2016 US Presidential Election Pt. III - Page 23 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 10-30-2015, 10:41 AM   #331
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: southwest USA
Posts: 3,302
Local Time: 07:33 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mack_Again View Post
It is so hard to contribute to discussion about Republican debate when you're pretty liberal; I can only see them thru scope of (somewhat) irrational hate and "liberalism should be better" type of idea.

When I watch democratic debates, I think they all suck. So I know what you mean. How a conservative would watch the debate is radically different from how a liberal would watch it and vise-versa.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
__________________

__________________
bobsaget77 is offline  
Old 10-30-2015, 11:02 AM   #332
ONE
love, blood, life
 
LuckyNumber7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Leicester, UK
Posts: 12,367
Local Time: 02:33 AM
I think it's pretty easy to see objectivity in the matter, mostly BECAUSE I don't agree with any of them. If I sympathized with a candidate like I have in the past with a Jon Huntsman, Gary Johnson, or Ron Paul, I would inject a little more bias.

But since I hate them all, it's easy to watch it as an outsider and be objective about it.
__________________

__________________
LuckyNumber7 is offline  
Old 10-30-2015, 11:22 AM   #333
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,236
Local Time: 01:33 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7 View Post
But since I hate them all, it's easy to watch it as an outsider and be objective about it.
Um... I don't know that hating something makes you more objective about it.
__________________
Diemen is offline  
Old 10-30-2015, 12:10 PM   #334
ONE
love, blood, life
 
LuckyNumber7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Leicester, UK
Posts: 12,367
Local Time: 02:33 AM
Really? It sounds like you're objecting for the sake of objecting. There's no grounds for you telling me how I think.

I don't like any of the candidates. I don't believe in most anything they represent. It is easy for me to see two combatants and draw lines at who is more effectively delivering their own messages. I have no stake in their arguments. Therefore, no bias. What they say doesn't matter to me, because I won't be voting for them. So, yes, I definitely objectively find it much easier to break down their arguments. Ted Cruz is my least favorite politician in that group, and yet I still think he was the clear and decisive winner at getting his point across. I think it's a lot easier to see that when I don't have any bias towards liking one of them over another.
__________________
LuckyNumber7 is offline  
Old 10-30-2015, 01:14 PM   #335
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,236
Local Time: 01:33 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7 View Post
There's no grounds for you telling me how I think.
Except I didn't do that. Your initial argument for your objectivity was a little suspect. Hate for something usually introduces some negative bias towards it.

Had you worded your initial argument as "since I have no stake in their arguments, it's easier for me to be objective," then we wouldn't be having this conversation.
__________________
Diemen is offline  
Old 10-30-2015, 04:48 PM   #336
ONE
love, blood, life
 
LuckyNumber7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Leicester, UK
Posts: 12,367
Local Time: 02:33 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diemen View Post
Except I didn't do that. Your initial argument for your objectivity was a little suspect. Hate for something usually introduces some negative bias towards it.

Had you worded your initial argument as "since I have no stake in their arguments, it's easier for me to be objective," then we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Yes, I strongly dislike each candidate. All to a level where I they have lost my consideration for being voted for.

Willingness to vote someone is not two-sided. You can hate someone, but you can't negative-vote someone. It's a totally left-skewed distribution of how much I like them versus how much I have the ability to quantitatively do something about it. You can vote for someone, or you can not vote for someone. If you hate them, you won't vote for them. If you like them, you might vote for them.
__________________
LuckyNumber7 is offline  
Old 10-30-2015, 10:36 PM   #337
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
U2DMfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: It's Inside A Black Hole
Posts: 6,637
Local Time: 01:33 AM
Quote:
Imagine this: You are someone who cares passionately about your country, and you've decided to run for public office. You're a serious person and serious thinker - and a great many people around the country view you as such. You're running for president, and although you have not held prior elective office, you have put a campaign together that in just months is more substantial than some of your opponents who've previously worked in government.

You have a wife and three kids, and your decision to take a leave of absence from your profession impacts both the time and financial resources that are usually reserved for your family. But your family understands that this is worth it, because you're prioritizing your campaign around a policy issue that more than 90 percent of the American people say they want to see reformed. They want to see big change on this issue - and you've vowed to place it at the top of the agenda. If fact, you're only one doing so. Oh, and let's say your name is Larry.

Now imagine this: the national political party you're affiliated with won't let you speak. Not in the national debates that so many voters focus in on during the presidential primary contest. They won't give you a lectern, and they won't even provide you with a rational explanation. Think of all of the work and sacrifice that you and your team and your volunteers have put in - and for what? To get a public slap in the face and a stifling of the expression that you've sought to make clear to the broader electorate: that once in the White House, you will begin to drain the swamp of the dirty dollar influence of big money politics. And why is it that you, Larry, are being denied access? Is it because not every American knows your name yet? Is it because you're considered a "fringe" candidate? By who? And why? The process of categorizing candidates is a matter of comparison. It is in the eye of the beholder, so let's look a bit closer.

Here are the facts about Larry and his campaign, versus some of his competitors, who have all already been included in the first set of debates:

1) Larry has appeared in national television interviews and print news coverage across the media spectrum, in recent months receiving as much if not more coverage than Democrats Jim Webb and Lincoln Chafee (both of whom quit the race after their first debate appearance).

2) Larry raised more than a $1 million in just a month - crowdsourcing contributions from all over the country in the name of reforming Washington's "gift exchange economy." Among the Democrats, Martin O'Malley barely eclipsed $1 million, with a whole three months to do it. Webb pulled in under $700,000. And Lincoln Chafee raised $15,457.90 for the quarter (this is not a misprint). All three were invited to debate.

On the Republican side of the dollar, Lindsey Graham raised $1 million for the entire quarter. Bobby Jindal raised under $600,00. Rick Perry's quarter came in under $300,000. Jim Gilmore barely topped $100,000. Are these fellas fringe candidates? All four stood tall and proud on the debate stage.

3) Public Polling. Not that this should necessarily be the barometer of qualification. Same as money. But it often is. And it's a Catch-22 for Larry, because you have to be included in the polls - to register in the polls! The DNC has excluded Larry from most polls, but in other polls he has come up easily within the margin of error of Chafee, Webb, and O'Malley.

This man, "Larry," is Lawrence Lessig, the Harvard law professor, open internet advocate, and campaign finance reform leader who authored the comprehensive 2011 book: Republic Lost: How Money Corrupts Congress--and a Plan to Stop It. The brilliant argument laid out in this book was one of the main inspirations and sources for my writing Unlock Congress.

I was supporting Lessig's candidacy prior to his visit to the Windy City last weekend. But spending a few hours with him on a Saturday as he met with volunteers and then as we drove together out to his lecture at a Chicago Humanities Festival event in Evanston only further convinced me that I have the right horse - no matter what classification he is saddled with.

Lessig is arguably more knowledgeable than any other person in or out of Congress on the issue of the money flood and the political corruption it causes. He is equally knowledgeable and forceful about the solution, which begins with publicly financed matched contributions so that average Americans can have a renewed and more equal voice in our elections process. You remember - that "one person, one vote" theme that the dirty dollars make a mockery of every two years.

This reform is the first of three planks in the Citizen Equality Act that Lessig is running on; the two others address inequality in voting access and the cynical rigging of our elections in the hyper-partisan, hyper-dysfunctional U.S. House. His point, and mine, is that until we reform some of the major rules that impair our defective electoral and legislative processes, we will remain unable to successfully confront issue challenges that our country desperately needs to make progress on.

If you haven't yet heard of Larry Lessig or the Citizen Equality Act before, it's quite understandable. But shouldn't you get the chance? A real opportunity to hear him describe and advocate for these reforms on a national stage with his opponents - some of whom have demonstrated a commensurate or lesser degree of support in the race thus far? Isn't that what our system is supposed to be about?

The Republicans went so far as to have both an early evening debate and a primetime debate on the same day - twice - in order to include all 17 of their candidates (three of whom have never held elective office before). Now that the five Democrats who debated the first time around have been reduced to three - shouldn't they let the fourth voice onto the stage? Make it an actual debate? The powers that be must be very worried about the truths Lessig is prepared to present to the American people. But this fear is a detriment to both the party as well as our democracy.

In the year of the "outsider," one side of the aisle's frontrunner is a billionaire barker. On the other side of the aisle, they're silencing the true outsider. The bold one. It's wrong, and it's time to let Larry speak.
Let Larry Speak | Michael Golden

I saw him promoting Republic, Lost way back when...I couldn't believe it. Here he was, a Harvard professor, and not a Leftist quack, saying the things I'd come to believe (little ol' me, an average nobody) after years of following Independent/Third Party 'outside of the box' politics. It was more than apparent what was wrong. And finally someone serious to talk about it.

We should not be wasting time with Bernie Sanders hippy fantasies. Get this guy on stage and get HRC to meaningfully respond to his bulletproof criticisms. /Off soap box
__________________
U2DMfan is offline  
Old 11-01-2015, 07:19 PM   #338
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
BigMacPhisto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 6,255
Local Time: 02:33 AM
First poll that occurred entirely after the debate is now out.

