US Presidential Election XII

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.
While I don't agree with the tone in which BMP is trying to make this point, I think the basic premise stands: people are contorting to give Hillary the benefit of the doubt on pretty much every single criticism that comes her way, usually trying to brush it aside as misogyny, yet assuming the absolute worst of Bernie and his supporters.

If people don't like Bernie and his supporters, fine, but the claim that things have been even-handed in here in terms of Hillary and Bernie is not even remotely grounded in reality.

Wow. I don't even know where to begin on this. Do you think that maybe, just maybe, the candidate that has every false, witchhunt accusation and slur thrown at her, might just have more reasonable people saying, Look, there is no proof of this, this is bullshit, this is a false narrative that's been cooked up for decades.

I'm sorry, but Clinton supporters are pretty open in saying, yep, she made a bad decision, she had a bad stance on that for a while, she fucked this up... etc...
But I could list of a dozen horrible votes and decisions by Sanders and would never have a Bernie person admit that he was wrong.

I really don't know where you're getting this.

Can you imagine if Clinton had done what Bernie did with Sierra Blanca? If she were a huge proponent of the F-35 program? If kept stalling and blocking release of her tax returns? If she had actually voted for the Crime Bill that they credit her for anyway? If she had voted for deregulating credit default swaps like Bernie did? If she had the same history with the NRA and gun control votes?
She would be crucified by the same people that see nothing wrong with Bernie doing it.
 
Last edited:
I'm still in the whole "he doesn't care to win" boat. He's pumped his brand out. People will never forget this. He's proven all press is "good press" in the scope of his branding. He's made a name for dozens of people, for better or for worse. He's made a name for all of his kids and his wife. Regardless of what happens, win or lose, Trump is laughing all the way to 1) the bank and 2) his family legacy.

Totally agree. I called this back when Carson was up in the polls during the primaries. I said neither Carson or Trump, WANT to be president. Carson, to his credit, had a small enough ego to find a way out. Trump can't stop himself. He wants to win, no question. There just is no way he wants to be president. Or actually do the duties of the president.
 
I'm sorry, but Clinton supporters are pretty open in saying, yep, she made a bad decision, she had a bad stance on that for a while, she fucked this up... etc...

Yeah? Go ahead and give some examples. I'd love to hear them. Because when people like PFan and Vlad have brought up concerns about her foreign policy record, for example, it's immediately crickets. Then there's something about Bernie's tax records, and right on cue, pages of mockery.
 
Manafort has resigned.

Things are going well then.


Word seems to be that Manafort was (obviously unsuccessfully) pushing Trump to adopt a more conventional campaign style, while the new team is adopting a more "let Trump be Trump" style. This is gonna be hilarious.

Incidentally, I was watching Fox News last night because it was on the gym. So funny. They literally referred to Trump's "strong week on the campaign trail" and that Trump just needs to be more "comfortable in his own skin", which is what the new team will enable. It's remarkable the fantasy world these people are living in.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
Manafort has resigned.

Things are going well then.

Says who?

Trump supporters shouldn't be concerned at all with the changes. It's only less than 80 days till election.

Get ready for the greatest comeback ever. It'll be huge. In fact, it'll be so great you'll be tired of comeback stories after this.

Says who?
 
Yeah? Go ahead and give some examples. I'd love to hear them. Because when people like PFan and Vlad have brought up concerns about her foreign policy record, for example, it's immediately crickets. Then there's something about Bernie's tax records, and right on cue, pages of mockery.

Have you seen anyone here defend her vote on Iraq? Yet, when Bernie gave two confidence votes for regime change leading up to that vote, he has nothing to answer for...

No Clinton supporter has said she's perfect. A very large percentage of Bernie supporters believe he is. He was held in a messianic light, the only hope for our country's salvation. I've seen it all over and over again.

Clinton, nor anyone else, is a messiah. She would just be a damn good president in my opinion.
 
Word seems to be that Manafort was (obviously unsuccessfully) pushing Trump to adopt a more conventional campaign style, while the new team is adopting a more "let Trump be Trump" style. This is gonna be hilarious.

Incidentally, I was watching Fox News last night because it was on the gym. So funny. They literally referred to Trump's "strong week on the campaign trail" and that Trump just needs to be more "comfortable in his own skin", which is what the new team will enable. It's remarkable the fantasy world these people are living in.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

I must admit that the KellyAnn woman frightens me a little. She's doing a bang up job so far acting like a normal human being, but what i've seen of her on panels over the last year, she is crazy.
I do think you will see some tightening polls in the next few weeks. They seem to have put him on permanent teleprompter, which may cause some undecideds to feel ok enough about him.
And even when he is on teleprompter, he kicks a Muslim woman out of his rally for standing silently wearing an "I Come In Peace" shirt. Yet, its so normal and accepted now, i didn't see one news outlet cover it this morning.
 
No Clinton supporter has said she's perfect. A very large percentage of Bernie supporters believe he is. He was held in a messianic light, the only hope for our country's salvation. I've seen it all over and over again.

I would say it was just one person on this board with that perspective whose vantage point was unfairly extrapolated to Bernie supporters writ-large.

But it's true that he is no longer a factor in the race, and I should stop discussing it.
 
Yeah? Go ahead and give some examples. I'd love to hear them. Because when people like PFan and Vlad have brought up concerns about her foreign policy record, for example, it's immediately crickets. Then there's something about Bernie's tax records, and right on cue, pages of mockery.


I swear you're reading a different forum than I am...


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
Trump supporters shouldn't be concerned at all with the changes. It's only less than 80 days till election.

Get ready for the greatest comeback ever. It'll be huge. In fact, it'll be so great you'll be tired of comeback stories after this.




Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference


October surprise.

They're still clinging. The millions spent on Benghazi and emails didn't work, so they're moving onto the last straw.




Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
I swear you're reading a different forum than I am...

I think most people who are voting for HC have been more than willing to admit that she has problems here or there, though to be honest I have a couple of times thought the pushback was a bit unwarranted in terms of charges of sexism being brought up immediately. And usually by men, too. But I think where iron yuppie has a point is that this forum has been extremely aggressively ridiculing Bernie and his supporters. I wasn't one of them (Bernie bros) so it didn't really affect me, but there were times when it felt like because we had one poster who was just way out there, that nobody was even willing to entertain the notion that there are some serious points that campaign was making. BMP really kind of shat the bed on this to be honest, but the rest of us didn't always have to take the bait either...
 
I found myself defending Bernie Sanders through the primary more often than I'd have liked. It wasn't just competition. He was seemingly an illegitimate joke here. If you were to consider voting for him, you were white male millennial who has never had a job and suckles on mommy and daddy's cash who doesn't have a clue about the world.

A lot of the more recent posts have simply just been 'told you so.'
 
Actually, I heard she worked with the Jews to kill Christ. I don't know if it's true, but smart people are talking


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
But I think where iron yuppie has a point is that this forum has been extremely aggressively ridiculing Bernie and his supporters. I wasn't one of them (Bernie bros) so it didn't really affect me, but there were times when it felt like because we had one poster who was just way out there, that nobody was even willing to entertain the notion that there are some serious points that campaign was making. BMP really kind of shat the bed on this to be honest, but the rest of us didn't always have to take the bait either...

But I went back and read the last 3 previous pages, and I didn't see one "mocking" post about Bernie, not one. Sure there have been swipes at those messiah types, but can we not differentiate? i guess I never understood this inability to see that a criticism of the follower doesn't equate to a criticism of the candidate.
 
