All-purpose news and politics thread: Two Steps Beyond!

[4saken1]

The Democratic primaries. One of Sanders biggest issues last year was that a ton of his fiercely independant supporters weren't allowed to vote for him against Clinton in the primaries because in most States you need to be registered as a Democrat to vote in Democrat primaries.

Duh.....don't know how I missed that. I'm not a registered Democrat, but would have voted for Sanders in the Primary. Many Independents seemed to view this as one of the ways that Democrats 'cheated', but in fact it's very common. Heck, quite often, I've voted in Republican open Primaries just to help the candidate that I felt was least likely to win. Primaries are not like the General Election. Political Parties are allowed to engage in actions which may often benefit a candidate (see also: Superdelegates, Brokered Convention) that suits their platform more as long as they maintain the appearance of being neutral. Hell, Caucuses aren't even a good example of Democratically Electing a Party leader! These have been going on for years, but Bernie Bros didn't care about them until it hurt their candidate's chances.

[Gray Lensman]

my issues with Sanders aren't smears

his campaign sucked at reaching out to minority voters, couldn't give a straight answer on race relations in this country, oh and his halfass stance on gun control is annoying is well

especially considering Vermont has zero gun regulation

According to Wikipedia Vermont had the lowest rate of gun homicides in the country in 2010 (the year they show the data for). When you add in suicides they skew closer to the national average (just slightly below it) but there is a stigma attached to suicides and even most programs dealing with it tend to focus on the why and what, dealing very little with the how. In light of that data, I can see how anyone from Vermont might not think they have a gun problem.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

This is a horseshit characterization.

It's not the Dems fault that the people they 'deliberately kept out of the process' didn't understand that you have to be a Democrat to vote in the primaries. You act like it was all some machievellian scheme to tilt things away from Sanders but it was the Sanderrs campaign job to get out there and get those voters to be able to vote in the primary by registering them as Democrats. They didn't do that. I mean, if you don't go into a campaign with some kind of plan on how to register your voters and how to reach out to them to tell them to register as dems in social media so they can vote in the primary....

They weren't 'deliberately' kept out of the process. They didn't just close the god-damn primaries to annoy Bernie. They had been like this for ages, alongside the moving away from caucuses because caucuses are less representative by a large extent.

Anyways, nearly all of these rules were in place well before Sanders had announced his candidacy. Hell, most of them were there before /Obama/ announced his candidacy. :P

The problem is the Democrat establishment still felt entitled to those votes in the general and then got hysterical and blamed them for the election loss. You’re right, the Democrats did not have to do anything. But they wanted to have their cake and eat it too. They wanted to do nothing in their primary process to reach out to those voters and they wanted to be able to favor the candidate they wanted over the one many of those voters wanted. You can do that. You just should never expect loyalty to flow in the other direction. It’s hypocritcal.

Democrats love to boast about being a big tent party, until they have to cater to the other members of that tent.

[PaulBullion]

The problem is the Democrat establishment still felt entitled to those votes in the general and then got hysterical and blamed them for the election loss. You’re right, the Democrats did not have to do anything. But they wanted to have their cake and eat it too. They wanted to do nothing in their primary process to reach out to those voters and they wanted to be able to favor the candidate they wanted over the one many of those voters wanted. You can do that. You just should never expect loyalty to flow in the other direction. It’s hypocritcal.

Democrats love to boast about being a big tent party, until they have to cater to the other members of that tent.

Hillary did not lose in an upset, but a set up.
A lot of people still doubt that Pennsylvania suddenly went red.

And I hope that you and #30 both get a chance to tell a Clinton campaigner that they did not work hard enough. She had the better ground game, and they all worked incredibly hard.

But now it seems that Facebook actually rigged the election against her, joining Putin, Comey, Morning Joe and all those others that wanted to profit from Trump's disastrous campaign - while most probably didn't consider they would create the perfect storm to actually put him in the White House in spite of his bad campaign.

[PaulBullion]

Supreme Court declines to hear Trump bid to immediately end program protecting 'Dreamers' from deportation

This means it will go to the appeals courts, where Trump has done badly in the past. And it gives Dreamers at least a year.

[numberthirty]

They wanted to do nothing in their primary process to reach out to those voters and they wanted to be able to favor the candidate they wanted over the one many of those voters wanted. You can do that. You just should never expect loyalty to flow in the other direction. It’s hypocritcal.

Exactly.

If you want to have a nomination process that cuts out everyone except registered Democrats, that's your call. That said, acting like you didn't just do that when you get to the general is beyond idiotic.

[Carabas]

Friends and neighbors, here is gross and heinous exploitation at it's worst, and for the absolute basest of reasons:

Trump campaign emails photo of Parkland survivor, asks for donations

And I'll bet a month's paycheck that the survivor's family never knew the photo was used for that crass purpose. Because, if they had known, I'm sure they wouldn't have given the Trump campaign permission.

Can they drag him into court over that?

[JBatmanFan05]

Yea, I expected that SCOTUS decision, SCOTUS "assumed" (threatened?) the court of appeals will "proceed expeditiously":

The Department of Justice’s request was rare in that it asked the Supreme Court to jump ahead of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in reviewing the case.

The court typically will only bypass an appellate court when there’s an emergency involving foreign affairs, a serious separation of powers concerns or when it has already agreed to hear another case dealing with the same question.

The court said the government's request for the court to hear its case is denied without prejudice. [w/o prej = Trump can ask SCOTUS again]

"It is assumed that the court of appeals will proceed expeditiously to decide this case," the court said.

The court could still agree to hear the case after it's heard by the lower appeals court.

The justices provided no further explanation for their decision. It takes four justices to agree to hear a case.

http://thehill.com/regulation/court-...llenge-on-daca

[PaulBullion]

Exactly.

If you want to have a nomination process that cuts out everyone except registered Democrats, that's your call. That said, acting like you didn't just do that when you get to the general is beyond idiotic.

They handed Sanders control over most of the party platform!
They did everything but go to each Bernie voters' house and gave them back rubs!

You know all that. It's despicable that you lie just to nurture your hatred of Hillary.

[Tami]

I like that every state can decide if they have open or closed primaries

CT has closed primaries and Im fine with that

That is the beauty of the American system, that each state is able to operate separately from the federal govt and other states in many ways. Including how they run their elections.

[numberthirty]

They handed Sanders control over most of the party platform!
They did everything but go to each Bernie voters' house and gave them back rubs!

FYI:

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/brian...b_9834224.html

When Independents Can Vote, Bernie Sanders Wins

[PaulBullion]

FYI:

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/brian...b_9834224.html

That has nothing to do with your stupid lie that the Hillary campaign did "nothing" to get Bernie voters to vote for her. Stop deflecting. You are not an honest debater, your hatred is blinding you and I do not feel like engaging you anymore.

[numberthirty]

If everybody knows that and your general election pitch doesn't start with "Look, you know and we know what we just did but here are the reasons you should consider voting for us anyway.", you better be able to do it with just Democratic votes.

[PaulBullion]

If everybody knows that and your general election pitch doesn't start with "Look, you know and we know what we just did but here are the reasons you should consider voting for us anyway.", you better be able to do it with just Democratic votes.

Stop lying and making up ****. That would be a good first step for you.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

Hillary did not lose in an upset, but a set up.
A lot of people still doubt that Pennsylvania suddenly went red.

And I hope that you and #30 both get a chance to tell a Clinton campaigner that they did not work hard enough. She had the better ground game, and they all worked incredibly hard.

But now it seems that Facebook actually rigged the election against her, joining Putin, Comey, Morning Joe and all those others that wanted to profit from Trump's disastrous campaign - while most probably didn't consider they would create the perfect storm to actually put him in the White House in spite of his bad campaign.

Excuses. Hillary was always a bad candidate. Very few politicians would have lost to Trump in a general.