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.
BEAL good.

Vlad bad


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
BEAL is Hillary.

I'm the outsider yelling about the flaws of everything.
 
Would you say Clinton genuinely earned her money by giving speeches to the toxic cesspool that is Goldman Sachs or by giving favorable state department contracts to people that donated to the Clinton fund?

I don't to have to like everything she has done/does to consider her a good candidate in other ways

As for speeches to G-S someone I know in the speakers industry said that stuff that might be said between investment people or if you believe that Hillary was saying questionable things (by progressive standards) in a big private speech that tharprobably didn't happen, it would have been done one one, or in a small group.So they think as far as questionable stuff in the speech is probably not there. They also think HRC should release the speech.
 
Last edited:
Vlad - too tired, lateish here to give an answer right now. I will think about it to give you a decent answer either tomnorow, or Fri, since i peruse this thread now everyday
or two. I have an application to get done by tomorrow .
 
There are clear and obvious flaws with out system. I wish there was a viable third party candidate, or even more than three viable candidates. It's clear that there are deep rifts in the parties themselves between the hardcore conservatives and liberals and the more moderate candidates of the parties (and whatever Trump is). It's time to blow it up and rethink everything about how we nominate and elect a president.

That said, it's too important to have a rift over the election and nomination process now. The stakes are too high. Trump is an unmitigated disaster. He can not be allowed to win.

After November, then we can get back to fixing this. There's too much at stake now.
 
There are clear and obvious flaws with out system. I wish there was a viable third party candidate, or even more than three viable candidates. It's clear that there are deep rifts in the parties themselves between the hardcore conservatives and liberals and the more moderate candidates of the parties (and whatever Trump is). It's time to blow it up and rethink everything about how we nominate and elect a president.

That said, it's too important to have a rift over the election and nomination process now. The stakes are too high. Trump is an unmitigated disaster. He can not be allowed to win.

After November, then we can get back to fixing this. There's too much at stake now.

I think the majority of Americans would like to see a 3, maybe 4 party system. But maybe people here can help me to think about what it means for actual governing.

How would it work going into DC and working with Senate and Congress. Right now, nothing gets done with having around 50% support. Imagine going in with 33% or 25% support...
I think this is the biggest obstacle for a viable third or fourth party. Am I wrong? missing something?

I would love to have more choices. But I do feel like after a couple cycles people would say the same thing. 350 million Americans and we can only find these 3 losers!!! We will never be happy every time.

And yes, Trump cannot become president. I don't think people actually realize just how damaging it could be.
You can't threaten N. Korea with a nuke one day and then take it back on Twitter the next day when you're president.
I truly think that its a possibility that he would react on the spot to something, and would take us down a path of no return.
 
I think the majority of Americans would like to see a 3, maybe 4 party system. But maybe people here can help me to think about what it means for actual governing.

How would it work going into DC and working with Senate and Congress. Right now, nothing gets done with having around 50% support. Imagine going in with 33% or 25% support...
I think this is the biggest obstacle for a viable third or fourth party. Am I wrong? missing something?

Compromise. It's not a dirty word.
:)

Yes, with a multi-party system not one party will (likely) have an absolute majority. So they can't get anything done on their own with less than 50% support. So you'll have to ask for support from one of the other parties. They might support your proposal right away, maybe they request changes to the proposal to have it acceptable to them. And maybe they ask you also support some of their proposals.
(Multi-party) Politics 101.
 
Would you say Clinton genuinely earned her money by giving speeches to the toxic cesspool that is Goldman Sachs or by giving favorable state department contracts to people that donated to the Clinton fund?

I think this is the fundamental BS that gets peddled and just gobbled up by people that don't stop and think about it in context.

Hillary is the most recognized and admired woman in the world for 25 years. A leader of women's/human rights, first lady of Arkansas, First lady of US, 2 term senator of NY, presidential candidate, and Sec. of State.

ANY other person (man) with her background and credential would be paid the same thing to talk to outside groups. This is standard practice when leaving office. She made no speeches while she was in office. She got paid the same amounts to talk to NON financial entities as well. She was a private citizen, that was making large amounts of money because of how damn hard she worked over her whole life and career.
This may not sit well with Bernie who didn't do a damn thing until he was 40. But I want my daughter to have a role model of strong woman that the sky is the limit for her success.

So go on and think that her having an expensive jacket on, in some way makes her less able to help people and create change and programs to lift people out of poverty and to boost the middle class. Absolute Fox style deflection.

So people like Bill Gates or Buffet, or Kaiser, or Oprah, or Zuckerburg, or hell, Bono can't understand the plight of the less fortunate or help people because they live in multi million dollar mansions, or have private jets??

i don't begrudge anyone their success. Especially someone like Clinton that has worked her entire life to get it. Now Paris Hilton or others like her that get money handed to them? They are not a "success" they are rich.

I think what's more troubling is that Sanders makes 250k a year, and he doesn't have a million in the bank? Jane seems to be a walking finincial disaster, and we still haven't seen Sanders tax returns. There is something devastating in those. Something that would make the cultish masses cringe i would think.
Yet somehow he is propped up as a man of the people. I guess cause he can't handle his money well??

and ps. please don't state unfounded accusations about the Clinton foundation as fact. Again, fox style BS
 
Last edited:
Compromise. It's not a dirty word.
:)

Yes, with a multi-party system not one party will (likely) have an absolute majority. So they can't get anything done on their own with less than 50% support. So you'll have to ask for support from one of the other parties. They might support your proposal right away, maybe they request changes to the proposal to have it acceptable to them. And maybe they ask you also support some of their proposals.
(Multi-party) Politics 101.


So what i get from this answer is that it would most likely lead to more compromise. Which you're right, is not always a bad thing. This is funny, because the people beating their chest for more parties, are the ones that are also beating their chest about NO compromise.

Bernie supporters don't even want to vote for a liberal for president. Tea Partiers didn't want to vote for middle of the road Romney.

It's a joke to me. like i said. No one is always happy with their choices. Making one or two more choices won't change that.
 
Hillary is the most recognized and admired woman in the world for 25 years. A leader of women's/human rights, first lady of Arkansas, First lady of US, 2 term senator of NY, presidential candidate, and Sec. of State.

Come on, I know you love Hillary, but you're going to have to provide a source (poll etc.) on this claim.

To claim her as a champion of human rights is equally as silly. I mean, really?
 
I would imagine a fairly large portion of Sanders supporters aren't really liberals, so that's hardly controversial.


very true. Although many that claim the mantle of "progressive" won't vote for her because she isn't "progressive" enough. That really makes zero sense.
Getting closer to progressive goals for the next 4 to 8 years, will only make it easier for the next liberal president to continue on and go further.
 
I think this is the fundamental BS that gets peddled and just gobbled up by people that don't stop and think about it in context.

Hillary is the most recognized and admired woman in the world for 25 years.

25 years?
Come on.
She wasn't the most admired woman in the world in 1991, or 1997 or anything like that.
 
I actually don't really like Hillary (love Bill tho).

What gets me behind her is the absolute hatred thrown her way, and now it's coming from a side that she's on.

Obama took his lumps from the Right. I'm wondering if Obama was going up against Bernie, if his followers would go the Birther route, or Muslim, etc

Does Hillary take this abuse because she's a woman? I have never seen a candidate take so much shit from both sides.

Some of the concerns are warranted. She seems a bit Hawkish (no more than Obama), and she does have ties to the corporate world that makes you believe regulation will be limited.

It feels like since Dubya, we want to elect people based on can we be friends with them. Hillary may be a bitch, but she knows policy.

I just don't see the system crashing down under her. I see more incremental progress (especially with center to left justices) which will open the door towards the kind of progressive policies we want. It just takes time


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
I think the majority of Americans would like to see a 3, maybe 4 party system. But maybe people here can help me to think about what it means for actual governing.



How would it work going into DC and working with Senate and Congress. Right now, nothing gets done with having around 50% support. Imagine going in with 33% or 25% support...

I think this is the biggest obstacle for a viable third or fourth party. Am I wrong? missing something?



I would love to have more choices. But I do feel like after a couple cycles people would say the same thing. 350 million Americans and we can only find these 3 losers!!! We will never be happy every time.


I've said this before, but the only way you're gonna get a multiparty system in the US is by changing from single member, winner-take-all districts, to a proportional representation system. It's the main obstacle preventing a multiparty system. However, our two major parties would never allow a PR system to be implemented because it would weaken the two major parties dramatically.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
I actually don't really like Hillary (love Bill tho).

What gets me behind her is the absolute hatred thrown her way, and now it's coming from a side that she's on.

Obama took his lumps from the Right. I'm wondering if Obama was going up against Bernie, if his followers would go the Birther route, or Muslim, etc

Does Hillary take this abuse because she's a woman? I have never seen a candidate take so much shit from both sides.

Some of the concerns are warranted. She seems a bit Hawkish (no more than Obama), and she does have ties to the corporate world that makes you believe regulation will be limited.

It feels like since Dubya, we want to elect people based on can we be friends with them. Hillary may be a bitch, but she knows policy.

I just don't see the system crashing down under her. I see more incremental progress (especially with center to left justices) which will open the door towards the kind of progressive policies we want. It just takes time


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference


I support Hillary in part because I remember what she suffered in the '90s as First Lady. The Right was incensed that she DARE try to influence policy. They tried to get her to fit the mold of the archetypal first lady, who was the ultimate housewife. That's not who she ever was. I loved that she was able to have her own career after Bill served his two terms.

For a woman, she's a bit brash and that ALWAYS draws criticism. Again, I respect her a ton for what she's had to put up with as a candidate.
 
I'm sorry, are you defending the Clinton Foundation and acting like it's RWNJ who are the only ones who take issue with it?

No, i completely expect it from RWNJ's. But for fellow liberals to use the - throw any shit at the wall and see what sticks, tactic toward Clinton is quite disappointing. I'm saying that this random, throw out an insinuation about the clinton foundation, and let the rumors swirl thing, is just stupid.

Is there credible evidence that Clinton made secret deals with people, as SOS, based on contributions to the foundation? No. just speculation.

It's the same tactic used over and over again against her.

This is a foundation that has saved hundreds of thousands of lives around the world, and bettered millions more.
It's Rated A, by CharityWatch - with 88% of funds going straight to help people.

So yeah, i think its a good thing. And I think until some actual evidence of some wrong-doing were to be presented, I believe she is professional enough to seperate her work as SOS, and her involvement with the charity.
 
25 years?
Come on.
She wasn't the most admired woman in the world in 1991, or 1997 or anything like that.

Actually she was.

From Gallup:

Clinton Named Most Admired More Than Any Other Woman or Man

Clinton has been the most admired woman each of the last 14 years, and 20 times overall, occupying the top spot far longer than any other woman or man in Gallup's history of asking the most admired question. Since 1993, the year she was first named most admired woman, Clinton has stayed in the news as first lady, U.S. senator, secretary of state and a two-time presidential candidate.
 
So what i get from this answer is that it would most likely lead to more compromise. Which you're right, is not always a bad thing. This is funny, because the people beating their chest for more parties, are the ones that are also beating their chest about NO compromise.

It doesn't quite work like that because you have to keep in mind whom you are compromising with. These are things to keep in mind in a multiparty system:

1. Typically you are compromising with "your own side" or possibly somebody centrist, not the other side of the aisle. For example, say the Dems split into mainstream (Hillary) and progressive (Bernie) and the GOP split into the mainstream (Jeb Bush/Rubio/Ryan, etc) and Tea Party (Cruz, possibly Trump though who the hell knows who his constituency is). Generally the left-leaning parties would come together to compromise as would the right leaning. If you have a 5th party with few seats, like the Greens or Libertarians, they may be kingmaker.

2. In the current system there is no need to compromise because every 2/4/6 years depending on the seat you have to run an election campaign. So digging in your heels is actually a way to save your own hide. In a multiparty system, a government can fall in the blink of an eye if they are uncompromising or trying to shove through an agenda that nobody else agrees with. So the majority party has a reason to compromise. And the other parties also have incentive to compromise because it gives them an opportunity to bring about an election on their terms, when they want it and when they think it would be the most advantageous to them.
 
Actually she was.

From Gallup:

Clinton Named Most Admired More Than Any Other Woman or Man

Clinton has been the most admired woman each of the last 14 years, and 20 times overall, occupying the top spot far longer than any other woman or man in Gallup's history of asking the most admired question. Since 1993, the year she was first named most admired woman, Clinton has stayed in the news as first lady, U.S. senator, secretary of state and a two-time presidential candidate.
So what you're saying is she's the female Bono. Adored and despised at the same time
 
Actually she was.

From Gallup:

Clinton Named Most Admired More Than Any Other Woman or Man

Clinton has been the most admired woman each of the last 14 years, and 20 times overall, occupying the top spot far longer than any other woman or man in Gallup's history of asking the most admired question. Since 1993, the year she was first named most admired woman, Clinton has stayed in the news as first lady, U.S. senator, secretary of state and a two-time presidential candidate.

And this was a world wide poll as you claim? Or is it just a US poll? Kind of a bit of a difference.
 
And this was a world wide poll as you claim? Or is it just a US poll? Kind of a bit of a difference.

No, it's an American poll.

Also rather silly given that Trump came in #3 for most admired man (after Obama and the Pope).
 
No, i completely expect it from RWNJ's. But for fellow liberals to use the - throw any shit at the wall and see what sticks, tactic toward Clinton is quite disappointing. I'm saying that this random, throw out an insinuation about the clinton foundation, and let the rumors swirl thing, is just stupid.


Yeah, it's annoying. Facts be damned with these people, they are of the same fabric as the far right; it doesn't matter the source if they can find a poll, rumor, meme, racist rhetoric, etc. as long as it's attacking Hillary it's fair game. That particular poster admitted it was just rumor but now that Bernie has lost he's stated it as fact twice.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
So what you're saying is she's the female Bono. Adored and despised at the same time

Amazing. For weeks, I've been thinking of posting about this. Clinton is very much the U2 of politics. Once more edgy, but always popular. Cares way too much about what people think and would be much better served to just relax and be herself.
And yes, loved by one group. Considered blah by another group of people, and hated by the rest.

Sanders is? Radiohead?
 
Amazing. For weeks, I've been thinking of posting about this. Clinton is very much the U2 of politics. Once more edgy, but always popular. Cares way too much about what people think and would be much better served to just relax and be herself.
And yes, loved by one group. Considered blah by another group of people, and hated by the rest.

Sanders is? Radiohead?
Intriguing at first but then gets so far up his own ass that nobody gives a shit anymore, unless you do, in which case you REEEEEALLY give a shit?

I can see it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom