2016 US Presidential Election Thread IX

[BVS]

That last line about Democrats and slavery is amazing. It's straight off the pages of TownHall or NRO.

So many pots, so many kettles.

It is interesting that this particular "progressive's" rhetoric comes straight out of the same place Trump's and his most ardent supporters' comes from.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[DaveC]

Thank you for your opinion. The mock outrage of the internet is wonderful.

Maybe some of you will now needlessly show up at Trump rallies with signs because he's such a bad man? Then you can tell your kids years from now that you took a bold stance and said racism was bad and were really politically active and a wonderful human being because you voted for a black man and a white woman, even if they accomplished next to nothing in their sixteen years of office, appointed Wall Street problem makers to important posts and murdered thousands of innocent people with drone strikes.

Who needs to actually change the problems in society when you can just try to label others in online forums, Twitter, etc.?

wow.

you are easily the most condescending poster i've ever seen on this forum. what a jerk.

 

[BigMacPhisto]

Because I think the Democratic Party has historically been a worthless institution? If anything, it proves my progressive credentials.

Now, if people from the right have a valid line of attack in certain situations, so be it. I'll never understand why Democratic Party sympathizers will just strike off any attack as invalid or part of a "vast right wing conspiracy" such as this e-mails kerfuffle in order to protect members of said party. Hold people accountable for their own actions and don't act like there's some purity because the D is attached to their name on the television.

When you actually look at someone like Clinton outside of that lens, there's a lot for people on the left to be disappointed by...or else, you know, over 42% of the party's members wouldn't have voted against her.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Speaking for myself again here, I've said numerous times that if there is a legit reason to investigate Hilary, I support that. Just as I would support ANY legit investigation of any other politician.

The thing is, though, with the e-mails, it's hard to find any unbiased commentary on it from ANY side to where I don't really know what the hell I'm supposed to do or think or say about it, aside from acknowledging that it was dumb and risky on her part. And of all the scandals out there that politicians are a part of, scandals that are equally as bad as this one, if not more so, I'm not entirely sure why this one in particular is getting singled out. I say that not to dismiss any truly negative outcomes and impacts of this scandal, but out of legit, honest confusion.

And no, I'm not going to take the GOP's attacks on her over the e-mail thing seriously, because I don't take the GOP seriously in general on anything anymore. Their party allowed Trump to become a thing, and they're hideously backwards on social issues in their current form, so they've lost any credibility they may have had at one time.

As for the drone issue, that has long been one of my big critiques of Obama's presidency, and if Hilary is president and continues with them, I'll criticize that, too. If it were up to me, I'd suggest we pull the hell out of the Middle East altogether and be like, "Okay, you guys are dealing with your shit on your own for now." and focus on fixing our own problems here.

But as I said elsewhere before, the Middle East and our involvement in it, both military and humanitarian, is always going to be a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation, and while I very much disagree with the drone stuff going on (and while I actually believe Obama personally would prefer to NOT do the drone thing), I also know that the Democrats have to do something to prove they're tough on national security and on the foreign stage and whatnot, because otherwise the Republicans will go on and on about how "weak" that party is and other BS like that, and Democrats could lose voters as a result.

I hate that that's how it is, mind, I wish the Democrats could find a way to show that it is possible to be tough on those issues without having to do crap like that and still gain voters in the process. But that's where us voters should come in to make it clear that the Democrats would NOT lose support if they found another way to deal with these issues. We need to drown out the 'RAH RAH LET'S GO TO WAR!" Trump crowd, and I don't know that we're doing that as loudly and as constantly as we should.

I have also long said that the Democrats need to grow a spine and stand up more to the ruthless attacks Republicans make on them. You will get no argument from me that that party needs to do its own overhauling and refocusing. I also fully support the idea of going beyond a two-party system.

But since the chances of anyone not labeled a Democrat or Republican winning the presidency this year is pretty much nil, I'm therefore going to put my support with the main party that is most likely to support the same sorts of ideals and policies I support. And if and when they do things I do not agree with, I make my disapproval known, and write letters pressing them to support (or not support) this or that issue, and other things of that sort. Ultimately, I just want to know people are doing their part to try and fix the problems we have. Sometimes we'll see rapid change as a result, sometimes that change will be slower to show itself. But so long as it's happening, period, that's the most important thing for me.

I have no problem with you critiquing the Democratic party or Hilary-I wholeheartedly agree they are not above criticism, and I think it's safe to say that everyone else here agrees with that sentiment, too. What I DO have a problem with is you making a lot of assumptions about those of us who are supporting Hilary or the Democratic party and accusing us of being blind to her or the party's faults. We've said over and over and over and over AND OVER in these threads that we do not agree with everything she's said and done, and that we can understand where she's not an ideal Democratic candidate in many respects.

But we've also given valid reasons why we are supporting her/the party, and I wish you could try taking those explanations into account.

 

[BigMacPhisto]

Good post, I approve. I'll never understand the insanity of trying to look tough and I think we've gone beyond the Democrats needing votes "from the middle" anymore to appeal to people with a war hawk mentality. This drone shit needs to stop, pronto.

 

[deep]

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-bernie-sanders-campaign-20160616-snap-story.html

This should calm some people down, a touch

 

[cobl04]

[tweet]742982480630820864[/tweet]

 

[Vlad n U 2]

[tweet]742982480630820864[/tweet]

I've been thinking about this tweet over the past couple of days.

 

[trojanchick99]

Hey! Actual news! Looks like Hillary's VP shortlist has leaked.

Warren, Kaine, Castro and Booker I expected. I'm surprised by Garcetti. He's done well as LA Mayor, but is still pretty inexperienced. I'm glad to see the party thinks that highly of him, though.

Beyond the Massachusetts senator, other prospective candidates include Labor Secretary Tom Perez; Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julián Castro; Sens. Tim Kaine of Virginia, Sherrod Brown of Ohio and Cory Booker of New Jersey; Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti, and Reps. Xavier Becerra of California and Tim Ryan of Ohio, several Democrats said.

http://www.vox.com/2016/6/16/11954878/hillary-clinton-vice-president-veepstakes

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Some good names in that list there. I approve .

 

[Diemen]

you are a terrible person.

wow.



you are easily the most condescending poster i've ever seen on this forum. what a jerk.

Enough. Ignore him if you can't help but insult him at every turn.

 

[Mack_Again]

hey if Corey Booker becomes VP pick for Hill, that's way too predictable. not that it's bad, but......

but hey i don't think someone as good as Hill needs surprise factor to get votes, so i guess thats still valid choice for her.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

I like cheese

 

[womanfish]

What exactly is a "Bernie Bro" for you all? Someone whose devotion to Sanders makes them actively hate Hillary, or simply someone who has supported / cast a vote for him? Because the rhetoric in here seems to have gotten to the point that there can be no sensible reason for supporting him, which I think is a gross oversimplification.

I think it's important to seperate BernieBRO from BernieBOT.

I think the two have been mixed together, but in the beginning, the BernieBRO tag was meant for someone that was a rabid Bernie supporter, BUT was an obvious privileged white male, that would make terrible sexist, mysogonistic, possibly racist remarks.

To me this is not to be confused with the BernieBots, that are rabid supporters, that seem to have gotten a thorough brainwashing into the Sanders cult-like following, could be male or female, that would launch into straight anti-hillary tirades, stating that she is worst human to ever be birthed on the planet and that everything she's ever done from the time she could talk is suppress, warmonger, hate, take piles of cash just to screw the little guy, the antithesis of all that it good in this world.

You could come back with reasoned debate, list off a dozen instances that Bernie made bad decisions that stack right up there with Clintons, but it would then be met with calls that you are a tool of the oligarchs, being bent over by your corporate overlords and that somehow every primary that Bernie won was perfect, and every one that Hillary won was rigged, cheated and bought by the establishment.

There is crossover, but to me there is a distinction between the two terms.

 

[digitize]

Julián Castro would be fantastic. Showing that Texas is home to more than just batshit insane politicians.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[Irvine511]

Kane and Brown are the sensible, playbook picks -- swing staters who can explain her to more rural/exurban folk.

The exciting picks are Warren and Booker, not least because CB is a beautiful man who rescues people from burning buildings. I think Warren has proved herself an effective attack dog and would get under Trump's skin. Booker has some of that Obama magic. Both are inspiring.

Don't know enough to say about the others.

How does HRC see her weaknesses with the electorate, and how does she amend them in order to win? With Kaine/Brown she's making a play for the middle-of-the-road folks and Republican women, groups she's already doing well with against Trump. With Warren and Booker she gets that inspirational thing she lacks, and with Warren, she'll get some portion of those magical "millions and millions and millions" of Bernie supporters who remember to leave their parent's basement and actually vote (historically, young people have low turnout -- they did 50 years ago and they do today).

Were it me, I'd double down on Warren. And then spend a weekend on a beach in Anguilla reconciling with lovely Sen Booker.

 

[Irvine511]

Julián Castro would be fantastic. Showing that Texas is home to more than just batshit insane politicians.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

Tell me about him. I know very little. How would she answer the question, "is Julian Castro qualified to be POTUS?"

 

[womanfish]

Hey! Actual news! Looks like Hillary's VP shortlist has leaked.

Warren, Kaine, Castro and Booker I expected. I'm surprised by Garcetti. He's done well as LA Mayor, but is still pretty inexperienced. I'm glad to see the party thinks that highly of him, though.



Hillary Clinton’s VP shortlist has leaked. Here are the pros and cons of each. - Vox

In my view (to steal a Bernie phrase) I think Warren is the best choice.

Castro is too young and from a state that will not go blue. Also him being latino may have been a huge plus if clinton was running against Rubio or Bush, but now against Trump, it's not an issue.

Booker, who i really like, is also a bit on the young side, is from a solid blue state, and again, hillary has the AA vote wrapped up. So he doesn't really gain anything for her.

Brown, who i like, would probably be a pretty solid choice. If he could deliver Ohio, that would be the election right there. So I would say he is high on the list. But he's also kind of a boring, shlubby white guy that doesn't bring much energy to the ticket.

Kaine is also a boring white guy. But would deliver Virginia (Although i think Clinton will win Virginia on her own merits already). He also is too centrist for this election cycle.

Warren brings hillary a few of things that she really needs. 1. She brings excitement, and passion. 2. She brings over a good chunk of Bernie supporters who will see Warren as someone who will make hillary stick to her shifts to the left. 3. She helps to win over more white women, and young white women that hillary is struggling with right now. 4. It would be a historic ticket to have TWO women. Especially going up against Trump. It would be amazing to see him being taken down by two strong women. 5. She has proven herself to be a formidable attack dog, and i think would tear it up in a debate with anyone Trump chooses.

 

[womanfish]

Tell me about him. I know very little. How would she answer the question, "is Julian Castro qualified to be POTUS?"

He's a rising star, heads up HUD, and is a great speaker. But again. He is just too young. I don't think anyone can argue he is fully ready to step into the Oval Office if needed. Especially now with terrorism making itself an issue again.

I think that in 8 years, a Booker/Castro ticket would be amazing.

 

[Irvine511]

I think it's important to seperate BernieBRO from BernieBOT.



I think the two have been mixed together, but in the beginning, the BernieBRO tag was meant for someone that was a rabid Bernie supporter, BUT was an obvious privileged white male, that would make terrible sexist, mysogonistic, possibly racist remarks.



To me this is not to be confused with the BernieBots, that are rabid supporters, that seem to have gotten a thorough brainwashing into the Sanders cult-like following, could be male or female, that would launch into straight anti-hillary tirades, stating that she is worst human to ever be birthed on the planet and that everything she's ever done from the time she could talk is suppress, warmonger, hate, take piles of cash just to screw the little guy, the antithesis of all that it good in this world.



You could come back with reasoned debate, list off a dozen instances that Bernie made bad decisions that stack right up there with Clintons, but it would then be met with calls that you are a tool of the oligarchs, being bent over by your corporate overlords and that somehow every primary that Bernie won was perfect, and every one that Hillary won was rigged, cheated and bought by the establishment.



There is crossover, but to me there is a distinction between the two terms.

This is a reasonable analysis. It's shocking the amount of click bait posted on social media that say "SANDERS JUST FLIPPED THREE MORE COUNTIES IN CALIFORNIA YET THE CORPORATE MEDIA IS SILENT." The Bots seem to think that Bernie is a victim of a corrupt system, and the Bros see the free stuff that Bernie has promised as something that is owed to them.

In here, we have the Bro -- we've seen BMP's misogyny and racism in here for months ("that Lena Dunham is a man hater" "black people only voted for Clinton because it was a name they recognized.")

In real life, I am related to a Bot. Lots of "$hillary" posts and vague mentions of oligarchy and corporate media -- it's as conspiratorial and half-informed as anything you could find in Tea Party literature.

 

[anitram]

I also don't know much about Julian Castro but I've seen him in a couple of interviews and speaking and he unfortunately comes across as dull/boring. I was actually quite surprised given that he is young, but his personality really doesn't come across great.

I also don't think that VPs deliver swing states and I think there have been some studies done now to support that. So in my eyes Kaine/Brown bring absolutely nothing to the table and I want neither of them anywhere in line to be the next President. Say what you will of Bernie Bros and how it's preferable to get incremental change, but these two as presidents would be going backwards. Just awful. I'd be really disappointed if she makes a pick like them, not only because I don't like them but because she doesn't need them at all.

Warren is competent, well spoken, intelligent. I worry that some people would get hung up on the "two women" running together (because centuries of 2 men is different somehow) and I am also not sure how well Hillary would do potentially being overshadowed by a more likeable running mate. Warren has an excellent way of breaking down the issues so that they can be understood by your average person so while she is of a similar intellectual elite background as Hillary she comes across as much more folksy. That may not swing people like us here but heaven knows we've all been hearing for years now that the public wants a President they can have a beer with.

 

[digitize]

Tell me about him. I know very little. How would she answer the question, "is Julian Castro qualified to be POTUS?"

I honestly don't know a ton about him; my post wasn't completely serious. But he is really popular among Texas Democrats, who see him as a leader of a movement that will eventually result in a blue (or at least purple) Texas.

 

[womanfish]

I also don't know much about Julian Castro but I've seen him in a couple of interviews and speaking and he unfortunately comes across as dull/boring. I was actually quite surprised given that he is young, but his personality really doesn't come across great.

I also don't think that VPs deliver swing states and I think there have been some studies done now to support that. So in my eyes Kaine/Brown bring absolutely nothing to the table and I want neither of them anywhere in line to be the next President. Say what you will of Bernie Bros and how it's preferable to get incremental change, but these two as presidents would be going backwards. Just awful. I'd be really disappointed if she makes a pick like them, not only because I don't like them but because she doesn't need them at all.

Warren is competent, well spoken, intelligent. I worry that some people would get hung up on the "two women" running together (because centuries of 2 men is different somehow) and I am also not sure how well Hillary would do potentially being overshadowed by a more likeable running mate. Warren has an excellent way of breaking down the issues so that they can be understood by your average person so while she is of a similar intellectual elite background as Hillary she comes across as much more folksy. That may not swing people like us here but heaven knows we've all been hearing for years now that the public wants a President they can have a beer with.

I don't know about those studies, but i do think the help is minimal. I would think a true swing state could be moved at least a percentage point, which could make the difference. But in comparison to what Warren would bring, i think its not even a contest.

 

[womanfish]

I honestly don't know a ton about him; my post wasn't completely serious. But he is really popular among Texas Democrats, who see him as a leader of a movement that will eventually result in a blue (or at least purple) Texas.

I think we've just pinpointed another problem with Castro.

3 people, here on a forum about politics say, "they don't know much about him"
That is not what Clinton needs. She needs some excitement and passion from a known entity.

 

[Irvine511]

I think we've just pinpointed another problem with Castro.



3 people, here on a forum about politics say, "they don't know much about him"

That is not what Clinton needs. She needs some excitement and passion from a known entity.

And the way Trump has been actively pissing on Latinos, I'm not sure they're going to need much encouragement to show up in November and vote against him.

 

[womanfish]

And the way Trump has been actively pissing on Latinos, I'm not sure they're going to need much encouragement to show up in November and vote against him.

Yeah Castro's name was the first one that came up, nearly a year ago. This was when the common consensus was the Rubio or Bush would be the GOP nominee...

Now, Trump has disapproval of 89% of latinos and 94% of African Americans.

wow.

 

[anitram]

I don't know about those studies, but i do think the help is minimal. I would think a true swing state could be moved at least a percentage point, which could make the difference. But in comparison to what Warren would bring, i think its not even a contest.

Not a huge fan of Politico but it's an interesting article:

Why VPs Matter Less Than You Think - POLITICO Magazine

 

[Hewson]

I think we've just pinpointed another problem with Castro.

3 people, here on a forum about politics say, "they don't know much about him"
That is not what Clinton needs. She needs some excitement and passion from a known entity.

Plus how many folks will think he's related to Fidel?

 

[womanfish]

Plus how many folks will think he's related to Fidel?

oh god. So true. You have to account for stupidity. A lot of it.

 

[trojanchick99]

He and his twin brother spoke at the 2012 DNC. His brother Joaquin is a member of the House.

I agree he is likely too young, but he's got a bright future in the party.

And damn, a Booker/Castro future ticket would be easy on the eyes.

Warren would be my pick. She's qualified and it would royally piss off Trump's base of misogynists.