2016 US Presidential Election Thread Part XI

[Axver]

Seriously, can we just re-elect Obama, and save everyone the headache of arguing over Hilary and Trump for the next three months?

Get rid of the term limit. (Or elect Michelle.)

I really don't understand the popularity of term limits. Yes, sure, there are some hangers-on and inept representatives wasting everybody's time and money, but that only means politics is a field like any other. This idea that people should not be "careerist" politicians I find to be nonsense; given the intricacies and complexities of modern politics, there is a lot to master and I would prefer it to be stocked by plenty of people familiar with the system rather than a forced revolving door. That's not to say there should not be strong participation by those who spend most of their life in the private sphere and want to temporarily hold public office - it's all about a good mixture of the two. It's just that legislation, diplomacy, negotiations, and all the other aspects of governance are not easy, and I don't know why people celebrate the idea that it should be done by inexperienced people. I certainly don't get the appeal of presidential candidates with no political experience (gee who might I mean here?). Would you hire as your lawyer, accountant, or doctor somebody who has no experience in that field? Fuck no. So why would you elect somebody utterly lacking experience to high office - or force somebody thoroughly qualified to depart just because they've done the job for an arbitrary period of time?

 

[diamond]

I must admit Barry is 100 times the orator Bill is.

That said, the sh#t he was slinging mostly only half truths and cliches, but I saw how the masses ate it up.
This is only a detached observer watching Barry's swan song.

Just one more funny below, good night everyone:

 

[trojanchick99]

That was the best speech I've ever heard. He gave conservatives an out by framing Trump as he is a demagogue and a threat to democracy.

It is amazing how the Dems have taken the mantle of patriotism that the GOP used to monopolize.

Sent from my SM-G920V using U2 Interference mobile app

 

[BigMacPhisto]

As a far left progressive, I'd say Obama is the best President since Truman and I'd give him a D+.

It could be a while for him to have any real competition. Clinton is clearly to his right politically and might even be more so once she takes office and there's always the possibility that another "centrist"-type like Cory Booker succeeds her, etc.

And as brought up in here, there will certainly be Democrats in the future that achieve far more than he could due to a more favorable Congressional environment. Clinton is probably likely to achieve even less as she'll need to score a big House win in 2020 if she ever wants to be able to pass significant left-leaning legislation. I don't see that happening.


How I Rate Them

Truman: Can't rate. Continued FDR's policies but also dropped nukes, so, maybe a C?

Eisenhower: D

Kennedy: D-

Johnson: D (Best domestic policy improvements since FDR, but that foreign policy...oy.)

Nixon: F

Ford: F

Carter: D

Reagan: F

Bush: D-

Clinton: D-

Bush: F-

 

[deep]

Obama's speech was good, it was track polling between 60 and high 80s the whole time, mostly in the 80 -85 range. Then when Hillary came out it went down to 45.

 

[BigMacPhisto]

That's hilarious. She basically can't even catch a football gently tossed to her a foot from the end zone.

 

[namkcuR]

Get rid of the term limit. (Or elect Michelle.)

I really don't understand the popularity of term limits. Yes, sure, there are some hangers-on and inept representatives wasting everybody's time and money, but that only means politics is a field like any other. This idea that people should not be "careerist" politicians I find to be nonsense; given the intricacies and complexities of modern politics, there is a lot to master and I would prefer it to be stocked by plenty of people familiar with the system rather than a forced revolving door. That's not to say there should not be strong participation by those who spend most of their life in the private sphere and want to temporarily hold public office - it's all about a good mixture of the two. It's just that legislation, diplomacy, negotiations, and all the other aspects of governance are not easy, and I don't know why people celebrate the idea that it should be done by inexperienced people. I certainly don't get the appeal of presidential candidates with no political experience (gee who might I mean here?). Would you hire as your lawyer, accountant, or doctor somebody who has no experience in that field? Fuck no. So why would you elect somebody utterly lacking experience to high office - or force somebody thoroughly qualified to depart just because they've done the job for an arbitrary period of time?

Two things. As it pertains to presidential politics, I support term limits simply because, while they make a third Obama term - which I would love - impossible, they also made a third GWB term impossible. As awful as it was when GWB was re-elected in 2004, there was a tiny bit of comfort in knowing that he was constitutionally required to leave the office on January 20, 2009. What if he had been able to run a third time and potentially win(not that I think he could've in 2008)? Term limits for presidents limit the good but they also limit the bad.

The other thing is the bigger thing though, which is how the lack of term limits affect things on the congressional level. In our system, senators and congresspeople don't really ever stop running. It is said that senators and congresspeople spend half their time fundraising, asking people for money. It's literally on their schedule, they go to places designed for this purpose and just spend x hours making phone calls asking for money for their campaigns. They don't even like doing this, but they have to. It's half the job. And then in the other half of their job, the part where they actually legislate, so much of what they do is determined by how it will affect their campaigns, which really never end. So the reason a lot of people want term limits in congress is so that more senators and congresspeople can, at some point, stop running and just legislate.

There's a reason the legislative branch is the most broken, most dysfunctional, most ineffective branch of government(and subsequently a reason why there's been so much done recently via executive action and judicial decisions), and this is part of it.

 

[LuckyNumber7]

As a far left progressive, I'd say Obama is the best President since Truman and I'd give him a D+.

It could be a while for him to have any real competition. Clinton is clearly to his right politically and might even be more so once she takes office and there's always the possibility that another "centrist"-type like Cory Booker succeeds her, etc.

And as brought up in here, there will certainly be Democrats in the future that achieve far more than he could due to a more favorable Congressional environment. Clinton is probably likely to achieve even less as she'll need to score a big House win in 2020 if she ever wants to be able to pass significant left-leaning legislation. I don't see that happening.


How I Rate Them

Truman: Can't rate. Continued FDR's policies but also dropped nukes, so, maybe a C?

Eisenhower: D

Kennedy: D-

Johnson: D (Best domestic policy improvements since FDR, but that foreign policy...oy.)

Nixon: F

Ford: F

Carter: D

Reagan: F

Bush: D-

Clinton: D-

Bush: F-

So in summary, since World War 2, we've had nothing the absolutely worst group of leaders.

Strange how we've been so successful.

Also, we get it, nobody is as progressive as you. What is a "far left progressive" anyways?

 

[Diemen]

That's hilarious. She basically can't even catch a football gently tossed to her a foot from the end zone.

It almost seems like you'll be disappointed if Hillary does win the election.

 

[BigMacPhisto]

So in summary, since World War 2, we've had nothing the absolutely worst group of leaders.

Strange how we've been so successful.

Also, we get it, nobody is as progressive as you. What is a "far left progressive" anyways?

It's a general rule of thumb that most on the far left consider our historical leaders to be far removed from progressive values and also look extra awful given the progress we've made, especially on social issues, over the decades and even centuries. Obviously, I get that the environment thirty or more years ago was never going to give a chance to someone on the far left to lead this country. But when you're judging things through our lens, there's nothing but mediocrity.

I just added "far left" to progressive since Clinton and her supporters have essentially neutered the term. I mean, Tim Kaine is "a progressive who gets things done"? Really? Certainly nobody writing for CounterPunch or The Nation or even most mainstream publications would believe that for a second.

I also think there seems to be this myth permeating the current discussion that Sanders arrives on the national scene and suddenly people are being big cry-babies and demanding too much from their Presidential candidates when the reality is that the sort of left wing society he wants is what those on the far left have been arguing for for decades (including Sanders as an elected official for nearly forty years now). Sanders ran outside the party vacuum precisely because it wasn't sufficiently liberal enough by a wide margin. Certainly, we've seen a leftward shift nationally and in the party over the ensuing decades, but to argue that everyone is just whining about one candidate is disingenuous when really it's millions of people making the same argument they've been making for decades upon decades.

To me, it is a huge slap in the face when someone like Clinton suddenly decides to take up the progressive mantle (after even labeling herself a moderate a month or two prior) and gets to try and co-opt a far left movement in this county that has existed outside the bubble for years. You aren't automatically entitled to those votes and you certainly don't get to define yourself as somebody that should be "acceptable" to us when we've existed politically outside your structure for decades.

 

[BigMacPhisto]

It almost seems like you'll be disappointed if Hillary does win the election.

Of course I will be...we're getting either a Trump Presidency or someone who is going to gleefully fuck over the left-side of this country the second she gets into office.

 

[Diemen]

Of course I will be...we're getting either a Trump Presidency or someone who is going to gleefully fuck over the left-side of this country the second she gets into office.

Thank you again, fellow man, for explaining what a woman's motives really are.

And to clarify, I should have said "it seems like you'll be more disappointed if Hillary wins than if Trump wins."

 

[Vlad n U 2]

Also, we get it, nobody is as progressive as you. What is a "far left progressive" anyways?

I have no idea either. I have never heard a term featuring those three words together, and I think with the mish-mash of various views on what constitutes this or that, it makes things a bit confusing.

 

[Kieran McConville]

For mine, I'm reluctant to use the label 'progressive' at all. It has certain US historical connotations that don't necessarily encompass the left at all, let alone social democratic or egalitarian politics. I'm not American and I'm not a Progressive. Not with a capital P anyhow.

 

[PhilsFan]

You guys are fighting a futile fight. BMP has convinced himself a progressive can win a general election because he's convinced himself the numbers show Sanders would have stomped Trump, even though the only way to do that is to ignore any numbers that look unfavorably upon Sanders. And to ignore the context of how Trump's fear mongering would be a lot more effective against a socialist. Do you think these ties to Russia would be nearly as damaging for Trump if he was running against a socialist?

 

[Vlad n U 2]

Much of the media would follow suit in that case, I'd reckon. Red baiting is still fairly widespread, much to my unsurprising annoyance.

 

[cobl04]

You guys are fighting a futile fight. BMP has convinced himself a progressive can win a general election because he's convinced himself the numbers show Sanders would have stomped Trump, even though the only way to do that is to ignore any numbers that look unfavorably upon Sanders. And to ignore the context of how Trump's fear mongering would be a lot more effective against a socialist. Do you think these ties to Russia would be nearly as damaging for Trump if he was running against a socialist?

Even Shaun King wrote an article about voting for Hillary. And he's a big man baby. Or at least I thought so, until I read all the top comments on his post.

 

[BVS]

Of course I will be...we're getting either a Trump Presidency or someone who is going to gleefully fuck over the left-side of this country the second she gets into office.

So someone who will "gleefully fuck over" you AND the entire country over someone who will "gleefully fuck over" the so called left?

Your narcissism and ignorance knows no bounds. Is this what defines "far left progressive"? Because honestly with the exception of a few anti-capitalism views you've expressed you align more with Trump, it's really not surprising that you're stumping for him now.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[diamond]

It almost seems like you'll be disappointed if Hillary does win the election.

Well first things first they have:
to fill the arena for HRC, as they are approx 700 empty seats that some have denied here.

As a courtesy Im posting the Craig's List ad for my under or unemployed left leaning associates trapped in the crap Obama economy: to help out any qualified HRC Supporters (they threw out Bernie Supporters) on the east coast.

Good luck

Love,
<>

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

As a far left progressive, I'd say Obama is the best President since Truman and I'd give him a D+.

It could be a while for him to have any real competition. Clinton is clearly to his right politically and might even be more so once she takes office and there's always the possibility that another "centrist"-type like Cory Booker succeeds her, etc.

And as brought up in here, there will certainly be Democrats in the future that achieve far more than he could due to a more favorable Congressional environment. Clinton is probably likely to achieve even less as she'll need to score a big House win in 2020 if she ever wants to be able to pass significant left-leaning legislation. I don't see that happening.


How I Rate Them

Truman: Can't rate. Continued FDR's policies but also dropped nukes, so, maybe a C?

Eisenhower: D

Kennedy: D-

Johnson: D (Best domestic policy improvements since FDR, but that foreign policy...oy.)

Nixon: F

Ford: F

Carter: D

Reagan: F

Bush: D-

Clinton: D-

Bush: F-

Lolz

God we must suck, huh?

 

[BEAL]

What is the point? I guess the DNC is as relevant as a U2 show since neither can sell out all their shows


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[womanfish]

Well first things first they have:
to fill the arena for HRC, as they are approx 700 empty seats that some have denied here.

As a courtesy Im posting the Craig's List ad for my under or unemployed left leaning associates trapped in the crap Obama economy: to help out any qualified HRC Supporters (they threw out Bernie Supporters) on the east coast.

Good luck

Love,
<>

DNC Hiring 'Actors' via Craigslist to Replace Delegates : snopes.com

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Well first things first they have:
to fill the arena for HRC, as they are approx 700 empty seats that some have denied here.

As a courtesy Im posting the Craig's List ad for my under or unemployed left leaning associates trapped in the crap Obama economy: to help out any qualified HRC Supporters (they threw out Bernie Supporters) on the east coast.

Good luck

Love,
<>

You're really grasping for anything aren't you?

 

[BVS]

Now Craigslist is a source?! Well it's slightly more accurate than Breitbart, so I'll give you that.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[diamond]

DNC Hiring 'Actors' via Craigslist to Replace Delegates : snopes.com

WHAT'S UNDETERMINED: Who placed the ad

I wouldn't place too much emphasis on Snopes as being accurate: ran by a husband & wife team who are known Atheists and considered by some as liberal hacks.

Apparently this journalist believes the ad as authentic:

Are You An Actor at the DNC? (New York) hide this posting


© craigslist - Map data © OpenStreetMap
1020 Walnut Street
(google map)

no pay

I'm a journalist looking to speak to anyone who replied to the DNC's numerous posts on this forum looking for actors to fill seats at the convention. If you are someone who replied, or you are in fact filling a seat, and you are open to speaking with a writer, please reach out.

Thanks.

<>

 

[LuckyNumber7]

For mine, I'm reluctant to use the label 'progressive' at all. It has certain US historical connotations that don't necessarily encompass the left at all, let alone social democratic or egalitarian politics. I'm not American and I'm not a Progressive. Not with a capital P anyhow.

Liberals will use the term progressive in place of liberal here, to avoid being labeled as laissez faire or non regulatory on economics.

 

[BVS]

I wouldn't place too much emphasis on Snopes as being accurate: ran by a husband & wife team who are known Atheists and considered by some as liberal hacks.

<>

First of all if you're gullible enough to think any political party would put something out there so visible and obvious then you deserve Trump's Meeica.

Secondly Snopes hasn't had any of their major fact finds disputed. Being atheist has absolutely nothing to do with anything. And Oregoropa already tried this mission and failed.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[womanfish]

I wouldn't place too much emphasis on Snopes as being accurate: ran by a husband & wife team who are known Atheists and considered by some as liberal hacks.

Apparently this journalist believes the ad as authentic:



<>

yeah, I can't see any possibility of a Bernie supporter, who walked out and then tried to claim it left the place empty, when it in fact did not, try and place a stupid ad like this out of petty hurt feelings. That seems TOTALLY out of the realm of possibility. Go ahead and reply to the ad and see how it goes. Report back with your 50 dollar check from the DNC.

 

[womanfish]

I wouldn't place too much emphasis on Snopes as being accurate: ran by a husband & wife team who are known Atheists and considered by some as liberal hacks.

Apparently this journalist believes the ad as authentic:



<>

Odd how there were no empty seats on the actual night that the Bernie people left, and no empty seats last night either... So yeah. how does this make sense?

 

[BEAL]

Liberal media used technology to fill the empty seats. CGI!!!


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference