2016 US Presidential Election Pt. IV

[BVS]

Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto

And I meant it. Not for everyone, as more educated voters are always going to base their decisions on the actual issues. I'm sure most of the people heavily involved in the Black Live's Matter movement will also be taking a closer look at things before making their decisions.

But in general? The least educated group in the entire country and the only core constituency that still gives Obama insanely high approval ratings supporting Clinton simply because she worked for the first black President? Yes, I believe that's the case. And no, it isn't racist to think so.

Other than Clinton trying to call Sanders weak on guns because he came from a rural state and opposed one significant law, where else does she actually offer more to America's most screwed over community that Sanders doesn't? Nothing.

It's similar to Lena Dunham recently claiming that she supports Clinton because of the issues and not because she's a woman. And what issues exactly would that be, Lena? You're against Medicare for all, less foreign intervention/drone strikes and stiffer Wall Street regulation? Her support is entirely because Clinton is a woman.

WOW


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[BigMacPhisto]

Until Lena actually says what the "issues" are that gives Clinton the edge for her vote, I will be correct in my assessment.

Brought to you by the woman who made up a fake college rape and blamed it on someone with the same real life name, encouraged people to vote like crazy for Obama in 2012 even though she didn't vote in the mid-terms, calls Woody Allen a child molester and pens an editorial about it because she's friends with Ronan Farrow (when the only one proven to have inappropriately touched a young girl is Lena herself) and writes a television show dedicated to showing men as being awful in the sack as much as possible. Yes, she clearly as her issues.

[BigMacPhisto]

Originally Posted by BVS

WOW

And here chugs along the modern train of people trying to twist things around so they can point fingers and go "He said something wrong!"


Least educated part of the populace? Fact.

Cite Hillary working for Obama as a key reason for their support as written about in various newspaper articles so far in the campaign? Fact.

America's most screwed over community? Fact.



So, where exactly did I say something untruthful or racist?

[BVS]

Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto

And here chugs along the modern train of people trying to twist things around so they can point fingers and go "He said something wrong!"


Least educated part of the populace? Fact.

Cite Hillary working for Obama as a key reason for their support as written about in various newspaper articles so far in the campaign? Fact.

America's most screwed over community? Fact.



So, where exactly did I say something untruthful or racist?

I'm just wondering what group you side with in the identity politics game? We've learned women will like music if it's sung by someone overweight, black people group think, and women voting for Clinton don't know the issues. So I'm curious what's your group?


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto

Until Lena actually says what the "issues" are that gives Clinton the edge for her vote, I will be correct in my assessment.

Brought to you by the woman who made up a fake college rape and blamed it on someone with the same real life name, encouraged people to vote like crazy for Obama in 2012 even though she didn't vote in the mid-terms, calls Woody Allen a child molester and pens an editorial about it because she's friends with Ronan Farrow (when the only one proven to have inappropriately touched a young girl is Lena herself) and writes a television show dedicated to showing men as being awful in the sack as much as possible. Yes, she clearly as her issues.

the only people who hate Lena Dunham this much post on right wing blogs.

[BigMacPhisto]

Originally Posted by BVS

I'm just wondering what group you side with in the identity politics game? We've learned women will like music if it's sung by someone overweight, black people group think, and women voting for Clinton don't know the issues. So I'm curious what's your group?

My group is that of people that like music solely based on the quality they perceive in it, putting no importance on the type of people that make it. My group is that of people that choose their politicians entirely based on the issues.

So, you know, rational people of intelligence. That's my group.

All I'm arguing is that there's a lot of people in general in this country that do put an emphasis on a person's identity. That's why Sanders has made no ground against Clinton with blacks. That's why Adele herself thinks she's so popular because she isn't a twig. That's why some of Hillary's core constituencies in polling are less informed older voters and, especially, older white women. People want somebody that looks like them to represent them whether it's in politics or the arts. Is there anything wrong with that? Absolutely not. But is it rational or demonstrative of someone using their best intellectual judgment. No, it's not.

And mark my words, if Obama were to endorse Sanders (not the most insane thought ever given Biden's current leaning in that direction), this nomination race would be over immediately and that one endorsement would swing the black vote almost entirely into Bernie's column. It's like Hillary as his endorsement by proxy for having worked for the guy.

[BigMacPhisto]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

the only people who hate Lena Dunham this much post on right wing blogs.

Except I don't hate on her for petty reasons like her body or being liberal or whatever else. I hate on her for being an untalented tool that acts like she's informed about things of which she knows nothing and has some near psychotic anti-men agenda. And no, I'm not talking about feminism here. I'm talking about the fact that basically everything she writes or political statement she makes has to be about upending some male patriarchy that she always describes in the worst possible manner. Hence why her Hillary stumping seems incredibly suspect.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto

Except I don't hate on her for petty reasons like her body or being liberal or whatever else. I hate on her for being an untalented tool that acts like she's informed about things of which she knows nothing and has some near psychotic anti-men agenda. And no, I'm not talking about feminism here. I'm talking about the fact that basically everything she writes or political statement she makes has to be about upending some male patriarchy that she always describes in the worst possible manner. Hence why her Hillary stumping seems incredibly suspect.

[Diemen]

Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto

Until Lena actually says what the "issues" are that gives Clinton the edge for her vote, I will be correct in my assessment.

Yeah, that's not how it works. You don't get to decide what someone's actual reasons for supporting someone are and be correct about them unless directly rebutted.

Brought to you by the woman who made up a fake college rape and blamed it on someone with the same real life name, encouraged people to vote like crazy for Obama in 2012 even though she didn't vote in the mid-terms, calls Woody Allen a child molester and pens an editorial about it because she's friends with Ronan Farrow (when the only one proven to have inappropriately touched a young girl is Lena herself) and writes a television show dedicated to showing men as being awful in the sack as much as possible. Yes, she clearly as her issues.

Wow, Lena really strikes a nerve with you, eh?

[BVS]

But his reasons aren't petty


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[BigMacPhisto]

Originally Posted by BVS

But his reasons aren't petty

Fabricating a rape claim and then saying it was a certain name and having a real life individual suffer for it isn't a petty reason to dislike someone. Especially when you don't apologize to the victim afterwards.

Calling Woody Allen a pedophile in a newspaper and saying it's a fact that he molested his daughter is outright slander and to be appalled by that editorial isn't a petty reason to dislike someone. There's a reason the news media uses "alleged" until someone is actually convicted of a crime. I'm shocked that was actually published.

Noting the hypocrisy of someone being on a "get out of the vote for young people" train and acting like it's "so important to vote" when they usually don't...I don't consider that petty. Her not voting would be a petty reason to dislike her. Her being part of a major ad campaign and spending hours trumping up the importance of voting while not bothering herself makes her a major hypocrite. That's a fair reason to dislike someone.

My fourth complaint in that post basically stems from everything she does involving painting men in a godawful manner and acting like her entire life has been subject to men pushing her down incessantly and in extreme manners (case in point, read her editorials)...Girls itself just tends to continue that thought process in a sitcom format...you know, when it's not just trying to throw out shock value material to keep people interested. I think noting that someone has an axe to grind with an entire sex is hardly a petty complaint.

[BVS]

She's not the only one that has said that about Allen, some of his actions are pretty creepy. Midterm voting? Really? I've seen some of her work, you seem a little over sensitive. I know nothing of the rape story.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[Irvine511]

did you crib this from Breitbart?

[BigMacPhisto]

Originally Posted by BVS

She's not the only one that has said that about Allen, some of his actions are pretty creepy. Midterm voting? Really? I've seen some of her work, you seem a little over sensitive. I know nothing of the rape story.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

Doesn't matter when it comes to Allen. Until he's convicted of such a crime, you shouldn't be allowed to write for the press and say he committed said crime. That is complete slander. Allen could have sued if he actually cared.

Anyway, I through the Dunham thing out there as an example of identity politics, mostly because I came across it recently and it annoyed me. But why does it matter? Oh, I dunno, because in a rural state's caucuses a few hundred votes from women that attended a Dunham meet and greet could be the difference between Sanders or Clinton becoming President, something that will literally change the entire course of human history quite a bit.

So for the biggest celebrity stumper in Iowa in the 2016 race by far to be someone who has consistently shown a near hatred of men in general and then whines when people call her out on supporting Clinton only becomes she's a woman and then doubles down with some vague nonsense about "the issues" to potentially be a decider in how the rest of this country and mankind progresses over the next century...well, that's damn infuriating.

[BigMacPhisto]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

did you crib this from Breitbart?

Her actions speak for themselves. I'm a lifelong Socialist if you must know. I voted for Nader twice and Jill Stein once. But I'm also a person who likes to call bullshit when I see it and also take a closer look at why things play out a certain way.

So yes, I do have a personal connection in seeing an avowed Socialist elected President and am worried of being potentially derailed by a nitwit celebrity or a monolithic black vote that hails our current President as God while the situation for black Americans has only continually eroded on his watch.

There is no reason a liberal should ever support Sanders over Clinton. And I don't say that in a douchey "my candidate is better than yours" fashion whatsoever. From the platforms they espouse to the fact that Sanders has a much better chance of winning in November given multiple recent surveys from various polling firms, the one and only reason anybody would want Hillary Clinton as their nominee is if having a woman President trumps every other issue across the board. That's it.

[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.

[BigMacPhisto]

Why not just take a political quiz and see which one you support more? The one that was posted around here in previous parts of this thread was actually highly comprehensive and mostly accurate.

[Oregoropa]

Happy Birthday Madame President

[corianderstem]

Hey, BigMacPhisto, what do you think of the show Girls?

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto

Why not just take a political quiz and see which one you support more? The one that was posted around here in previous parts of this thread was actually highly comprehensive and mostly accurate.

I don't based solely on the issues, at the presidential level. At a local or state level, I absolutely do.

For me, there are two things a president must handle correctly:

1. Foreign policy
2. SCOTUS nominations

After that, so much falls onto Congress. 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. I have no time for radicals or reactionaries. I don't want revolution, I want slow, gradual change I can believe in. As I posted earlier, USA 2016 is actually a pretty good place to be, far from perfect, but much better than USA 2009, and there's every reason to believe that things can and will get better. The world is far from perfect, but it is not on fire (especially compared to the past).

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.

So I'm going to wait and see how it all pans out. I vote in a city-state that will go 90% for the D, and there's more democracy in Iraq than here. So my actual vote doesn't matter much. (It did when I lived in NoVA).

I will vote for either of them without hesitation. There are no GOP candidates I could support.