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.
See posts with no answers
Status
Not open for further replies.
LuckyNumber7 said:
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.
Click to expand...

:up:
 
LuckyNumber7 said:
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.
Click to expand...


This


I mean to think we can just pack up and leave is idiotic.

To think we need to send them a bill is yuuuuuuugely idiotic.

Are there bases that need to be reaccessed? Sure.

But isolationism is no longer an option in this world.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
womanfish said:
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.
Click to expand...

He would simply seek to be a figurehead and outsource all the actual work. His ideal seems to be more in line with figurehead presidents of parliamentary republics in Europe, where the head of government has much greater authority and responsibility. Not that he would be suited to any sort of elected office, and it's increasingly obvious he's not even really suited to business. The man is a fucking clown who has got where he is by being one of the single most detestable people to carve out a public profile without murdering anybody (yet).

iron yuppie said:
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.
Click to expand...

It surprises me to read this, because my feeling is that it's almost impossible to post favourably about Clinton without some sort of qualifier - that you are uncomfortable with some of her foreign policy (I've said this often), that you are closer ideologically to Sanders but don't believe he could win (again, I've said this), etc. I hated when this thread became a Sanders vs Clinton shitfest because obviously the priority is making sure an absolute madman does not become president of one of the most powerful countries in the world. A Trump victory is the sort of thing from a nightmare. I'd have expected people to be able to put aside their differences to stop the common threat, like how in France people on the left and centre-right banded together to stop Marine Le Pen.

I also note that Bernie fans got very quiet on the topic of his poor stance on gun control, or passed it off as political expediency for a Vermont rep - the sort of political expediency argument they never ever accepted as valid justification for anything Clinton did.
 
Axver said:
I also note that Bernie fans got very quiet on the topic of his poor stance on gun control, or passed it off as political expediency for a Vermont rep - the sort of political expediency argument they never ever accepted as valid justification for anything Clinton did.
Click to expand...

The tendency that emerged while Bernie was in his dwindling days seems to me to have been dismissing all criticisms of one's preferred candidate and accepting all criticisms of the opposition. In terms of Hillary, I absolutely see how her supporters would tire of the endless shit flung her way, and indeed a good deal of that shit is completely fabricated.

But my fear is the pendulum has swung the other way in that there is an almost reflexive response to brush aside concerns about her when we on "the left" should be having a serious discussion about what she represents for the future of the country. Because right now it's easy to see her as a necessity against Trump, but when she inevitably wins this election, we will have to live with her policies and decisions. "She's better than Trump" will no longer have any relevance.
 
Indeed, if it turns out that she's (not to overly personalise; frankly insert any 2016 Democratic president-elect here) better than Trump, and no better than that, there will be another Trump in four years. Maybe the next one won't be an incompetent.
 
iron yuppie said:
The tendency that emerged while Bernie was in his dwindling days seems to me to have been dismissing all criticisms of one's preferred candidate and accepting all criticisms of the opposition. In terms of Hillary, I absolutely see how her supporters would tire of the endless shit flung her way, and indeed a good deal of that shit is completely fabricated.

But my fear is the pendulum has swung the other way in that there is an almost reflexive response to brush aside concerns about her when we on "the left" should be having a serious discussion about what she represents for the future of the country. Because right now it's easy to see her as a necessity against Trump, but when she inevitably wins this election, we will have to live with her policies and decisions. "She's better than Trump" will no longer have any relevance.
Click to expand...




What policies do you think she will advance that would concern you? Or is it more that she won't pursue the kinds of deeper Leftist policies that a President Sanders might have pursued?

Let's even imagine the Democrats win back the Senate and she has an easier time with legislation.
 
I think Wall Street is the biggest concern with her. Even with a majority in the house and senate would legislation pass to reel them in a bit?

Most think it would go the other way.

Of course I'm not sure what Bernie would do.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
BEAL said:
I think Wall Street is the biggest concern with her. Even with a majority in the house and senate would legislation pass to reel them in a bit?

Most think it would go the other way.

Of course I'm not sure what Bernie would do.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
Click to expand...
To counter, how then does anyone believe that Sanders would be successful in passing his far left policies that he ran on?

Any policy Sanders put forth would instantly get zero votes from the right. With a moderate, or at least somebody who seems willing to compromise on their ideals, you're able to continue the progress of pushing the middle further to the left, which should be the ultimate goal.

Shoving far left policies down the country's throat will alienate the middle and galvanize the right.

Obama got this. And as much as many on the far left see his presidency as a blown opportunity to advance the progressive agenda... look at all the progress we've made in 8 years?

I don't see the anger from Trump shpporters, which is real, as a sign that we're more divided as a country than ever... I see it as a sign that the pushing of the can further down the left side of the road is working, and the last hold outs are getting desperate because they see what they believe to be "their country" slipping away.

And they're right. It is slipping away from the old guard. And that's a good thing. But it's still fragile, and can swing back the other direction if the left is stupid. If they're smart, then George W Bush's proclamation that he might be the last Republican president ever just might come true.
 
Irvine511 said:
Or is it more that she won't pursue the kinds of deeper Leftist policies that a President Sanders might have pursued?
Click to expand...

This is it, basically. If we have two terms of Clinton and a term of Kaine, or someone similar to Kaine, then we end up with a Centrist party in the Democrats and a far Right opposition in the Republicans, with essentially no viable Left.

More specifically, I think something more dramatic needs to be done about financial inequality, which is the fount of most social tensions as well IMO. The old Democratic "tax the rich and close loopholes" mentality doesn't really work, because the people such policies target simply disguise their money, move it elsewhere, find still other loopholes, etc. Under Clinton the mammoth budgetary allotment to the military will likely continue as well.

And I get that Bernie was more rhetoric than hard policy on wealth disparity, but I do think he would have made it a high priority as president.
 
iron yuppie said:
This is it, basically. If we have two terms of Clinton and a term of Kaine, or someone similar to Kaine, then we end up with a Centrist party in the Democrats and a far Right opposition in the Republicans, with essentially no viable Left.

More specifically, I think something more dramatic needs to be done about financial inequality, which is the fount of most social tensions as well IMO. The old Democratic "tax the rich and close loopholes" mentality doesn't really work, because the people such policies target simply disguise their money, move it elsewhere, find still other loopholes, etc. Under Clinton the mammoth budgetary allotment to the military will likely continue as well.

And I get that Bernie was more rhetoric than hard policy on wealth disparity, but I do think he would have made it a high priority as president.
Click to expand...


I really don't understand this fear, and unless Kaine does something outstanding, I don't see him taking it. I predict that both parties will make a fairly drastic facelift in the next 8 years.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
if they don't, the moment for a third party to strike may be right. i doubt either of the current parties will be able to come up with the will to change enough though.
 
Bluer White said:
You're well aware of Mrs. Clinton's foreign policy record, even without reading the NYT article posted here.....
Click to expand...


Yes, I am (and I read this article, too). BMP's comment isn't a serious response to it. And given his relationship with many of the posters in here, it seems designed to get a rise out of people.
 
BVS said:
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
Click to expand...

To quote Robert Plant, it's Zen to be contradictory :)

I have my reasons...am always interested to hear what all sides have to say.
 
A good thing to do is to take legitimate criticisms and mix them in with insane ramblings about feminism and marriage dynamics.
 
You can thank the GOP for most of that, as any legit issue about Clinton gets derailed by their focus on the conspiracy bullshit.

The Clinton foundation has received donations from states that sponsor terror.....turns into....Clinton foundation received money from terrorists organizations that she then used to fund her domestic hit squads to kill anyone who speaks out against the Clinton family.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
Holy shit, I finally get to use these gifs!

Catheter bags under her pants:

1342117980879819811_zpsecbdp7ef.gif


iimumuqyrl58mfdrbc9n_zpsgvw7gohn.gif


Thank you sincerely, FYM, for giving me an excuse to post them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

R
Hello, hello!
Replies
2
Views
886
Ralph_Sutter
R
Headache in a Suitcase
Setlist Discussion Part II - Spoilers Allowed, Enter At Your Own Risk
20 21 22
Replies
659
Views
37K
onemoresolo
O
MrsSpringsteen
Gilead States Of America
Replies
16
Views
872
MrsSpringsteen
MrsSpringsteen
dreamletter
Almost Finished with U2
9 10 11
Replies
300
Views
27K
Headache in a Suitcase
Headache in a Suitcase
gvox
Songs of (Artificial) Intelligence
Replies
18
Views
2K
Headache in a Suitcase
Headache in a Suitcase

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom