I agree more with Bernie, but am supporting Hillary.

[Deepak]

But the argument isn't that he didn't win the popular vote - it's that he didn't win the election, and the accuracy of the argument is as plain as day. Of all the factors that contributed - of course we can't blame the DNC for losing those votes, or the shenanigans going on in the recount procedure, or the people who simply didn't vote. It had to be the DFHs.

Maybe we should simply do away with voting altogether, which would really simplify the process. Simply have people register for one of the two approved parties when they move, get a driver's license, or pay their taxes, then come election time we tally the number of registered voters, determine which party won, then the winning party leaders appoint their chosen president. Imagine how much easier that would be for the handicapped, indigent, and generally busy.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

But the argument isn't that he didn't win the popular vote - it's that he didn't win the election, and the accuracy of the argument is as plain as day. Of all the factors that contributed - of course we can't blame the DNC for losing those votes, or the shenanigans going on in the recount procedure, or the people who simply didn't vote. It had to be the DFHs.

All of the other complications wouldn't have mattered if Nader didn't win so many votes in Florida.

Maybe we should simply do away with voting altogether, which would really simplify the process. Simply have people register for one of the two approved parties when they move, get a driver's license, or pay their taxes, then come election time we tally the number of registered voters, determine which party won, then the winning party leaders appoint their chosen president. Imagine how much easier that would be for the handicapped, indigent, and generally busy.

Or we can look at voting pragmatically. I've pondered in OPs here multiple times about just giving up on the Democrat establishment. But in the end, it seems extremely reckless to let the Republican Party have any more power than they've had. And the Supreme Court and Appealate Courts have become so politicized that it is reckless to allow right-wing appointments. It has gotten to the point a Democrat can't nominate a moderate to the Supreme Court.

 

[Deepak]

The votes Nader won wouldn't have mattered had Gore and the DNC increased voter turnout by a fraction of a percent in his favor. Turnout was much less than 100%.

Assuming for a second that was even the core issue what's the remedy to the Nader problem then? I'm having a hard time thinking of a scenario that's more effective and 'correct' than the one I floated previously.

 

[Tristan Scott]

And as for the we-must-save-the-supreme-court argument, save it from what? for what?

Roe v. Wade is still case law in these United States and yet getting an abortion in the vast majority of the states of the former confederacy is all but impossible.

The worst SCOTUS decision with regards to the protection of voting rights of African Americans in this nation in decades just happened and it was under not just a Dem. president but a BLACK Dem. president. Obama being in the White House did not save us.

Regarding Shelby County v Holder, President Obama did everything within his power. He had his Attorney General file suit, and the Supreme court voted against him. Lets examine that vote in the Supreme court, because it is extremely germane to this discussion. Both of President Obama's Appointees and both of President Clinton's appointees voted of the opinion that section 4b and section 5 of the 1965 voter rights bill were constitutional. The 5 judges appointed by Reagan, Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. voted that 4b was unconstitutional. The point here being that had Al Gore defeated W in 2000, Alito and Roberts would not be on the court and in all likelihood this would have never happened.

Every decision that a typical liberal would dread that could come from the supreme court all goes back to two problems, money in politics and corporate person-hood. Get the money out of politics, make speech actual speech again and persons actual people again and every other worry becomes manageable if not non existent and NO WAY Hillary R. Clinton puts a justice, much less a group of justices, on the SCOTUS who will get the money out of politics or end corporate person-hood.

That shit ain't gonna happen.

Of course not. Taking money out of politics is not going to happen in the courts, and it's not going to happen in the White House. It can ONLY happen in congress. That's the only way that shit will happen. Congress needs to pass a meaningful and fair campaign finance reform bill, and the POTUS needs to sign it, and it must be deemed constitutional by the court. That's the way our government works.
Now, I'm sure you are doing your part, aren't you? I'm sure you are supporting a congressional candidate in your district who will support campaign finance reform.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The votes Nader won wouldn't have mattered had Gore and the DNC increased voter turnout by a fraction of a percent in his favor. Turnout was much less than 100%.

Is this the same election that Gore won the plurality of the vote? They didn't have enough turnout?

Things got too comfy and liberals decided to stretch their legs and make their voice heard. Easily over 1 million of them.

Assuming for a second that was even the core issue what's the remedy to the Nader problem then?

Pragmatism?

I'm having a hard time thinking of a scenario that's more effective and 'correct' than the one I floated previously.

How about judging a candidate better? Kind of like how the Republicans will be with what seems to be the eventual nomination of Trump. Is the candidate too bad? Was Gore going to appoint justice nominations that would have found as they did in Citizens United and Hobby Lobby, or violated Roe v Wade? Allow a brain fart to ignore the threat of terrorism? Get involved in Iraq? The US was harmed greatly by the W Admin.

Sure we could blame the DNC for not getting turnout higher, but the turnout was there, they just decided to vote Green because they wanted to send a message. And did that message change anything with the Democrats? Yup, they move more the right because they needed to pull back from a galvanized control the right-wing managed to get.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Of course not. Taking money out of politics is not going to happen in the courts, and it's not going to happen in the White House. It can ONLY happen in congress. That's the only way that shit will happen. Congress needs to pass a meaningful and fair campaign finance reform bill, and the POTUS needs to sign it, and it must be deemed constitutional by the court. That's the way our government works.
Now, I'm sure you are doing your part, aren't you? I'm sure you are supporting a congressional candidate in your district who will support campaign finance reform.

But campaign finance reform is deemed unconstitutional. It'd take either a major back step by the Supreme Court or a Constitutional Amendment to get around that. Back steps by the Supreme Court aren't good.

 

[Tristan Scott]

Of course not. Taking money out of politics is not going to happen in the courts, and it's not going to happen in the White House. It can ONLY happen in congress. That's the only way that shit will happen. Congress needs to pass a meaningful and fair campaign finance reform bill, and the POTUS needs to sign it, and it must be deemed constitutional by the court. That's the way our government works.
Now, I'm sure you are doing your part, aren't you? I'm sure you are supporting a congressional candidate in your district who will support campaign finance reform.

But campaign finance reform is deemed unconstitutional. It'd take either a major back step by the Supreme Court or a Constitutional Amendment to get around that. Back steps by the Supreme Court aren't good.

Only portions of the reform laws have been deemed unconstitutional, and then usually in specific instances. There have been a lot of stepping around in this regard by SCOTUS over the years. Here are some examples: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwj9176ysb7MAhUX4mMKHaakCeQQFgg-MAQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.justiceatstake.org%2Fresources%2Fin_depth_issues_guides%2Fthe-supreme-court-and-the-constitutionality-of-campaign-finance-law%2F&usg=AFQjCNH2F4XXvtOoSqRqj9Lh7D8p-e7T_w&sig2=hhJw-AUS_0DQIWp2Le3iGQ

I believe a bill could be crafted in such a way that it could be fair and effective. But again, who is on the court is crucial.

 

[Deepak]

Is this the same election that Gore won the plurality of the vote? They didn't have enough turnout?

So they got enough turnout, but somehow also needed Nader's votes too? That's obtuse. Plenty of people didn't vote in the state - why the minor percentage who voted for Nader bear responsibility rather than the ones who didn't turn out at all again baffles me.

How about judging a candidate better? Kind of like how the Republicans will be with what seems to be the eventual nomination of Trump. Is the candidate too bad? Was Gore going to appoint justice nominations that would have found as they did in Citizens United and Hobby Lobby, or violated Roe v Wade? Allow a brain fart to ignore the threat of terrorism? Get involved in Iraq? The US was harmed greatly by the W Admin.

Sure we could blame the DNC for not getting turnout higher, but the turnout was there, they just decided to vote Green because they wanted to send a message. And did that message change anything with the Democrats? Yup, they move more the right because they needed to pull back from a galvanized control the right-wing managed to get.

What? They did exactly that based on their assessment and conviction. I'm not advocating for Nader so much as I'm advocating people's right to vote for the candidate they prefer. This effort would have better been expended in Florida in 2000 rather than blaming people after the fact for lacking clairvoyance.

In either case, since the Gore-Nader point has probably reached an impasse, and going back to the part about Sanders - how exactly does the primary run between two candidates relate to Supreme Court nominations? Were this the general and Sanders were running as a third party candidate then I could at least see the argument having some legs, but in the primary it's incredibly obtuse.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

So they got enough turnout, but somehow also needed Nader's votes too? That's obtuse. Plenty of people didn't vote in the state - why the minor percentage who voted for Nader bear responsibility rather than the ones who didn't turn out at all again baffles me.

How about judging a candidate better? Kind of like how the Republicans will be with what seems to be the eventual nomination of Trump. Is the candidate too bad? Was Gore going to appoint justice nominations that would have found as they did in Citizens United and Hobby Lobby, or violated Roe v Wade? Allow a brain fart to ignore the threat of terrorism? Get involved in Iraq? The US was harmed greatly by the W Admin.

Sure we could blame the DNC for not getting turnout higher, but the turnout was there, they just decided to vote Green because they wanted to send a message. And did that message change anything with the Democrats? Yup, they move more the right because they needed to pull back from a galvanized control the right-wing managed to get.

What? They did exactly that based on their assessment and conviction. I'm not advocating for Nader so much as I'm advocating people's right to vote for the candidate they prefer. This effort would have better been expended in Florida in 2000 rather than blaming people after the fact for lacking clairvoyance.

In either case, since the Gore-Nader point has probably reached an impasse, and going back to the part about Sanders - how exactly does the primary run between two candidates relate to Supreme Court nominations? Were this the general and Sanders were running as a third party candidate then I could at least see the argument having some legs, but in the primary it's incredibly obtuse.

I'm not arguing against voting for Sanders in the primary. I voted for him in the primary.