2016 Democratic National Convention - Philadelphia, Pennsylvania - July 25-28

[Wildtree]

Why would Hillary get any of her SCotUS nominations through? Obama sure didn't.

As PRE 9-11 answered so nicely...
You might confuse the Merrick Garland cliffhanger now, right?
Yeah, well that's only valid this year. Next year, the Senate will appoint a Scalia replacement for sure.
And this Senate is - for now - Republican controlled. Which might, and there's a good chance - become Dems controlled again.
Then, Merrick will be appointed before the next President gets sworn in.
Timeline matters.
Election - November
Senate - back in session on January 3rd.
President inauguration - January 22nd.
3 weeks overlap. If Dems controlled the Senate acts at Obama's request.

[Matchles]

Is this the most chaotic and ineffectual political convention in history? Everyone on TV today is talking about DNC scandals, Trump press conferences, and Hillary's email scandals. I can't imagine there was ever a bigger disaster of a convention on record.

After last night are you ready to reconsider?

[Skroe]

Real conservatives find you social conservatives to be strange. You call people fake conservatives but you seem only focus on the parts of conservatism that have fuck all to do with government. Your wing of the Republican party is what holds them back from gaining power in a nation of conservatives.

Did you speed read my post or something?

I certainly am not a social conservative. I haven't even been to church (aside from weddings) since I was 13. I'm pro-Abortion, pro-Gay Marriage. Things like that are one level of abstraction up from the core of conservatism, which is the family, and as I specifically said, that family can take many shapes. Opposition to those were tacked on by mostly religious interests.

But government should play a role in shaping and encouraging morality in society. There is absolute right and wrong, good and evil. Moral relativism is an abomination.

Massachusetts conservatives are the way forward for the Republican Party. Pro-Free Trade, Socially moderate, Strong on Defense with an emphasis on government that isn't too big, but not "so small to be drowned in a bathtub" as the odious Grover Norqvist put it, but an efficient and effective humming machine.

But that's the sequel. The current episode is about defending the American Way - Conservative and liberal alike - from far right extremism, in the form of Donald Trump, abetted by his Putinista allies. It's damn easy to side with progressives when the campaign is against a foreign enemy and his useful American idiot. I may disagree with progressives on basically everything, but they've fought, and fought well, against Donald Trump and what he represents, while so-called-but-not-really conservatives in the really-reactionary far right laid down for him because in their warped logic, winning 2016 sullying themselves was more important than losing 2016 but maintaining their dignity.

As I said, at this point, especially (but not nearly exclusively) after the past two weeks of events, if you stand with Donald Trump you're not someone to be bargained with or understood. You're something to be defeated and thrown down. There is no such thing as a conservative movement or Republican Party worth saving that is populated by people who would demean minorities, gays and women, who would disparage American democracy promotion and our valued friends around the world, and make common cause with one of America's most vile enemies.

Conservatives standing with Hillary is conservatives standing with America against a foreign enemy and his American patsy.

[eschatological]

As PRE 9-11 answered so nicely...
You might confuse the Merrick Garland cliffhanger now, right?
Yeah, well that's only valid this year. Next year, the Senate will appoint a Scalia replacement for sure.
And this Senate is - for now - Republican controlled. Which might, and there's a good chance - become Dems controlled again.
Then, Merrick will be appointed before the next President gets sworn in.
Timeline matters.
Election - November
Senate - back in session on January 3rd.
President inauguration - January 22nd.
3 weeks overlap. If Dems controlled the Senate acts at Obama's request.

If the Dems win back Congress in November, and Hillary wins as well, Republicans in Congress will be falling all over themselves to confirm Merrick Garland to the Court in the lame duck session. Which is hilarious.

[McCulloch]

If the Dems win back Congress in November, and Hillary wins as well, Republicans in Congress will be falling all over themselves to confirm Merrick Garland to the Court in the lame duck session. Which is hilarious.

I hope Obama pulls him if Hillary wins. If they don't want the moderate, make them take a liberal.

[alexw]

Why would Hillary get any of her SCotUS nominations through? Obama sure didn't.

Obama got two, he hasn't got a third because democrats don't control the senate. However if enough people vote for Hillary and democratic senate candidates then Hillary will have the ability to get whoever she wants in to the SCOTUS - i.e. all left of center judges.

So if it happens we can expect to see -
an end to gerrymandering
overturning of Heller so decent gun control legislation can be brought in
an end to the voter disenfranchisement laws currently being pushed by republicans and removal of the ones already in place
partial curbing of the power of money in politics
reaffirmation and expansion of anti-discriminatory laws and striking down of current discriminatory laws

This is why I think the bernie or bust crowd are batshit insane just as their right-wing mirror images are. Why on earth would you throw away most of what you want because you don't get 100% of it? Leave the ideological purity tests and bat-shit insanity to the republicans.

[Deleted]

Why on earth would you throw away most of what you want because you don't get 100% of it? Leave the ideological purity tests and bat-shit insanity to the republicans.

They're not refraining from voting for Hillary because they didn't "get 100% of what they wanted." They're refraining from voting for Hillary because that's not the candidate they want to vote for, and because co-opting people's votes is not democracy.

If there's candidates A, B, C and D, and B can't win without co-opting the votes that were going for C and D, then B doesn't deserve to be the president. If A can get the votes and B can't, then A should win. It is not democracy to say "oh shit we have to gang up now, screw who you wanted to vote, vote for B now so that A doesn't win." It might stop Trump from becoming president, but it's not democracy.

Democracy is allowing people to vote whomever they want to vote, without trying to use fear tactics and bullying to change their votes.

- - - Updated - - -

[Stonecloak]

Another interesting sight, I don't think I've ever seen something like this, but it couldn't be any more obvious that this was a controlled effort to elect and snuff out any opposition. Seems like I'm seeing some advocating to "fall in line", and fear Trump, but that's not what a democracy is. So you're basically telling them to pretend like this wasn't something it was, and I suppose people are of the mind that we should be obedient, or we should carry out what our country supposedly is.

This is much more complicated because of the leaks, the super delegates, and some are reporting tinkered poll results. If the leak didn't happen, I'm not sure people would be entirely acting like this, but if anything it's more solid proof of what transpired.

[eschatological]

They're not refraining from voting for Hillary because they didn't "get 100% of what they wanted." They're refraining from voting for Hillary because that's not the candidate they want to vote for, and because co-opting people's votes is not democracy.

Your votes were counted, that's democracy. Suppressing votes would be anti-democracy, but there's no proof of that happening.

There's already rumors Bernie is going back to having an I next to his name, which is precisely what party Democrats feared - that he had only put the D behind his name to run for President in a place where he actually had a shot. I appreciate Bernie's policies, and I appreciate him driving the agenda left, but neither he nor I ever expected him to win and garner the support of mainstream Democrats. Unlike Obama, who is more moderate than Bernie.

Ironically, WikiLeaks yesterday released a bunch of DNC voicemails yesterday or the day before, and they've gotten 0 traction. Guess why? Most of them are mundane (like the EMails), and the rest are angry *Hillary* supporters calling the DNC and leaving angry voicemails about how the DNC is coddling Bernie and not holding him to the same standard.

Wonder why we aren't reading about that.

[Moralgy]

abortion laws reverted... millions losing health care... religious anti gay agenda renewed.
possibly minimum wage abolished.
and yep, as many as 3 arch conservative supreme court justices...
Good night Lorelei.. And all just because, Hillary is allegedly such a bad person.

Not letting trump elect supreme court justices is, in my opinion, Hillary's biggest selling point. The wrong political balance there and non-evangelical Christian people, lgbt people, workers, ect are just fucked for decades to come.

[Stonecloak]

Your votes were counted, that's democracy. Suppressing votes would be anti-democracy, but there's no proof of that happening.

There's been enough more in-depth reviews of the emails to see there was tinkering going on, in a couple of different forms. So, that's not democracy. Why do you think Debbie Schultz stepped down, and the power of superdelegates is being looked at. Democracy is compromise, but this was take it or leave it. Just what I see, I'm Independant.

- - - Updated - - -

You have a terrible grasp of how the system works in the United States. You can sit here and defend ideological purity all you want, but at the end of the day that won't get shit accomplished. If A, B, and C are 90% alike and 70% of the country splits their votes relatively evenly between them, that allows the remaining 30% to get D, who is 0% like the others, into office. The end result is that 70% of the country, who would have been happier with any of A, B, or C than they are with D, managed only to silence themselves and get D elected, the worst possible outcome. This is why parties inevitably form and consolidate until only two parties have power under this system because people recognize the statistical reality of purity, which is that in attempting to get everything you want, you run a real risk of losing almost all to all of it. It sucks and the system needs change, but that change isn't going to come before November, so denying the reality of how the system works is blind idealism and shooting yourself in the foot.

Honestly, at this point, I think they've lost all hope for the system, and I can't necessarily blame them, and is why this is becoming more of a Green Party, independents vs. people who are stuck in the (let's be real here) failing two party system. So, the mentality is for them to get out of that. They've tried with Bernie, didn't work arguably in a fair manner. Now I think the only choice for them is to go 3rd party, or try and make changes without government in mind.

[Kasierith]

There's been enough more in-depth reviews of the emails to see there was tinkering going on, in a couple of different forms. So, that's not democracy. Why do you think Debbie Schultz stepped down, and the power of superdelegates is being looked at. Democracy is compromise, but this was take it or leave it. Just what I see, I'm Independant.

Because it was in the best interest of the party for her to do so. The convention is supposed to be about Clinton, not her fighting tooth and nail with a bunch of people who are extremely outraged and have no interest in actual discussion.

Honestly, at this point, I think they've lost all hope for the system, and I can't necessarily blame them, and is why this is becoming more of a Green Party, independents vs. people who are stuck in the (let's be real here) failing two party system.

Lost all hope? You do realize that the vast majority of them are in their first or second presidential election, with a strong emphasis on the first part. This is less of a decision that the system works against them and cannot be reconciled, and more a bunch of people throwing a fit because they didn't get their way in a democracy.

[Stonecloak]

Lost all hope? You do realize that the vast majority of them are in their first or second presidential election, with a strong emphasis on the first part. This is less of a decision that the system works against them and cannot be reconciled, and more a bunch of people throwing a fit because they didn't get their way in a democracy.

Do you have any data that supports what the age of them are? because I can actually tell you from my experience, and research that they're multicultural, and have a very wide age group. That's from in person experience, but you can also just watch video not on a major news station that will show you that. I have absolutely no motives/agendas here, I'm just looking objectively and seeing this. I don't think they're just being babies, and messing up a process. I've seen this movement from the beginning, and the numbers suggested by the news are just flat out wrong. I have first hand experience in this. When the protests in nyc happened years ago, I participated as a witness for the lawyers guild. There were thousands of multi age, multi cultural people, and it was very peaceful, I go home, and the news says there was a couple of hundred violent protesters. I guess one will just have to figure out who they believe, but I believe my own eyes because I don't hilucinate, I also believe my mind because it's sound and isn't affected by anyone's opinion.

[Deleted]

Your votes were counted, that's democracy.

Well, there were some issues with that too, both with Sanders and Clinton. However, that has nothing to do with what I said; people are free to vote for whomever they want in the general election, or even not vote at all. That's democracy. What isn't democracy is Clinton co-opting other candidates' (Stein, Johnson, Sanders) supporters by using fearmongering and bullying tactics. All the supporters of those aforementioned candidates, especially Sanders since he's no longer in the running, are obviously free to give their support to Clinton, and they'll do that if they think Clinton deserves their vote. They don't need to vote for her, though, but that's the mantra being repeated over and over now; "You have to vote for Clinton!"

You get the votes you get and if those aren't enough, and someone else got more than you, then tough luck; you didn't win. That's what happened to Sanders, so I don't know why people can't accept that it can happen to Clinton as well.

Ironically, WikiLeaks yesterday released a bunch of DNC voicemails yesterday or the day before, and they've gotten 0 traction. Guess why? Most of them are mundane (like the EMails), and the rest are angry *Hillary* supporters calling the DNC and leaving angry voicemails about how the DNC is coddling Bernie and not holding him to the same standard.

Wonder why we aren't reading about that.

I don't see where the irony is there, nor do I really understand your point; just because these voice mails had nothing too incriminating in them doesn't mean one can sweep the DNC emails under the rug now.

- - - Updated - - -

If you're going to repeat a word 200 times in a speech, it might be wise to know the word. Thrown, not "throwed". (Watching the live stream, this was a comment about a speaker there.)

EDIT: Nevermind. Apparently it's some weird dialectal form of thrown. Even has a Wiktionary page.

[Hobotripin]

I guess sean maloney wasn't watching the news when hillary said "No I won't support gay marriage in new york" and continued to laugh. Also as someone from philly hate nutter for making our city a sanctuary city. HE SAID SHES CARED ABOUT GAY PEOPLE FOR 24 YEARS, IS HE SERIOUS RIGHT NOW?!

[Stonecloak]

Well, there were some issues with that too, both with Sanders and Clinton. However, that has nothing to do with what I said; people are free to vote for whomever they want in the general election, or even not vote at all. That's democracy. What isn't democracy is Clinton co-opting other candidates' (Stein, Johnson, Sanders) supporters by using fearmongering and bullying tactics. All the supporters of those aforementioned candidates, especially Sanders since he's no longer in the running, are obviously free to give their support to Clinton, and they'll do that if they think Clinton deserves their vote. They don't need to vote for her, though, but that's the mantra being repeated over and over now; "You have to vote for Clinton!"

You get the votes you get and if those aren't enough, and someone else got more than you, then tough luck; you didn't win. That's what happened to Sanders, so I don't know why people can't accept that it can happen to Clinton as well.



I don't see where the irony is there, nor what your point is; just because these voice mails had nothing too incriminating in them doesn't mean you can sweep the DNC emails under the rug now.

Yea exactly, and I think the disconnect here is the mind of people who are actively invested/in the two party system, and the people who are moving to third parties, remaining Independant, which is apparently for some reason thought to be just a tiny irrelevant group. Which is really wrong. In 2012 57.5 percent of eligible voters voted. This election that number will likely get smaller with the unpopular candidates. The rest may be Independant or now third party. That's a huge percentage considering you also have to include people who vote for progressive left.

[Matchles]

Also, as far as "unity" goes...



http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...nal-convention
http://www.aol.com/article/2016/07/2...rner/21440235/
http://www.commondreams.org/news/201...ders-surrogate

There is no mystery about it. Sanders pulled her. He was on board, she wasn't. She didn't inform the DNC what she was going to say and she was a liability to what the convention is trying to achieve. No one is silencing the Bernie or Bust crew. They get more media coverage than the millions more that support Clinton. They just look like fucking children now. I've had many people on my Facebook feed that were strong Sanders supports say how embarrassed the are to even be associated as supporters of the same candidate with the Bernie or Busters.

[Zomis]

Will the fart-in happen? http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/...c-fart-in.html

[Gray_Matter]

They're not refraining from voting for Hillary because they didn't "get 100% of what they wanted." They're refraining from voting for Hillary because that's not the candidate they want to vote for, and because co-opting people's votes is not democracy.

Ok then what are they doing in the Democratic Party in the first place? The DP is a coalition of different groups (Unions, progressives, etc.). Based on your argument they would never win anything because everyone else would pull out when their candidate doesn't win because its "not the candidate they want to vote for". How disingenuous of them. They happily join and want the rest of the people to support their candidate if he wins but refuse to support the winner if their candidate loses.

Unfortunately the voting system in the US doesn't work the way that you would like it to work.

[Gray_Matter]

I take it that by "behaving like a bunch of childish dudebros" you mean stuff like "voting for a socialist" or "not falling in line behind Hillary", right?

They are being childish. Not because they aren't "falling behind Clinton" but because they are being disrespectful and behaving like spoiled brats. If you look at the polls then they certainly aren't listening to the majority of people that got them elected as delegates. Far more than 50% of the people who voted for Bernie (i.e. the majority) are going to support Clinton. That's a fact. Those people are only interested in their own agenda. Even going so far as to turn on the people that they said they supported.