US Presidential Election XII - Page 21 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 08-15-2016, 02:36 PM   #301
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,272
Local Time: 05:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto View Post
I don't have any moral qualms with Bill fucking other women and I not once have had a problem with Hillary Clinton being female, etc.
But you have a major problem with her not conforming to your standards of wifeliness.


I've voted for Hillary every time she's run. I like her. I don't give an actual fuck about her role in her marriage because it has no bearing on her job as senator, secretary of state or president.
__________________

__________________
martha is online now  
Old 08-15-2016, 02:37 PM   #302
ONE
love, blood, life
 
namkcuR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Kettering, Ohio
Posts: 10,153
Local Time: 08:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto View Post
And let's be fucking honest, if Hillary Clinton had ran on basically the platform of Joe Lieberman circa 2004, she'd have still won this damn nomination. It's all about the awful other guy with the Democratic party and never their own candidate. I find that extremely troubling and it leads to the low-turnout midterms and random right-wing Presidential pivots that nobody on the left happened to want (TPP or Grand Bargain, anyone?). It's lazy.
I think you're confusing correlation with causation here. Because, I mean, in 2008, I think very few people were voting against John McCain when they voted for Barack Obama. That election was all about voting FOR Obama. And he won comfortably. By your logic, that means Democrats should've shown up to the polls two years later for the 2010 midterms. But that didn't happen. A Republican wave election happened.

Anyway, I agree, it would be preferable to vote for someone as opposed to against someone, but if we're complaining about having to vote for people to keep awful candidates away from the Oval Office, maybe we should be complaining about the other party continuing to put up awful candidates(three of the last five GOP candidates have been W or Trump). I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't think I've ever defended Hillary as an ideal candidate. I've defended her as competent, intelligent, in command of the details and nuances of many issues, and politically on the right side of many, but not all, of the issues I care about. I also allow that some of the concerns you raise are valid, though overhyped, concerns. I acknowledge that she's more hawkish and interventionist on foreign policy than I would like(and this ties into the Clinton Foundation stuff). I acknowledge that I'm not sure what she's going to do w/TPP. I acknowledge that I would honestly vote for a third Obama term before Hillary if it were an option.

But, taking everything into consideration, I conclude that, while I don't know if she'll keep all of her campaign promises(what politician does?), I think she'll keep some of them. I think she'll some good for a lot of people, even if her positions on foreign policy, free trade, etc aren't ideal. I can live with her. I can't live with Donald Trump. I'm sorry, but it can't be ignored.

Quote:
Call me crazy, but I think Republicans actually pay far more attention to the actual platform than Democratic voters. One attempt at "amnesty" derailed Marco Rubio for most of the race, etc. You can call it needless bitching or wanting to be righter-than-thou but that sort of arguably trivial stance actually matters a great deal to those people. Clinton got a lot of voters that never learned who the hell Sanders even was or that merely chose her because they felt she would do better against the Republican nominee. Neither of those are actual informed policy reasoning for getting behind a candidate and it's explicitly laid out in both primary polling and even recent polling where a great deal of Clinton's backers can't even name a single policy proposal. It's shit like this that just leads to a disappointing Presidency. Like making sure you get pizza instead of steak for dinner and then not actually looking at what type of pizza it happens to be as you're already satisfied with the outcome.
You're trying to argue that people at Trump rallies pay a lot of attention to the platform? You think they could name policy proposals? I'm really not sure about that considering Trump has never uttered a policy proposal other than The Wall(and maybe his pretty much trickle-down tax plan). If anyone really wanted to know what the GOP platform looks like, they'd have to read the actual document(which is available for anyone online). You think these people at Trump rallies are reading that document? I think the platform they care about is a platform of racism. They cheer for building a wall to keep the Mexicans out(that's why they're against amnesty) and instituting a policy to ban Muslims.

I also think you're selling a lot of Democrats short when you say that a great deal of us can't name a policy proposal. $15 minimum wage. Free tuition for state colleges. Equal pay for women. A major initiative to strengthen our infrastructure(bridges, roads, etc). A public option added to the healthcare plan. An attempt, if she can get Congress to play ball, to at long last institute even moderate gun control measures(more background checks, closing the gun show loophole, banning assault weapons again, etc). Investments in green and renewable energy. The implied preservation of Obama's executive orders regarding immigration and perhaps an attempt at passing legislation to solidify those policies(good luck with that though). The promise to appoint judges to overturn Citizens United and defend Roe v Wade. And more. I think a lot of people could name those things.
__________________

__________________
namkcuR is offline  
Old 08-15-2016, 02:38 PM   #303
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
BigMacPhisto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 6,178
Local Time: 07:31 PM
Responding To BVS:

1) Because I was responding to your other post above throwing out accusations of sexism because Clinton is a woman and inferring that I cared about the marriage "not working out" when I never said I did or even implied that it was "not working out" (that's between the Clintons). And yours was far from the only post implying that I had moral qualms with Bill having fun outside of the marriage (although I do in the case of the alleged assaults, obviously).

2) Just look back on previous pages where the discussion of Hillary Clinton's response to these allegations and the assumption that she knows about Bill's extramarital flings suddenly just leads to post after post about Republican infidelities and those of Donald Friggin' Trump. And it's not the first time this happens where I or somebody else posts something critical about Clinton and then the inevitable "But Donald Trump also..." posts start coming in. I'm not attempting a comparison nor casting a blind eye towards what goes on with the Right and their candidates, but that's being implied by people reacting quickly as if I'm trying to say that only Hillary Clinton should be judged on her faults.

3) Regarding the last part about Republican primary voters, you don't think they tend to sift over the candidates with a fine tooth comb for anything that could be disqualifying in their Right Wing litmus test? I think the last few primary seasons for that party along with all of the successful Tea Party primary challenges show they're certainly paying close attention. Comparatively, Joe Lieberman goes and loses his fucking primary and then gets re-elected anyway because that's the name people recognize. I just feel that ever since Bush wreaked havoc on this country and the election of 2004 rolled around that it's always seemed like defense and a "we have to make sure they lose at all costs" rather than trying to have a discussion about policy and questioning the faults of the nominee. You couldn't even get in a word in edge-wise if you brought up John Kerry's constant voting for major Bush Bills in congress because it would just get shut down with "Anybody but Bush!" and I feel 2016 has followed a similar mode, partly due to Donald Trump.

I mean, you know what the number one issue for Iowa Democratic caucus voters was in 2004? The War in Iraq. They then gave the win (and second place/eventual VP slot) to two men that voted for the Iraq War Resolution. If Republicans had an issue that was #1 on their list and someone running in the primaries did the complete opposite of what they wanted, that person would stand no chance in hell of winning.


Oh and I'm not referring to Trump voters when I'm talking about the Republican primary electorate. They are an entirely different breed and obviously none of that shit matters to them because Trump himself doesn't seem to have a single actual position.

But for the rest of the base? It's exactly that nobody-is-good-enough extreme vetting that led them to not get behind anybody this time nor coalesce behind either Santorum or Gingrich last time, etc.
__________________
BigMacPhisto is offline  
Old 08-15-2016, 02:47 PM   #304
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
BigMacPhisto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 6,178
Local Time: 07:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by martha View Post
But you have a major problem with her not conforming to your standards of wifeliness.


I've voted for Hillary every time she's run. I like her. I don't give an actual fuck about her role in her marriage because it has no bearing on her job as senator, secretary of state or president.
I never implied or said that and you're just projecting something you want to argue against, I guess.

What happens between her and Bill is between her and Bill. Lying about it to over 300,000,000 people, trying to dig up dirt with political operatives and silence/ignore allegations that you know are true or blaming a blow-job on a vast right wing conspiracy says a hell of a lot about her political opportunism and her willingness to obscure the facts.

It's the private becoming political that matters. If Bill cheated around on her and she allowed it, that wouldn't be the issue. But when there's suddenly an allegation of sexual assault here, Bill lying on the stand there, presenting your marriage as closed with one minor infidelity over the decades when that's not the truth (because it will better your political fortunes)...well, that's where all of this becomes an issue about her leadership skills.

I don't give a fuck about anything that goes on in their marriage that wasn't in the public eye and I don't care about what anybody else does behind closed doors (unless it becomes public and is illegal or what I would consider morally compromising ethically as nothing sexually happens to fit that description in my book). All that matters to me time and again is what a candidate says they support and what I can believe they actually support. I got behind Sanders because he was damn close to my idealized liberal and I vote for other far-left progressives for the same reason.

Again, I do not care about sexual orientation, number of children, degrees held, experience, etc. The objectives of the candidate are all that matters to me. Religion is probably the only thing I might give a thought to simply because I have more respect for those that don't practice it, but I guess that's more of a real world vs. illusory world debate and a similar issue that many on the left have with Republicans who don't seem to pay attention to facts.
__________________
BigMacPhisto is offline  
Old 08-15-2016, 03:06 PM   #305
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,353
Local Time: 07:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto View Post
Responding To BVS:

1) Because I was responding to your other post above throwing out accusations of sexism because Clinton is a woman and inferring that I cared about the marriage "not working out" when I never said I did or even implied that it was "not working out" (that's between the Clintons). And yours was far from the only post implying that I had moral qualms with Bill having fun outside of the marriage (although I do in the case of the alleged assaults, obviously).
That's not what I was implying at all, you seem to really have a hard time understanding.
The only point, that I've been trying to make over and over is:
Quote:
The issue is creating a facade about how your marriage actually works and therefore lying to hundreds of millions of people constantly
You have no reason or right to concern yourself with this whatsoever. No one is lying to you. First of all you have no fucking clue if its a facade, and secondly even if was, people do that sometimes, get over it, it's not a lie being told to you. You would NEVER bring this up if it was a male.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto View Post
3) Regarding the last part about Republican primary voters, you don't think they tend to sift over the candidates with a fine tooth comb for anything that could be disqualifying in their Right Wing litmus test?
Litmus test? Yes, but that's not what you said. You said they pay attention to the platform, most couldn't even tell you the platform.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto View Post
Oh and I'm not referring to Trump voters when I'm talking about the Republican primary electorate. They are an entirely different breed and obviously none of that shit matters to them because Trump himself doesn't seem to have a single actual position.
Yet most of them fell in line, which shows the world any talk of principles, platform, or litmus test is all hypocritical bullshit.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 08-15-2016, 03:12 PM   #306
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,353
Local Time: 07:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto View Post
(unless it becomes public and is illegal or what I would consider morally compromising ethically.
But here's the problem; you only have the right to be concerned about it being illegal.

Becoming public or you imposing some moral implication shouldn't matter to you at all.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 08-15-2016, 03:19 PM   #307
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,156
Local Time: 07:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto View Post
presenting your marriage as closed with one minor infidelity over the decades when that's not the truth (because it will better your political fortunes)
Once again, you've got no special insight into their marriage that allows you to pass off the above opinion as if it's undisputed fact.

Quote:
Again, I do not care about sexual orientation, number of children, degrees held, experience, etc. The objectives of the candidate are all that matters to me. Religion is probably the only thing I might give a thought to simply because I have more respect for those that don't practice it, but I guess that's more of a real world vs. illusory world debate and a similar issue that many on the left have with Republicans who don't seem to pay attention to facts.
Aaaand there's a nice little jab at the intelligence of religious people again.
__________________
Diemen is offline  
Old 08-15-2016, 05:05 PM   #308
Refugee
 
Bluer White's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Maine
Posts: 1,870
Local Time: 08:31 PM
Another great example of vetting.

Trump campaign's Paul Manafort named in Ukrainian probe - CNNPolitics.com
__________________
Bluer White is online now  
Old 08-15-2016, 05:31 PM   #309
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
BEAL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: San Diego
Posts: 3,395
Local Time: 12:31 AM
We'll see if it's true or not.

Could it be in regards to the Clinton Foundation (or anything Clinton), that these accusations and stories of corruption are just that, stories?

I don't get what the media has to gain or lose by making sure a liberal is in office. Having a liberal in office has been great business for FoxNews, so why wouldn't MSNBC want Trump? The material would be endless.

Let's see what comes of this Ukraine story. There were rumblings about it before, and now it's out in the open.

I just can't believe if Clinton had something really bad against her or any program she's involved with, major networks all over would be running it.

Occam's Razor


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
__________________
BEAL is online now  
Old 08-15-2016, 05:43 PM   #310
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,156
Local Time: 07:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluer White View Post
A juicy detail to an already juicy story: Corey Lewandowski tweeted a link to the New York Times article on this last night.

That's the former Trump campaign manager and still apparently staunch Trump defender, retweeting a story from the paper Donald is currently lashing out at daily in tweet tantrums, that suggests that the current campaign manager was engaged in ethically dubious, possibly criminal and definitely pro-Kremlin electioneering in the Ukraine.

One gets the sense there's bad blood there.
__________________
Diemen is offline  
Old 08-15-2016, 06:23 PM   #311
Blue Crack Addict
 
DaveC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: illegitimi non carborundum
Posts: 17,183
Local Time: 08:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto View Post
You clearly misread my post. I don't give a shit about how marriages should work and the like. It's pretending you have a closed and loving relationship when all the evidence says otherwise and lying under oath to the American people about what went down because you're afraid it will harm you politically. Yes, there's a lot of "moral" voters and it's complete bullshit, but to perpetuate a marriage and pretend that all this other shit didn't happen aside from the Lewinski blowjob is an extremely transparent lie.
even still, so what? my girlfriend and i have the kind of relationship where it wouldn't necessarily be a deal breaker if one of us slept with someone else. as long as the other person was at least provided the option to join in even if this was the case though, i still wouldn't be forthcoming with that information as the president of the united states to the general public, even under oath. who knows what they agreed to? who's fucking business is it? nobody's. point blank.
__________________
DaveC is offline  
Old 08-15-2016, 06:25 PM   #312
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Stateless
Posts: 55,176
Local Time: 08:31 PM
if their marriage has been a sham from day one, and they present it differently in public? i really don't give a shit.

Sent from my Nexus 9 using Tapatalk
__________________
Headache in a Suitcase is offline  
Old 08-15-2016, 06:26 PM   #313
Blue Crack Addict
 
DaveC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: illegitimi non carborundum
Posts: 17,183
Local Time: 08:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diemen View Post
A juicy detail to an already juicy story: Corey Lewandowski tweeted a link to the New York Times article on this last night.

That's the former Trump campaign manager and still apparently staunch Trump defender, retweeting a story from the paper Donald is currently lashing out at daily in tweet tantrums, that suggests that the current campaign manager was engaged in ethically dubious, possibly criminal and definitely pro-Kremlin electioneering in the Ukraine.

One gets the sense there's bad blood there.
do we not already have a "no shit news" thread here in fym?
__________________
DaveC is offline  
Old 08-15-2016, 06:29 PM   #314
Blue Crack Addict
 
DaveC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: illegitimi non carborundum
Posts: 17,183
Local Time: 08:31 PM
Giuliani: 'We Didn't Have Any Successful Radical Islamic Terrorist Attacks' Before Obama | NBC New York

what a fucking idiot this clown is. this is the very definition of selling out.
__________________
DaveC is offline  
Old 08-15-2016, 06:38 PM   #315
Vocal parasite
 
Axver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: 1853
Posts: 150,260
Local Time: 11:31 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveC View Post
Giuliani: 'We Didn't Have Any Successful Radical Islamic Terrorist Attacks' Before Obama | NBC New York

what a fucking idiot this clown is. this is the very definition of selling out.
I expected this to be a link to the Onion.
__________________

__________________
"Mediocrity is never so dangerous as when it is dressed up as sincerity." - Søren Kierkegaard

Ian McCulloch the U2 fan:
"Who buys U2 records anyway? It's just music for plumbers and bricklayers. Bono, what a slob. You'd think with all that climbing about he does, he'd look real fit and that. But he's real fat, y'know. Reminds me of a soddin' mountain goat."
"And as for Bono, he needs a colostomy bag for his mouth."

U2gigs: The most comprehensive U2 setlist database!
Gig pictures | Blog
Axver is online now  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:31 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com