You guys keep saying the president has no real power over domestic issues, but being the de facto leader of the party and having the power of a veto, among other things certainly makes them more powerful than any congressman. If your point is that the president can't just do whatever the fuck they want like a dictator, well, no shit. Division of powers, yeah. But the executive branch is far from irrelevant on domestic issues or anything else. You're right that Sanders is unsure exactly how he's going to implement all his ideas. It's not nearly as vague as you're suggesting, there's any number of details on his site and elsewhere, but you really wouldn't prefer someone who fails to achieve some objectives as opposed to someone who actively fucks over American families for personal gain? You seem like a fairly smart guy, and I don't mean to divert, but it seriously seems like you're just inventing reasons to go after Sanders for his integrity. Your moral red line is that he ran as a democrat and lacked resources to support down ticket races to the arbitrary extent you think he's obligated? Never mind that nearly all of his ideas fit within the democratic party perfectly fine, but you didn't draw that line when Clinton voted for the patriotic act, one of the bills in recent memory that actually is unconstitutional? Who needs the 4th amendment when you're fighting a 'global war on terror' that could never possibly end? It wasn't when she immediately compromised her health care policies after getting paid off? It wasn't when she set up an international fund so people who aren't even Americans can buy policy from her? It wasn't when she took hand outs to repeal glass steagal and even after the disastrous results and how this caused the very recent recession is well understood she doesn't want to reinstate it? The bankruptcy flip I just posted is of no interest to you? I could go on for pages. Well shit, at least she's been a democrat for a good while. Everything she says is an insult to my intelligence. The fact that she has the audacity to stand in front of the public and insist corporate money won't affect her decision making after 20 years of selling votes to the highest bidder should piss off anyone who actually cares about which candidate leads this country. So... where's Hillary's great plan and how is she going to do it, and why are we supposed to believe that would even be what she actually tries to do? As far as running as a democrat, Sanders was very upfront with his reasons. You act as if running as an independent is an equally viable strategy because that option exists, but you know that's not true. Media coverage matters and independents typically get little to none. Even if they do they're playing catch up because the two parties have been campaigning hard since the primaries started, well before people pay much, if any attention to the independents. It makes establishing political alliances even more difficult than it already is for an outsider. You throw votes down the drain for the people who always vote democrat/republican. States have the option to not even put you on the ballot. There's so many reasons, I just can't see why it makes someone a motherfucker when his policies already fit in the party and he's openly admitting his reasons for joining. I can't vote for Hillary Clinton. Voting for Clinton is like being a dog. I get it as a lesser of evils thing depending on who she is running against. I don't think I could vote for Cruz either. At this point, I'm probably going to show up to vote on everything else, but leave the presidential slot blank. There are a lot of democrats right now insisting they won't vote for Clinton, but I'm not sure how many will follow through, especially with Cruz or Trump standing across the aisle. Given how close the swing states can be it's not at all crazy to suggest it could impact the election though.
^^^ See, this guy gets it. I've voted Libertarian in every presidential election since 2000, because I don't like the people who are running in the two main parties. And what the fuck are we going to have to do to get rid of the electoral college (I'm asking rhetorically; I know that it means amending the constitution.)? But really, how long will we let it keep existing? I'm surprised that it wasn't abolished after Bush Jr. got "elected."
If you want to know what's wrong in Chicago (And any other inner city), this case is pretty much the cluster fuck in nutshell: About a week ago an officer shot and killed a 16 year old. The police version of the events is that they attempted to pull over a car in connection with a drive by shooting earlier. The suspect jumped out of the car and ran, pointed a gun at the officer and was killed.A handgun was recovered. The coroner report states the teen was shot in the chest. The other side's view of events is a bit different. A woman who told police "I didn't see anything" later told a newspaper that she saw everything and the youth was climbing a fence when he was shot. So ....which time did she lie? Also, how do you get shot in the chest while running away and climbing a fence? Then we have the Family's take on the events. (The family was not there.) His mother claimed the police planted the gun. His grandmother scoffed at the notion he had a gun because "He wasn't the type to run around with a gun." She described him as a "Typical" Chicago teenager. His aunt said "My baby was running from them so that he could get away and have a better chance, so that he could have a better life." (Apparently the way to a better life is to run away from the police?) They had a BLM march the next night and yesterday the family filed a lawsuit against the city. And finally, here is who the family describes as a typical Chicago teenager who doesn't mess around with guns: Spoiler Meet Pierre Loury, typical 16 year old with his gang affiliation tattooed across his neck and a gun. If the family was to blind to see that this kid was headed for HUGE trouble, they need to have the other children in their care removed immediately before the same fate befalls them. Instead of looking inward and thinking where they might have gone wrong and what part their decisions played in the part of their family members death, they protest, yell and sue. If people fail to take personal responsibility and continue to look for someone else to place the blame on, this cycle will continue.
Its INCREDIBLY concentrated. Something like 50% of Chicago's violent crime happens on less than 10% of its blocks. Its the far South Side, 10-12 miles south of downtown. Its incredibly sad, but its also, at the same time, stupid when people make out Chicago to be like Beirut. You're in no little to no danger in 80% of the city. It also makes it tough cause you have to take a hyperlocal approach to combating this crime. Citywide education/healthcare/etc... initiatives will have minimal effect. Fun little anecdote to ilustrate how different it is. One of my good friend's extended (2nd cousins) family lives near Englewood, one of the ravaged neighborhoods. 2 parent home, decently set up all things considered for the area, not destitute. His cousins, at ages 21 and 19, had NEVER been to a restaurant with a waitress where they were waited on. Not even a diner. Never been on a plane either. They live 25 min from downtown Chicago, but might as well be a different country Unfortunately, he was a "normal" teen in that area. The guns part is silly, but maybe they meant he didn't have an AK. I get the impression that pistols don't set off many bells or red flags there. And I don't think it matters what color, race, or creed. Whenever a young person, no matter how shitty, is killed, their family paints them as angelic.
Sorry, but the "Hillary is the AntiChrist!" narrative wore thin with me back in the late nineties. I'm not going to address every single assertion you're making here because a lot of it is vague conjecture people who hate Hillary just spin in the worst possible light in order to justify their hatred of her. No point in trying to debate with that kind of fanaticism. However I will respond to the two actual real acts you mentioned (and if any of the other stuff you mentioned has an actual act behind them instead of motive speculation, I'll give them some consideration as well): 1. The Patriot Act - Yep, I'm unhappy with it and feel the same way about it as you, and it's a strike against her in my book. Same with her vote approving the war with Iraq. 2. The Glass-Steagal repeals - You're wrong about this. The "repeal" of Glass-Steagal occurred with the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act, which was passed prior to Clinton's first term in the Senate. Perhaps I came across too strong in my previous post about Sanders being full of shit and a conman; I don't think he's immoral or inherently unethical. But those down-ticket races are important to me, and my thoughts on Bernie's obligation to support them aren't arbitrary like you say. My logic is pretty simple, as I described in my April 6th post: If Bernie wants all the benefits of running on the Democratic ticket, he needs to put in the work supporting Democrats running in down-ticket races. And those races are very important to me because of what I've stated repeatedly in this thread: the GOP controls 69 out of 99 state chambers and 31 of the 50 governorships. As someone who identifies as Liberal and Progressive, those numbers gotta change toward my favor. Furthermore - and I've also stated this before, earlier in the thread - I don't believe that the Democrats will be very successful in wresting control of Congress from the GOP unless the balance gets tilted toward our favor on the state level. Because, like you say, Bernie and Clinton hold similar or identical positions on a lot of issues that are important to me so I'll vote for whomever of the two gets the nomination. But since Clinton is supporting down-ticket races and Sanders isn't, she's the one who has my support.
WTF is with all the violence lately? It can't all be heroin. Vegas is in the middle of a crime wave...murders are double what they were last year, rape, robbery, assault...all up. In Wilmington DE today a 15 or 16 year old (Reports vary) was beaten to death in a high school bathroom. Over a boy from several reports. And Chicago...they just released video of a guy attacked in front of a store...he was knocked out. 3 full seconds later two guys rushed in and robbed him.Then he got run over by a taxi. He died. Surveillance video here: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/04/2...-street-corner-lawyer-says.html?intcmp=hplnws There has been a HUGE up tick in violence all across the country and I'm just not buying it that cheap Mexican Heroin is the root cause. There has to be something else.
Mmmmmno, both the attackers and the victims have been all different kinds of races, and most of the attacks have been part of some other altercation or attempted robbery. The more random ones - including the only one where the attacker said it was racially motivated - were committed by mentally ill people. (At least the ones where the attacker has been caught.) People always have and always will be violent. If you're going to start reading the local news of some random location anywhere in the country you're going to be reading about the most horrible/newsworthy things that are happening there.
When I went there, on I'm guessing its busiest weekend (St. Pat's) I never felt in danger at any time. People were great, we loved it there and we did not fuck with the Lords of Hell. My friend who was living there said two things about where not to go: "It can get hairy in areas around where the Bulls play, but the south side is best to just keep away from because if you make a wrong turn it would be bad."
The cab driver wasn't cited? What in the fuck. He ran over a person in the fucking street. These are the people that you're being shamed into worrying about harming by using Uber. And thats before they scream at you for not paying cash.
Why do you even bother responding then? You think Warren is a liar too, or you're actually clueless enough to believe her flipping on a stance she spent years campaigning for right after she gets a donation is speculation. That's just... dumb. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/05/31/clintons_corruption_126800.html http://dailycaller.com/2016/04/17/e...-dept-grants-under-hillary/?utm_source=akdart http://observer.com/2016/03/bombshe...ce-aided-by-hillary-allies/?utm_source=akdart http://www.mintpressnews.com/elizabeth-warren-hillary-clinton-sold-out-to-wall-street/213538/ http://www.ibtimes.com/political-ca...lth-industry-now-says-single-payer-will-never I don't get it. You think this is a conspiracy theory or something? Just to be absolutely crystal clear here, you think that when she says hand outs won't affect her policy and I choose not to believe her it's Is this a religious fanaticism? An anti-woman fanaticism? A republican fanaticism? Uhhh, yeah no point in trying to debate here. You said it. Gotcha.
The slashings in New York is curious because interracial violent crime tends to be unusual. The fact is outside of a boxed off selection white people still like killing white people and black people still like killing black people. Homicide has increased recently, but it's not an outrageous spike and over time these 'chunks' in the data are to be expected. Over the last two decades we've consistently seen that we're far worse than most of the first world, but steadily improving. It's far too early to call it a new trend. And I fucking hate the racial narrative because the way media demagogues are pushing it is exactly the kind of spoon fed bullshit that stirs people up, and even more so if they're already inclined towards prejudice. Push it hard enough and you will increase violence in the opposite direction. As for the overall homicide rate, I don't support the BLM movement, but for right now I don't think it's at all related. I wish people wouldn't consider this related to the paragraph above the quote because to me it is a very different issue. You can throw money at a problem and put people in jail, but if the community in the area isn't willing to take accountability nothing is ever going to change. Old timers please correct me if I'm wrong, but as recently as the 1990s and early 2000s I don't remember seeing such a preponderance of blame deflection. Stories of that nature occurred, but most either kept silent or reflected on the community. Now, it seems almost daily that I read about how some piece of shit got himself in a stitch and it's everyone else's fault because he's poor, a minority, or some other nonsense. 15 years ago people would have been too embarrassed to put a thug or addict on a pedestal or portray them as a martyr. We need to stop encouraging this. Fucking call them out for what they are. Goes back to the media again. Did I mention how much I hate the modern media? Has that ever come up on here? If you're sympathetic, ask why they went wrong. Stop asking who cheated them, or worse, acting like they were innocent.
That's exactly what I was trying to get at. Last Tuesday in St. Louis a 15 year old was shot and killed by the police. It was early afternoon (When he should of been in school), he was riding in a car that had been reported as carjacked at gun point the previous day. The police attempted to pull the car over and two people bailed out of the car, running in different directions. One was tasered and arrested. The 15 year old supposedly pointed a gun at the officer and was shot and killed. A stolen gun was recovered. Today, they held a protest with a minister proclaiming "The blood of our children is calling out from the soil." They need to stop this bullshit. It stirs folks up when the facts are not in. Yes, cops do horrible things sometimes. BUT not every single instance of a police shooting should elevate the "Victim" to martyr. Some people are pieces of shit, regardless of race or age. Do the protestors realize that what they're doing as they carte blanche proselytize against the police is instill fear and resentment in their own community which may not be founded in fact? Plenty of people still believe Michael Brown had his hands up saying "Don't shoot!" though that was long ago proven to be false. They're raising a whole generation of youths convinced of a boogie man that's out to kill them, which simply isn't true. Yes, black youths are targeted to more scrutiny by law enforcement for the simple reason that black males, even though they're only 6% of the population, commit 50% +/- of violent crimes. So, yes, they do get shot at a higher proportionate rate then other demographics. Acting like the police are just out to get them because the police are racist is counter productive. If black males suddenly stopped committing crimes, the police would move on and start targeting whatever demographic and neighborhoods that are having the most crimes. The police are not the problem. A community that constantly instills fear in it's inhabitants is the problem. Snitches get stitches. Fuck the police. Stop shooting us. All that bullshit is the cause of the problem.
I've laid out my reasoning for you already. All that stuff you just posted is stuff I've been hearing for the past 25 years. That I still continue to support her should tell you that you're going to have to take a different tack if you want to convince me to support Sanders instead - not that it really matters at this point since I already gave my delegate vote to Clinton and will vote in the general election for whichever one between the two gets the Democratic nomination.
I don't care if you vote for Sanders. The primaries are over. You have no reasoning, just dismissal. You say you leaned slightly Clinton, but it's obvious you're very set in your political beliefs. Which is fine, but don't tell me I'm refuted, or that Clinton's corruption is just talk because you're above something you refuse to address. Take it however you want. She's an awful human being, and just as an American it makes me fucking sick that we elect people like this time and again over some risk averse fear of the unknown. The system was not built to be used this way. The founders made precautions against corruption and a two party system for reasons that are defined by Hillary Clinton. Don't agree? Ok. Take your own advice and get an education on it.
Just like you dismissed the importance of down-ticket races to me. You're only saying this because I don't agree with you. I've had 37 years on this planet to arrive at where I am, but my beliefs continue to evolve as I get older. Sorry, but your arguments aren't very convincing... ...and this is a big reason why. As far as I can see you've put the cart before the horse: You've decided in your mind that Hillary Clinton is this awful terrible human being and based all of your reasoning on this premise, which you won't reconsider in the slightest. It's why I haven't bothered countering your assertions of the problematic things she's done with good things she's done: You'll just dismiss them by claiming she was just doing what she did as a power play, to get prestige, money, status, or whatever, and then use that reasoning to just further reinforce your notion that Hillary's and awful terrible person with no morals or ethics. I used to have a similar opinion of Hillary as you do back in the mid-2000s, given her support of the Patriot Act and the Iraq War. But since then I've come around to her. She doesn't have my complete trust, but I'm willing to accept her flaws because she's got better qualifications for the office than Sanders.
I mean I know the hate for Hillary has been strong since the 90's. I think we are at a moment in America though where her use of the "traditional" political structure is turning people off. The left and right are in quite the identity crisis at the moment as well. The "clintonian" style of governing that made him so popular in the 90's is now being debated and dismissed because his compromises are being seen as hurting left causes and the public in general. To me it seems like there is a decent amount of the left that would love to be as uncompromising in their beliefs as the far right. That a good part of the base doesn't want to see her accomplish more pragmatically if it means cutting deals with people from the opposite end of the spectrum. The only thing really stopping Dems from doing this is the dogmatic belief in government being used in every situation. The right can balk for 8+ years and still fall back on the lines of limiting the size of government and individual responsibility. Bernie is seen as the more uncompromising, ideologically, so he gets a lot of popular support. Republican's are facing a similar situation on their side. Trump is partly so popular because he's promising to get some of the hardline right stuff done in government by hook or by crook . It seems a large portion of the right could give a shit less about limited government if it means winning some of their issues by some miraculous force of will. This part of the base sees most if not all of the actions of a republican congress under Obama as capitulation and have decided the traditional mechanisms in the party, and middle ground candidates like Romney, McCain, and Kasich, aren't going to get them what they want.
Except you originally thought Sanders did nothing for the down ticket races. Then when it was pointed out to you that that wasn't true, it still doesn't matter to you because Clinton has done more, which I suppose is true. I don't get what you mean by putting the cart before the horse with Clinton. I didn't start disliking her overnight. I guess you think I chose to despise her and then started looking all over for evidence to confirm it or something like that? It's been based on watching her policy shifts based solely on donations and political calculations rather than any sort of fundamental principles because she doesn't seem to have any. She's done everything from covering for murderers (yes, she's literally more than happy to take blood money) to placing her personal power gains over our nation by aiding foreigners who fund her to harming the poorest in this country for a hand out to insisting one belief was a core principle of her own one day to changing it the next. I get that you disagree and that you don't think she's a saint, but for me it's just a firm line I can't cross. I can't respect someone like that and I certainly could never look to them as a leader. I don't know if you just don't take the concerns I laid out seriously, or just don't think they're a very big deal because you aren't addressing them. Yeah, you've heard them before. I don't know what you mean by that. If you want her to take office simply because you have much greater faith in her character than I do, then I don't understand where that faith comes from but we'll just have to agree to disagree. I think Kubla is right in that Sanders is very inflexible. Yet even for that I don't think Clinton's flexibility has anything to do with what's best for the country. It's about what's best for her and her political allies. Then, when she fucks us in the ass or compromises another tenet she once claimed to hold dearly she'll pretend it was really because she wants to work with everyone. I don't trust her to make decisions based on calculations of social or economic benefit to the nation as a whole. What really scares me is what she might do in a second term. She generally follows the polls to see what current 'beliefs' are most likely to get her elected. The thought of what she would do when she no longer even has to concern herself with that is alarming.
OK may revoke medical licenses of abortion practitioners. This legislation makes me angry. Par for the course for OK, it will never hold muster in the courts, whatever. It isn't the most noteworthy thing in the article. I'm posting this because of what this guy said at the end: That so fucking backwards it is painful. This is why your state is in massive debt, education and healthcare are in the shitter, and your legislature is setting the state up to blow more taxpayer money it does not have defending blatantly unconstitutional laws. Not only do these assholes not read the law, they don't even read their bible.
The governor of Maine is seems to be some sort of hateful and insane blowhard. He's now putting tight restrictions recovering addicts medication, which will sure to cause many relapses. Some of these people actually do stand a chance of recovery and that gets blown to shit by old assholes exercising their opinions into law.
Well, what he vetoed was a measure allowing pharmacists to dispense Nalaxone, a drug that reverses heroin overdoses, without a prescription. While I am no fan of the heroin user, they are a blight on my city, it is disturbing to hear a state governor reconcile tough love measures with fatal addiction. His exact quote: I can't wrap my head around that. Dude is a monster. Also dumb as fuck when it comes to battling the social issues surrounding addiction. The cost of just these frequent ER visits will not help his cash strapped state either. http://fusion.net/story/294021/main...provide-a-life-saving-drug-to-heroin-addicts/