I think most people who are voting for HC have been more than willing to admit that she has problems here or there, though to be honest I have a couple of times thought the pushback was a bit unwarranted in terms of charges of sexism being brought up immediately. And usually by men, too. But I think where iron yuppie has a point is that this forum has been extremely aggressively ridiculing Bernie and his supporters. I wasn't one of them (Bernie bros) so it didn't really affect me, but there were times when it felt like because we had one poster who was just way out there, that nobody was even willing to entertain the notion that there are some serious points that campaign was making. BMP really kind of shat the bed on this to be honest, but the rest of us didn't always have to take the bait either...
Tough not to take the bait when it's a never ending chum bucket...

But your overall point is dead on. The prime BernieBro was/remains soooooooo unbelievably over the top and just in his own world that it's hard not to respond.

Dude took a mispost by me in another thread that I changed to a period and went on a rant over it.
 
Yeah? Go ahead and give some examples. I'd love to hear them. Because when people like PFan and Vlad have brought up concerns about her foreign policy record, for example, it's immediately crickets. Then there's something about Bernie's tax records, and right on cue, pages of mockery.



To be fair, the mockery isn't so much of Bernie bit of his #Bernieorbust supporters, especially after their DNC histrionics.

My point was that this would be the type of scrutiny Bernie would have been subjected to in the general that he has not yet encountered because the Clinton folks went easy on him and he wins handily in Vermont. I'm sure he can handle it, but there was a concern about his lack of vetting.
 
I didn't read these threads during the primaries, but part of my problem is the hatred spewed by the Bernie-ites towards Hillary. My FB was insane; it was like she was the Anti-Christ or something.



Yes. I felt/saw the hate, and I do think misogyny was a component. I'm very glad it's over. And this wasn't one loud idiot -- this was the several dozen Bernie folks having essentially the same arguments/talking points and getting into the same back-and-forth with the Hillary folk who always took the bait.

It takes everything I have to remain (mostly) apolitical on FB.

That's why I come here. :D
 
Yeah? Go ahead and give some examples. I'd love to hear them. Because when people like PFan and Vlad have brought up concerns about her foreign policy record, for example, it's immediately crickets. Then there's something about Bernie's tax records, and right on cue, pages of mockery.

Speaking for myself, I fully agree that Hilary's foreign policy history is worthy of discussion. I'm not exactly thrilled that she supported the Iraq War, either, especially knowing what we know now about just how fabricated the reasons for bringing us there were.

However, I also feel that even if Hilary hadn't voted for the Iraq War, there's a chance she'd still get us into some other sort of foreign conflict as president. Just like Obama and his thing with the drone program and the smaller scale battles. Our involvement in foreign conflicts is often very much a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. Politicians can stand there and talk all they want about how they'll pull us out of here or send us over there, but it's one thing to say that on the campaign trail, it's another entirely to have to actually wind up making those kinds of tough decisions when in office.

Mind, I think it's very frustrating that Democrats are so afraid of looking "soft on terror/national security" to the point where they support things like the Iraq War years back or other conflicts of that sort, but I think they need to know they have the support of constituents when they stand and refuse to send us into x conflict (or at least, not go until we have all the legit information we absolutely need to make such calls). Maybe if they have that, they'll listen to those people instead of the ones who are all, "Let's just go in and bomb everyone!"

As for other criticisms, well, I also remember cringing during the primaries when Gloria Steinem and Madeleine Albright came out at a rally for Hilary and basically said that women need to stick together and support Hilary. Hilary herself didn't say such things, no (thankfully), but it was kind of an off-putting message to put out in her campaign. Sarah Palin and Carly Fiorina are women, too, after all, and there's no way in hell I'd support them on anything. Hilary's experience and ability to handle the job can speak for itself, so it's best when she just keeps the focus on that.

And I think most here also acknowledged at various points that Clinton goofed up with the e-mail scandal. We may not be making it into the WORST. SCANDAL. EVAR! that the right and others have been trying to turn it into, but still...

So there's a few examples of critique of Clinton that I can give right off the bat.

