2016 US Presidential Election Pt. IV

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.
She may well have been playing that up in her campaign, but I don't get where that's necessarily something to criticize or mock her for.



I'm just saying that the whole thing about her possibly having had Botox or commenting on her grandmotherly demeanor doesn't seem very relevant to the discussion about her record on various issues or whether or not she's genuine when speaking to people or whatever. Just like I don't really get why anyone would bring up the fact that Trump wears a toupee in a serious discussion about his political history.


Well, we were talking about her disingenuous behavior. The Botox was an analogy. Is her Botox actually relevant? No of course not. Was I actually judging her for having Botox? Clearly not.

But yes, her grandmother card is pertinent to the discussion. I am questioning the many faces of Hilary Clinton. Because she's an act. She's overly scripted. You don't know when she's being genuine. When she actually cares about something. I think that matters.
 
One exception I can think of in this election cycle is Chris Christie - people have actually openly discussed whether he is too fat to be president. And he is regularly called Crisco, Crispy or whatever on Twitter and other places.

Very true. And that sort of criticism is silly and dumb, too. And it's also ignorant, 'cause if I recall rightly, some of our previous presidents haven't exactly been on the skinny side, so...yeah.

In short, there's a lot of really dumb stuff people will judge a president's capability or lack thereof on that has nothing to do with their actual politics. The type of scrutiny you get just varies depending on who you are or what your background is.
 
lo and behold, i just stumbled across this.

There’s a second major reason millennials prefer Sanders to Clinton, and that one is more stylistic than substantive.

It has to do with his so-called “authenticity,” by which is usually meant his willingness to look and sound like a hot mess.

I suspect young Americans have always been skeptical of anyone trying too hard to look and sound a particular way (see: Holden Caulfield vs. the “phonies”). But that skepticism is heightened among today’s youth.

In the social media era, meticulous image management is both a necessity and a source of constant resentment and cynicism. We are bombarded with carefully curated Instagram feeds, tweets and other forms of self-conscious digital preening. We must be camera-ready at all times, lest an unflattering image find its way onto Facebook. Yet what’s perhaps the bravest, most powerful boast you can make online? “#Nofilter,” a humblebrag hashtag applied to unedited photos. Or perhaps its close cousin, “#IWokeUpLikeThis.”

It is precisely Sanders’s au-naturel-ness that endears him to his young fans: his unkempt hair, his ill-fitting suits, his unpolished Brooklyn accent, his propensity to yell and wave his hands maniacally. Sanders, it appears, woke up like this.

These qualities are what make him seem “authentic,” “sincere” even — especially when contrasted with Clinton’s hyper-scriptedness. Sanders, unlike Clinton, doesn’t give a damn if he’s camera-ready.

This is, of course, a form of authenticity that is off-limits to any female politician, not just one with Clinton’s baggage.

Female politicians — at least if they want to be taken seriously on a national stage — cannot be unkempt and unfiltered, hair mussed and voice raised. They have to be carefully coifed and scripted at all times, because they have to hew as closely as possible to the bounds of propriety available to both their sex and their occupation. They can’t be too quiet or too loud, too emotional or too cold, too meek or too aggressive, and so on.

But they also can’t appear to be trying too hard, either. At least if they want the kind of enthusiastic millennial support that Sanders enjoys.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...5-11e5-a7b2-5a2f824b02c9_story.html?tid=sm_fb
 
same with Hillary (or any female politician) and her gender. but especially her, since she's running for president. we've never had another credible female run for office.

she can't yell. she can't be angry. she can't have a hair out of place. she has to be perfect in a way that men don't. you think a woman could get away with Trump's hair? we blast her for not being perfect, and then get angry because she's too cold and calculating. because she's a woman she can't be an outsider or a revolutionary, because if she were to sound like Bernie everyone would be all "OH LOOK IT'S THOSE CODE PINK CRAZIES." i think that's where these charges of "fake" and "inauthentic" come from. do you think Rubio says a damn word that hasn't been scripted and vetted? was anyone more heavily stage managed than W? are these men subject to the same charges of phoniness? has any woman in the past 30 years been subjected to more scrutiny than her? where "ambitious" is used as a pejorative, but only because she's female? i feel for the girl. i really do.


This is a really fair point, and something I should honestly probably keep in mind more than I do.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
Well, this is kind of a big deal...latest Quinnipiac poll has Sanders behind Clinton by only 6 points...they began conducting that poll before the Iowa caucus.

The last national poll from that same firm? December 21st with Clinton holding a 31 point advantage.

Again, I have to ask why so may people think Bernie's chances are improbable when he continues to close the gap with Clinton. If he could gain 25 points on her in about a month, then what's 6 more by Super Tuesday a month from now?
 
Hillary is pro gay rights, strongly pro-choice, strongly pro gun control, anti citizens united, has a more comprehensive wall st. reform plan than any other candidate, pro immigration reform, pro universal health care, has been endorsed by about every large liberal org in the country, and yet, doesn't meet the new standard of progressive that seems to have been shifted to suit Bernie's needs.

Progressives don't vote for the Iraq War.

Progressives don't wait to support gay rights and the blocking of the Tar Sands pipeline and TPP until it's politically popular to do so.

Progressives don't say they support universal health care without trying to obtain universal health care.

Progressives aren't war hawks.

Progressives don't call themselves moderates if they're in a swing state or queue up a fake Southern accent if they're in the lower half of the country.

Progressives don't say they're anti-Citizens United, yet have a Super PAC.

Progressives don't say they'll reform Wall Street without immediately attempting to break up the banks.


People don't consider Clinton authentic because of her constantly fluctuating opinions on the issues to whatever suits her. She has never actually been a liberal candidate in the slightest. Nor can we really trust her to deliver on progressive policies when her husband signed NAFTA, the repeal of Glass-Steagall and drastically cut welfare.

Finally, her "liberal group" endorsements are mostly hot air. Planned Parenthood for example. That was a top-down endorsement from the leader of PP who happens to have worked for the Clintons in the 90s and whose daughter is working on the Clinton campaign. If you investigate further as a lot of left-leaning sites did, you'll find that most of the organizations that have endorsed Clinton have come from the top-down rather than a vote and they're almost always headed by someone with extremely close Clinton connections.

Clinton's core support system happens to be people voting out of name recognition and/or fear that Bernie is unelectable. That's it. Most of them are old, uninformed and scared that one of these Republican clowns could actually win (no chance). There is nothing that any true liberal gets out of a Clinton Presidency that Sanders couldn't do better. And again, she will NOT get shit done either with a Republican congress. Unless of course she plans to sign conservative legislation like her husband did in the second half of his Presidency.
 
Last edited:
Well, this is kind of a big deal...latest Quinnipiac poll has Sanders behind Clinton by only 6 points...they began conducting that poll before the Iowa caucus.

The last national poll from that same firm? December 21st with Clinton holding a 31 point advantage.

Again, I have to ask why so may people think Bernie's chances are improbable when he continues to close the gap with Clinton. If he could gain 25 points on her in about a month, then what's 6 more by Super Tuesday a month from now?

I can buy that
 
Now we see the email thing being absolute political hitjob. Not only did they admit it being a political hitjob, but we know she didn't break any set rules, laws, or stray from precedence of Sec of States before her.

Since when is the FBI a political organization or the government confirming a week ago that there were over twenty e-mails classified as Top Secret in the most recent batch? There's zero politics behind it, but it's convenient for Clinton to say that there happens to be (although she can't blame the Republicans on this one so she chalks it up to an agency dispute).

Benghazi? Sure, that's absolute nonsense. But Clinton's e-mail situation still isn't resolved in the slightest and she continually changes her story once new facts emerge and prove the previous story wrong.
 
I can buy that

Also, at this point in the 2008 campaign (just before the NH primary which was in early January), Barack Obama trailed Clinton by 22 points according to the RCP average. Post-New Hampshire, he trailed Clinton by around 6 points (as Sanders does in that recent poll). He then trailed her by about 10 points up until right before Super Tuesday.

As of right now, Sanders is averaging about 13 points behind Clinton with Super Tuesday being a month away and potential boosts from New Hampshire and possibly Nevada wins still to come.
 
Progressives don't vote for the Iraq War.

Progressives don't wait to support gay rights and the blocking of the Tar Sands pipeline and TPP until it's politically popular to do so.

Progressives don't say they support universal health care without trying to obtain universal health care.

Progressives aren't war hawks.

Progressives don't call themselves moderates if they're in a swing state or queue up a fake Southern accent if they're in the lower half of the country.

Progressives don't say they're anti-Citizens United, yet have a Super PAC.

Progressives don't say they'll reform Wall Street without immediately attempting to break up the banks.


People don't consider Clinton authentic because of her constantly fluctuating opinions on the issues to whatever suits her. She has never actually been a liberal candidate in the slightest. Nor can we really trust her to deliver on progressive policies when her husband signed NAFTA, the repeal of Glass-Steagall and drastically cut welfare.

Finally, her "liberal group" endorsements are mostly hot air. Planned Parenthood for example. That was a top-down endorsement from the leader of PP who happens to have worked for the Clintons in the 90s and whose daughter is working on the Clinton campaign. If you investigate further as a lot of left-leaning sites did, you'll find that most of the organizations that have endorsed Clinton have come from the top-down rather than a vote and they're almost always headed by someone with extremely close Clinton connections.

Clinton's core support system happens to be people voting nearly out of name recognition and/or fear that Bernie is unelectable. That's it. Most of them are old, uninformed and scared that one of these Republican clowns could actually win (no chance). There is nothing that any true liberal gets out of a Clinton Presidency that Sanders couldn't do better. And again, she will NOT get shit done either with a Republican congress. Unless of course she plans to sign conservative legislation like her husband did in the second half of his Presidency.




So you're saying she's a PINO.
 
his voting for deregulation of credit default swaps

You are aware that Sanders voted for something along those lines just that one time, correct? And you are aware that Bill Clinton signed that bill into law, no?
 
So you're saying she's a PINO.

Never been a progressive or liberal by any liberal's standard. Ask anybody on the far left and they'll say the Clintons are moderates and they'll have told you the same thing from the 90s through today. She's only now trying to define herself as one so she can win the damn primary as she never took up that term to describe herself up until recently.

Bernie hasn't shifted the definition of the term. It's just that the definition would never cover the Clintons in the slightest. And yes, most Democratic members of congress can't be described as progressives as they are far too entrenched with the special interests and corporations that fund their campaigns. Not all of them, mind you, but certainly most of those in the Senate can't be described as liberal because of that.

And Sanders is hardly anything new in feeling the need to run against a corporatist Democratic party...I'm sure the names Ralph Nader and Dennis Kucinich will ring bells around here.
 
That is absolute nonsense about gay people. She has by far the strongest support of any candidate from the gay community. Are they all just being duped? I don't think so.

Well, they are being duped since Clinton didn't come out in favor of gay marriage until it was about to be legalized nationwide...plenty on the left have supported it for years and even decades. Once the public polling finally reached above 50% in favor of same sex marriage, that's when Clinton decided it would be beneficial to come out in support.
 
Well, this is kind of a big deal...latest Quinnipiac poll has Sanders behind Clinton by only 6 points...they began conducting that poll before the Iowa caucus.



The last national poll from that same firm? December 21st with Clinton holding a 31 point advantage.



Again, I have to ask why so may people think Bernie's chances are improbable when he continues to close the gap with Clinton. If he could gain 25 points on her in about a month, then what's 6 more by Super Tuesday a month from now?


I think he excites young voters, but will they come out?
Some Dems will just stay home because they know 90% of his platform is impossible and his age scares them.

But I think the biggest factor against him is the other side, last time they had a huge turnout against someone they framed as a socialist, what will they do when he actually is?

Progressives don't vote for the Iraq War.

Progressives don't wait to support gay rights and the blocking of the Tar Sands pipeline and TPP until it's politically popular to do so.

Progressives don't say they support universal health care without trying to obtain universal health care.

Progressives aren't war hawks.

Progressives don't call themselves moderates if they're in a swing state or queue up a fake Southern accent if they're in the lower half of the country.

Progressives don't say they're anti-Citizens United, yet have a Super PAC.

Progressives don't say they'll reform Wall Street without immediately attempting to break up the banks.


People don't consider Clinton authentic because of her constantly fluctuating opinions on the issues to whatever suits her. She has never actually been a liberal candidate in the slightest. Nor can we really trust her to deliver on progressive policies when her husband signed NAFTA, the repeal of Glass-Steagall and drastically cut welfare.

Finally, her "liberal group" endorsements are mostly hot air. Planned Parenthood for example. That was a top-down endorsement from the leader of PP who happens to have worked for the Clintons in the 90s and whose daughter is working on the Clinton campaign. If you investigate further as a lot of left-leaning sites did, you'll find that most of the organizations that have endorsed Clinton have come from the top-down rather than a vote and they're almost always headed by someone with extremely close Clinton connections.

Clinton's core support system happens to be people voting out of name recognition and/or fear that Bernie is unelectable. That's it. Most of them are old, uninformed and scared that one of these Republican clowns could actually win (no chance). There is nothing that any true liberal gets out of a Clinton Presidency that Sanders couldn't do better. And again, she will NOT get shit done either with a Republican congress. Unless of course she plans to sign conservative legislation like her husband did in the second half of his Presidency.


This is probably true, but I guess the question is does one go with pragmatism and get things done or idealism and get very little done?

Does the libertarian keep voting libertarian knowing they're giving their vote to the other side, or do they compromise and vote for the one closest to their ideals that may have a chance?


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
You won't get anything done with pragmatism in this case. Clinton will have a Republican House, so she won't be able to pass leftist legislation. It's that simple and it's the same problem Obama has faced throughout his Presidency...

So, if you're screwed either way, why not have Bernie in there who will take things further to the left in terms of executive orders, court appointments, etc? Makes sense to me.

Also, Sanders' plan to have millions marching in the streets demanding, say, a minimum wage increase is at least an attempt to try and persuade Republican legislators. Clinton will just throw up her hands, blame the GOP and then move on to accomplishing nothing.

And, again, I don't trust Clinton to not sell out the social welfare net just to say she accomplished something in her Presidency...Bill did this with welfare reform and I can just imagine the Wall Street funded Mrs. Clinton deciding to agree with Republicans to raise the age for Social Security, for example.

And then there's foreign policy...Clinton voted for the Iraq War. 'Nuff said.

And again, Clinton voted for the Iraq War. It burned her eight years ago and I hope it burns her again. Thousands of American lives lost with plenty of Democrats voting for the catastrophe because it was the politically opportunistic thing to do at the time. Nothing can ever erase that disregard for morality.



Also, the article I was referring to earlier was in error. In fact, that Quinnipiac poll actually has Sanders down by only 2 points according to both the poll itself and everywhere else it's been plastered (news articles, FiveThirtyEight, etc.)...that truly is remarkable and it also shows that the general public really doesn't start paying attention until the primaries are actually under way.
 
I think he's been hitting the nail on the head about my view on women the whole time. Simply put, I'm not a fan.



You know, you can always disagree with me on anything, including whatever tone or assumptions you think are implicit in my posts. I think I'm fairly reasonable to debate with. No need to be evasive.

To my knowledge, you've never come out on this forum, nor do you draw from personal experience as a source for your political stances (as I do).
 
Also, that same touted Quinnipiac poll had more national matchups...

Sanders beats Trump by 10 points, Ted Cruz by four and ties Marco Rubio.

Clinton beats Trump by 5 points, ties Ted Cruz and loses to Rubio by 7 points.


And net favorability nationwide? Trump is at negative 25, Clinton at negative 17 while Sanders and Rubio have positive points at 9 and 14 respectively. I really think Rubio as the nominee is someone to worry about and there is an off-chance that Latinos flock to his cause which could really tip the balance.


It's just like 2008 all over again where Clinton tried to say she was more electable yet every poll showed Obama doing better in head-to-head matchups. Sanders absolutely kills with independents who don't belong to either party (they made up a huge share of his Iowa "tie" and are making up a huge chunk of his NH polling support). People trust the guy and that matters a lot.
 
A question, what do Hillary fans/supporters make of her admiration for Henry Kissinger?

(Even if I was even mildly sympathetic to Hillary, that would have been more than enough for me to oppose her.)
 
You know, you can always disagree with me on anything, including whatever tone or assumptions you think are implicit in my posts. I think I'm fairly reasonable to debate with. No need to be evasive.

To my knowledge, you've never come out on this forum, nor do you draw from personal experience as a source for your political stances (as I do).

If I am aware of it, I think you just haven't paid close enough attention.
I only venture into the dedicated thread when there's some big news/discussion like the Indiana stuff last year and I've known for quite some time.
 
I guess I missed it.

Though I don't know how relevant to the discussion at hand it actually is. Gays can disagree on the credibility of the "evolution" of democrats on LGBT issues. It seems that the issue was more with me and whatever my perceived posting style is rather than with HRC.

Perhaps it's because I do feel like I'm a solo voice in here that my posts come off more sweeping than intended.

That also doesn't make me incorrect.
 
I think that was his main point, not necessarily who was right or wrong.



Anyway lets get back to discussing how punchable Ted Cruz' face is.



Gay or not, my small disagreements still stand.

I also think that characterizing my posts as speaking for all gay people, everywhere, is entirely unfair.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom