2016 US Presidential Election Pt. IV

[Vlad n U 2]

I don't really agree with much of BigMacPhisto's reasoning here, only on the point that Lena Dunham is genuinely awful. Not really sure that Woody Allen deserves defending either.

[Vlad n U 2]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

you voted for Nader?

unconscionable.

but, honestly, i haven't made up my mind between HRC and Bernie, but the smug attitude in your posts are the reason why the Bernie fanatics and their insufferable posts are hidden from my FB timeline at the moment.

they're the flip side of the Trump coin.

Yeah, nah, Sanders fans can be somewhat cringeworthy in their celebration of watered down social democracy but Clinton supporters veer very close to being completely unbearable.

Not really sure of the 'flip side of the Trump coin' sentiment though, it's a bit crude, as if Sanders is the opposite equivalent of Trump.

[LuckyNumber7]

What's terrible about this election is that there doesn't seem to be something worth voting for as a throwaway. I voted for Gary Johnson last election as a means of encouraging third party growth, mostly because I was unhappy with Obama's first term and would never vote for socially conservative politicians.

At this point, I wish Obama could just run again.

[BigMacPhisto]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

So I value electability in the general election, and after that, the ability of a potential president to wheel and deal and get things passed. Politics is the art of the possible, we can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Which is why I'm generally pleased with Obama. His accomplishments are many, perhaps half-measures, but real and permanent steps in the right direction.

I worry that a Sanders presidency would have little luck with the Congress we have. His ideas, while appealing to young white liberals, don't feel like plausible national policies. We have states for a reason -- Vermont (which I know and love) is very different from Nevada.

You're giving Obama way too much credit. He's the biggest strategic failure as President in American history in terms of getting his agenda across thanks to the unprecedented Republican obstructionism. But in turn, Obama was nearly willing to make sacrifices to major programs like Social Security just to let the Republicans get their way and in turn he allowed his administration to consistently water down legislation in the hopes of getting Republican votes that they never received in the first place (the Charlie Brown and Lucy football situation if there ever was one).

Literally Obama's entire achievements since the health care bill have been via executive action. He's been stonewalled everywhere else thanks to congress with nothing of real significance being passed on his watch. Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton will both have the exact same fate because there's literally zero chance either will have a Democratic controlled House (at least in their first term). But better to have the guy that will espouse liberal principles and go further with executive actions to help the environment, etc. in my opinion.

Hell, Obama was consistently tarnished by the right as taking the most leftist stance imaginable, so why not have the guy that actually takes up said stances? You'll end up with the same exact result (nothing being passed via congress), but at least it will be principled.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by Vlad n U 2

Yeah, nah, Sanders fans can be somewhat cringeworthy in their celebration of watered down social democracy but Clinton supporters veer very close to being completely unbearable.



Not really sure of the 'flip side of the Trump coin' sentiment though, it's a bit crude, as if Sanders is the opposite equivalent of Trump.

In my experience, the Clinton supporters seem to be be experienced, practical political types who think she's a logical choice.

Trump and Sanders have inspired near-fanatical devotees, which is not their fault but both are playing off fear, not hope or the future.

[BVS]

Trump and Sanders fans are very similar; neither is electable to the general public, but both sides are clinging to these polls like they're gold. Might as well bank on winning tomorrow's powerball.

In all actuality this is a pretty depressing election. On one side you have a clown car making a mockery of this country. On the other you have a pretty decent man who is right on most issues but is too old and doesn't have answers as to how a lot of his platform will be paid for and a Clinton. I think Clinton will be fine, but other than being the first woman she doesn't really excite me.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto

You're giving Obama way too much credit. He's the biggest strategic failure as President in American history in terms of getting his agenda across thanks to the unprecedented Republican obstructionism. But in turn, Obama was nearly willing to make sacrifices to major programs like Social Security just to let the Republicans get their way and in turn he allowed his administration to consistently water down legislation in the hopes of getting Republican votes that they never received in the first place (the Charlie Brown and Lucy football situation if there ever was one).

Literally Obama's entire achievements since the health care bill have been via executive action. He's been stonewalled everywhere else thanks to congress with nothing of real significance being passed on his watch. Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton will both have the exact same fate because there's literally zero chance either will have a Democratic controlled House (at least in their first term). But better to have the guy that will espouse liberal principles and go further with executive actions to help the environment, etc. in my opinion.

Hell, Obama was consistently tarnished by the right as taking the most leftist stance imaginable, so why not have the guy that actually takes up said stances? You'll end up with the same exact result (nothing being passed via congress), but at least it will be principled.

This is entirely unsurprising, and why I have issues with the Bernie folks. There's no understanding of how politics actually works.

If you ask Cruz or Trump, the GOP has rolled over and let Obama win on everything.

Same coin. Two sides.

[BigMacPhisto]

Sanders is very hopeful for the future if you ask me. I mean, be reasonable here, Clinton will not be able to pass significant left-leaning policies via congress because of Republican stonewalling. She will have the same fate as Obama and it's why her campaign as put a (naive) emphasis on winning back the House as well in November as she doesn't want to be another impotent President.

So, what do you think Hillary will do? Do you think maybe she will pass right-leaning legislation in order to have some "accomplishments" listed next to her name in the history books? Like maybe somebody she's close to was involved in terrible welfare reform, Wall Street deregulation and free trade agreements when they faced a similar situation in the 90s?

That's exactly what will happen. And if you actually believe that Clinton doesn't support this free trade agreement going on at the moment when she literally designed the damn thing and her husband is responsible for NAFTA than I have a bridge to sell you. And do you think there's any hope of real Wall Street reform when the banks are her biggest financial contributors?

You're going to get a President that can only go right if she wants to pass "significant" legislation with a Republican dominated House. And that's what you'll get with Hillary Clinton.

[BigMacPhisto]

Originally Posted by BVS

Trump and Sanders fans are very similar; neither is electable to the general public, but both sides are clinging to these polls like they're gold. Might as well bank on winning tomorrow's powerball.

In all actuality this is a pretty depressing election. On one side you have a clown car making a mockery of this country. On the other you have a pretty decent man who is right on most issues but is too old and doesn't have answers as to how a lot of his platform will be paid for and a Clinton. I think Clinton will be fine, but other than being the first woman she doesn't really excite me.

People really have to stop with the unelectability arguments for Sanders. Wouldn't it contend that Hillary is much less electable given these recent polls from more than one firm over the last week? Sanders does so much better than Clinton in head-to-head matchups with Rubio, Cruz and Trump in New Hampshire and Iowa that it's mind boggling that anybody would think Clinton has a better chance with all of her baggage. Sanders will bring previously unenthused liberals into the fold. Wall Street Clinton will not.

How is Sanders unelectable when the demographics of this country basically guarantee a Democratic President from hear on out minus something severe happening (like an economic meltdown that the party gets blamed for)? Cruz, the current leading candidate for the Republican nomination, is the most right wing candidate since Barry Goldwater according to FiveThirtyEight. Why on earth would the country just decide to vote for someone who they disagreed with on their stance on basically everything given what we've seen in various public policy polls over the last few years? It's not going to happen. This isn't 1952. People aren't scared of "socialism" and the damn ballot would say "Democrat" next to Bernie's name.

[BigMacPhisto]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

This is entirely unsurprising, and why I have issues with the Bernie folks. There's no understanding of how politics actually works.

If you ask Cruz or Trump, the GOP has rolled over and let Obama win on everything.

Same coin. Two sides.

What does it have to do with "Bernie folks"? It's an inarguable fact that Obama has been helpless once Democrats lost their sixty seat hold on the Senate. They could no longer invoke cloture leading to everything getting stalled, especially via fillibuster. Not long after that (when Scott Brown was elected) came the 2010 tea party wave and he's been handcuffed ever since.

This is reported as fact all the time by the news media, liberal publications, etc. Obama has literally achieved nothing since the ACA. Republicans do not budge. They'll vote together with Democrats on right-leaning legislation such as this current free trade agreement or on minor common sense issues or commendations, but that's it. It's the most right-wing House in American history. They can not be moved. They live in gerrymandered districts and if they don't tilt as far as they can to the right they face a primary challenge which is far more imposing of a threat when you're in an R+30 district or whatever.

There is no such thing as wheeling and dealing anymore other than compromises to keep government running such as budget sequester cuts (which occurred because nobody wanted to compromise). We are living in the most politically divided time in American history in terms of where the parties stand. No President is going to be able to walk in there and get the other side to agree to things that are anathema to everything they believe in.

I do agree that the GOP-ers are literally morons when they say that party has bent over backwards for Obama. On what exactly? Obama's such an idiot that he even gave the Republicans a smaller tax increase on the wealthy than would have automatically gone in effect had he just done nothing (and then could have blamed the Republicans for creating a middle class hike). Even when Obama has them by the balls he just coalesces to whatever they want. And the sad part is that I saw this coming a mile away when he first took over as President, yet it took his administration about five years to actually realize what was going on and that you can't play ball with these idiots.

[Irvine511]

So helpless he won in another landslide.

Anyway, I appreciate your posts because it helps me better understand that there is a left wing bubble that's just as impenetrable as the right wing bubble. Right Wing media was light years ahead of Left Wing media starting in the Clinton years and up through Bush 2. There's now a much more successful left wing echo chamber able to spawn left wing true believers. I guess that's a good thing.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto

People aren't scared of "socialism" and the damn ballot would say "Democrat" next to Bernie's name.

You must have a poor memory. Do you remember 2008? The right tried pinning 'socialism' on everything Obama said or did, they still are, and Obama and the Dems had to defend. You're out of touch if you don't think that term scares many folks, even those on the left.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[Oregoropa]

Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto

Literally Obama's entire achievements since the health care bill have been via executive action. He's been stonewalled everywhere else thanks to congress with nothing of real significance being passed on his watch. Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton will both have the exact same fate because there's literally zero chance either will have a Democratic controlled House (at least in their first term). But better to have the guy that will espouse liberal principles and go further with executive actions to help the environment, etc. in my opinion.