I can't speak for the others on their thoughts on discussions regarding Bernie, but I've mentioned before that I was cool with him, too. I would've supported him if he won the nomination, no question.

I didn't read these threads during the primaries, but part of my problem is the hatred spewed by the Bernie-ites towards Hillary. My FB was insane; it was like she was the Anti-Christ or something.

Same here. I did run into some of that online, too, and that part of it all got very tiring. But that's not Bernie's fault, obviously, that's just a few people being obnoxious online, which...is really nothing new :p.
 

Ok, but he never really says "I want to close all bases," he is just saying that we should be repaid for supporting other countries militarily. It's a small point, but the way he is framing the question, it leaves it open to negotiating with other countries to find a new way to support them, in a way that is fair to the US. He is not giving the blanket statement that Stein is saying.
 
the vast majority of overseas US military bases are on land that was conquered and/or occupied (the philippines, guantanamo bay, germany, okinawa). the americans didn't set up shop there as a favour to the locals. what exactly about these situations is not "fair to the US"?
 
As one of the articles mentioned, we are paying into NATO (and I suppose that includes military bases) and station in Japan, whereas they are not putting their own resources in for the help we are providing for their defense.
 
As one of the articles mentioned, we are paying into NATO (and I suppose that includes military bases) and station in Japan, whereas they are not putting their own resources in for the help we are providing for their defense.

...:eyebrow:

i'm going to assume you're aware of a little incident called world war 2?

japan is legally prohibited by their constitution (which was written by the victors) from having an independent military. so what exactly are they supposed to do? i'm no diplomat, but i don't think forcing your allies to rip up their constitutions for your sole benefit is smart foreign policy.

edit: this line of thinking also drastically and criminally undervalues the enormous support the us military receives from its nato allies, especially in overseas host countries. you and trump really have no idea what you're on about here.
 
Last edited:
Ok, but he never really says "I want to close all bases," he is just saying that we should be repaid for supporting other countries militarily. It's a small point, but the way he is framing the question, it leaves it open to negotiating with other countries to find a new way to support them, in a way that is fair to the US. He is not giving the blanket statement that Stein is saying.


And as most of these articles point out this shows you and Trump don't understand the situation.

Either you believe in having a presence around the world in order to secure ourselves or you don't. It doesn't come down to getting paid(or the lack of understanding of our payment). His stance is juvenile.

You CLAIM to have voted for Sanders who wants to scale back our presence. You now support someone who will do so if they don't stroke his ego. So how is it an issue when Stein says so?

Can you see how you may come off contradictory?


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
As one of the articles mentioned, we are paying into NATO (and I suppose that includes military bases) and station in Japan, whereas they are not putting their own resources in for the help we are providing for their defense.


I'm curious. Were you even aware of this "problem" where the United States supposedly isn't receiving compensation for their defense of other nations? Or did the Donald say it, and now you're just defending it?

It seems to me that people are quick to defend the claims of the talking head. That goes both ways of course, but typically people can get away with ignorance when the talking head they're backing doesn't just make wildly irrational claims such as this one. I don't know how you or anyone else can't see this, or if you just don't want to, but Trump clearly made up this strange claim that somehow Japan or any other country with US military presence is getting some kind of freebie.
 
What are everyone else's thoughts on the bases? I'm down with closing all of them and getting out of all foreign war involvement, but that's just me...
 
What are everyone else's thoughts on the bases? I'm down with closing all of them and getting out of all foreign war involvement, but that's just me...


You don't have to necessarily close down bases to not be involved with other countries' wars and affairs.

We live in a globalized world. Including the military reach of other countries, good or bad. I believe in non-interventionist government, whenever possible. But, and here I'll go sounding like I'm copying the talking head that is Gary Johnson, there's a difference between interventionism and being involved on the global stage. If you're not involved globally, you're falling behind in all spheres. Militarily. Influentially. Economically. We must participate, but that's different from going and fucking shit up.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom