SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the another-election-season-trainwreck dept.
Florida Representative Debbie Wasserman-Schultz has announced she will resign as chair of the Democratic National Committee. The resignation is to become effective after the party's convention. The organisation's e-mail system was hacked; leaked e-mails appear to confirm accusations that Wasserman-Schultz had taken action favouring Hillary Clinton in her contest against Bernie Sanders to become the Democratic Party's presidential nominee. Sanders had previously called for Wasserman-Schultz to resign, a request he reiterated in light of the leak.
Wasserman-Schultz said in a statement:
I know that electing Hillary Clinton as our next president is critical for America's future. I look forward to serving as a surrogate for her campaign in Florida and across the country to ensure her victory.
coverage:
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 25 2016, @08:24AM
This is the same sickening choice I faced last election. I ended up voting for the one I thought would do the least damage.
That might indicate that that 'strategy' is short-sighted and brought on by fear rather than rationality. Nothing will get better by voting for evil, and neither party has an incentive to be less evil because they are always successful at scamming suckers into voting for them no matter who they put forth. That's why you either need to vote third party, or not at all. Use the perception of the spoiler effect to frighten candidates from either party into becoming more like the third party candidates in a concrete way. This will mean you and enough others have to vote for the third party for many elections, not just one time.
A vote for a third party is not meaningless just because the third party doesn't win.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday July 25 2016, @10:37AM
Agreed. Johnson doesn't need to win; he needs to get enough votes so that Libertarians get federal funding next time around. He's almost certainly not going to get the 15% necessary in national polls to get into the debates but with the additional cash, the Libertarian candidate might next election cycle. It's worth taking a four year hit to make a valuable adjustment to a fucked up system.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1) by Francis on Monday July 25 2016, @02:24PM
The only problem with that is that if the Libertarians get more money that will likely just entrench the Democrats as they'll have an easier time of getting a "Democrat" elected in 2020.
What we really need is some real accountability for the Democrats as they're not representing any sort of meaningful counterbalance to the GOP. They basically always agree with the GOP when it comes to messing the country up. They're OK with the disastrous trade deals, foreign intervention and giving up our constitutional rights. They give a small number of things on social issues, but mostly to distract from all the terrible policies that they agree with the GOP on.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday July 25 2016, @04:01PM
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Monday July 25 2016, @06:41PM
I see you don't bother to demand accountability from the GOP.
It's a valid double standard. Demanding accountability, or any kind of good behavior really, from the GOP, is like demanding good, rational behavior from an insane lunatic who's in an asylum. The Dems put themselves out there as the party that works for the common people instead of the ultra-wealthy and big businesses, so they're much more hypocritical and it's valid to call them out on this.
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by khallow on Tuesday July 26 2016, @01:56AM
It's a valid double standard. [...] The Dems put themselves out there as the party that works for the common people instead of the ultra-wealthy and big businesses
I should have known the idiots would come out on this one. Republicans sell this crap too. Nobody runs as the party of the ultra-wealthy.
(Score: 1) by Francis on Monday July 25 2016, @09:02PM
There's a very good reason for the double standard here. As long as the DNC marches further and further right, there's not really any accountability possible for the GOP. Especially for the majority of Americans that think the Democrats are too far right. What are we going to do, vote for the corporatists that are OK with abortion or the corporatists that aren't? Not much of a choice if you're not a woman that's expecting to get pregnant with a child she doesn't want.
If we could get the Democrats back somewhere left of center and to stop fixing elections in favor of the corporatist members, then we could have some actual accountability for the GOP. Barring that, our next best option would be to try and figure out how to get the Greens enough votes that they can mostly replace the Democrats. It's been a while since a major party died.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday July 25 2016, @11:51PM
Epic failure to read the electorate.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1) by Francis on Tuesday July 26 2016, @12:42AM
Not really, gun control, climate change, energy and economic policy; most Americans aren't right of center on those.
If they were, then how do you explain the revolts going on both in the GOP and Democratic base? The only people that really buy into the lunacy are low information voters and the people paying the politicians off. Most voters in both parties are very much aware of how little representation they have in congress.
But yes, I'm the one that's misinterpreting 90% of voters wanting gun control and neither party actually giving out to them. That sounds like a right of center position with popular support.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday July 26 2016, @01:39AM
If you think that's what the revolt in the GOP is about, you are way, way too far from the event to see what's going on. The GOP revolt is about Washington insider people with an R by their name not being conservative. Ponder for a moment how many of Obama's pet bills got through a Republican House and Senate, then consider why conservatives might be pissed off at their elected representatives.
And if you think for even a moment that 90% of voters want gun control, you've lost your mind. A full third of us here in this nation are gun owners ourselves and most of us see "common sense gun control measures" for what they are, a bit by bit chipping away of that which shall not be infringed.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1) by AssCork on Wednesday July 27 2016, @05:51PM
And if you think for even a moment that 90% of voters want gun control, you've lost your mind. A full third of us here in this nation are gun owners ourselves and most of us see "common sense gun control measures" for what they are, a bit by bit chipping away of that which shall not be infringed.
Hold still, let me pin this "Internet Hero" medal on your chest.
To expound upon your point - there is already 'gun control' that the "zOMG! We need MOAR Gun Control!" crowd knows nothing about;
This is the utopia Gun-Control-Nuts want for all people, all guns.
This is why "Gun-Nuts" get their dander up when someone spouts 'softened phrases' like 'common-sense gun-control' and 'most people want blah, blah'.
Anyone who's out for more 'common-sense gun-control' that 'most people want' really needs to go out and try to get a silencer (suppressor) and a matching short-barreled rifle so they can hunt w/o their dog going deaf.
Just popped-out of a tight spot. Came out mostly clean, too.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday July 27 2016, @11:13PM
It's like the nation has utterly forgotten or chose to ignore that private citizens owned the very same arms that the military did, including cannons and warships, at the time the 2nd was written.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday July 26 2016, @02:00AM
But yes, I'm the one that's misinterpreting 90% of voters wanting gun control and neither party actually giving out to them.
Yes, you are. I'm not surprised to see such delusional thinking from someone so partisan. If 90% of voters really wanted that, it'd happen.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 26 2016, @03:14AM
It's also completely irrelevant. Mere popularity can't (or rather, shouldn't) override the constitution. Until the constitution is amended, all this gun control nonsense (both existing gun control and proposed gun control) is totally unconstitutional, but a grand majority of people don't seem to care about that as long as they like the unconstitutional policy in question.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 26 2016, @05:56AM
Except thats not true at all. Restricting firearms to only active members of the military and reserves would be 100% constitutional, thanks to literally half of the amendment that you're pretending doesn't exist.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 26 2016, @06:37AM
It's pretty odd that the founding fathers crafted a constitutional amendment whose only purpose was to remind us that the government has the power to give members of the military guns. What an oversight!
You seem to be saying that the "well-regulated militia" part of the amendment restricts the right to bare arms, rather than merely presenting one justification for the amendment. That's just not the case. Just because they present a reason for the amendment's existence doesn't mean the right vanishes in other instances; the amendment says no such thing. And even many gun control advocates don't say that you can outright ban everyone except for active members members of the military from owning guns, because that would be laughable from a historical standpoint.
You don't seem to care about the history of the amendment or how the text is structured, so this is probably a waste of time.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday July 26 2016, @03:44PM
thanks to literally half of the amendment that you're pretending doesn't exist.
Words mean things. The half you refer to is a nonbinding justification for the half that is binding, and simply doesn't mean what you think it means.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday July 26 2016, @03:59PM
(Score: 1) by Francis on Tuesday July 26 2016, @11:16PM
Not really. It doesn't happen because people don't vote on single issues in the US. Also the manufacturers spend a ton of money lobbying and bribing to keep it from happening.
But I'm sure that I'm the one that's delusional here.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday July 27 2016, @12:13AM
Not really. It doesn't happen because people don't vote on single issues in the US. Also the manufacturers spend a ton of money lobbying and bribing to keep it from happening.
Always an excuse, eh? So why are there manufacturers anyway? Making guns doesn't generate a profit, if there aren't buyers.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Thexalon on Monday July 25 2016, @12:15PM
True, but it will be less worse.
For example, I'm probably going to end up voting for Clinton and then going home to vomit. Why? Because while I think Clinton will do approximately nothing to improve things at home and will probably escalate the US involvement in Syria into yet another land war in Asia, I think Trump has made pretty clear that if he had his way he'd rather like to start World War III with the US playing the role formerly performed by Germany complete with persecution of religious minorities. I think Clinton is corrupt as all get-out and will continue the pay-for-play politics we've all grown to hate, but Trump has no clue how to be president and doesn't show much interest in learning the ropes (the biggest problem he'll face: people can and will refuse to do what he tells them without consequences).
And it also matters that I'm in Ohio. If you're one of the majority of Americans in states that aren't considered "in play", vote your conscience secure in the knowledge you didn't affect the outcome one iota.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by curunir_wolf on Monday July 25 2016, @01:58PM
I considered that, too, but after watching "Clinton Cash", and considering Trump's kids and the many very competent executives that Trump has working for him, I decided Trump can do way less harm that Clinton. Imagine someone making deals (for monetary gain) to hand 20% of the US uranium reserves to Putin, and then claiming that Putin is evil and helping her opponent's campaign.
Trump may end up being an inept president, but at least he's not actively the country's interests (and the world's) like the Clintons do.
I am a crackpot
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Monday July 25 2016, @02:30PM
My thinking is that Trump is so dangerously inept and impulsive that he'll blow the whole thing up. I'd rather lose 20% of the uranium supply of the US to Russia then to have 100% of the uranium supply of the US destroyed due to large nuclear explosions. Among other things, one of those scenarios has me still alive when the dust settles.
Also, any idea that Trump is actually good at what he does is total nonsense. He's rich because his daddy was rich, and he's famous because he's rich.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 25 2016, @03:47PM
He is that dangerously inept, but he knows it, thats why his VP is effectively going to be president [slate.com], handling all the policy decisions and day-to-day affairs, while his one job as "president" will be "Making America great". A vote for a Trump "presidency" will really be a vote for a Pence presidency, which is even scarier.
(Score: 2) by SecurityGuy on Monday July 25 2016, @06:46PM
I can't imagine Trump's ego (which is yuuuuuuuge!) would ever settle for just being a figurehead.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 26 2016, @06:02AM
Fail to imagine it all you want, but its the truth [baltimoresun.com]:
Pence likely got the same deal.
(Score: 2) by curunir_wolf on Tuesday July 26 2016, @03:07AM
LOL Wut??? Wow. This is the cognitive level of Hillary supporters?? We're doomed!
I am a crackpot
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 26 2016, @06:41AM
The people who vote for candidates from either party are the ones who will doom us. Your post above makes it seem as if you're planning on voting for Trump; you're not much better than the ones voting for Hillary, if at all.
(Score: 2) by curunir_wolf on Tuesday July 26 2016, @12:21PM
I was referring to the ridiculous statement "to have 100% of the uranium supply of the US destroyed due to large nuclear explosions." - LOL! So clueless...
I am a crackpot
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 25 2016, @07:51PM
True, but it will be less worse.
This is what I mean by short-sighted. Yes, it may be "less worse" for you for a few election cycles, but the candidates have no incentive to be less evil, and in fact every incentive to get increasingly evil. So you end up with a situation like this, where the two evil scumbags are even more evil than usual.
Shortsighted and typical. Please don't vote.
And it also matters that I'm in Ohio.
It doesn't. You're still voting for evil.