2016 US Presidential Election Thread Part X

[dazzledbylight]

Originally Posted by womanfish

Jill would be ok if she would a campaign on issues. The least I could say of Nader, is that he never based his campaign on using right wing smears against a Democratic Candidate.
Also, from the get go, she seemed to try and piggyback herself onto the Bernie campaign. She was a candidate of a different party, but her social media presence through the primaries was to praise a candidate of a different party (Bernie) while making visciously right-wing talking point attacks on Hillary.
Then for the topper, she says, hey Bernie, be MY running mate! LOL. When that didn't work. Hey Bernie, I'll step down and YOU can run third party!
JESUS. It became obvious she has no intention of actually being a serious change maker, she became an anti-hillary zealot.

Then, when Bernie does the right thing, and endorses Clinton, she goes after him.

Her resume reads like a trail of tears. I mean, if you applied for a job and your resume was a list of all the jobs you've applied for but DIDN'T get, how would that work out for you?

It may seem old fashioned, but I DO like a candidate based in reality. A read through of her "platform" sounds like a mix of about half of what Hillary is proposing, and half sounds like a conversation around a drum circle/sweat lodge.
Hillary did more in her first few years after college than she has done in a lifetime.

Where would our country be right now if Ralph Nader hadn't gotten enough votes in Florida (and NH) to hand to election to Bush?

would 9/11 have even happened? Even if it had, would the aftermath of it, Invasion of Iraq, which spurred on the crippling debt, the rise of terror groups, etc.. have happened? I don't think so.

Idealism is great. But being a spoiler that ends up bringing down a viable candidate with real progressive ideas and the ability to get them done is not ok in my book. In fact, in may be the least progressive thing you could do.

Oh, whoah, thanks for he info! And as former RN supporter in his (non-presidential) organization efforts on many issues through the decades, what he did in 2000 . Hell, yeah, where would we be?!

[BVS]

Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto

You say he's clueless but how exactly is Clinton going to enact her plans with a Republican House?

That's not what I'm talking about, you know perfectly well what I'm talking about. There's precedent and pathways laid out for Clinton's platform. Sanders has no idea how he'll fund some of his ideas, he can't even explain sometimes the extent of his ideas, there's no real plan. Regardless of who is in the Congress you have to be able to have an executable because you have no idea how the landscape might change. He couldn't show us executables, it's one of the main reasons I couldn't ever come on board.

Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto

Taking a stand against something like Sanders did at various key points in recent American history is just as valuable as supporting something that passes. And in the case of those examples I just gave, morally right and courageous.

Not really. Of course taking the right stands are important but just generically saying they're just as valuable as getting something passed is a joke. If you want to make that claim you have to state specifics and then be able to show that it has or will make a difference.

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Clearly the Jewish socialist from Vermont was going to unite our racist, stupid, broken nation.

If only the millions upon millions of voters that he lost by amongst the group closest to his ideology would have seen the light.

[deep]

Hillary will not be choosing her VP

Trump has done it for her, and it is Tim Kaine.

[dazzledbylight]

u2democratic was for him as Governor, so that's a good sign. I love Warren (may be better she stays in the Senate), like Booker, and Brown so yeah... whom ever might be best Course that can be argued, too .

We'll know soon enough!

[deep]

My money on Kaine, BLdontM

[Headache in a Suitcase]

[Axver]

I'd never heard of this Pence guy. Can anyone give a brief summary? I'm assuming he's odious to some degree, but is he Tea Party crazy, Trump batshit insane, generic old white guy grumpy, or...?

[Hewson]

Originally Posted by Axver

I'd never heard of this Pence guy. Can anyone give a brief summary? I'm assuming he's odious to some degree, but is he Tea Party crazy, Trump batshit insane, generic old white guy grumpy, or...?

All his vital stats here:

Hunter Pence Statistics and History | Baseball-Reference.com

[dazzledbylight]

I'm getting the impression he's a right-wing Christian. So he could lean theocratic, like Cruz.
I remember also reading something when Kaiscich was still running approximately- don't let his mild-manner fool you, he's a serious Christian Right winger.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by Axver

I'd never heard of this Pence guy. Can anyone give a brief summary? I'm assuming he's odious to some degree, but is he Tea Party crazy, Trump batshit insane, generic old white guy grumpy, or...?

Look up Indiana's "religious freedom" law that would protect The Christian right to discriminate against gay people by refusing to sell them cakes, sleep in hotel rooms, eat at the lunch counter, etc.

At least he lost that battle.

[trojanchick99]

Yeah, he's part of the religious right. When he was in Congress, he also argued that smoking doesn't kill people.

He's supported anti-choice legislation including the full defunding of Planned Parenthood.

Basically, the Trump campaign felt they weren't suitably homophobic and misogynistic so they chose this guy.

[Irvine511]

Essentially, the GOP ticket is one racist and one homophobe.

[dazzledbylight]

ugh

Not that here aren't racists and homophobes in the Democratic Party, but the
Republicans tend waaaay more to take the cake - moderate Republicans way fewer
than before, and liberal Republicans all but extinct?

[dazzledbylight]

Are we going to incorporate both conventions into this thread, or have dedicated (separate) threads for each?
If we make separate threads we can keep stuff here that might be less (or not at all but still about the race) connected to the conventions.