Obama had a Democratic House of Representatives and Democratic Senate From January 20, 2009 - January 3, 2011.

Large majorities in both houses:

255 Dems - 179 GOP in the House

59 Dems - 41 GOP in the Senate (The Democrats had a 'rare' supermajority in late 2009 that dropped back to 59 in early 2010 when Scott Brown was elected in MA)

This 111th Congress passed the most legislation since the 89th Congress during the LBJ term.

[BigMacPhisto]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

So helpless he won in another landslide.

The demographics of this country ensure that the President will be a Democrat from now on. What's so hard to understand about that? Then Republicans win virtually the rest of the elections when nobody votes because it isn't a Presidential year.

And I never said Obama wasn't liked enough by the public or anything, but he's been completely useless without having a favorable Congress, just like any President would be. He lost control around 2010 and since then can't pass significant legislation. There's nothing that's hard to understand about this. If Republicans control one or more of the two houses of Congress, there's zero chance you can pass left-leaning bills. They are entirely the reason why we have gridlock.

Again, the same fate awaits Hillary or Sanders. But Hillary will actively screw over the American people like Bill did by working with Republicans on legislation. Much rather have Bernie sit in there for eight years and basically wait out the clock for more Republicans to die until we can take back Congress then have someone fuck over the American people just so the history books can say Hillary "increased military spending 50%" or "deregulated the banks even more"

[BigMacPhisto]

Originally Posted by Oregoropa

Obama had a Democratic House of Representatives and Democratic Senate From January 20, 2009 - January 3, 2011.

Large majorities in both houses:

255 Dems - 179 GOP in the House

59 Dems - 41 GOP in the Senate (The Democrats had a 'rare' supermajority in late 2009 that dropped back to 59 in early 2010 when Scott Brown was elected in MA)

This 111th Congress passed the most legislation since the 89th Congress during the LBJ term.

What's your point? Scott Brown got in and they didn't have 60 seats in the Senate. They no longer had enough control to stop fillibusters. Then they lost the 2010 elections.

This was all right after the ACA was passed. From January 2011 onward, the House has been in Republican hands and no truly significant legislation has been passed by the Obama administration.

Unless you all just have some made up checklist in the back of your mind of things that never passed both the Senate and House....


But yes, as Republicans like to point out "But Obama had congress!" Yeah, he had it for about a year total until Scott Brown got in and the filibustering took hold. That's it. The GOP media tries to act like he's been out there passing crazy expensive liberal spending packages and the like, when again, NOTHING has been passed since Republicans took over and deficits have been trimmed immensely due to the tax hike on the rich and the automatic budget cuts due to sequester. Even the ACA was basically a non-expense since it was funded by overpayments that were previously being charged to Medicare.

George W. Bush had a full four years (2003-2007) of Republican control along with Democrats that were still stupid enough to vote with Republicans on moronic issues like the Iraq War and No Child Left Behind. Obama's year of control pales in comparison, especially since he still had to put up with a record number of stall tactics almost immediately (and they only got worse). Did Bush have No Child Left Behind come up dozens upon dozens of times to be destroyed by the House? Did Bush have an endless array of panels similar to the stream of Benghazi ones? Nobody has faced more opposition than Obama by congress (proven fact if you look at the number of fillibusters, etc.) and it's exactly why he's been so ineffective at passing legislation, seating judges, etc.

[Vlad n U 2]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

So helpless he won in another landslide.

Anyway, I appreciate your posts because it helps me better understand that there is a left wing bubble that's just as impenetrable as the right wing bubble. Right Wing media was light years ahead of Left Wing media starting in the Clinton years and up through Bush 2. There's now a much more successful left wing echo chamber able to spawn left wing true believers. I guess that's a good thing.

That's a nice Centrist echo chamber you've got going on here. I guess that's a good thing.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto

The demographics of this country ensure that the President will be a Democrat from now on. What's so hard to understand about that? Then Republicans win virtually the rest of the elections when nobody votes because it isn't a Presidential year.

And I never said Obama wasn't liked enough by the public or anything, but he's been completely useless without having a favorable Congress, just like any President would be. He lost control around 2010 and since then can't pass significant legislation. There's nothing that's hard to understand about this. If Republicans control one or more of the two houses of Congress, there's zero chance you can pass left-leaning bills. They are entirely the reason why we have gridlock.

Again, the same fate awaits Hillary or Sanders. But Hillary will actively screw over the American people like Bill did by working with Republicans on legislation. Much rather have Bernie sit in there for eight years and basically wait out the clock for more Republicans to die until we can take back Congress then have someone fuck over the American people just so the history books can say Hillary "increased military spending 50%" or "deregulated the banks even more"

We disagree on what "significant" means.

I also am opposed to your total opposition to the GOP. Don't be like them.

[martha]

I have no time for any Republicans anywhere anymore.

None.

[Vlad n U 2]

I don't see anything wrong with total opposition to the Republican Party. Likewise with the Democrats.

[Irvine511]

Someone has to be an adult and govern. That means working with people you don't necessarily like or agree with.