If we know anything about Clinton, it's that she will adopt popular opinion (opinions that she thinks will help her). I fully expect her to adopt some form of the rhetoric which has made Sanders so successful. Plus, she needs to, and will, spin Trump as a reason the middle class is losing jobs and money. I don't think his supporters are set in stone. Trump popular vote is about 13 million, Clinton is about 15 million, Sanders 12 million, rest of gop combined is 15 million or so. The Sanders supporters will come around once the threat of trump enters the picture. The gop is so fractured, I think it's fair to say their base is a lot more up in the air.

 

I could see a lot of Kasich and Rubio voters come out against trump. I could see a lot of Ted Cruz voters stay home rather than vote trump. The only demographic trump likely leads is white male. And more than anything, white uneducated males. That isn't going to win the general. He'll win states in the South, but if Clinton proved anything, it's that she is pretty strong in the South.

 

126 million people voted in 2012. Reagan won by 9 or 10 points, I really could see this being much worse than that. The electoral votes are a different story though.

You are seriously underestimating the Clinton hate on the right Smerf, that's all I can say.

 

You are seriously underestimating the Clinton hate on the right Smerf, that's all I can say.

Let's quit perpetuating the 'Clinton hate' meme. Most of it ... yes, most ... is manufactured through years of right-wing propaganda. Yes, she is most definitely a flawed candidate and posters here have given good reasons for not wanting to vote for her, and I respect that difference of opinion. But the hate I see this time around is the same kind of hate Obama got where people can give no coherent reasons, it's just hate ... 'she's evil, she's a horrible human being.' And I think we casually perpetrate it when we don't distinguish between real, genuine hate and political dislike. When I read articles like this, and I still hear Clinton being compared to 'evil' (as in the lesser or greater than), I really just think our society is doomed. 

 

 

Let's quit perpetuating the 'Clinton hate' meme. 

 

I didn't say it was justified.  I said it exists. 

 

And it does.

 

Trust me, no one has a monopoly on that behavior.

 

Very true. Combine these tendencies with the voter suppression measures passed in several states and the Republicans will compete despite having a truly unqualified candidate on top of the ballot. IMHO the real question is how despised Hillary Clinton is. I know she has negative poll numbers, but how many people will eventually get to voting for a qualified candidate no matter how much she is disliked.

 

Every voter ID law that could even plausibly create a disparate racial impact has been undone by the courts.  Even reasonable voter ID laws have been suppressed.

 

And I am wondering under what definition Clinton counts as a "qualified candidate".  What has she accomplished?

Edited June 11, 201610 yr by Steve J

I didn't say it was justified.  I said it exists. 

 

And it does.

I'm just trying to say ... let's not lump it all into the same category. Believe me, I know it exists. Being female, I know first-hand it exists. I just find it ... I don't think as a society we have made the progress we think we have.

Every voter ID law that could even plausibly create a disparate racial impact has been undone by the courts.  Even reasonable voter ID laws have been suppressed.

 

And I am wondering under what definition Clinton counts as a "qualified candidate".  What has she accomplished?

Your first point, not true. Who do voter I'D laws create the largest impact on? The poor and minorities. I am not completely against voter I'D laws, ones that make sense. The majority of laws in question come about in the South, where the goal is to keep a certain demographic in power. If you refuse to recognize this, either you listen to Rush too much or you agree with that ideology.

 

The fact you asked if Clinton is qualified makes me ask if you even know her past? Truth be told, I'm not a fan of her at all. But qualified? That is ludicrous. The woman was a senator and Secretary of State. She is more than qualified. Plus, the last time I checked, POTUS qualifications are 35 yo (check), resident for 14 years (check), and natural born citizen (check). I've been nice in this response, because the whole basis of unqualification is that she is a woman.... and it makes me sick.

Your first point, not true. Who do voter I'D laws create the largest impact on? The poor and minorities. I am not completely against voter I'D laws, ones that make sense. The majority of laws in question come about in the South, where the goal is to keep a certain demographic in power. If you refuse to recognize this, either you listen to Rush too much or you agree with that ideology.

The fact you asked if Clinton is qualified makes me ask if you even know her past? Truth be told, I'm not a fan of her at all. But qualified? That is ludicrous. The woman was a senator and Secretary of State. She is more than qualified. Plus, the last time I checked, POTUS qualifications are 35 yo (check), resident for 14 years (check), and natural born citizen (check). I've been nice in this response, because the whole basis of unqualification is that she is a woman.... and it makes me sick.

I have two words for this ... A and MEN!

 

http://qz.com/644985/privilege-is-what-allows-sanders-supporters-to-say-theyll-never-vote-for-clinton/?utm_source=atlfb

 

 

 

 

Your first point, not true. Who do voter I'D laws create the largest impact on? The poor and minorities. I am not completely against voter I'D laws, ones that make sense. The majority of laws in question come about in the South, where the goal is to keep a certain demographic in power.

 

 

Really? then point out a set of standing voter ID laws that creates disparity.  The one in TX was burdensome, but it was struck down.  What else is there?

 

And lets not pretend that the resistance to voter ID laws itself isn't mired in a desire for fraudulent votes to upset unwanted democratic results.  

 

 

If you refuse to recognize this, either you listen to Rush too much or you agree with that ideology.

 

 

Are the mods going to let this slip? 

 

 

Edited June 11, 201610 yr by Steve J

Resistance to voter I'D laws are rooted in a Resistance to mild racism and stupidity and in a belief in the value of democracy over being suppressive jerks.

You didn't address the demographic voter id laws target, which is overwhelmingly democrats. The notion of a "state issued" photo id might seem simple to you. It's not though. Again, mostly the poor and minorities have this struggle. Privileged white people don't (i'm one of them).

 

Voter fraud is a different topic altogether. The margin for impacting 125 million votes just isn't big enough. A cyber infiltration or suppressing a certain side of the vote is way more effective.

 

What did you find in that comment offensive lol?

 

The fact you asked if Clinton is qualified makes me ask if you even know her past? Truth be told, I'm not a fan of her at all. But qualified? That is ludicrous. The woman was a senator and Secretary of State. She is more than qualified. Plus, the last time I checked, POTUS qualifications are 35 yo (check), resident for 14 years (check), and natural born citizen (check). 

 

Lol.

 

In other words, based on her husband's legacy she was able to move to NY to secure a Senator's election that was a very safe bet to win.   And how successful would you say her tenure as the Secretary of State was?

 

The Atlantic has a rundown of her other "qualifications"

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/06/tracking-the-clinton-controversies-from-whitewater-to-benghazi/396182/

 

 

 

I've been nice in this response, because the whole basis of unqualification is that she is a woman.... and it makes me sick.

 

No the basis for her unqualification is her rank dishonesty, her link to cronies, her failure as a politician, her "charity", and so on.  The idea that the resistance to her as a candidate is primarily or even marginally because she is a woman is your absurd imagination.  

Edited June 11, 201610 yr by Steve J

 

 

What did you find in that comment offensive lol?

 

Did you or did you not imply that I believed minority votes ought to be oppressed if I did not agree with you?

 

I'm just trying to figure out what level of trollishness is allowed here, and given that a Mod liked your post, It seems it is.

 

I will remember that.

Edited June 11, 201610 yr by Steve J

My distrust of voter ID legislation is centered on the fact it is always sponsored by the Republican Party, tends to pop up in states with large minority populations, and always seems designed to lesson the impact of voters unlikely to vote Republican.

 

How else than "politically motivated" would you describe it? Can you point to one substantiated case of voter fraud giving rise to genuine concern?

 

I do agree you've been treated rather harshly here.

 

As for Hillary, your list of factors that make her unqualified is opinion based. Which is fine, but different from fact based.

 

I think, for example, she was a fine SecState.

Did you or did you not imply that I believed minority votes ought to be oppressed if I did not agree with you?

 

I'm just trying to figure out what level of trollishness is allowed here, and given that a Mod liked your post, It seems it is.

 

I will remember that.

First, if you have not done so already, please review the TD Comment Policy.

 

If your aim is to fine-tune a certain "level of trollishness", you are almost certainly embarking down a path that will lead to regret. Rather than match the level of objectionability you perceive, try to be the better person in the exchange. We ask this of all posters, since one person's "tit for tat" is another person's "raising the ante". The moderators tend to allow more leeway here in the Sports Bar forum area, but it is not infinite. Rebut an argument you disagree with, and don't seek to troll. (This is why I posted an earlier mod warning concerning a nickname for a political opponent; there isn't really a rebuttal to calling someone Goober, and all it leads to is bickering. By contrast the post you objected to can be rebutted calmly in any of several ways.)

 

We do not condone discussing moderation policy within a topical thread. As you'll know from reading the Comment Policy, there is another forum area, "Questions About MinnCentric," where such discussion is appropriate, and should be confined. I've exercised a bit of "moderator privilege" to respond to your specific concern here, but further such member discussion in this thread will be removed.

I'm not going to argue that the motivation is not largely political. It is, as elections are.  From the purest of standpoints the GOP is trying to protect their voters from disenfranchisement just as the Democrats are trying to protect their own.

 

and here is a story on voter fraud in MN,

 

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/york-when-1099-felons-vote-in-race-won-by-312-ballots/article/2504163

 

over a thousand felons who did not have their voting rights restored were allowed to vote in the election that put Al Franken in the Senate.  

 

I agree that discovered instances of voter fraud have been rare, but we aren't looking for it either and it is not easy to find.

 

that to me gives rise to too much plausibility of fraud.

 

 

Addendum.  

 

here is a story from Wapo

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2014/10/24/could-non-citizens-decide-the-november-election/

 

some notable quotes:

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How many non-citizens participate in U.S. elections? More than 14 percent of non-citizens in both the 2008 and 2010 samples indicated that they were registered to vote. Furthermore, some of these non-citizens voted. Our best guess, based upon extrapolations from the portion of the sample with a verified vote, is that 6.4 percent of non-citizens voted in 2008 and 2.2 percent of non-citizens voted in 2010.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

given how close races can be these days, those are very significant percentages.  

 

Edited June 12, 201610 yr by Steve J

I would guess she is more qualified than Trump..... Since he has no experience. If being Secretary of state doesn't help, not sure what would.

 

I'm not going to argue that the motivation is not largely political. It is, as elections are.  From the purest of standpoints the GOP is trying to protect their voters from disenfranchisement just as the Democrats are trying to protect their own.

 

and here is a story on voter fraud in MN,

 

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/york-when-1099-felons-vote-in-race-won-by-312-ballots/article/2504163

 

over a thousand felons who did not have their voting rights restored were allowed to vote in the election that put Al Franken in the Senate.  

 

I agree that discovered instances of voter fraud have been rare, but we aren't looking for it either and it is not easy to find.

 

that to me gives rise to too much plausibility of fraud.

 

 

Addendum.  

 

here is a story from Wapo

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2014/10/24/could-non-citizens-decide-the-november-election/

 

some notable quotes:

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How many non-citizens participate in U.S. elections? More than 14 percent of non-citizens in both the 2008 and 2010 samples indicated that they were registered to vote. Furthermore, some of these non-citizens voted. Our best guess, based upon extrapolations from the portion of the sample with a verified vote, is that 6.4 percent of non-citizens voted in 2008 and 2.2 percent of non-citizens voted in 2010.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

given how close races can be these days, those are very significant percentages.  

Felon voting is not stopped by a Photo ID law. The only issue that Photo ID can reasonably impact is voter impersonation. Instances of such an issue are extremely rare. The lists of fraudulent voters produced by comparing names is always full of errors such as where a felon has the same name as a legitimate voter. However, Photo ID legislation certainly makes it harder to register and vote and effects Democratic constituencies disproportionately.

Dishonesty is not a synonym for unqualified. She is a politician. If honesty was a requirement for President or any political position, we likely wouldn't have any. This issue with her is one i have as well. However, if honesty is a large factor for you, you better not be voting trump. I'd say he is about 10x nite dishonest than she is.

 

Instead of finding a solution that makes it more difficult to vote, why not offer a solution which simply makes it more efficient?

Instead of finding a solution that makes it more difficult to vote, why not offer a solution which simply makes it more efficient?

 

 

Let's quit perpetuating the 'Clinton hate' meme. Most of it ... yes, most ... is manufactured through years of right-wing propaganda. Yes, she is most definitely a flawed candidate and posters here have given good reasons for not wanting to vote for her, and I respect that difference of opinion. But the hate I see this time around is the same kind of hate Obama got where people can give no coherent reasons, it's just hate ... 'she's evil, she's a horrible human being.' And I think we casually perpetrate it when we don't distinguish between real, genuine hate and political dislike. When I read articles like this, and I still hear Clinton being compared to 'evil' (as in the lesser or greater than), I really just think our society is doomed. 

How about the simple fact that both Hillary and her husband should be jail (for very different reasons)?  Perhaps it is b/c no one has ever bothered to investigate the family for insider trading.  Or perhaps it is the trail of dead bodies that has followed her family for the last few decades.  Perhaps it is because her husband (while being one of the better Presidents in my life time, which not a complement btw) was an absolute embarrassment of human character, who knows.  That family is Teflon, and it's something that Bill took advantage of quite nicely, and Hillary in her career has managed to do as well.  Scandal after scandal has followed them and somehow disappeared, and while I have no doubt that some of this is simply BS by people looking for a reason to 'hate' her, way too much of it is very real. 

 

Perhaps hate is a strong word, and I understand (I think) where you're coming from Chi, but there's good reason why people on the right consider her evil.  The evidence is there if you want to look, and the fact that this is already being framed into choosing between the lesser of two evils ought to give most rational people pause.  Hillary is NOT a good candidate. She may satisfy a few your bigger personal fears, and she might be the lesser of evils with Trump (and I'm not saying that to be clear); but this country cannot afford another Clinton in the WH, just as they couldn't afford a 2nd year of Bush (or really 1st in retrospect), Obama, or Trump.  Honestly, this country cannot afford many more years of Dems and Reps.  We have real problems in this country that neither party is addressing.  Eventually, those chickens come home to roost. 

 

This is why I started voting independent back in 2004, and it's why I'll continue.  Both parties are so corrupt at the core that if things don't change soon, this country is going to be in for a whole world of hurt.  I just hope enough people wake up to it sooner than later.  It may already too late.  That's one thing a lot of those Republicans that hate Hillary have figured out.  Unfortunately, they haven't figured out that their proposed solution is also part of the problem. 

 

You didn't address the demographic voter id laws target, which is overwhelmingly democrats. The notion of a "state issued" photo id might seem simple to you. It's not though. Again, mostly the poor and minorities have this struggle. Privileged white people don't (i'm one of them).

Voter fraud is a different topic altogether. The margin for impacting 125 million votes just isn't big enough. A cyber infiltration or suppressing a certain side of the vote is way more effective.

What did you find in that comment offensive lol?

 

If people are concerned about vote fraud, then they should be downright frightened by the electronic voting system put in place.  I don't know if it's been used in that capacity, but what I can say for certain is the lack of security controls in place certainly allows for it (this is coming from someone who understands IT security all too well given that this is in part of what I do for a living).

 

Back to voter ID.  It's a mix Smerf, and I think you know it.  I agree there's issues there, but it's also born as a reaction to a very real problem.  Sadly, this one is probably solvable, as there are reasonable ways to put some basic voter verification out there without it turning into Jim Crow part 2.  The problem, like always, are rather vocal groups of people on each side who are for more concerned about shouting really loud then coming up with solutions. 

Are the mods going to let this slip?

 

I'm going to address this a bit, and given that I'm the closest thing the mods have to a conservative (ex-Republican who votes Libertarian), it's probably best coming from me.

 

This thread is 180+ pages long and will easily top 200 pages when all said and done.  We've cracked down on it a few times, particularly with name calling and what not.  If you go back, you'll see some discussion on Voldermort and Hitlery.    Hence the warning a few pages back being reiterated.  We do allow a bit more leeway in the sports bar in general, but I would agree with you that Smerf's statement was condescending an unnecessary.  I'd also note that Smerf is a pretty good poster here and that he recognizes this and will refrain going forward.  He's usually very articulate.  I'd further note that if we reacted here, this entire thread would have been shut down ages ago and we'd be infracting for referring to candidates as Voldermort, Hitlery, a Goober, or whatever.

 

Politics is difficult b/c it personal to everyone (more so than our beloved sports team), mainly b/c the stakes are  a lot higher.  Let's try and be respectful.  Let's not stereotype people to make our points, and let's definitely treat each other respectfully.  I don't agree with the other mods on just about everything politically, but if I have to boil them down to a stereotype or name calling, then perhaps I shouldn't be participating here.  It just shows that I'm not smart enough to articulate what I believe.

 

Thanks

Speaking of the felon thing, I think that "law" needs to be overturned as well! If someone gets a felony, pays their time in prison/fines etc then I think they should be allowed to vote. Not allowing them to vote is just more of a scarlet letter effect and is a symptom of a much larger issue with incarceration in America (namely it's a complete disaster and embarrassment as a whole)

 

 

How about the simple fact that both Hillary and her husband should be jail (for very different reasons)

Honestly, when you start an argument with a statement like this, it's really hard to take the rest of it seriously.

 

You can more or less find "dirt" on every politically powerful person in America, and make an argument that the majority of them have done something where if they weren't rich/powerful they may have gotten in trouble.

 

The "Hilary should be in jail" trope/meme is just tired at this point. Hilary has some things going on where I can see why people would be hesitant to vote for her, but not because "she should be in jail with her husband"

How about the simple fact that both Hillary and her husband should be jail (for very different reasons)? Perhaps it is b/c no one has ever bothered to investigate the family for insider trading. Or perhaps it is the trail of dead bodies that has followed her family for the last few decades. Perhaps it is because her husband (while being one of the better Presidents in my life time, which not a complement btw) was an absolute embarrassment of human character, who knows. That family is Teflon, and it's something that Bill took advantage of quite nicely, and Hillary in her career has managed to do as well. Scandal after scandal has followed them and somehow disappeared, and while I have no doubt that some of this is simply BS by people looking for a reason to 'hate' her, way too much of it is very real.

 

Perhaps hate is a strong word, and I understand (I think) where you're coming from Chi, but there's good reason why people on the right consider her evil. The evidence is there if you want to look, and the fact that this is already being framed into choosing between the lesser of two evils ought to give most rational people pause. Hillary is NOT a good candidate. She may satisfy a few your bigger personal fears, and she might be the lesser of evils with Trump (and I'm not saying that to be clear); but this country cannot afford another Clinton in the WH, just as they couldn't afford a 2nd year of Bush (or really 1st in retrospect), Obama, or Trump. Honestly, this country cannot afford many more years of Dems and Reps. We have real problems in this country that neither party is addressing. Eventually, those chickens come home to roost.

 

This is why I started voting independent back in 2004, and it's why I'll continue. Both parties are so corrupt at the core that if things don't change soon, this country is going to be in for a whole world of hurt. I just hope enough people wake up to it sooner than later. It may already too late. That's one thing a lot of those Republicans that hate Hillary have figured out. Unfortunately, they haven't figured out that their proposed solution is also part of the problem.

 

Perhaps if you didn't use extremely conservative and biased websites to make your case it would give your response more credibility. But for me it doesn't, not one iota. Millions and millions of taxpayers' money were used to 'get something' on the Clintons in the 90s and failed. Are you saying that years of investigations, that uncovered nada, investigations that were done out of dislike for the Clintons by people who disliked them probably more than you, weren't able to find anything because the Clintons were able to make them disappear, that the Clintons were able to do so because they had more resources to do so? Really? Were they really that much more clever than the millions spent and the personnel investigating them? It wasn't that it just disappeared, it was that after years and years and money wasted, there was nothing to find. But what was done was to implant in the minds of many, suspicions and hate that will never die. In the end they impeached him for having an affair and lying about it. And I'm not saying those actions were a good thing, but if that's what we want in a president there should be no reason for anyone to vote for Trump. None. Good for you to vote for Johnson. I hope more on that side of the fence do so. I really do.

 

As for Hillary, the scrutiny she receives, the criticisms she receives, the responses she receives are exponentially worse, more so, than male candidates. The hate she receives from a certain portion of the populace is in the same vein as the hate Obama receives. Much if what gets thrown on her to the degree it gets thrown on her is for one reason only, and it has nothing to do with her politics.

I'm still waiting for Bush and Cheney to face an International War Crimes court. Not holding my breath, though.

And in other news, another mass shooting, involving an assault rifle, which is being called an act of domestic terrorism. I won't post a link because it was carried in just about every news site I follow so I assume you all have read about it already. I'd repost the video of Obama responding to a question by a gun-shop owner, but, well, not sure it's pertinent because I don't know who the shooter was or what his motivation was.

 

Anyway ... only in America.