StrangeSox

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Jul 12, 2016 -> 03:17 PM) So sell your soul and everything you believe in and everything you spent the last year telling the American people in order to prevent the 1% chance that Trump wins the election? How does he have any legitimacy after this? He's now supporting someone that a week ago he was blaming for a lot for the problems we have. Again, this is how political primaries go. Clinton and Obama was a lot worse. The s*** Bush pulled on McCain was ridiculous but he came around. Not getting the full and complete backing of your party is a pretty rare anomaly. Bernie running 3rd party also likely hurts Democrats down ticket, which would hurt Sanders' own power within the Senate. He'd be completely marginalized within the Senate with no voice within the Democratic party. On the other hand, by not sabotaging the party that's actually fairly close to his own ideology (the House Progressive Caucus might even be to Sanders' left), he's been able to have at least some influence as evidenced by Clinton recently adopting his college tuition plan and shifting leftward in general over the course of this campaign. QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Jul 12, 2016 -> 03:18 PM) So fine, don't run. But don't SUPPORT her either. Why? Like Soxbadger said, game theory. If not-Clinton wins, Sanders policies suffer a huge blow, a generational one given that at least one SC seat is at stake. Clinton winning is a vastly preferable outcome to Trump winning from a Sanders perspective, even if it is not ideal. And those are really the only two possible outcomes.

QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Jul 12, 2016 -> 03:11 PM) If Bernie ran 3rd party, wouldn't the risk of Trump winning increase dramatically? Yes, and it would also accomplish nothing while destroying any influence Sanders might have within the Democratic Party. What did Nader's 2000 campaign gain for liberals, either short or long term?

QUOTE (bmags @ Jul 12, 2016 -> 03:06 PM) Hey this was pretty good. agreed

my god that last sentence is a nightmare, let me edit that!

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 12, 2016 -> 02:38 PM) But you fell into line and are doing everything you can to get her elected, just like Bernie and the rest of the party, even while there are plenty of Republicans who aren't with Trump. There just isn't room for leaving the party line for the Democrats. This whole discussion just shows that again. Even though people don't really like her or agree with her, everyone is in line like good little Dems. Hillary Clinton will appoint SC and federal justices along with hundreds of executive branch positions that are far closer to my own ideology than a Republican would. That's why I'm voting for her, and it has nothing to do with being forced to follow the party line. Instead, it is solely due to having two possible options in our system and recognizing the vastly less s***ty one. In multi-party countries, strategic voting happens to an even greater degree; that's how Canada's most recent election was won by the liberal coalition, and it wasn't due to people "falling in line" but understanding basic political science/how voting works. Understanding where my vote has the most influence (a stretch given we're talking about Illinois, but let's pretend I live in Ohio or something for argument's sake) doesn't mean I'm suddenly lock-step with the DNC platform or everything Clinton is campaigning on. I'm not and I won't be, but in a basic risk assessment, she's much more preferable to me. There are plenty of Republicans who aren't with the orange man-baby that's currently leading the GOP, but an overwhelming majority are and Trump himself represents something very odd within American politics. We don't know what the fallout from him will be for either his supporters or non-supporters, so you don't even really have anything to point to there. Honestly, you seem to be using "party line" in several different ways here, but mostly pretty idiosyncratically. I reject any definition that means a party apparatus enforces rigid ideological adherence if people recognize that voting for the party who may not represent all of their interests but it still much closer is better than voting to assuage their own ego.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 12, 2016 -> 02:29 PM) lol, way to twist that into not what was said, but OK, the Dems never do anything wrong, bad, or anything else. It wasn't a twist. You yourself said that Republicans care more about "principles" or ideological purity than Democrats, who prioritize winning. If you're prioritizing winning, then being rigid is less of a concern. If you're prioritizing purging people who don't hold the right principles, then you'll do that ahead of worrying about winning, e.g. Sharron Angle and Christine O'Donnell being candidates Yes, this is a good response to the guy who said just a page ago that they don't particularly like Hillary and said they were voting for her for "lesser evil" reasons.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 12, 2016 -> 02:25 PM) You hit the difference between the parties right on the head. For the Dem's it is about winning being most important. For the GOP it is about principles being most important. That is exactly what creates this difference in punishments for falling out of lock step march. You've done an excellent job of completely contradicting yourself here. If it's about winning for Dems, then pushing ideological purity ahead of electoral chances doesn't even make sense. If the GOP is more about principles, then they are more likely (and this is actually backed up by reality!) to punish members for not being ideologically pure enough even if it worsens their electoral chances. You've just gotta find a way to make a "dems R bad" argument no matter the situation, even if you end up saying the exact opposite things within a couple of posts.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 12, 2016 -> 02:14 PM) This is the evidence. Everyone is scared to step out of line, despite there being differences in philosophy. Even a guy like Bernie Sanders falls right back into line to his party bosses, despite his obvious divide. On the other side of the ledger there are all kinds of guys who are refusing to endorse Trump. One guy steps out of line on the Democratic side, and he is an "asshole" and pretty much taken out of an key positions by the party. What punishments is the non-Trump GOP facing? Bernie not being an idiot and recognizing that the Democratic Party winning in November is much better for his political ideology than a Trump win isn't buckling under to pressure from the DNC, it's buckling under to pressure from basic reality. In the way you've framed it, any support of the eventual nominee by primary opponents ends up counting as the DNC enforcing rigid ideology, but you don't even consider any other much more obvious explanation. Lieberman was and is an asshole and openly worked against the Democratic party. Why on earth would or should any political party reward that sort of behavior? We're still months out from the election, but there's been plenty of primary threats against GOPers who aren't backing Trump, notably including their most recent speaker of the House. Going back to very recent history, we had their previous speaker forced into retirement by House GOP members who viewed him as a traitor, and we had the House Majority leader lose a primary race for not being ideologically pure enough. There are also many other reps who have faced the same fate for not being pure conservatives, and we'll have to see what the Trump fallout is going forward. Trump is, of course, his own unique phenomenon and not really directly comparable to top-down party enforcement of ideology either way, given that he's made his run without the support of the party. Oh, up until most of the party and definitely the top leadership all bent the knee and have been working with and supporting him for the same reasons Sanders is supporting Clinton, because they realize having a Republican in the WH is better long-term for their interests even if they don't like that particular individual.

there already was a "penn state horror show" with the last post in 2015, might make sense to just merge this into that one if that's the route we're going.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 12, 2016 -> 01:59 PM) There is a big difference between it being done by the party itself, versus the party running other candidates. Enforcement of ideological purity doesn't count if it comes bottom-up instead of top-down, even if that party in the end is much more ideologically pure. Your one example is a Democrat who endorsed the Republican candidate for President and then did everything he could to sabotage their generational healthcare bill. That's not exactly a strong example of how everyone in the Democratic party must be lock-step, it's an example of Lieberman being an asshole. QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 12, 2016 -> 02:00 PM) The fact that no one steps out of line because of the fear of reprimand and ostracizing is pretty clear to me. Evidence of this actually happening on the Democratic side is scant, but all of the evidence of it happening within the GOP constantly for years doesn't count because reasons.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 12, 2016 -> 01:56 PM) Because he always falls back into line with the Dems. You are straight-up delusional if you think ideological purity is more strongly enforced in the modern Democratic Party than in the party that is constantly under primary threats and has sabotaged its own leadership repeatedly in just the last few years.

QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Jul 12, 2016 -> 01:41 PM) The GOP is far more driven by ideological purity than the DNC. Republican politicians who step a foot outside of party lines are quickly declared RINOs, and every time the GOP starts losing elections, the explanation is "the candidate wasn't conservative (pure) enough". Seriously. "That one time Democrats did it to Joe Lieberman after years of him openly sabotaging the party" contrasted against dozens of GOP reps getting primaried out, open revolt against their own Speakers and party leaders. edit and this whole tangent started with Bernie Sanders, the guy who has run as an independent for decades and still gets committee chairs from the Democrats. just lol.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 12, 2016 -> 01:36 PM) Not obeying isn't a part of the Democratic code. Either you fall into line or you get kicked out the club. It is what it is. The Republicans actually tolerate more open thinking in that respect. Remind me which party has seen many of its members primaried out of office for not being ideologically pure enough, including the House majority leader and even forcing their Speaker into retirement? And who have since moved on to declaring their replacement speaker a traitor to the cause and even possibly a secret Muslim (because he grew a beard)?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 12, 2016 -> 12:59 PM) If he had refused to kiss the Clinton ring, he damned well would have met the same fate. Yes, if he had actively sabotaged the Democratic Party's chances at winning the Presidency and filling at least one SC seat, the Democrats would not be very nice to him. I fail to see why this is supposed to be a bad thing.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 12, 2016 -> 12:41 PM) It was the most obvious thing ever. Of course Sanders endorsed Clinton. Its either that or turn into the next Joe Lieberman who gets ostracized from his party for not falling in line. These guys are full of s*** on the campaign trail. They all fall back into line when it is said and done. The only shocking thing is how many Republicans are still refusing Trump, which makes me feel better about some of those guys having some morals. Lieberman was ostracized for being a backstabbing s***bag who kept sabotaging his own party's goals. Sanders ran as an independent for years and was still regularly welcomed to caucus with the Democrats in the House and then the Senate.

QUOTE (Chi Town Sox @ Jul 12, 2016 -> 11:53 AM) Definitely not my first primary. People are missing the point, sure, many primaries have been ugly. But how often or when was the last time we seen two same-party candidates so far off from each others beliefs and what they stand for? That is disappointing for his supporters who couldn't be MORE anti-other candidate (in this case HRC) He never said "HRC is evil" but he has continually called out her political stances while being the complete opposite of her political party But anyways, here's a video of him saying she is the lesser evil http://dailycaller.com/2016/05/22/bernie-s...-is-evil-video/ I was a Bernie supporter. I'm glad he's ending his campaign and endorsing Clinton. I'm voting for Clinton along the same "lesser evil" lines and am fine with that since I get to choose between the orange baby-hands narcissist scammer and a centrist Democrat who's drifted left over the years partially in response to Sanders' campaign. She's not the complete opposite of Sanders and he is smart enough to recognize that. Trump and what the Republican party generally represent are much, much farther away from Sanders' views than Clinton, and he correctly understands that a President Clinton is, at worst, much less damaging to his own causes than a President Trump. His supporters who melted down over the non-indictment and are now melting down over what anyone could have seen coming a couple of months ago are a small fringe of his supporters. An overwhelming majority are going to vote (D) come November.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Jul 12, 2016 -> 11:38 AM) It's the beauty of the rigid two party system in the world's greatest democracy. Endorse Trump or a 3rd party candidate and he would get laughed at. Required link to Duverger's law (two parties are an almost inevitable outcome of a first-past-the-post system, especially a Presidential one where coalition-building doesn't really work like it can in a parliamentary system) eta: short answer, if you want more viable parties than two, abolish the Presidency and the Senate, switch to proportional representation or at least a parliament.

QUOTE (Chi Town Sox @ Jul 12, 2016 -> 11:27 AM) I don't know who I am voting for or if I am voting for all but it wasn't going to be HRC or Bernie. But to see him roast her for as long as he has and then sit up there and talk about how fierce she is, wow. His facebook followers are absolutely roasting him. All those donations to help him fight to the convention and then to bow out and support everything that he had said was evil. That's pretty disappointing. This is how primary campaigns go. If anything, there was even more rancor between the Clinton and Obama camps in '08. His hardcore bernouts are upset about it, but he had a 0.00% chance of winning the nomination at this point and he isn't as delusional as them as realizes that a Clinton Presidency and potential Democratic Senate is a lot better for his own ideological/political goals than a Trump/Republican win in November. edit: I say this as someone who voted for Bernie in the primaries and isn't all that enamored with Clinton.

VP nomination is voted for at the convention. Back in I think '44 there was a floor fight over it with the Republicans, but that's the last time there's been any VP drama. Typically, the decision is announced several days/a week ahead of time and is confirmed without issue at the convention. Trump reportedly still doesn't know exactly who he's going to pick, and his pick has to be voted on by the delegates. They don't necessarily have to approve his first choice if it was off-the-walls crazy. Latest rumors have been Pence, Gingrich, and Christie along with some random generals. Most people asked about the VP spot have said they have no interest. Trump also promised to release his convention schedule last Wednesday but hasn't said anything about it since then.

QUOTE (Chi Town Sox @ Jul 12, 2016 -> 11:14 AM) This is great to watch. HRC is everything Bernie is against, now they are talking about being happy in each others corner and how they've long been friends. Bernie reluctantly clapping while HRC talks about Wall Street is magnificent. This country and our politicians are a joke. Clinton more or less adopted Sanders college plan in its entirety recently.

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Jul 12, 2016 -> 10:28 AM) Bernie suspended his campaign. Democrats finally uniting. I'd expect to still see a slight uptick for Trump in polls over the next couple of weeks due to 1) Clinton's emails 2) him not really having yet another huge meltdown (so far) 3) the VP announcement, assuming it isn't a dumpster fire itself, and 4) the RNC, assuming the same. Hillary will start to get the last of the bernout support she can hope to receive, and then after the DNC I'd expect her to get back to her 6+ point margins in the national polls and continue dominating every swing state poll as she's been doing.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jul 12, 2016 -> 10:15 AM) Just feel the need to say that I think RBG was out of bounds making comments on the election. Scalia started it, she is adding on to it. I hope it stops. Sandra Day O'Connor allegedly got very upset when Florida was first called for Gore because she wanted to retire with a Republican president (and she got to help ensure that that happened!)

QUOTE (shysocks @ Jul 12, 2016 -> 10:27 AM) From a WaPo editorial: So what I gather is that nothing she said is explicitly punishable (can you even punish a SCJ?), but it was still real dumb. Theoretically they can be impeached by Congress. A whole lot of our system (and really all political systems) rests on people adhering to 'norms'. If those break down enough, e.g. the Senate and the President are opposite parties and the Senate flatly refuses to confirm any nomination for any appointee at any level, it can invoke a constitutional crisis with no clear path to resolution.

Whole lot of the posts defending Paterno in this thread looked bad then and only look worse now. eta: the defenses in the original PSU thread look even worse than those in this thread given that we now know Paterno knew Sandusky was abusing boys going back to the 70's, not just the 98 and 02 incidents.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jan 22, 2012 -> 11:34 AM) His doctors also wished they could have done more. by the way this post still wins the thread