Clinton to take on Citizens United ruling, hopes to pass Constitutional amendment to end it - Polidicks

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;50725320] I don't pay much attention to polls for that very reason, I'm not going to claim that she is or isn't popular or base any argument on her apparent popularity. Instead I'll focus on things I do know: some people don't like her, some people hate her, some people adore her, and some people simply don't care. [/QUOTE] How empirical :v:

[QUOTE=Map in a box;50725414]this country can't really be dumb enough to elect trump right? this country can't be big enough idiots to elect hillary, right?[/QUOTE] The answer is yes. Because we don't have a viable other option. So deal with another typical president for four years and try again

[QUOTE=Raidyr;50725423]How empirical :v:[/QUOTE]I think that's certainly a lot better than trying to chase down some wishywashy numbers and pretending like they actually mean anything. Meanwhile I do know those four groups exist in some form so I'll go from there and I won't presume anything else.

[QUOTE=Saxon;50724454]You must be posting from that other universe I keep hearing about because he kept the majority of them[/QUOTE] He's actually done a lot and it's extremely likely that butre knowingly or unknowingly benefits from his actions.

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;50725438]I think that's certainly a lot better than trying to chase down some wishywashy numbers and pretending like they actually mean anything. Meanwhile I do know those four groups exist in some form so I'll go from there and I won't presume anything else.[/QUOTE] it's not "trying to chase down some wishywashy numbers" it's gathering data. [QUOTE=Code3Response;50725443]He's actually done a lot and it's extremely likely that butre knowingly or unknowingly benefits from his actions.[/QUOTE] I paid $1.97/gallon for gas the other day, thanks Obama.

[QUOTE=Code3Response;50725434]The answer is yes. Because we don't have a viable other option. So deal with another typical president for four years and try again[/QUOTE] we most definitely do have other viable options but the majority of the country takes to heart when someone wins the dem/gop primaries and thinks that the two candidates are the only ones that can become president

[QUOTE=Raidyr;50725459]it's not "trying to chase down some wishywashy numbers" it's gathering data.[/QUOTE]Cool. I'm the type of person who [I]won't[/I] take a survey and I'm not so arrogant to think that I'm unique in that regard. So, having said that, there may very well be a big chunk of the population with opinions that isn't being surveyed because of the sample method. Sure, polls do show some trends but I'm not going to say, "yes, this is absolutely representative of all people," because it's not. I know it's not. I think that qualify as "wishywashy" in my book. [QUOTE=Map in a box;50725501]we most definitely do have other viable options but the majority of the country takes to heart when someone wins the dem/gop primaries and thinks that the two candidates are the only ones that can become president[/QUOTE]Sadly the only way to change this paradigm is to change our voting system entirely, but the only real way I see that happening is if the stars align and we come very, very close to electing a third party president. I'm not even expecting Johnson to win, I just want to throw a wrench in the election at this point because I equally hate both candidates. Maybe if the numbers are alarming enough we can use that to build a movement on reform, but I won't lie, I don't think the odds are very good. Better than doing nothing I suppose.

[QUOTE=Map in a box;50725501]we most definitely do have other viable options but the majority of the country takes to heart when someone wins the dem/gop primaries and thinks that the two candidates are the only ones that can become president[/QUOTE] No, we have a [URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo"]de facto two party system[/URL], like [I]literally every other first past the post presidential election system in the world[/I]. It's not that people are not imaginative enough, it's literally the fault of the entire voting system and the electoral institution and requires a complete overhaul of the voting/electoral system. The last time a party other than the Democrats or the Republicans (or the Democrat-Populists) won the presidential election was in 1848 - and that was the Whigs, who were part of a two-party system as well. The last time any third party got more than even 10% of the electoral college, 54 votes, was in 1912 with Theodore Roosevelt. All that happened was the Republican vote got split by the Progressive Party and Woodrow Wilson got to walk right into office. People said the majority of the population "wasn't imaginative enough" with Ron Paul, they said that about Ralph Nader, they've said it about literally every fringe candidate on the planet in all of history, and yet we haven't had a real "third party" win [I]ever[/I] in United States history. It's not that [i]not a single fucking American in hundreds of years[/i] hasn't been imaginative enough to get a third party into office, it's that the institution [i]prevents it[/i]. People have tried and all they do is fuck up the vote and spoil it. Fuck's sake I'm so tired of this absurd line of reasoning that "only if we tried we could win as a third party!" It's never happened. You'd need to be on the brink of fucking armageddon to get a third party into office, and you'd need to have the Republican candidate be a man with a brick permanently wedged into his skull and the Democratic candidate to be a man who surgically attached his ass to his face.

