2016 US Presidential Election Thread XIII

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.
Let the record reflect that on the day of the first debate trump was either even in the polls, or even slightly ahead.
when this election moves on and if Clinton does indeed win by a decent margin let us not forget that if it were not for Bernie Sanders pressing her, and all those one on one debates, where she got to get some good practice in, she probably never would've won the election.
So a big thank you to Bernie Sanders if indeed we do have a president Hillary.
 
I can't even believe we have Trump supporters on this forum. Espousing Trumpist views probably would have got you banned a decade ago, and now this vileness is part of mainstream political discourse?

You're remembering a different FYM than the one I remember. I remember quite a few beliefs that I found vile that were allowed to stand. Some of the most vile were allowed to stand longer than I would've liked, and I'm certainly not claiming that moderation since I came on board has been a marked improvement or anywhere approaching ideal, but there is value in engaging with points of view you disagree with rather than banning them outright.

I will note that the self-proclaimed Trumpers here seem to be awfully quiet when it comes to expressing support for and/or defending his more controversial statements/proposals (of which there are many). Whether that speaks to their reticence to be perceived as racists/bigots/xenophobes/sexists or rather to their tacit acknowledgement that Trump has gone too far in some regards, or something else entirely I can't say, but it is curious that their support doesn't seem to extend to defending his actual stances.
 
Last edited:
You're remembering a different FYM than the one I remember. I remember quite a few beliefs that I found vile that were allowed to stand. Some of the most vile were allowed to stand longer than I would've liked, and I'm certainly not claiming that moderation since I came on board has been a marked improvement or anywhere approaching ideal, but there is value in engaging with points of view you disagree with rather than banning them outright.

I will note that the self-proclaimed Trumpers here seem to be awfully quiet when it comes to expressing support for and/or defending his more controversial statements/proposals (of which there are many). Whether that speaks to their reticence to be perceived as racists/bigots/xenophobes/sexists or rather to their tacit acknowledgement that Trump has gone too far in some regards, or something else entirely I can't say, but it is curious that their support doesn't seem to extend to defending his actual stances.

I am possibly thinking of other forums I used to post on. Certainly I recall that rampant homophobia was tolerated - both here and elsewhere - in a way that is fortunately now totally unacceptable (a religiously conservative teenage me possibly made some of those unsavoury contributions). But I do find it breathtaking that in general this man's opinions, and those of people aligned closely with him, are permitted airtime and accepted. We've all by now heard some variation of "and all Howard Dean had to do to be discredited was one scream".

Of course I agree with you that there is value in engaging with diverse viewpoints, but not all views are created equally and those of Trump are basically a grab-bag of online comment section trolling. They deserve nothing but censure. I'm more than happy to engage with the viewpoint of somebody who supported, say, Jeb or Kasich - there's going to be some sort of reasoning or logical argument or evidence at play to justify their views and form the basis for a discussion. Trump? It's just shouty grievance politics rooted in fear, suspicion, and hatred. There's no basis for constructive dialogue.

I'm at the end of my tether about this. Frankly, this election campaign is making most people down here nervous. I've lost count of the amount of conversations I've been in where people have asked in hushed tones "you don't think he could possibly win, do you?" And that's a multipartisan fear too. No matter where somebody sits on our political spectrum, we're all profoundly concerned about what's going on in America right now.
 
One should be afraid, afraid of how easily it is to be manipulated be left leaning press that paint either exaggerated or false portraits of people and events that can easily be believed. Do you believe half of the American people belong in a basket of deplorables?
 
Fuckin airports.

Trump gets 90 minutes and he's bitching about our "third world" airports being worse than Qatar's. How out of touch.
 
I'm concerned that Trump was visibly sick during this debate, frequently sniffling, audibly hoarse.

Can we elect such a sickly man to the highest office in this great land?

Why was he not more transparent about his illness?

What else is he hiding?
 
One should be afraid, afraid of how easily it is to be manipulated be left leaning press that paint either exaggerated or false portraits of people and events that can easily be believed. Do you believe half of the American people belong in a basket of deplorables?

My conclusions don't need any skewed press (ha ha, left-leaning, we have barely a shred of that in Australia; Murdoch owns over two-thirds of it and the rest are running to the centre in fear of his influence). Trump's own quotes show him to be everything I said: racist, sexist, misogynistic, no less than borderline fascist, and someone who at least condones if not espouses white supremacism.

So, yes, anybody who supports this man is deplorable, even if that means half of Americans. If they are not racist, etc., they are enabling, condoning, and furthering it. End of story.
 
Let the record reflect that on the day of the first debate trump was either even in the polls, or even slightly ahead.
when this election moves on and if Clinton does indeed win by a decent margin let us not forget that if it were not for Bernie Sanders pressing her, and all those one on one debates, where she got to get some good practice in, she probably never would've won the election.
So a big thank you to Bernie Sanders if indeed we do have a president Hillary.

Thank you to the man for getting the woman elected.
 
So hey peeps, what'd I miss? Live in England yada yada fell asleep before the shit show.

Hillary Clinton sums up the first presidential debate in two words: woo, OK.

160926_WooOK.gif.CROP.original-original.gif
 
I think she beat him soundly in the last hour. The first 20 minutes or so were closer, when it felt to me like Trump's strategy of angrily interrupting and attacking actually seemed to put Clinton on the defensive. After that, though, she settled in and kicked his ass. Her response on race I thought was particularly strong compared to his. And she definitely beat him in terms of memorable one liners. The one liners are, for better or worse, something that a lot of people love about these big televised debates.
The "I prepared" line was great.
 
Last edited:
What I learned:

A. Hillary's book is available to buy at bookstores or perhaps an airport near me.

2. Donald has property everywhere.

Third. We're fucked as a nation regardless of the outcome Nov 8


I don't understand how you truly believe we'd be as fucked with Clinton as president. I understand you don't care for her, but you really think she would be as bad a president as Trump?
 
Fuckin airports.

Trump gets 90 minutes and he's bitching about our "third world" airports being worse than Qatar's. How out of touch.
I mean... he knows that terrific airport in Dubai he was raving about was built with slave labor, right? Right?

Oh that's right, he doesn't, cause he's a big boo boo bear.
 
Trump was still horribly underprepared last night.

Does he not truly want the job?

Does his arrogance allow him to live in this false reality where he thought he could continue to wing it?

Or did his preparers have their hands full trying to work on his demeanor that they ran out of time? Which lets face it, we've truly lowered the bar if we're going to say that was an improvement.

None of this will mean anything to the minions, but I doubt that performance won over any new votes.




Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
I'm concerned that Trump was visibly sick during this debate, frequently sniffling, audibly hoarse.

Can we elect such a sickly man to the highest office in this great land?

Why was he not more transparent about his illness?

What else is he hiding?




That he snorted a bunch of coke before the debate? That's what people are saying, people who know things. The sniffling, the twitching, the erratic behavior, the energy crash about 50 minutes in. It's just what some people have noticed.

Also, that Kellyanne Conway certainly earns her paycheck.
 
I don't understand how you truly believe we'd be as fucked with Clinton as president. I understand you don't care for her, but you really think she would be as bad a president as Trump?
This argument (which I've been back and forth about supporting) rests on a couple of ideas. First and foremost it's that, while she's not an outright reckless xenophobe like Trump, her foreign policy stances are nonetheless concerning. It seems to be a matter of the official record now that one of her biggest frustrations with Obama while she was SoS was that he was not aggressive enough in his foreign policy. I think there is a a very legitimate argument that in this tumultuous time she'd tend to be a little more aggressive than Obama, and that's concerning. We discussed in another thread about the moral uncertainty behind drone strikes and that it is simultaneously concerning while also at times the only option. It's a tough spot, but it's there.

The second is that she's further to the middle/right than Obama (who is not particularly far left in the first place) on a number of key issues, especially related to the economy. And one of her big talking points is how good she is politically, how she is savvy, how she wants to work with Republicans, and the way one obviously we go about that would be to "meet in the middle on these issues." This is concerning when the middle is between a centrist and a large group of right-wingers.

The comforting thing is that she'll have control of at least one and possible three Supreme Court nominations. And she's not going to allow Congress to roll back some of the things that Obama accomplished, especially in regards to women's rights and gay rights. But that's about it.
 
Meanwhile, Trump questioned where Clinton saw him insult Miss Universe for being fat and hispanic last night before essentially doubling down on it this morning by saying her weight gain caused him a headache.

There are people on this forum who support this man.
 
My God I hope so. I've been obsessing about the cabinet appointments he'd make, especially the Department of the Interior, which oversees the NPS, which handles my beloved Grand Canyon. I can't even think about it without getting worked up.


Sent from my iPad using U2 Interference

We're gonna fill in the Grand Canyon, then we're gonna dig a new Canyon. Its gonna be yuuuuge. Its gonna be called the Yuuuuge Canyon, and its gonna be great, its gonna be the best canyon, and we'll get Mexico to dig it.
 
Last edited:
This argument (which I've been back and forth about supporting) rests on a couple of ideas. First and foremost it's that, while she's not an outright reckless xenophobe like Trump, her foreign policy stances are nonetheless concerning. It seems to be a matter of the official record now that one of her biggest frustrations with Obama while she was SoS was that he was not aggressive enough in his foreign policy. I think there is a a very legitimate argument that in this tumultuous time she'd tend to be a little more aggressive than Obama, and that's concerning. We discussed in another thread about the moral uncertainty behind drone strikes and that it is simultaneously concerning while also at times the only option. It's a tough spot, but it's there.



The second is that she's further to the middle/right than Obama (who is not particularly far left in the first place) on a number of key issues, especially related to the economy. And one of her big talking points is how good she is politically, how she is savvy, how she wants to work with Republicans, and the way one obviously we go about that would be to "meet in the middle on these issues." This is concerning when the middle is between a centrist and a large group of right-wingers.



The comforting thing is that she'll have control of at least one and possible three Supreme Court nominations. And she's not going to allow Congress to roll back some of the things that Obama accomplished, especially in regards to women's rights and gay rights. But that's about it.


Yes but going back to a point I made earlier, equating them and their level of potential "doom" isn't only incorrect, but sort of insulting to the very existence of our political system. Clinton has her flaws, and they are concerning. But Donald Trump is an insult. It's not the same thing. It shouldn't be equated.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom