2016 US Presidential Election Thread IX

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.
Your belittling tone of being amused by me isn't personal, I know.
Well I apologize if you found my tone belittling. I just found your use of 'idealism' ironic when you're talking about the moral and conscience reasons for voting and we were talking about just the measurable numeric outcome.


Except votes for Nader kept a movement alive. Votes for Gary Johnson keep a movement alive. They open the door for these political parties to go somewhere. Whether that's for a seat in congress or for spreading their beliefs.

If you're not endorsing a two party system, who should vote for these third parties? Isn't it ridiculous that we call them "third" parties, if we aren't in a two party system?

Well in order to put an end to a two party system, de facto or not, more has to be done on the other side of the ballot box. I think one has to be strategic at times with their vote, because at the end of the day it is just a number. If you're making a statement with your vote shouldn't you make sure it gets heard somehow? I think this is a dangerous election to be trying to make a statement, or in the case of how this conversation started, a tantrum.
 
A lot of us blamed Ralph Nader voters for W in 2000. If they voted Gore then we would have had no W. That is true.

But if we had the safe 'new Democrat' Gore, which was much like the moderate Bill Clinton. We would have never have gotten the 'progressive' Barrack Obama. With all the 'change' he has brought. In 2008 the Dem party knew they could not shove progressives aside and go with the safe 'Hillary'. The progressives won the day and we got Obama. Obama owes his nomination and Presidency to the the 2000 Nader voters. Progressives that refused to sell out.
 
Not sure if Clinton will keep some of these "left" views on the table when she is the nominee, but I think she will to try and sway the BernieBros to her in the general. If she's elected, hard to say. Things change once you're in office, usually because compromise becomes key versus ideology.

But what compromise? If Clinton is elected President, it's likely Democrats will hold a bare Senate majority while Republicans will still control the House.

I mean, compromise is fine if you're trying to pass liberal legislation and earning some Republican votes by getting them to join your side and changing aspects of a certain bill to suit them...but that's what Obama tried for five years to no avail before he finally gave up. Watering down the ACA and even going as far as to actually attempt a "grand bargain" with severe cuts to the social safety net - neither of which led to any Republican support.

Therefore, any shift to the right by Clinton to pass legislation will automatically mean she's basically doing it with mostly Republicans at her side rather than Democrats, just as Obama is getting far more support for the TPP from the GOP than his own party.

There is effectively no compromise with the current GOP morons, not even to get the general functions of government moving along.

So, Clinton either tries to pass left-wing legislation and she will fail time and again, even if she makes concessions to the right. She'll even face the same problem for thinks like budgeting, seating the courts, etc. It's not even up for discussion because we've already been through this for the last seven years.

She'll have no problem earning Republican votes if it's some big fracking bill or Wall Street boost, but that's not a "compromise" - that's just selling out the left and that's what everyone on the far left is afraid of...the argument about compromise in here would be warranted if the Republicans were actually willing to play ball, but they're not, leaving us to twiddle our thumbs until enough of their voters die off and Democrats control congress once again.
 
Bernie Bros, all Bernie supporters and true progressives need to stay the course like the Nader voters did in 2000,
Does anyone think if Hillary got the nomination in 2008 the country would be at the same place Obama has taken it. Cuba, Iran, North Viet Nam, gay marriage, supreme court appointments, even the ACC, would she have accomplished those things?? We certainly have had a more progressive 8 years under Obama then we would have had under a Clinton.
Again Nader voters pushed the party to nominate Obama in 2008 instead of the triangulating Clinton.

This election is a choice for the Democrats to move ahead or look back.
 
Last edited:
And what progress will there be under trump?


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
nothing could be worse than the 8 years of W, that I blamed on Nader voters

truth is Nader voters were honest people that knew a vote for Nader was not a vote against Gore and for W, it was a vote against W, and against Gore-Clinton type politics that were both not acceptable to them. Every 2000 Nader voter I know happily voted for Obama in 2008, and thinking about it, they are responsible for his nomination.
 
Meanwhile in 'I wonder what Ted Cruz is up to?'

One of my best friends sat next to him on a Southwest flight today from Houston to DC. Said he watched "Creed" the whole flight.

At least he's not bilking the taxpayers for buying first class tickets and instead flew stowage class.

But as we always say . . .


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
Meanwhile in 'I wonder what Ted Cruz is up to?'

One of my best friends sat next to him on a Southwest flight today from Houston to DC. Said he watched "Creed" the whole flight.

wsouy5lje80vmqjfpvdh.jpg


With arms wide open...

He would like that band.
 
One of my best friends sat next to him on a Southwest flight today from Houston to DC. Said he watched "Creed" the whole flight.
Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

Speaking of Southwest, you see the Albuquerque footage from last night?
 
wsouy5lje80vmqjfpvdh.jpg




With arms wide open...



He would like that band.


The Christian imagery in the lyrics might turn off Lucifer. He may prefer Creed's Canadian bastard offspring 'Nickelback'

Nickelback actually makes me nostalgic for Creed. The devolution of alternative rock bloodline.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
First, I apologize if my tone has been off today. I'm sick and flying cross country. I know you were talking to BVS above, but I mean this generally.

But can you think of anything that did more damage to the beliefs of the Nader movement than Bush/Cheney?


I don't know if it "damaged" it. Bush/Cheney pissed a lot of people off, so in some sense what deep is saying is true. It led to Obama.

I suppose my main point is better illustrated like this: individuals who have the right to vote aren't the issue. The issue is the leaders. If Gore were a better candidate, people wouldn't have voted for Nader. If Clinton were a better candidate, people wouldn't vote for Stein. If Stein were as compromising of a leader as you are, she wouldn't run.

Blame Stein. Blame Nader. Blame republicans. But your tragedy of the commons argument isn't going to satisfy anyone who doesn't want either of the two candidates. Right now, Sanders isn't a problem. And he won't be unless he runs for president. And if he does, he's a dick. Not the people who vote for him.
 
This. I don't really have the patience to sit through four years of Trump in the hopes that things might eventually get better at the end of his term.

(And if he somehow got a second one? God help us all.)
It's more than that. I honestly believe a Trump presidency would be lightyears worse than the 8 years of Bush.
 
We'd become the USFL


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
It's more than that. I honestly believe a Trump presidency would be lightyears worse than the 8 years of Bush.

Do you actually think he'd be able to get anything done? I feel like he'd be like a fish out of water in Washington and his temperament is totally unsuited to kissing ass and making deals of any kind. The Republicans simply won't have the sorts of majorities he'd need to push through any of his ridiculous agenda (if it even survives the election) and you'd also have a number of Republicans who would have to go against him to save their own hide in the midterms.

By no means am I advocating voting for this freak but I have a hard time imagining the damage he could cause unless there was a catastrophic terrorist attack or something of that sort.
 
i don't give a shit about trump being the day-to-day president. he wouldn't be able to get any actual laws through congress, and most of the dumber points of his campaign (ie the wall) are impossible anyways.

but think about how 9-11 and its aftermath would have gone if it happened during a donald trump administration.

edit: woah, we just posted the exact same thing :huh:
 
Meanwhile in 'I wonder what Ted Cruz is up to?'

One of my best friends sat next to him on a Southwest flight today from Houston to DC.

Your friend really ought to have reported the location of the Zodiac Killer to the police. It's lucky everybody got off the plane alive.
 
I wonder how Trump will use or dismantle our unofficial 4th branch of Government . . . The Regulatory Agencies, who can be activated through executive fiat. I foresee a neutering of the EPA as a President Trump would loosen restrictions on fossil fuel extraction. I don't think he'd give a whoot about the Sage Grouse habitat if it stood in the way of pumping more oil. His business mind would be focused on exporting resource energy to other countries. Wouldn't be surprised if he had the interior department sell off federal lands out west to try to balance the books. If he sell off BLM land to mining interests he certainly wouldn't allow Russian or Chinese interests to purchase them. These are my hypothetical musings

If the Democrats were to retake the Senate at some point I can see him ramping up executive orders to satisfy his 'get shit done despite you' Ego.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
the chinese wouldn't be interested in them because the real mining money these days is in rare earths, 95%+ of which are already in/under china.
 
If the Democrats were to retake the Senate at some point I can see him ramping up executive orders to satisfy his 'get shit done despite you' Ego.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

Wouldn't that be an interesting turn of events. Unfortunate maybe, but interesting all the same.
 
If the Democrats were to retake the Senate at some point I can see him ramping up executive orders to satisfy his 'get shit done despite you' Ego.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

And the right would remain silent with no mention of "dictator" or "unconstitutional" because he's white and has an R.



Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
Do you actually think he'd be able to get anything done? I feel like he'd be like a fish out of water in Washington and his temperament is totally unsuited to kissing ass and making deals of any kind. The Republicans simply won't have the sorts of majorities he'd need to push through any of his ridiculous agenda (if it even survives the election) and you'd also have a number of Republicans who would have to go against him to save their own hide in the midterms.



By no means am I advocating voting for this freak but I have a hard time imagining the damage he could cause unless there was a catastrophic terrorist attack or something of that sort.


Supreme Court appointments and eroding our relationships with allies is enough to be scared.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
Supreme Court appointments and eroding our relationships with allies is enough to be scared.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference


All about this. He gets a few SC justices put on the court, and all of those abortion rights, minority rights, and the corporate "rights" go back a century.

The damage, in my opinion, would never be undone.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom