• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Presidential Primaries 2016

And you base that on what? A couple gaffes by Madeline Albright and Gloria Steinem?

“Well look, I’ve got to just jump in here because, honestly, Senator Sanders is the only person who I think would characterize me, a woman running to be the first woman president as exemplifying the establishment. And I’ve got to tell you that it is… really quite amusing to me.”

That's the biggest one from Hillary herself... although the Matthews incident you mentioned and her supporters' responses to it (technically not the candidate herself) is also part of my complaint. She used that line in the second debate, I think it was.

There's also the whole "Bernie bros" garbage coming from her supporters -- and Bill Clinton. While I am aware that objectionable things probably did happen, characterizing Bernie's campaign with it as if that's who we all are was nonsense. I'd also have to look at individual complaints to even know whether to agree whether they were sexist or not -- which I haven't.
 
Last edited:
And on another note, here's a POV I found interesting enough to share (citation omitted because the source isn't relevant). The profanity has a point, sorry.
When it comes to complex issues like the economy, health care, and climate change, I do not fault anyone for taking a stance opposite of mine, because those issues are very large and very hard to understand and comprehend. It is in that space that I love to debate, because there is much to debate about; I love to share my views as well as I can and I love to let others educate me on their position and beliefs. All of us, even the true experts, constantly have much to learn in those areas. But there is another class of issues that are so asinine, so simple and so toxic that I have found myself actively ignoring them, not because they aren’t important (they are easily the most important issues facing the USA today), but because the debate itself just bores the hell out of me.

I often feel quite bad for myself by not engaging with others on those issues, because many of my friends and family are affected by them directly, and if we are silent we might as well be on the other side. So to that end, I want to make absolutely clear where I stand on these boring but terrible issues, but I feel as if I can only debate them in the terms and phrasing that I believe is appropriate for them. I will attempt to distill a nuanced policy position into three simple words: “go **** yourself”.

If you feel as if 1.6 billion Muslims are somehow to blame or need to collectively apologize for the actions of a radical group of about 10,000 people primarily located halfway around the world, go **** yourself.

If you think that the influx of Mexican immigrants to this country is resulting in any kind of major increase in violent crime, go **** yourself.

If you think women don’t deserve equal pay and social equality, as well as the right to govern what occurs inside of their own bodies, go **** yourself.

If you think it is OK to roll back decades of progress for LGBT rights and tell people what bathroom they can use based on what you think they have going on inside their pants, go **** yourself.

If you look at hundreds of thousands of people forced to flee their home due to war and terror and monstrous things as “too risky” to allow into your country, go **** yourself.

If you think more than 1 mass shooting in the USA per day is an acceptable amount of casualties and that the problem will not be mitigated greatly by a responsible and simple approach to gun rights, go **** yourself.

There are many approaches to debating these issues. All have been debunked thoroughly by facts and statistics. But facts and statistics are not the appropriate response when the claim itself is too ridiculous to warrant a debate. The debate has ended, “go **** yourself” begins now.

I hope people enjoy it as much as I did.
 
I didn't have much issue with it. I think I would probably disagree with the gun control measures suggested in the last bit though... on civil rights grounds, not because I like guns. I don't believe in taking away rights without due process. That rules out some of the gun control measures often suggested.

On the other hand, I'd be perfectly okay if we were to require some sort of licensing before allowing anybody to own a gun. That's different than taking away something deemed a "right" from someone without a court hearing due to being on a suspect list or due to a psychological diagnosis. Due process is necessary in these circumstances. Anyone can be on a list -- doesn't mean they belong there. Given the basic principle of "innocent until proven guilty" it is the state's responsibility to prove that they (individually, not collectively) can't be trusted with a gun BEFORE treating them differently from the rest of the population.
 
Last edited:
^ Google finds only one source for that pretentious drivel (this thread), so it's likely from Chelsea's supaseekrit private newsletter.

Glad to know you can't find it on Google, I worried about that. It's from a private FB page.

But Chelsea's private newsletter? WTF is that?

And what on Earth do you find offensive about it? It's from a person who hates the attacks coming from the growing right wing fringe against the LGBTs, minorities, Muslims, and immigrants.
 
I didn't have much issue with it. I think I would probably disagree with the gun control measures suggested in the last bit though... on civil rights grounds, not because I like guns. I don't believe in taking away rights without due process. That rules out some of the gun control measures often suggested.

On the other hand, I'd be perfectly okay if we were to require some sort of licensing before allowing anybody to own a gun. That's different than taking away something deemed a "right" from someone without a court hearing due to being on a suspect list or due to a psychological diagnosis. Due process is necessary in these circumstances. Anyone can be on a list -- doesn't mean they belong there. Given the basic principle of "innocent until proven guilty" it is the state's responsibility to prove that they (individually, not collectively) can't be trusted with a gun BEFORE treating them differently from the rest of the population.
He was talking about the knee-jerk blanket rejection of gun regulations while the band (shootings/deaths) plays on.
 
He was talking about the knee-jerk blanket rejection of gun regulations while the band (shootings/deaths) plays on.

If it helps, I'm not any fonder of NRA and other gun group rhetoric than anyone else of a liberal persuasion is. My disagreement with the Dem line is related to civil liberties and the legal process, as mentioned. I suspect that I am in line with some members of the ACLU on it, although I haven't checked. My opinion relates to their usual territory, anyway.

So yeah... I don't entirely disagree on the topic, but it requires qualifications.
 
Last edited:
Could someone more knowledgeable than I help me?

I am trying to understand how many delegates each candidate won in Washington.

Every site I have checked seems to be saying that there were 101 pledged delegates to be won, that all precincts are reporting, and that Bernie got 25 and Hilary got 9.

Just for example, google's own report says
Washington · 101 delegates
100% reporting · Sanders won and has 25 delegates, Clinton has 9

Hawaii · 25 delegates
Sanders won and has 17 delegates, Clinton has 8

Now, 17+8 = 15 but 25+9 does not equal 101.

I am sure I am misunderstanding something, I just can't figure out where I am misreading it.
 
Could someone more knowledgeable than I help me?

I am trying to understand how many delegates each candidate won in Washington.

Every site I have checked seems to be saying that there were 101 pledged delegates to be won, that all precincts are reporting, and that Bernie got 25 and Hilary got 9.

Just for example, google's own report says


Now, 17+8 = 15 but 25+9 does not equal 101.

I am sure I am misunderstanding something, I just can't figure out where I am misreading it.
They're not up to date, but I don't know why either or when they will be corrected. A lot of people seem to be taking numbers from the AP.
 
Could someone more knowledgeable than I help me?

I am trying to understand how many delegates each candidate won in Washington.

Every site I have checked seems to be saying that there were 101 pledged delegates to be won, that all precincts are reporting, and that Bernie got 25 and Hilary got 9.

Just for example, google's own report says


Now, 17+8 = 15 but 25+9 does not equal 101.

I am sure I am misunderstanding something, I just can't figure out where I am misreading it.

I'm guessing they just haven't fully worked out some details and thus haven't released the result. Sometimes it takes a few days for anything official, particularly if there are contested results/complaints in some areas.
 
Last edited:
It looks like, if the superdelegates maintain their positions, Clinton only needs 650 more delegates out of 2073 remaining. That's a bit more than 1/3 of the remaining delegates.And given she's well ahead of Sanders, they have no reason to switch support.

Sanders needs 1350 of the remaining 2073 delegates, or a bit less than 2/3 of those remaining.

I'm glad Clinton is my preferred candidate.
 
Last edited:
Gotta wonder if the "Super" delegates will actually stick with Clinton if the momentum is shifting to Bernie, however. If nothing else, it'll look bad.
Except it isn't any more than it was when Sanders won New Hampshire.

How quickly people forget that Sanders' prediction all of Clinton's support is in the southern states has not panned out exactly.
 
Gotta wonder if the "Super" delegates will actually stick with Clinton if the momentum is shifting to Bernie, however. If nothing else, it'll look bad.

Well, not to upset SG, but I could see some superdelegates actually following "the will of the people". Sanders winning quite that large in WA? Superdelegates consist of office-holders, who all have to stand for re-election. A well-known congress critter, governor, AG, Lt. Governor? They can afford to campaign. A Washington State Rep? Not so much. If, as has happened in some areas, you represent a district that's gone 85/95% Sanders and you pledged early fealty to Hillary? I could see switching the pledge?

Not that this applies everywhere, but I can see it in some cases.
 
Well, not to upset SG, but I could see some superdelegates actually following "the will of the people". Sanders winning quite that large in WA? Superdelegates consist of office-holders, who all have to stand for re-election. A well-known congress critter, governor, AG, Lt. Governor? They can afford to campaign. A Washington State Rep? Not so much. If, as has happened in some areas, you represent a district that's gone 85/95% Sanders and you pledged early fealty to Hillary? I could see switching the pledge?

Not that this applies everywhere, but I can see it in some cases.
To be clear, that superdelegates would switch to support the will of the voters does not upset me. I don't think they need to follow the voters in their respective states, but following the general party voters makes the best sense.

I do think, OTOH, that Sanders supporters need to stop whining that said superdelegates had initial opinions and that they happen to actually be following the majority of voters.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom