2016 US Presidential Election Thread - VIII

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Gary Cohen's call of Big Sexy's first career homerun is just pure joy

 

[Axver]

I'll be voting for Mrs. Clinton, or a third candidate. Probably an equivalent position in this election.

But the more I see the *destructive* protests against Trump, or to a lesser extent, the many folks out there like 'nbelcik'......

Well, it could make someone reconsider.

Wait, you'd consider voting for somebody you dislike more than the other options, just because of how some other electors who also dislike that person choose to express their opposition?

That's even sillier than those people who won't listen to certain bands just because they don't like the stereotypical fanbase.

 

[DaveC]

i don't listen to u2 because their fans annoy the shit out of me.

 

[Hewson]

i don't listen to u2 because their fans annoy the shit out of me.

They are the worst.

 

[LuckyNumber7]

Especially when they use the band members' real names for their usernames. I can think of at least two.

 

[Hewson]

Especially when they use the band members' real names for their usernames. I can think of at least two.

Yeah those guys just flat out suck.

 

[LuckyNumber7]

Back on topic though...
Trump isn't just a person, he's an idea.

 

[Hewson]

What are the chances Crooked Hillary selects Goofy Liz as her running mate?

 

[LuckyNumber7]

Goofy Liz would be unnecessarily ballsy from a tactical perspective, unless she can't strike an agreement with the Sanders camp to have his support/endorsement.

 

[Diemen]

I think Warren would be a very smart move, given how mobilized Bernie's base has become. Warren is much more in line with Bernie's way of thinking than Hillary's, and while Bernie fans might bristle at him being Hilary's subordinate, choosing Warren would be a good sign that Hillary acknowledges the importance of his message.

Though an all-female ticket would be a cool follow up to the first non-white President. I just don't think that 1)Hillary would choose her or 2)Warren would accept.

 

[Oregoropa]

If I were Hillary I would choose Tim Kaine from Virginia from an electoral strategy standpoint. Virginia has become the most interesting swing state in the country.

- Beltway worker transplants in NOVA

- Military vote in the Tidewater

- Large African-American population with growing Hispanic demographic

- Heavy Republican population outside college towns, DC burbs


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[anitram]

Tim Kaine has an excellent chance but I personally find him brutally unappealing. Dull conservative Democrat without major ideas. That'll sure energize the ticket.

 

[LuckyNumber7]

I think Warren would be a very smart move, given how mobilized Bernie's base has become. Warren is much more in line with Bernie's way of thinking than Hillary's, and while Bernie fans might bristle at him being Hilary's subordinate, choosing Warren would be a good sign that Hillary acknowledges the importance of his message.

Though an all-female ticket would be a cool follow up to the first non-white President. I just don't think that 1)Hillary would choose her or 2)Warren would accept.

But won't getting Sanders' endorsement have similar effects? Honestly, I see Warren as her plan B to Sanders. Sanders supporters are more likely to call her a sellout. Clinton sort of needs Bernie's support.

I honestly think her best choice is Bernie himself.

 

[Irvine511]

Based on the messages the campaign has been putting out since Trump clinched, like the brutal Republicans-on-Trump ads, it seems HRC is working on appealing to the Romney wing of the party. With the Dem campaign still ongoing, she can't yet pivot, so they're going to work on making Trump unacceptable to the middle. Then, once Sanders is finally out, she'll offer something to centrist conservatives. That may be in the form of a moderate VP. So if they do show up at the polls, she will be acceptable.

 

[anitram]

I don't see Sanders or Warren as being realistic choices.

I can't stand Tim Kaine, think he's a poor choice. I am also a believer in looking at things more long-term and having him as a presidential candidate in 8 years would be a sure loss if you ask me. You don't have to go way out there on a limb to get somebody better than him.

 

[BigMacPhisto]

Sanders is actually the best choice from an actual "being a VP" perspectiv"...and also perhaps when it comes to voting thanks to his energized base. I mean, what could be better than Clinton making a pitch for (insert bill here) and then having Sanders help mobilize his friggin' army?

The real problem isn't any fear that his "socialism" will be a disadvantage, especially when your opponent is as weak Donald Trump. No, it's the fact that he's just not on the same page with Clinton's viewpoints on so many issues that they likely wouldn't gel. Same reason why a Warren pick wouldn't happen.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Sanders lost fairly resoudningly in Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania... so Sanders would actually be a terrible choice for VP.

 

[nbelcik]

The best way to stifle an overbearing attention seeker is to ignore them.

The more violent protests there are outside Trump rallys, the stronger he gets. The more politicians and pundits talk about how dumb his campaign is, which it is, the stronger he gets.

Suck out the oxygen and the fire goes out.

I think it's incredibly privileged to just ignore dangerous rhetoric when it's directed against certain groups. Letting rhetoric like Trump's go unchallenged is just letting him stir up more hate against Latinxs, Jews, women, etc. If the target of his hatred was my racial/ethnic/religious group (which as a white male is never going to happen) I'd sure as hell want members of other groups to help me protest against the hate.

Ignoring hate doesn't make it go away. Challenging it doesn't always make it go away but it's better than doing nothing. Doing nothing is just apathy.



Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[BVS]

I think it's incredibly privileged to just ignore dangerous rhetoric when it's directed against certain groups. Letting rhetoric like Trump's go unchallenged is just letting him stir up more hate against Latinxs, Jews, women, etc. If the target of his hatred was my racial/ethnic/religious group (which as a white male is never going to happen) I'd sure as hell want members of other groups to help me protest against the hate.

Ignoring hate doesn't make it go away. Challenging it doesn't always make it go away but it's better than doing nothing. Doing nothing is just apathy.



Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

Yes, but "Fuck Trump" isn't exactly challenging his rhetoric. You just fan the fire; Breitbart/Fox takes video posts it with a headline 'The Violent and Vulgar Left' and guess what? They win.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

I think it's incredibly privileged to just ignore dangerous rhetoric when it's directed against certain groups. Letting rhetoric like Trump's go unchallenged is just letting him stir up more hate against Latinxs, Jews, women, etc. If the target of his hatred was my racial/ethnic/religious group (which as a white male is never going to happen) I'd sure as hell want members of other groups to help me protest against the hate.

Ignoring hate doesn't make it go away. Challenging it doesn't always make it go away but it's better than doing nothing. Doing nothing is just apathy.



Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

And stupid phrases like "white privilege" also fan the rhetoric on that side, too.

I'm not saying let it go. But attack him on his policy stances, or lack there of. And yes, call out the racist, xenophobic language that spews out of his blowhole.

But he has no power right now. He's just a glorified pundit. Stop paying him attention, go focus your energy on supporting the other candidate and rallying the vote against him, and the mean man will go away.

 

[PhilsFan]

And stupid phrases like "white privilege" also fan the rhetoric on that side, too.

Hmm.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Hmm what?

You're speaking to a constituent who do not understand the socioeconomic complexities of this country in regards to race relations.

Consistently telling these middle class and lower middle class whites, who in their own minds are struggling themselves and/or worked their asses off to pull themselves up to a better situation, that they are privileged only creates a larger divide.

Are they, in comparison to low income minorities? Of course they are.

Is saying how privileged the angry white voter from middle America is going to do anything to make them see the real picture? Fuck no.

The language instantly creates a divide that, while real, the average person doesn't understand.

Focus more on educating people about the plight of the poor, the never ending cycle of poverty in these neighborhoods and the statistics regarding things like false arrests and police harassment.

 

[Oregoropa]

There are millions of white lower-middle class voters who couldn't cover a simple car repair with cash on hand. They don't want to hear about how they are privileged


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[Irvine511]

There are millions of white lower-middle class voters who couldn't cover a simple car repair with cash on hand. They don't want to hear about how they are privileged


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

It's a different thing, though. It's not exclusively about money. Beyoncé has to deal with shit that a white person doesn't due to white privilege.

That said, a black kid at Yale isn't going to get too much sympathy from a single white mother struggling with opioid addiction and living off food stamps.

I agree that in the context of the general election, white privilege means nothing outside of the dem base. It won't be much useful.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

I agree that in the context of the general election, white privilege means nothing outside of the dem base. It won't be much useful.

Exactly

 

[PhilsFan]

I agree that it's not good for politicking in the general election, I just objected to it being characterized as a "stupid phrase." For this particular purpose, yes. In general, no.

 

[deep]

We have a nice little community here where certain ideas and beliefs are more accepted. Labels for some ok, others not ok.


but in the real world

The Quinnipiac University surveys, released on Tuesday, show Mrs. Clinton leading Mr. Trump by one percentage point in Pennsylvania and Florida and trailing him by four points in Ohio. The polls have margins of error of plus or minus three percentage points.

“At this juncture, Trump is doing better in Pennsylvania than the G.O.P. nominees in 2008 and 2012,” said Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac Poll. “And the two candidates are about where their party predecessors were at this point in Ohio and Florida.”

 

[PhilsFan]

But he's Dangerous Donald!

 

[deep]

Throw the dice with dangerous Donald or double down on crooked Hillary
she's crook-ed!!

 

[BEAL]

Let's wait and see when we're done with the primaries. I wonder if Dangerous Donald will opt out of the debates?

He did "well" when there were 15 other people on stage and it was a shouting match. When he struggled, it was when he was pressed for specifics.

Him debating Hillary 1:1 is going to be a real struggle for him. Embarrassing one might say, but then Sarah Palin debated Joe Biden once....and all people could talk about was her winking into the camera.