2016 US Presidential Election Thread Part XI

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
For the love of all that is good, STOP.

Also, regarding the discussion about Clinton's history of support of gay rights...remember how Obama wasn't fully on board with same-sex marriage when he ran in 2008?

And yet, what got legalized - nationwide, no less - on his watch last year...:hmm:?

I was going to mention this. Dan Savage, who is gay and I would think had a lot more riding on this than those of us who aren't gay, straight up said this when Obama came out in favor:

Dan Savage, columnist for the Seattle alt-weekly magazine The Stranger, appeared on the Tuesday broadcast of MSNBC's All In with Chris Hayes to react to David Axelrod's revelation that President Obama always supported gay marriage all along and he was the one that advised then-Senator Obama to publicly oppose gay marriage in order to get alerted.

Savage said Obama "was going to pretend to oppose gay marriage" while fellow activists in the gay community "would pretend to believe him." Savage also said we can't be so "naive" to believe that politicians should be honest 100% of the time.

"We news this all along," Savage, a well-known columnist on gay issues, said. "We joked -- I wrote at the time when the president was opposed to marriage equality during the campaign, and in his first term, that he was going to pretend to oppose marriage equality and we would pretend to believe him, those of us who are activists, and we would hold his feet to the fire."

Savage said "nobody" in the gay community believed Obama when he went from being in favor of gay marriage early in his political career to opposing it during the 2008 election and then being pro gay marriage again prior to the 2012 election.

"Nobody I think in the LGBT civil rights movement believed him when he went from being pro marriage equality in 1996 to oppose to for it again," Savage said.

"That's not the way that people evolve on this issue," Savage explained. "People evolve in one direction. People move from opposition to support. I never heard of a case, except for the president, where we are supposed to buy somebody evolving on it then devolving on it then revolving on it as the president did."

Savage called this "useful political theater" and praised Axelrod's "political calculation" that "benefited LGBT people in this country tremendously."

"It was useful political theater," Savage said. "I agree with David Axelrod and the president that the country wasn't ready in 2008 for a ticket of a national candidate who supported marriage equality. And by pragmatically making this choice to jettison his support for marriage equality the president managed to bring the country along by making his discomfort with the political calculation he clearly made part of the drama and part of the performance of his office and it benefited LGBT people in this country tremendously."

Savage later excused the Obama political strategy because it's "naive to believe that politicians are 100% straight with us all the time, nor do we want them to be 100% straight with us all the time."

"I think we can't be so naive as to think that politicians are 100% straight with us all of the time, nor do we don't want them to be 100% straight with us all of the time," he said.

"it's not a violation i think of the pact between politician and public," Savage added. "It is a part of what politics and moving public opinion is all about."

"I guarantee," Savage said, "I believe in my heart that Axelrod ran that by the president before he published it."

It's the same with Hillary. Are seriously supposed to believe that she was ever against gay marriage? It was political expediency.

Obama famously said "make me do it". if we believe in progressive things, like some of the things Sanders got Hillary and the DNC to put in the platform, the $15 minimum wage, the public option(which could ultimately lead to universal healthcare down the line), free tuition for public universities, and we want her to live up to that platform, we have to make her do it. To paraphrase Dan Savage, "hold her feet to the fire".
 
Well, there probably was a time when Hillary wasn't entirely comfortable with SSM, especially given the culture she grew up in. But people's views on these things change, which is a big reason why the "flip-flopper" or "expediency" accusations never made sense to me, whether applied to Hillary or anyone else.
 
Dont know if the link Im providing this is true but there seems to be an avalanche of evidence it is.

Sorry guys but it does look like the DNC is using "fillers" for the final night, 40 percent are now out protesting leaving the arena half empty MSM refuses to cover favoring HRC-not fair, or objective reporting.

And I do know general elections are extremely emotional times. My sweetheart wife is a staunch Liberal but we do well together, so i get how many are so vested in this emotionally.

Sorry for the truth:

https://www.conservativeoutfitters....g-seat-fillers-to-replace-bernie-voters-video


<>
 

Attachments

  • 36187_1699275280946_6535813_n.jpg
    36187_1699275280946_6535813_n.jpg
    58.8 KB · Views: 5
EXACTLY, namkcuR. You gotta play the game to try and get the votes. I honestly never once doubted that Obama himself was personally fine with same-sex marriage. The fact that Obama also spoke out earlier this year in support of transgender people being able to use the bathroom of their choice just further proved that-I could see someone who actually had legit struggled with same-sex marriage eventually coming around and supporting that, but still being uncertain on their stance regarding transgender issues. That'd be a baby steps sort of move for someone like that, you know?

But Obama came right out in full support of them. That, to me, indicates he's been fully on board with LGBT rights from the get-go. Plus, we've seen how quietly sneaky Obama can be with how he plays the political game, so it makes total sense he'd have used those kinds of moves in 2008.

And I think Clinton's support is sincere as well. I have no doubt whatsoever that if she wins in November, she will do everything in her power to make sure the LGBT community is protected and supported. And the Democratic Party will back her. I saw an article online earlier this week that detailed the LGBT platform for the Democrats and, cripes, the difference between their platform and the GOP's is flat out night and day.

But people's views on these things change, which is a big reason why the "flip-flopper" or "expediency" accusations never made sense to me, whether applied to Hillary or anyone else.

Agreed.
 
Dont know if the link Im providing this is true but





<>

Do you know what they call this? Shit throwing; you're throwing shit on the wall and see if anything sticks.

Do you know what that means if you have to resort to this type of argument? You're a monkey or you have no argument or both. :shrug:



Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
When you people all keep quoting him it forces those of us who had the good sense to put him on the Ignore list years ago to read his drivel again.

:angry:
 
Dont know if the link Im providing this is true but there seems to be an avalanche of evidence it is.



Sorry guys but it does look like the DNC is using "fillers" for the final night, 40 percent are now out protesting leaving the arena half empty MSM refuses to cover favoring HRC-not fair, or objective reporting.



And I do know general elections are extremely emotional times. My sweetheart wife is a staunch Liberal but we do well together, so i get how many are so vested in this emotionally.



Sorry for the truth:



https://www.conservativeoutfitters....g-seat-fillers-to-replace-bernie-voters-video





<>



:up:


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Facts? Where I'm going we don't need any facts.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference


maxresdefault.jpg




Sent from my iPad using U2 Interference
 
Do you know what they call this? Shit throwing; you're throwing shit on the wall and see if anything sticks.

Do you know what that means if you have to resort to this type of argument? You're a monkey or you have no argument or both. :shrug:



Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference


Don't be calling people monkeys. I think Diamond identifies as a Homo Sapiens.
 
I don't think I've ever said a thing on this forum, ever, that warranted a page and a half of people requoting me. I doubt Brother Diamond is that interesting.
 
That speech by Khzir Khan - the Muslim American father of the soldier in Iraq - really hit me hard. Most powerful moment of the DNC.
 
Given all the discussion thus far about who's most likely to vote for whom in regards to party lines, I figured this was an appropriate article to share, as it delves deeper into some of the analysis over potential crossover voters this year.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/clinton-trump-makes-play-voters-000000898.html

On the night that Hillary Clinton accepted the Democratic nomination for president, her party featured two Republican speakers who talked about their intent to vote for Clinton this fall against Republican nominee Donald Trump.

A former White House aide to Ronald Reagan, Doug Elmets, and a health policy worker at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Jennifer Pierotti Lim, both told the convention hall of Democrats and a primetime national TV audience why they’re voting for Clinton.

Elmets said it was “a shock” to be speaking at the Democratic convention, but argued that Trump falls so far short of what’s required to be president that he felt duty bound to oppose him and support Clinton. He contrasted Trump with Reagan.

“Reagan saw nuance. Trump sees the world as us vs. them, where somebody with brown skin or a foreign-sounding name is likely to blame for our troubles,” Elmets said. “Reagan knew that a leader needs diplomacy to steer a safe, prosperous course forward. Trump is a petulant, dangerously unbalanced reality star who will coddle tyrants and alienate allies.”

“While Hillary holds many policy positions that differ from my own, her qualifications are indisputable,” he said.

Trump, meanwhile, has been trying to pick off Democratic voters of his own, appealing to Sanders supporters repeatedly in speeches.

This election, in fact, has a high potential for crossover voting both by traditionally Republican and by traditionally Democratic voters.

One study conducted by Deep Root Analytics found that about 9 percent of the voting population in the United States were Republicans leaning toward Clinton, a total of 16.2 million people. And they also found that 14 million people, about 8 percent of American voters, were Democrats who lean toward Trump.

The average “Reluctant Republican,” as Deep Root labeled them, is often a woman, or is of upper income or highly educated, and social conservatives also make up part of this group. The average “Disaffected Democrat” is a white male, on the lower end of the income and education scale.

Deep Root found 266,220 Republicans who might lean toward Clinton, and 205,032 Democrats who might cross over to vote for Trump, just in the Raleigh-Durham and Charlotte areas.

So far, however, Clinton has an edge among high-profile party defectors. Several well-known Republican names have endorsed her , some driven by national security concerns, others by economic issues, and all to some degree by concerns about Trump’s temperament. Trump has not received any real equivalent type of support from well-known Democrats.

Democratic pollster Geoff Garin said part of the goal for Clinton is to have her “run more strongly among Democrats than Trump does among Republicans.”

“Even in the CNN poll on Monday that had Trump ahead, 25 percent of Republicans said they would not be proud to have Trump as president, compared to 16 percent of Democrats for Clinton,” Garin told Yahoo News. “And several polls have documented that a larger share of Republicans say that Trump lacks the qualifications and temperament. If events increase the focus on these considerations, or [if] people focus more on them when it dawns on them that Trump actually could be president, there will be the potential for people to peel off of Trump — either directly to Clinton or perhaps for [Gary] Johnson,” referring to the Libertarian governor of New Mexico, who is also running for president.

The bit touching on the types of Republicans who might vote for Clinton and the types of Democrats who might vote for Trump amused me a little with its specificity (sci-fi fans :p?), but I think there's some potentially telling and interesting details in this article.
 
This election cycle has killed Facebook for me. I can't log in at all anymore without seeing Republicans yelling at Democrats, or even worse, Bernie supporters acting like children. It's a wasteland.

Sent from my SM-G935T using U2 Interference mobile app
 
I might (extra stress on might) have convinced my mom tonight to take a harder look at who Donald Trump really is, so I haven't totally abandoned all hope. She's firmly in the never-Clinton camp, but hasn't quite made up her mind on Trump. And luckily some of the Bernie or Busters have softened up in the last week.
 
I definitely hate the Bernie sooks the most. It's so pathetic. And so infuriating that - despite her blindingly obvious shortcomings - Trump is somehow seen as less damaging than Clinton.

I mean, part of me strongly hopes Trump wins, just because of how funny the next four years would be or until he's assassinated, but christ get the fuck over yourselves.
 
Where did this narrative of Hillary being a devil of some kind come from? I'm so confused whenever I see a post saying that this election is picking the lesser of two evils. I guess I'm really just not with what's going on at all right now. This is a common feeling I see on my Facebook at least 5-10 times a day it feels like: its like the choice between lex luthor vs Joker as president
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom