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.
Compared to 2008 Democratic Primary turnout is lower. However, Republican turnout is much higher. This is from Pew research. So while Sanders is exciting some people, he's still no Obama.


FT_16.03.02_primaryTurnout_MP_1980_2016_dashedREV2.png
 
Compared to 2008 Democratic Primary turnout is lower. However, Republican turnout is much higher. This is from Pew research. So while Sanders is exciting some people, he's still no Obama.





FT_16.03.02_primaryTurnout_MP_1980_2016_dashedREV2.png


I meant of young people. I was saying that in response to Irvine's post about how young people dont show up.
 
I support Hillary because I feel she can move some legislation forward. I am not naive to think we'll get to some Utopia.

This country is divided nearly 50/50, we are not set up to enact legislation that shows no middle ground.

Again, this line of thinking is just completely wrong. Clinton can't move any legislation that the left finds dear to their hearts until Republicans are out of congress. There's no compromise legislation when the right won't even budge an inch.

And any major legislation that is passed will just be a slap in the face to the left, such as Obama utilizing Republican votes to pass the TPP or Clinton potentially using their votes to pass additional fracking permits. Nothing the right will agree to will ever benefit the American people, so if you're on the left, you might as well hope Clinton accomplishes nothing as any major legislation passed in her eight years will merely be a capitulation to Republicans against her party's objections (barring, of course, a miracle where the Dems reclaim the House).

Still, not once in this thread (or anywhere else on the internet) have I seen a single reasonable progressive policy proposal that Clinton will be able to get enough Republican support in the House to pass when she's President. Nor should anyone expect such a thing to exist. Republican House = Game Over and basically waiting for the courts to smack the ruler on gerrymandering and/or have more old white people die off. We're basically still in political purgatory until that happens.
 
Last edited:
You're just pissed off because be was competition and ran the cleanest campaign ever known to humanity.

Or you're just pissed off because you try to pretend to be objective while constantly shilling for a candidate that hardly anybody under the age of fifty happens to like. :lol:

Thank god she could ride the political coattails of Obama (the man she used race baiting tactics against eight years ago and now cries foul at the Sanders campaign) with minorities and older people who get all their information from cable news.
 
Or you're just pissed off because you try to pretend to be objective while constantly shilling for a candidate that hardly anybody under the age of fifty happens to like. :lol:


Yes, I've been hardcore shilling for a candidate with my numerous "any candidate I vote for in 2016 will be a reluctant one". The candidates have been lining up to get that endorsement. If you're going to attack, try to know what they've posted before.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
Again, this line of thinking is just completely wrong. Clinton can't move any legislation that the left finds dear to their hearts until Republicans are out of congress. There's no compromise legislation when the right won't even budge an inch.

And any major legislation that is passed will just be a slap in the face to the left, such as Obama utilizing Republican votes to pass the TPP or Clinton potentially using their votes to pass additional fracking permits. Nothing the right will agree to will ever benefit the American people, so if you're on the left, you might as well hope Clinton accomplishes nothing as any major legislation passed in her eight years will merely be a capitulation to Republicans against her party's objections (barring, of course, a miracle where the Dems reclaim the House).

Still, not once in this thread (or anywhere else on the internet) have I seen a single reasonable progressive policy proposal that Clinton will be able to get enough Republican support in the House to pass when she's President. Nor should anyone expect such a thing to exist. Republican House = Game Over and basically waiting for the courts to smack the ruler on gerrymandering and/or have more old white people die off. We're basically still in political purgatory until that happens.

This just feels hopeless. It's all or nothing with you it seems, if you can't have the full progressive agenda passed, then nothing is good enough.

We don't operate that way. Obama had the public option in the ACA to start and had a majority in both houses, and yet it was stripped out. He couldn't even get what was the closest thing to Universal Healthcare passed within his own party. Why would Bernie succeed? Especially when he's been an Independent his whole career?

Hillary may not try to enact sweeping changes to the system, but they both do share similar positions.

Promote a liberal SC Justice (really the most important aspect of this election)
Fight to repeal Citizen's United (see above)
Increase to Min Wage
Regulations of Wall St / Banks
Stricter Gun Control
Continuation of Women's Health Programs
Continuation of civil rights (name a minority group)

I know there are differences between the two, even on the above topics, but I don't see there being that much of one to go into a fit.

But back to your point, you complain about Hillary not getting anything done if elected, yet you know Bernie won't stand a chance either. So what is the complaint then? Other than to yell louder when the GOP blocks what your guy puts forward?
 
What's next for Bernie Sanders? - CNNPolitics.com

This really concerns me and I really hope that Bernie changes his tone soon, especially after HC wins 4 of the next 5 states and it becomes absolutely clear that he has no chance. Also, the more it becomes clear that he's not going to win, if he continues to play the "not fair" role, it might end up doing more harm to him as people will start to get sick of it.
 
isn't she supporting wars (or interventions) in Syria and Libya?

Also, she's supporting current Israel gov't, that's kinda insane.
 
Last edited:
wait so if you guys support Hillary, are you guys okay with she being kinda hawkish in Middle East? i just wonder

I'm not exactly wild about the idea of more wars or invasions or whatever in that part of the world, no, mainly because I think we hurt more often with our attempts to do something than we actually wind up helping...

...but I also think the Middle East is one of those issues where we're damned if we do and damned if we don't, and that'd be the case no matter who's in power.
 
...but I also think the Middle East is one of those issues where we're damned if we do and damned if we don't, and that'd be the case no matter who's in power.

...yeah I kinda happen to agree. I have this complicated feeling toward hawk policy as Japanese gov't is becoming meaninglessly hawkish despite the fact that country has so much problems than outer threats (i think there's thread somewhere about people committing crimes in Japan because life inside the jail is better than the normal life). I know Hillary isn't stupid and she won't create "unnecessary" wars, but if she supported kinda hawkish plans in middle east including Libya and Syria....i don't know about that. it's my personal thing, so you can argue with me all you want, but considering what happened in Iraq.....I can't really say much.


also, Im self-claimed liberal so I am biased. i know that.
 
Last edited:
Again, this line of thinking is just completely wrong. Clinton can't move any legislation that the left finds dear to their hearts until Republicans are out of congress. There's no compromise legislation when the right won't even budge an inch.

Which is why Clinton is making efforts in reclaiming the House and Senate. Whereas Sanders is doing not much and is even railing against the efforts of Clinton and the Democratic Party to try. Yes, I'm talking about the fundraisers she's having for the Democratic Party and whoever will be the nominee for them (which is most likely Clinton). You need a political infrastructure (which costs money) to get the votes. And to get legislation passed into law, you need other politicians too who support you. You can't do it on your own, which sometimes seems like something Sanders is not aware of (or not willing to accept).
Hence, why I think that Clinton is a better candidate than Sanders. Though for the fate of the rest of the world I would also hope that Sanders wins the general election, should he gets nominated.
 
but is it our job to fix their wrongdoing, though?


Where on earth did I say that?

You can't just be anti-Clinton for the sake of being anti-Clinton. Not everything she does is automatically evil or wrong. I'm liking watching our relationship with terrorist harboring Wahhabi Saudis crumble. I hope that we find a healthy relationship with the Iranians in the process.
 
This just feels hopeless. It's all or nothing with you it seems, if you can't have the full progressive agenda passed, then nothing is good enough.

We don't operate that way. Obama had the public option in the ACA to start and had a majority in both houses, and yet it was stripped out. He couldn't even get what was the closest thing to Universal Healthcare passed within his own party. Why would Bernie succeed? Especially when he's been an Independent his whole career?

It's not "all or nothing" for me. It's the fact that Clinton supporters argue that she can get things done when she truly can't with a Republican House. It's nothing or nothing, really, but I would rather have the person on the far left being the one to have no legislative accomplishments in office.

My argument for Sanders is that there would be "more" even if his positions were further to the left. He'd have more people marching in the streets to protect abortion rights or raise the minimum wage and thus there would be more pressure on House Republicans to cave, even if it was just a small increase in the minimum wage, for example. The movement could certainly help although, in essence, you still probably would have almost no success with the current dimwits in congress.

The big irony in Clinton and her supporters calling Bernie a fantasist is that the biggest fantasy of all is the belief from her camp that she can actually accomplish anything through congress while she's President. We've already seen the wall they've put up against Obama, so why exactly would things suddenly change?

At least Sanders has a plan to have millions of politically active people to try and accomplish his goals. Clinton isn't going to call for marches or phone-banking of Republican House members. She's just going to get her party to introduce some half-assed legislation that Paul Ryan will refuse to take to the floor and then she'll point fingers.
 
Which is why Clinton is making efforts in reclaiming the House and Senate.

I don't know if you're aware of the intricacies of the current House situation, but it's literally impossible for Democrats to take it back given all the gerrymandering that has gone on...even Clinton's own campaign team dialed back the expectation of reclaiming the House months and months ago and it's kind of sad that they actually ever believed they could accomplish the task.

But that "leak" from insiders around her talking about her wanting to win back Congress exposes exactly why she wants to have a Democratic House...because without it, the President is resigned to accomplish nothing of major importance. Clinton knows this and I'm certain she doesn't expect to be able to get us the next step on health care or Wall Street regulation (as if she'd even bother with that one) while Republicans control the House.
 
I just like that you're going to waste your vote because Bernie didn't get the nomination.

Yes, a two party system blows. Yes, Bernie is ideologically closer to my views than Clinton. But let's be realistic here - and I'm not just preaching from the Land of Instant Runoffs and Honey without an appreciation of voting in a system that doesn't allow you to give preferences. I suck it up when I vote in New Zealand and vote Labour on the half of the ballot that is first past the post (for local seats), even though I prefer the Greens (and vote for them on the party list half, because thank fuck for Mixed Member Proportional). There's no way in hell the Green candidate is even going to be competitive, let alone be victorious, and the risk of splitting the left vote and letting a right-wing candidate win is unconscionable to me. Same principle here. A vote that splits the American left is a vote for Trump/Cruz/Fuckwaddle McShittery.
 
Back
Top Bottom