[US Election 2016] Democratic Primary Megathread II

[Ever-Wandering Souls]

I want to have high hopes, and I am going to vote for him, but it is discouraging every time I see him still trailing in the polls. Nevada was disappointing.

I haven't been this worked up about an election since 2004. Why the fuck did people not vote for Howard Dean?

Because the 24-hour news cycle had nothing better to do than air this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIYhU6jfIR8 over and over

I was hoping https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHDRH74ehCM would be the same. Sadly, not.

[Eol Sha]

It is so right in my view. Why do we want to give anyone captured on the battlefield a trial anyways? In my grandfather's day, there would have been no quarter, which is how it should be for guerrillas and not formal militaries.

Really? In your grandfather's day, what was done with prisoners of war?

I've never asked him, but my Gramps fought in 'Nam so My Lai comes to mind.

[Galloism]

Really? In your grandfather's day, what was done with prisoners of war?

I've never asked him, but my Gramps fought in 'Nam so My Lai comes to mind.

Which probably should have ended in a few life sentences without parole, if not death penalties.

[Ever-Wandering Souls]

Voter Turnout Low So Far For Democrats. This is particularly worrying for Bernie who wants to get tons of first time voters so that he can have a credible chance of bringing his promises to fruition. Sander's biggest problem is that turnout is down in the under 30s crowd. It's all good and well to have huge rallies, but people need to actually bother to vote too. The thing is, it's probably not going to get any better. Lots of primaries coming up, and so is Spring Break. I'm not sanguine about the odds of college students in particular deciding to stay and vote instead of going off to party.

Many sources will actually say breaks are good for Sanders - like they helped Obama in '08. Depending on whether it's a caucus or primary, and how delegates are counted... oftentimes, having a university district where Bernie wins with over 80% (as seen in Nevada) does no more good than if he won by 51%, and as such those votes serve more good if they're distributed among many counties.

[Trumpostan]

Guantanamo must be kept open. I'm all in favor of the Republicans doing all they can to ensure that Obama isn't able to close the facility before he leaves office. With Donald Trump as president, I can see Guantanamo experiencing a true revival back to its glorious heyday. It is better that the ISIS members are kept there than to be allowed to run wild.

How many Al Qaeda and Taliban inmates have been let go only to get back onto the battlefield? Too many in my view.

Guantanamo represents an unconditional surrender in the war on terror. They hate our freedoms and rule of law? Fine, we'll give those up without a fight.

In a sense, George W. Bush and the GOP handed Osama a huge victory (and Obama has done too little to roll it back).

Bin Ladin's goal was to terrorize Americans into giving up essential freedoms and becoming a paranoid police state. Thanks to W and his merry band of warmongers we were well on the way by 2008. Patriot Act (one of the most freedom destroying bills ever), domestic surveillance to a degree that was considered criminal when Nixon attempted it, TSA patdowns and of course above all Americans lashing out by invading a few countries in the Middle East (including one country that had nothing at all to do with 9/11). Plus our enduring alliance with a bunch of dictatorships in that region (including the one who might well be behind financing Bin Ladin's 9/11 effort).

Osama gambled huge and won. He knew that we would attack some country and hand Al Qaeda and other groups tons of new recruits, because he had predicted that we would do exactly that.

Because can anyone claim that the Middle East is better off now than it was before W's illegal invasion of the wrong country? Terrorist recruitment at an all time high, the Taleban resurgent, Al Qaeda still around, an offshoot of Al Qaeda causing mayhem in Iraq and Syria.

All these groups, most of which sprung from our support of islamist radicals in Afghanistan, were relatively powerless before 9/11. They had hoped the Afghan-Soviet war would cause an islamist renaissance and it never did. They were squashed in the 1990s almost everywhere they appeared outside Afghanistan. But 9/11 changed it all. We essentially told these groups that they mattered, that they were relevant. And that was the #1 mistake.

[Vespalian Federation]

Guantanamo represents an unconditional surrender in the war on terror. They hate our freedoms and rule of law? Fine, we'll give those up without a fight.

In a sense, George W. Bush and the GOP handed Osama a huge victory (and Obama has done too little to roll it back).

Bin Ladin's goal was to terrorize Americans into giving up essential freedoms and becoming a paranoid police state. Thanks to W and his merry band of warmongers we were well on the way by 2008. Patriot Act (one of the most freedom destroying bills ever), domestic surveillance to a degree that was considered criminal when Nixon attempted it, TSA patdowns and of course above all Americans lashing out by invading a few countries in the Middle East (including one country that had nothing at all to do with 9/11). Plus our enduring alliance with a bunch of dictatorships in that region (including the one who might well be behind 9/11).

Osama gambled huge and won. He knew that we would attack some country and hand Al Qaeda and other groups tons of new recruits, because he had predicted that we would do exactly that.

Because can anyone claim that the Middle East is better off now than it was before W's illegal invasion of the wrong country? Terrorist recruitment at an all time high, the Taleban resurgent, Al Qaeda still around, an offshoot of Al Qaeda causing mayhem in Iraq and Syria.

All these groups, most of which sprung from our support of islamist radicals in Afghanistan, were relatively powerless before 9/11. They had hoped the Afghan-Soviet war would cause an islamist renaissance and it never did. They were squashed in the 1990s almost everywhere they appeared outside Afghanistan. But 9/11 changed it all. We essentially told these groups that they mattered, that they were relevant. And that was the #1 mistake.

The biggest shit in American history.

[Khadgar]

In a sense, George W. Bush and the GOP handed Osama a huge victory (and Obama has done too little to roll it back).

Bin Ladin's goal was to terrorize Americans into giving up essential freedoms and becoming a paranoid police state. Thanks to W and his merry band of warmongers we were well on the way by 2008. Patriot Act (one of the most freedom destroying bills ever), domestic surveillance to a degree that was considered criminal when Nixon attempted it, TSA patdowns and of course above all Americans lashing out by invading a few countries in the Middle East (including one country that had nothing at all to do with 9/11). Plus our enduring alliance with a bunch of dictatorships in that region (including the one who might well be behind 9/11).

Osama gambled huge and won. He knew that we would attack some country and hand Al Qaeda and other groups tons of new recruits, because he had predicted that we would do exactly that.

Because can anyone claim that the Middle East is better off now than it was before W's illegal invasion of the wrong country? Terrorist recruitment at an all time high, the Taleban resurgent, Al Qaeda still around, an offshoot of Al Qaeda causing mayhem in Iraq and Syria.

All these groups, most of which sprung from our support of islamist radicals in Afghanistan, were relatively powerless before 9/11. They had hoped the Afghan-Soviet war would cause an islamist renaissance and it never did. They were squashed in the 1990s almost everywhere they appeared outside Afghanistan. But 9/11 changed it all. We essentially told these groups that they mattered, that they were relevant. And that was the #1 mistake.

The biggest shit in American history.

Well, top ten definitely. Probably top five truthfully.

[USS Monitor]

The only reason he couldn't do it before is the Republicans in Congress cockblocking the funds to proceed with the closing, and whining Not In My Back Yard about transferring the remaining prisoners.

Can't this time either. According to the article McConnell is having another fit over Obama trying too hard to fulfill his promises.

Is fulfilling promises supposed to be a bad thing?

[Eol Sha]

Can't this time either. According to the article McConnell is having another fit over Obama trying too hard to fulfill his promises.

Is fulfilling promises supposed to be a bad thing?

Only when Democrats do it.

[Ashmoria]

the president said that they haven't. which is so freaking wrong.

It is so right in my view. Why do we want to give anyone captured on the battlefield a trial anyways? In my grandfather's day, there would have been no quarter, which is how it should be for guerrillas and not formal militaries.

because its un-American. it is wrong to keep people in prison for years--or the rest of their lives--without a trial.

[Gauthier]

Can't this time either. According to the article McConnell is having another fit over Obama trying too hard to fulfill his promises.

Politics, every now and then Obama has to remind people that yes the Republicans are doing everything they can to obstruct everything.

Wait until the Republicans host a permanent seance so Scalia can continue to serve on the Supreme Court from beyond the grave.

[USS Monitor]

I hope Bernie Sanders wins the nomination, that means if Hillary is running I would probably vote for a third party instead. I'm not sure whether he'll get the nomination but I can say that it looks like he'll win New England by a landslide and if he at least comes close in all the other states it's possible. To do that he should adopt the same strategy Obama did by focusing on the caucus states. Anything is possible now that he's gaining ground almost everywhere, the question is whether it's enough and whether it's too late.

New England is too small for that to work. California has more people than all of New England.

[Galloism]

Politics, every now and then Obama has to remind people that yes the Republicans are doing everything they can to obstruct everything.

Wait until the Republicans host a permanent seance so Scalia can continue to serve on the Supreme Court from beyond the grave.

Too late.

Some Republicans want Scalia to vote from beyond the grave.

No. Seriously.

[Khadgar]

Wait until the Republicans host a permanent seance so Scalia can continue to serve on the Supreme Court from beyond the grave.

Too late.

Some Republicans want Scalia to vote from beyond the grave.

No. Seriously.

It's a lifetime appointment, it ends when the life ends. Zombies cannot serve continue the term from when they were living.

[Ashmoria]

Too late.

Some Republicans want Scalia to vote from beyond the grave.

No. Seriously.

It's a lifetime appointment, it ends when the life ends. Zombies cannot serve continue the term from when they were living.

and there must be plenty of precedent to rely on, eh?

[Eol Sha]

It is so right in my view. Why do we want to give anyone captured on the battlefield a trial anyways? In my grandfather's day, there would have been no quarter, which is how it should be for guerrillas and not formal militaries.

because its un-American. it is wrong to keep people in prison for years--or the rest of their lives--without a trial.

Shit, the cons kick up a stink whenever they talk about Lincoln suspending habeas corpus.

[USS Monitor]

I think Democrats and Republicans both need to get it through their heads that you aren't entitled to anyone's vote if you run a candidate that people don't like. Nobody is morally obligated to support you for the good of the party. Maybe some people will, but that's a personal choice. You have no right to demand it.

If old-timey Republicans don't like Trump, they don't have to vote for him. If Bernie fans don't like Hillary, we don't have to vote for her. Nobody is entitled to votes just because of which party's ticket they are on. They have to earn votes. If someone wants to stay home or vote for a different party or whatever, that's their right, and it's part of the democratic process.

Yes and no.

Everybody exercises their own choice when it comes to election and everybody is free to choose not to vote. No particular candidate or party is intrinsically "owed" votes.

But if you're a person, or a ship as may be, who cares about politics and policy, it is understandably hard to countenance walking away from the table because the best available substitute to what you want is, at best, still only a substitute. Particularly since the parties have hardened so much into diametric opposites on so many issues.

I had an uncle who refused to support Barry Goldwater even though he was a dedicated Repbulican. I know a lot of people who preferred voting for Nader instead of Gore. I backed Obama in 2008 and thankfully wasn't forced to contemplate voting for a distant second choice. In 2004 I didn't have a strong favorite for the nomination. This year I've flirted with the idea of not voting for Bernie were he to be the nominee, but I don't believe for a minute that I'd actually stick to that.

So you're right. No party or person is entitled to a vote. But when we know pretty much what we'd get from whoever wins, I'm not sure how we're supposed to be comfortable stepping away from the better available choice.

I don't really recommend staying home, but 3rd party votes are not "walking away from the table." It is still voting, and it does have a purpose. Even if your candidate doesn't have a chance of winning this election, it can help those minor parties to grow and be taken more seriously in the long run.

[Gauthier]

Too late.

Some Republicans want Scalia to vote from beyond the grave.

No. Seriously.

It's a lifetime appointment, it ends when the life ends. Zombies cannot serve continue the term from when they were living.

Scalia isn't reanimated, he's reborn! He's biting your scalp you say? Hey he's Catholic, that whole Body of Christ thing remember?

[Ashmoria]

because its un-American. it is wrong to keep people in prison for years--or the rest of their lives--without a trial.

Shit, the cons kick up a stink whenever they talk about Lincoln suspending habeas corpus.

I just heard ted cruz *gag* say HE would like to add men to Guantanamo bay prison.

what a dick.

[Northern Davincia]

Guantanamo represents an unconditional surrender in the war on terror. They hate our freedoms and rule of law? Fine, we'll give those up without a fight.

In a sense, George W. Bush and the GOP handed Osama a huge victory (and Obama has done too little to roll it back).

Bin Ladin's goal was to terrorize Americans into giving up essential freedoms and becoming a paranoid police state. Thanks to W and his merry band of warmongers we were well on the way by 2008. Patriot Act (one of the most freedom destroying bills ever), domestic surveillance to a degree that was considered criminal when Nixon attempted it, TSA patdowns and of course above all Americans lashing out by invading a few countries in the Middle East (including one country that had nothing at all to do with 9/11). Plus our enduring alliance with a bunch of dictatorships in that region (including the one who might well be behind financing Bin Ladin's 9/11 effort).

Osama gambled huge and won. He knew that we would attack some country and hand Al Qaeda and other groups tons of new recruits, because he had predicted that we would do exactly that.

Because can anyone claim that the Middle East is better off now than it was before W's illegal invasion of the wrong country? Terrorist recruitment at an all time high, the Taleban resurgent, Al Qaeda still around, an offshoot of Al Qaeda causing mayhem in Iraq and Syria.

All these groups, most of which sprung from our support of islamist radicals in Afghanistan, were relatively powerless before 9/11. They had hoped the Afghan-Soviet war would cause an islamist renaissance and it never did. They were squashed in the 1990s almost everywhere they appeared outside Afghanistan. But 9/11 changed it all. We essentially told these groups that they mattered, that they were relevant. And that was the #1 mistake.

Barack Obama expanded the police state we live under, and somehow you praise him. Pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan did more to aid the Taliban and Al-Qaeda than Bush could ever attempt. Had it not been for Obama's decision to withdraw without any real planning, stabilization might have been achievable in the Middle East. Iraq could have been a functional democracy, Libya could have remained an actual nation, Afghanistan could have been somewhat self-sufficient, Syria could have kept its population intact by maintaining order on its own. None of these things happened.

[Ashmoria]

In a sense, George W. Bush and the GOP handed Osama a huge victory (and Obama has done too little to roll it back).

Bin Ladin's goal was to terrorize Americans into giving up essential freedoms and becoming a paranoid police state. Thanks to W and his merry band of warmongers we were well on the way by 2008. Patriot Act (one of the most freedom destroying bills ever), domestic surveillance to a degree that was considered criminal when Nixon attempted it, TSA patdowns and of course above all Americans lashing out by invading a few countries in the Middle East (including one country that had nothing at all to do with 9/11). Plus our enduring alliance with a bunch of dictatorships in that region (including the one who might well be behind financing Bin Ladin's 9/11 effort).

Osama gambled huge and won. He knew that we would attack some country and hand Al Qaeda and other groups tons of new recruits, because he had predicted that we would do exactly that.

Because can anyone claim that the Middle East is better off now than it was before W's illegal invasion of the wrong country? Terrorist recruitment at an all time high, the Taleban resurgent, Al Qaeda still around, an offshoot of Al Qaeda causing mayhem in Iraq and Syria.

All these groups, most of which sprung from our support of islamist radicals in Afghanistan, were relatively powerless before 9/11. They had hoped the Afghan-Soviet war would cause an islamist renaissance and it never did. They were squashed in the 1990s almost everywhere they appeared outside Afghanistan. But 9/11 changed it all. We essentially told these groups that they mattered, that they were relevant. And that was the #1 mistake.

Barack Obama expanded the police state we live under, and somehow you praise him. Pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan did more to aid the Taliban and Al-Qaeda than Bush could ever attempt. Had it not been for Obama's decision to withdraw without any real planning, stabilization might have been achievable in the Middle East. Iraq could have been a functional democracy, Libya could have remained an actual nation, Afghanistan could have been somewhat self-sufficient, Syria could have kept its population intact by maintaining order on its own. None of these things happened.

sigh

those agreements were negotiated by president bush. Iraq and Afghanistan declined to redo them. was president Obama supposed to start a new war?

[Wallenburg]

It's a lifetime appointment, it ends when the life ends. Zombies cannot serve continue the term from when they were living.

Scalia isn't reanimated, he's reborn! He's biting your scalp you say? Hey he's Catholic, that whole Body of Christ thing remember?

It's been way longer than three days, tho.

[Mike the Progressive]

President Obama is Closing Guantanamo Bay

2016, the year of fulfilling election promises. Now if only I could keep my doctor...

He should have done that a long time ago.

He tried. Congress blocked him. What was he suppose to do? Ask congress to give him single payer instead?

[Urarenge]

I'm really not sure who I dislike more between Clinton and Sanders, but I guess my hope is that Slick Willie can bend Hillary's ear towards some policies that have actually borne fruit economically rather than what either of these two are talking about.

[Ashmoria]

I'm really not sure who I dislike more between Clinton and Sanders, but I guess my hope is that Slick Willie can bend Hillary's ear towards some policies that have actually borne fruit economically rather than what either of these two are talking about.

they both have economic plans that would be great for the economy, especially when compared to the republican plan of cutting taxes on the rich.