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;50725512]Cool. I'm the type of person who [I]won't[/I] take a survey and I'm not so arrogant to think that I'm unique in that regard. So, having said that, there may very well be a big chunk of the population with opinions that isn't being surveyed because of the sample method. Sure, polls do show some trends but I'm not going to say, "yes, this is absolutely representative of all people," because it's not. I know it's not. I think that qualify as "wishywashy" in my book. [/QUOTE] So, because you personally dislike answering surveys, polls that require these surveys must all be 'wishwashy,' uninformative, and ultimately useless? Shit man you better tell Nate Silver to get a new job then because I guess all polls must be garbage. Or, you know, maybe pollsters have ways of accounting for things like this and the entire field isn't pointless.

[QUOTE=Maegord;50725643]So, because you personally dislike answering surveys, polls that require these surveys must all be 'wishwashy,' uninformative, and ultimately useless? Shit man you better tell Nate Silver to get a new job then because I guess all polls must be garbage. Or, you know, maybe pollsters have ways of accounting for things like this and the entire field isn't pointless.[/QUOTE] The common line of thinking across the far right in every single country is "we're tired of experts." Doesn't matter what you cite or the rigorous polling and statistical data people gather - people form their identity based on certain beliefs and if the facts threaten those beliefs they ignore them instead of adapting. That's why Trump folk echo his language - he's become a part of their social identity. Instead of reevaluating when they're shown something wrong, they disown whatever source it came from and rationalize that it's okay or not true. This is true with Bernie too - "he can still win!!" and "Warren endorsed Hillary? Bernie endorsed Hillary? Fuck 'em." Unbelievably frustrating to try to show people sources that they dismiss because "they're just wishywashy numbers" - implying there's anything better than numbers to back up a point.

[QUOTE=Saxon;50724454]You must be posting from that other universe I keep hearing about because he kept the majority of them[/QUOTE] out of the 600 or so promises he made he's kept about 240 of them. to be fair a good lot of the ones not in that 240 can't really be measured at the moment (for example his promise to make 80% of energy produced in the us come from clean sources by 2035) but then again that 240 also includes dumb ones like getting his daughters a puppy or pushing for playoffs in college football. he broke a lot of his big promises like closing gtmo, providing a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, and creating a foreclosure prevention fund and about half of what he didn't break he "compromised" on making gas cheaper is cool but gtmo is a pretty fucking big deal comparatively. [editline]17th July 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Code3Response;50725443]He's actually done a lot and it's extremely likely that butre knowingly or unknowingly benefits from his actions.[/QUOTE] you're just angry about that unthumbed image from earlier [editline]17th July 2016[/editline] he also regulated my preferred cigarette out of existence and I have every right to be salty about that

I love how people call Clinton a corporate shill - yet never mention that Trump is a billionaire who said he was going to pay for his whole campaign [I]and then didn't[/I], has economic policies that will [I]help the rich and not the poor[/I], and who was apparently for LGBT rights [I]and now has Mike Pence as his running mate.[/I] So if you think that Clinton isn't gonna keep her promises - what the fuck do you think Trump is going to do?

[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;50726134]I love how people call Clinton a corporate shill - yet never mention that Trump is a billionaire who said he was going to pay for his whole campaign [I]and then didn't[/I], has economic policies that will [I]help the rich and not the poor[/I], and who was apparently for LGBT rights [I]and now has Mike Pence as his running mate.[/I] So if you think that Clinton isn't gonna keep her promises - what the fuck do you think Trump is going to do?[/QUOTE] I've heard some people here say that they'd vote for him because 'there's a good chance Congress won't let him implement any of his policies'. Which is an incredibly stupid mindset. Instead of voting for someone who may have a 50% chance of making progressive reforms and a 50% chance of only maintaining the status quo, they are instead suggesting they'd vote for someone who say has a 50% chance of maintaining the status quo and 50% chance of implementing regressive policies. Like, if you're going to gamble on those chances... Shouldn't it be for the candidate who at least has the chance of making things better? With posts like these I do want to emphasise that I believe Hillary is far from perfect, and Trump becoming President won't be the end of America either. The points I want to make are that people should be voting with their brains, to not be afraid to make compromises if need be, and not to vote with their hearts. But if you're going to vote for a candidate just because they're 'outside of the establishment' or to 'mess things up' - just stay home and don't vote at all.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50723842]Watch this be promised and ignored[/QUOTE] Its not really in her control to pass a constitutional amendment anyway.

[QUOTE=Cold;50726219]Its not really in her control to pass a constitutional amendment anyway.[/QUOTE] Half the things all presidential candidates promise are "not really in their control". However, the President can pressure Congress to pass certain things to get done.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50726297]Half the things all presidential candidates promise are "not really in their control". However, the President can pressure Congress to pass certain things to get done.[/QUOTE] 2/3th majority and bunch of other shit for constitutional things tho that's quite a bit further off then the normal congress coercing.

[QUOTE=.Isak.;50725539]You'd need to be on the brink of fucking armageddon to get a third party into office, and you'd need to have the Republican candidate be a man with a brick permanently wedged into his skull and the Democratic candidate to be a man who surgically attached his ass to his face.[/QUOTE] Honestly, we're not [I]that[/I] far from that...

I think it's interesting that if you really go back to 2008, republicans have been spending the last 8 years trying to smear clinton and keep her out of office. She's really had a profound impact on American politics

[QUOTE=Maegord;50725643]So, because you personally dislike answering surveys, polls that require these surveys must all be 'wishwashy,' uninformative, and ultimately useless?[/QUOTE]I don't recall ever saying they're usueless, I just said looking at poll results is "trying to chase down some wishywashy numbers" meaning that yes, there may actually be things missed. Actually in the post you just fucking quoted you can see me saying they're [U]not[/U] useless. [QUOTE=.Isak.;50725666]The common line of thinking across the far right in every single country is "we're tired of experts."[/QUOTE]Take this shit and throw it in the trash, you heard retards say it with Brexit and now you're applying it to me. I never said that polls were useless, [B]please read.[/B] [QUOTE]Doesn't matter what you cite or the rigorous polling and statistical data people gather - people form their identity based on certain beliefs and if the facts threaten those beliefs they ignore them instead of adapting.[/QUOTE]Oh and you're so immune to this huh? Fuck it, ignoring the night and day hypocrisy you've just displayed I want you to point to where I'm doing this. I never once claimed polls are useless, and I certainly didn't say I was "tired of experts." What I am tired of is the above bullshit. [QUOTE]That's why Trump folk echo his language - he's become a part of their social identity.[/QUOTE][QUOTE]Instead of reevaluating when they're shown something wrong, they disown whatever source it came from and rationalize that it's okay or not true.[/QUOTE][I]Really.[/I] So let's recap, I said I wasn't going to make any presumptions based off of Hillary Clinton's popularity (or lack of) beyond acknowledging that it exists. This, according to you, means I eschew the voice of "experts" (not you, by the way) and idolize Donald Trump because he's "part of my social identity." What does that even mean?[QUOTE]This is true with Bernie too - "he can still win!!" and "Warren endorsed Hillary? Bernie endorsed Hillary? Fuck 'em."[/QUOTE]Maybe because people aren't part of a hivemind and don't actually want to vote for Hillary, but I guess that's too much for your tribalist mindset where everyone who is right of you is [I]far-right.[/I] [QUOTE]Unbelievably frustrating to try to show people sources that they dismiss because "they're just wishywashy numbers" - implying there's anything better than numbers to back up a point.[/QUOTE]You pulled numbers out of your asshole to prove to me how wonderful and popular Clinton is and none of it was even relevant anyway because [I]I don't care.[/I] This is my original response to your vomit of numbers: [QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;50725320]Ratings only poll a section of the population, it's just a microcosm that may or may not reflect the [I]actual[/I] feelings of society at large. Really it's the "what kind of person actually answers a phone survey" question, there will always be people who don't and a concern is are those people an important demographic missed simply because of the sampling method. I don't pay much attention to polls for that very reason, I'm not going to claim that she is or isn't popular or base any argument on her apparent popularity. Instead I'll focus on things I do know: some people don't like her, some people hate her, some people adore her, and some people simply don't care.[/QUOTE][QUOTE]I'm not going to claim that she is or isn't popular or base any argument on her apparent popularity. Instead I'll focus on things I do know: some people don't like her, some people hate her, some people adore her, and some people simply don't care.[/QUOTE][QUOTE][B]I'm not going to claim that she is or isn't popular or base any argument on her apparent popularity.[/B][/QUOTE] I guess that makes me terrible, not presuming anything about Clinton's popularity and not revolving my arguments around it. My bad. I'm fine with this, but I'm not sure why I expected anything better from you.

[QUOTE=sb27;50726192]I've heard some people here say that they'd vote for him because 'there's a good chance Congress won't let him implement any of his policies'. Which is an incredibly stupid mindset. Instead of voting for someone who may have a 50% chance of making progressive reforms and a 50% chance of only maintaining the status quo, they are instead suggesting they'd vote for someone who say has a 50% chance of maintaining the status quo and 50% chance of implementing regressive policies. Like, if you're going to gamble on those chances... Shouldn't it be for the candidate who at least has the chance of making things better? With posts like these I do want to emphasise that I believe Hillary is far from perfect, and Trump becoming President won't be the end of America either. The points I want to make are that people should be voting with their brains, to not be afraid to make compromises if need be, and not to vote with their hearts. But if you're going to vote for a candidate just because they're 'outside of the establishment' or to 'mess things up' - just stay home and don't vote at all.[/QUOTE] You'd have a point if Clinton wasn't a corporate shill that gave no fucks about us, that gave no fucks about anything that wasn't paying her out the wazoo. She won't give us progressive reform unless she's paid very handsomely to do it, she'll keep us mired in this bullshit war we've been mired in for over a decade now, she'll make most of us felons when she guts the second amendment for no good reason, she'll fuck gearheads in the ass repeatedly...honestly I think we're better off electing the chair she wants to sit in than we are electing either of the asshats that wish to sit in it.

[QUOTE=Map in a box;50725501]we most definitely do have other viable options but the majority of the country takes to heart when someone wins the dem/gop primaries and thinks that the two candidates are the only ones that can become president[/QUOTE] No we don't. Too little too late for s third party now.

Personally, my main issue with Hillary Clinton has nothing to do with corruption, corporations, or money. While I support any moves she could ever make to destroy Citizens United as a decision, I agree that it's unlikely, but that's not even my problem. My issue is that she's a major player in the continued intervention of US forces into other countries where they don't fucking belong [I]at [B]all[/B][/I]. That's my issue-- she's on the ball when it comes to sending our troops to go do unnecessary bullshit in places that functioned perfectly fine before Western states decided to ruin them-- and that's what I can't deal with.

Isak, why are you attempting to get through to a bunch of /pol/-esque, brogressive, 'egalitarian', reddit edgelord geeks who have nightmares about spooky skeleton warriors and cultural marxism? :v: I think I used my maximum allotted buzzwords for the day. But yeah, I'm sure you realize most folks vote on personality and justify policies post-hoc. It's frustrating, sure, but we're not in a political science classroom. Otherwise I'd love to have a more nuanced conversation with you, one without resorting to conspiracy theories. But good effort nonetheless. :P

[QUOTE=GrammarCommie;50728697]Isak, why are you attempting to get through to a bunch of /pol/-esque, brogressive, 'egalitarian', reddit edgelord geeks who have nightmares about spooky skeleton warriors and cultural marxism? :v: I think I used my maximum allotted buzzwords for the day. But yeah, I'm sure you realize most folks vote on personality and justify policies post-hoc. It's frustrating, sure, but we're not in a political science classroom. Otherwise I'd love to have a more nuanced conversation with you, one without resorting to conspiracy theories. But good effort nonetheless. :P[/QUOTE] probably because that kind of mentality doesn't get us anywhere if people don't talk to each other about politics, that only furthers the political divide between them. which is not good for a ton of reasons

[QUOTE=shotgun334;50728615]Personally, my main issue with Hillary Clinton has nothing to do with corruption, corporations, or money. While I support any moves she could ever make to destroy Citizens United as a decision, I agree that it's unlikely, but that's not even my problem. My issue is that she's a major player in the continued intervention of US forces into other countries where they don't fucking belong [I]at [B]all[/B][/I]. That's my issue-- she's on the ball when it comes to sending our troops to go do unnecessary bullshit in places that functioned perfectly fine before Western states decided to ruin them-- and that's what I can't deal with.[/QUOTE] Which places, exactly? I'd say most US military missions out there currently are in some shape or form necessary / useful to both the US and the host nation.

[QUOTE=GrammarCommie;50728697]Isak, why are you attempting to get through to a bunch of /pol/-esque, brogressive, 'egalitarian', reddit edgelord geeks who have nightmares about spooky skeleton warriors and cultural marxism? :v: I think I used my maximum allotted buzzwords for the day. But yeah, I'm sure you realize most folks vote on personality and justify policies post-hoc. It's frustrating, sure, but we're not in a political science classroom. Otherwise I'd love to have a more nuanced conversation with you, one without resorting to conspiracy theories. But good effort nonetheless. :P[/QUOTE] I don't do it to convince them, I do it to help flesh out my own political views and get a better understanding of why I hold them. I like having my views challenged so that I can better defend them or change them. Plus it's fun to watch people ignore hard data and hold on to their feelies while complaining that real hard facts matter and tumblr SJW feelies are regressive. They never see the irony. I get a kick out of it.

some people have a really absurd fantasy where an experienced politician is going to go completely rogue against her own public platform then send us to the dark ages for her own ego nevermind that citizen united started with bashing clinton lol