2016 US Presidential Election Thread - VII

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
So there was a Mitt Romney revolution as well? How exciting! :hyper:

Do I see a strawman?

Seriously though, if Bernie wins the nomination I'll vote for him. Just think some of his fans are getting way too wrapped up in the Obama/Hilary hate.
 
Well, we're just excited about potentially having a liberal President for the first time in decades. :up:
 
Hey, bro, I support those that get things done. He's the ammendment king.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-sanders-was-roll-call-amendment-king-1995-2/


Whereas Clinton sponsored a whopping three pieces of successful legislation while in the Senate...

CfaRF0JW8AA8YVO.jpg


That's Clinton "getting things done" :drool: #HillarySoQualified
 
Yeah, those pesky Bernie supporters posting their facts and truths! My god, the horror!
 
I tend to always stick with my own race when it comes to voting.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk
 
What revolution did Obama have? He entered with a bare Senate majority where Republicans used every trick in the books to delay progress and it only got worse from there.

Where were the rallies and marches in support of the ACA? Where were the people lining up in streets for a minimum wage increase?

There was nothing. No mobilizing of voters. No local political groups to help shape public sentiment. Nothing. Hell, even in a lot of states, Democratic voters often checked the Obama box and then hung out the Democrats down ballot to dry. This is clearly evident in the nationwide House results which were always millions of votes worse for the Democrats. If he couldn't even get people to bother to fill out their ballots completely, what did you expect to happen?

Sorry to be a wet blanket here. But there will be absolutely no difference in what happens in the aftermath if Bernie is elected. THey will quickly evaporate. His largest base of support is the single most unreliable voting block in existence.

Case in point. In the Wisconsin primary. One of the most important elections on the ballot was for WI supreme court. A full 16% of Bernie voters, voted for Bernie and left the rest of the ballot blank. Only 4% of Hillary voters did the same thing. The writing is on the wall, and it's because Bernie himself radiates this to his supporters. Anyone but him, and chosen few are the real progressives. Screw everyone else.

Obama had a LARGER coalition, a much, much more diverse coalition, and a coalition that was just as fired up and dedicated as Bernie fans.
The reason that we keep hearing that turnout is down across the board is because its getting compared to Obama's unprecidented numbers in 2008.

Also, throw this in the mix:

Bernie has for the most part cynically taken the DEM name. Did he have to, in order to have a chance? Yes. And I'm ok with that. BUT
Should he then be an active part of the party workings and actually fundraise and support other members of the party? Hell YES. Has he? Hell No.
In fact, he pretty much has labeled anyone in the Dem party, other than those that support or endorse him, as sell-outs and "establishment"

This not only handicaps the fundraising efforts of the DNC, who help to run local and state Dems across the country. But do you think that Bernie, if nominated is going to throw his endorsement behind Dems that he has already labeled "establishment" and corporate shills??

The way this is going, it could be absolute disaster for the party at large. Him calling Clinton unqualified is another nail being driven in.
 
Are we talking about the primary or the general election? And which one?

To think that Obama being black didn't help make him appealing to black voters is just pretty ludicrous. Voting around the country, particularly in major cities recently, has shown that minorities tend to go towards candidates in their party that are from the same background. Hence black mayors getting re-elected with ongoing corruption charges/allegations or Ed Lee still having very high approval among San Francisco's Asian community, etc.

Percentage-wise though, it's kind of meaningless in a general election. The share of blacks voting for the Democratic nominee for President barely budged when Obama was their choice. But turnout? Went way up to the point where black women now have the highest of any group in America. Period.
 
Are we talking about the primary or the general election? And which one?

To think that Obama being black didn't help make him appealing to black voters is just pretty ludicrous. Voting around the country, particularly in major cities recently, has shown that minorities tend to go towards candidates in their party that are from the same background. Hence black mayors getting re-elected with ongoing corruption charges/allegations or Ed Lee still having very high approval among San Francisco's Asian community, etc.

Percentage-wise though, it's kind of meaningless in a general election. The share of blacks voting for the Democratic nominee for President barely budged when Obama was their choice. But turnout? Went way up to the point where black women now have the highest of any group in America. Period.
Sounds like a revolution. :wink:

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk
 
As far as fundraising goes, I see why Bernie shouldn't be doing it for the DNC. If he's against big money in politics, then he's against big money in politics. Having events that cost $300,000 to attend like that Clooney dinner would mean Sanders would be accepting corporate donations on behalf of the party. That makes no sense for him to do that. It's everything he's against.
 
Unlike Bernie that also had 3 in 25 years, 2 of which were naming post offices. LOL

Yes, but he had a Republican House for most of that time and also passed that insanely high number of roll call amendments despite that whereas Clinton had...

...drumroll....


ZERO!


But she had no problem sending thousands of Americans off to their deaths in Iraq. She made sure to check that box when it was politically convenient. :lol: :lol: :lol:

#HillaryNoShame
 
And yes, Obama didn't get shit done outside of the ACA. This isn't some narrative concocted by Sanders supporters, it's the damn truth ever since Republicans gained control of the House (and they were a huge annoyance in the Senate before that).

You're totally right. I assume in the mix of "shit" Obama's administration didn't get done that isn't even worth mentioning, you're including his 2 liberal women justice Supreme Court nominations, his push to end DADT, his support of LGBT equality, and negotiating a nuclear deal with Iran that experts nearly unanimously agree is much better than they would have expected was possible?

Shit like that?
 
Hey, bro, I support those that get things done. He's the ammendment king.

Bernie Sanders was the roll call amendment king from 1995 to 2007 | PolitiFact


Whereas Clinton sponsored a whopping three pieces of successful legislation while in the Senate...

CfaRF0JW8AA8YVO.jpg


That's Clinton "getting things done" :drool: #HillarySoQualified

Clinton was a co-sponsor on 73 other pieces of legislation that became law, most notably the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009, which was approved before she resigned to become secretary of state, and a 2008 bill to improve veterans’ mental health care.
 
Sounds like a revolution. :wink:

The revolution that got in a guy who politically was right where you would expect a Democratic nominee to be at the time and arguably to Clinton's right if you just looked at their Senate records. Really, it was all about electing a black man who spoke well to the Presidency over the untrustworthy Clinton. Wasn't really a big difference on the issues.

And don't get me wrong, it was a different situation at the time. Obama was the best of the viable candidates in 2008. But if he had been in congress and voted for the Iraq War, I really don't think he would have pulled out the nomination win as there would have been little contrast between him and Clinton.
 
Yes, but he had a Republican House for most of that time and also passed that insanely high number of roll call amendments despite that whereas Clinton had...

...drumroll....


ZERO!


But she had no problem sending thousands of Americans off to their deaths in Iraq. She made sure to check that box when it was politically convenient. :lol: :lol: :lol:

#HillaryNoShame

Funny, Both-ways Bernie voted for Regime Change TWICE in Iraq. But then of course didn't actually vote for the means for that to actually happen. But when Bush jumped the gun and went to war before finishing inspections, Ol' Bernie voted 5 times to fund the war he was so vehemently against.

:applaud:
 
You're totally right. I assume in the mix of "shit" Obama's administration didn't get done that isn't even worth mentioning, you're including his 2 liberal women justice Supreme Court nominations, his push to end DADT, his support of LGBT equality, and negotiating a nuclear deal with Iran that experts nearly unanimously agree is much better than they would have expected was possible?

Shit like that?

A President nominates supreme court appointees. Obama chose to put up a couple women. Big deal.

He came around to the LGBT table extremely late. It's not even worth calling that a plus.

Ending don't ask don't tell was great, but still, way too late. Should have been done immediately.

Nuclear deal with Iran is great and Kerry, shockingly, is one of our best Secretaries of State. I'll give Obama a point for that.




Again, most of that isn't legislation. Just what you would expect any Democrat to do as President once they're in there. Are we going to start assigning Obama credit for passing out awards to famous singers that perform at the White House? Or to Michelle for the easter egg roll?
 
You're totally right. I assume in the mix of "shit" Obama's administration didn't get done that isn't even worth mentioning, you're including his 2 liberal women justice Supreme Court nominations, his push to end DADT, his support of LGBT equality, and negotiating a nuclear deal with Iran that experts nearly unanimously agree is much better than they would have expected was possible?

Shit like that?

If only he could have gone all about that in a more liberal way! :D
 
Funny, Both-ways Bernie voted for Regime Change TWICE in Iraq. But then of course didn't actually vote for the means for that to actually happen. But when Bush jumped the gun and went to war before finishing inspections, Ol' Bernie voted 5 times to fund the war he was so vehemently against.

:applaud:

Nobody said he was perfect. Well, maybe some of is supporters...

Biggest mistake Democrats made in recent memory was not immediately de-funding the War in Iraq and bringing home all the troops after they won the 2006 election. Instead, the party shamelessly let people continue to die and waste billions in that boondoggle in order to help their own electoral chances.

Doesn't mean they all had that in mind. I mean, I get why plenty of them funded the war since they were hoping it would lead to a resolution in the near future which they preferred to just cutting and running. But it clearly was the wrong move in retrospect (and the wrong move out of principle).
 
If only he could have gone all about that in a more liberal way! :D

Yep, could've supported gay rights and gay marriage from day one, but you know, he cared more about what was popular at the time...

At least Obama flipped before a majority supported the issue. Clinton literally waited until the needle was comfortably over 50% before announcing that she supported gay marriage.
 
You're totally right. I assume in the mix of "shit" Obama's administration didn't get done that isn't even worth mentioning, you're including his 2 liberal women justice Supreme Court nominations, his push to end DADT, his support of LGBT equality, and negotiating a nuclear deal with Iran that experts nearly unanimously agree is much better than they would have expected was possible?

Shit like that?



last time i checked, Diemen, the globe was still warming at an alarming rate, children were still being shot to death on the streets of Chicago, and we don't have a global basic income to lift millions of Africans out of poverty.

a real progressive would have accomplished all these things.
 
A President nominates supreme court appointees. Obama chose to put up a couple women. Big deal.

He came around to the LGBT table extremely late. It's not even worth calling that a plus.

Ending don't ask don't tell was great, but still, way too late. Should have been done immediately.

Nuclear deal with Iran is great and Kerry, shockingly, is one of our best Secretaries of State. I'll give Obama a point for that.




Again, most of that isn't legislation. Just what you would expect any Democrat to do as President once they're in there. Are we going to start assigning Obama credit for passing out awards to famous singers that perform at the White House? Or to Michelle for the easter egg roll?


CASE IN POINT


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
You're either supportive of something on day one or you are detrimental to the cause. By Obama not coming out immediately in support of gay rights, it led to the passage of a lot of discriminatory legislation, some of which was voter approved like Prop 8 in California. So, he helped set back the movement before giving them a shove in the right direction years after the fact.

Like, if Reagan had suddenly announced a bunch of AIDS funding and support in his last week in office, would you suddenly call him an AIDS hero? :doh:
 
You're either supportive of something on day one or you are detrimental to the cause. By Obama not coming out immediately in support of gay rights, it led to the passage of a lot of discriminatory legislation, some of which was voter approved like Prop 8 in California. So, he helped set back the movement before giving them a shove in the right direction years after the fact.

Like, if Reagan had suddenly announced a bunch of AIDS funding and support in his last week in office, would you suddenly call him an AIDS hero? :doh:

I think it's more heroic when someone is able to change or evolve their stance because they realize it's the right thing to do.
 
So, it's more heroic to be for something you were previously against when it was unpopular than to take a stand decades prior? :lol:


That would fit in with the new fiction of Hillary Clinton = Prominently Important Gay Rights Activist For Decades.
 
Back
Top Bottom