The Politics Thread (PLAY NICELY!)

They are both politicians. So, as long as the US President doesn't break any laws, any governor or congressional leader is allowed to take funds for personal use and establish laws for business they personally own stake in?

Because leaders can break laws, just not the president, until the president is someone else, and then they can break laws, because they can break laws only if you like them. Are you heterosexual? Well there we go then, THAT's why women can break so many laws with less than half the incarceration and half the sentencing of their male counterparts.

"Because you like them".

You mean like the current president is doing?

Are you white [with repressed mild racism]? Well there we go then, THAT's why the following white presidents gets cut all the slack while the black president gets hated for the same exact acts the following white president commits and even if he was a better person through and through.

"Because you like whites".

I'm surprised, given how much you rail about foreigners not knowing US law, that you don't know there are a number of substantial differences from a politician in general and the POTUS themselves.

They're nowhere near the same thing, nomatter how much you want them to be for the sake of your contrived witch hunt designed to deflect attention from Trump's issues.

You said you don't like Trump? Or don't support him, or something? Maybe try demonstrating that every once in a while. Trump can be indicted, and then so can whomever else the relevant systems find guilty. If that in some strange Conservative Bizzaro World turns out to be Hillary Clinton, then so be it.

But let them follow this process in order, according to the information they obviously have.

Their names, their political side, their birth date, their favorite color, their general character, ... so many things. Why focus on that one factor? Given two people there are soooooo many things that make them individuals and different from each other.
Maybe Hillary is just the better liar. Which isn't really hard, Trump and his peers are really bad at that.

If Hillary really did do anything problematic that should be looked into.
However I've lost track of what she was supposed to have done.
So many absurd lies were spread by her enemies that the few real things got lost somewhere.
The one thing I do remember is that the democrats pushed against Bernie Sanders in favor of Hillary in a rather undemocratic manner.

The only thing we know for certain about that is that they discussed it. Her few thousand leaked e-mails showed no actual signs they did it. The gap in votes was huge, so it seems to me that Bernie was simply nowhere near as popular as people made him out to be.

Better lawyers?

The ability to listen to their lawyers and do as told by them.

maybe I'm just being obtuse but that just breaks my brain. how??? how was he less popular? I mean Ok "MURRIKA" but at a certain point, stop. how?

Oh now this is tasty:

https://www.apnews.com/dea73efc0159...ry:-How-Russians-hacked-the-Democrats'-emails

https://twitter.com/NatashaBertrand/status/926502457911529472

"OMG RUSSIA JUST A CONVENIENT EXCUSE LOL SHILLARY"

Because in the end, Hillary won over Sanders? He was popular on the internet, and his popularity has been only rising since his candidacy, but evidently it wasn't enough. Having high approval ratings etc is nice and all, but if people don't actually vote...

Trump's approval ratings were lower than clinton's and he won.

I guess if 450k $ yearly is a middle class income to you than a stance of "nobody needs healthcare and our tax cuts are good for the middle class" suddenly makes sense. xD

Didn't these super-something voters play an important role in that Hillary vs Sanders thing? And those were all suspiciously united against Sanders. Seeing that Sanders had no support from that side certainly doesn't help with getting votes vs Hillary.

I think some context here is important. When Americans talk about socialism, they mean communism, and when they mean communism they mean the Soviet union. Bernie Sanders is a socialist, and as far as i've gathered that means people think he's evil. I mean, you don't need to dig far in this thread to see such comments as well.

Further context here is that Sanders would put the DNC on a very different and unashamedly more socialist route, with severe and far-reaching implications for the party and it's future. It wouldn't just be a candidate, it's a vote for the future of the party.

The last important thing here is that a large part of the sentiment back then was that Sanders couldn't beat trump but a uniting with Clinton could, as she's more moderate than him (again, unashamed socialist).

So to me, i totally could see the DNC voting for a continuation of it's strategy under Clinton rather than a massive swerve under Sanders. And it seems many voters thought too that unification under Clinton would be a more strategic choice than a wild ride under Sanders. Retroactively it seems that Clinton's popularity dwindling in the last weeks/months before the elections made Sanders a better choice, but that's hindsight, and IMHO a big part of why people think Sanders was such a sure choice. I have no trouble finding articles from 2017 gushing over Sanders, his popularity and appeal.

The last piece of context is that Sander's popularity has pretty steadily been rising since early 2016. I don't think it's a far reach to say that if the primaries had been a month or two later, he'd have gathered the power to win. Clinton's popularity went down quite a bit after Comey's bumbling and meaningless allegations that went nowhere but only made the choice for her less and less attractive.

So it seems to me that buyer's remorse is what makes people more confident in Sanders than they were back then, and believed he could've won despite the fact that history told us otherwise.

The last part is that the reasonable difference in end results would require incredible levels of meddling and rigging in order to be artificially set up. Considering the trouble with russian meddling and clinton hacks, i don't believe they could keep a rigging of such an extent hidden for long. Bullying representatives into voting for Clinton would require hundreds to thousands of individuals to be approached. It would require a level of competence and unity that we just don't see, not from the RNC nor from the DNC. With the rift Sanders has caused (which is impressive, by the way, don't get me wrong here), there's no way hundreds of democrats would keep their mouth shut if they were bullied into Clinton. The Democrats have no reason to be unified now since they have so little power that they effectively can't stop anything unless the Republicans are divided. They can freely fight all they want.

gotta keep up with the news.

It's been confirmed by Donna Brazile that hillary had the DNC in her pocket as early as 2015. Typical political backroom dealing. Obama bankrupted the DNC, Hillary came in with the cash via the clinton foundation. I fund you, you report to me.

Also, the election polling was statistically flawed by outrageously oversampled democrats with the exception of a few like rasmussen which pretty accurately predicted the results. All you have to do is go look at the polling methodology used by the big ones.

Lastly, the DNC is now poised to become the bernie party if bernie doesn't have any medical complications (he is very old afterall). The old corrupted neoliberal establishment is dying a rapid death.

Which is something we're probably all happy about. Finally we can agree on something

Question is what will happen to the republican party.

Not surprising, after an election with the least liked candidates in recent if not all of election history. Both republican and democrat establishment are burning. I'm interested to see what rises from the ashes.

the French elections.

AKA given the opportunity to change everyone goes with sticking to more of the same anal pain.

keep in mind technically this election already had reached that "enough is enough" stage what with Bernie coming out.

Melanchon was France's Bernie.

not elected.

no revolution as a result.

nothing changed it only got much worse. ecology and small business in france has let it's last breath out.

IMO what with what I'm witnessing here in france (and the next election US election will comfirm it but we don't have to wait 'till then to be sure), not really, no. they're still going strong, and we can't even scratch them.

so it's a video you should watch about tax breaks. we discussed those here. let's do it again.

It's the same old same old. Nations and states played against each other like fools.

Should be fun to see the apparently progressive and apparently anti-Trump posters react to these unconventional Democratic leads via fresh candidates in the current election run.

So far it's been weird radio silence. Odd!

People who have their political ideals formulated and spoon fed to them by late night comedy hacks, probably arn't worth listening too...capitalism spawned about an extra 6 billion people and maintains them to various degrees....socialism has accomplished nothing except massive death, economic destruction, heartache and state capture...have you ever been to Zimbabwe or Venezuela and tried to find a tank of gas or fresh food?