for Hillary too. So much for Bernie winning over the supers in that case haha