Trump actually managed to gain a little on Carson who stayed at about the same level.

Rubio had the biggest bounce. He's hovered around 7-9% in a lot of recent polls. He's now at 15% after the debate, firmly in third place.

Cruz and Bush had a minor uptick and downswing respectively. It's a big deal for Bush though since it means dropping from 6% to 4% means you basically lost a third of your supporters overnight.

Christie didn't really move the needle. He and Fiorina had minor upticks, but when you're sitting at 3% and 6% nationwide, it doesn't mean all that much.

Post-Debate Poll Shows Trump, Rubio, and Cruz are the Top Three Debate Winners | One America News Network


Trump's really starting to look like the real thing. His supporters are still sticking around.
__________________
BigMacPhisto is offline  
Old 11-02-2015, 06:47 PM   #339
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
Mrs. Garrison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: pig farming in Bolivia
Posts: 7,217
Local Time: 01:33 AM


__________________
Mrs. Garrison is offline  
Old 11-02-2015, 08:46 PM   #340
ONE
love, blood, life
 
namkcuR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Kettering, Ohio
Posts: 10,290
Local Time: 02:33 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by U2DMfan View Post
Let Larry Speak | Michael Golden



I saw him promoting Republic, Lost way back when...I couldn't believe it. Here he was, a Harvard professor, and not a Leftist quack, saying the things I'd come to believe (little ol' me, an average nobody) after years of following Independent/Third Party 'outside of the box' politics. It was more than apparent what was wrong. And finally someone serious to talk about it.



We should not be wasting time with Bernie Sanders hippy fantasies. Get this guy on stage and get HRC to meaningfully respond to his bulletproof criticisms. /Off soap box

Well, he dropped out today.




Sent from my iPad using U2 Interference
__________________
namkcuR is offline  
Old 11-02-2015, 08:59 PM   #341
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
BigMacPhisto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 6,255
Local Time: 02:33 AM
I really wish O'Malley would run out of money and bolt soon. Then Sanders could utilize the entire debate time to take on Clinton head-on.

Unfortunately, he's gaining quite a bit of traction in Iowa, mostly due to making far more campaign stops in the state than the other two candidates. Looks like he'll be in it until at least the caucus.
__________________
BigMacPhisto is offline  
Old 11-02-2015, 09:59 PM   #342
Vocal parasite
 
Axver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: 1853
Posts: 151,026
Local Time: 06:33 PM
Can somebody tell me a little about O'Malley or suggest a good overview? All I've read about the Democrat primaries is very much Clinton vs Sanders.
__________________
"Mediocrity is never so dangerous as when it is dressed up as sincerity." - Søren Kierkegaard

Ian McCulloch the U2 fan:
"Who buys U2 records anyway? It's just music for plumbers and bricklayers. Bono, what a slob. You'd think with all that climbing about he does, he'd look real fit and that. But he's real fat, y'know. Reminds me of a soddin' mountain goat."
"And as for Bono, he needs a colostomy bag for his mouth."

U2gigs: The most comprehensive U2 setlist database!
Gig pictures | Blog
Axver is online now  
Old 11-02-2015, 10:02 PM   #343
ONE
love, blood, life
 
LuckyNumber7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Leicester, UK
Posts: 12,367
Local Time: 02:33 AM
O'Malley: successful governor of Maryland. Hardline democrat. Adheres to all of the same principals that Clinton does, although major foreign policy difference is that he doesn't believe in a nuclear Iran and is very pro-Israel, I believe. Most of his voting audience is already voting for Clinton.

Decent candidate. Logical, and doesn't get stomped on very easily. Most likely trying to bid for a VP spot, given his lack of polling success.
__________________
LuckyNumber7 is offline  
Old 11-02-2015, 11:35 PM   #344
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,483
Local Time: 02:33 AM
And he's a total DILF.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 11-02-2015, 11:55 PM   #345
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
BigMacPhisto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 6,255
Local Time: 02:33 AM
One of his big negatives is that he's been trying to appear as a leftist alternative to Clinton throughout the entire campaign when his track record is arguably to her right. It hasn't helped that Sanders pretty much locked up the liberal section of the electorate.

The other problem is that his record in Baltimore, particularly concerning race relations, was absolutely abysmal by any definition. Doesn't help that he's running in this particular climate or that black voters make up a very large bloc of the Democratic primary voters.
__________________

__________________
BigMacPhisto is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:33 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com