2016 US Presidential Election Thread Part V

[deep]

Originally Posted by anitram

I also get a bit tired of the Nader vilification. Al Gore would have one had he simply WON HIS OWN HOME STATE. He couldn't even do that much.

Tennessee is a red state. If Romney had lost by one state and not won Massachusetts it would be silly to say he should have won his home state. Nader aside there are more credible issues with 2000 and the stealing of that election .

[PhilsFan]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

i do see it, and while i agree that it is a small number of people, it's not something that i can remember being a part of democratic politics up until now, but it IS something that we saw in 2010 in GOP politics. i don't see policy positions that are the left wing equivalents of the Tea Party (not even sure what that would be), but i see the same structures at play. several people in here have commented on the aggressiveness of Sanders supporters, so this isn't coming out of nowhere. we can ponder the scope, but we cannot argue that it is or isn't "a thing."

not sure if you're addressing me in particular, but i haven't been all that critical of Sanders, and in fact have openly pondered who to vote for. i don't think i've actually "ripped" Bernie himself anywhere, and have consistently done what you say i haven't -- debated the viability of his economic policies and my concerns about his grasp on foreign policy. i don't think it's fair to take a small issue and present that as if that is the only thing i've offered.

you know, that's fine. my beef, as stated, is the growing strain of ideological purity that has so far not had much voice in the Democratic party -- when you have to sew together a broad coalition of blacks, gays, single women, labor unions, etc., you have to make compromises and often settle for least worst options in order to win office. what i am seeing amongst a small but real section of Sanders supporters feels more at home in the GOP of 2010 and 2014 than in the Democratic Party i've known. i'm not going to not comment on it in a discussion forum.

I did not mean to imply that you have not talked about the actual issues here, and I admit that I'm probably taking a bit of overall frustration about this on you because you're just the latest person I've seen talk about it.

As far as this whole Sanders vs. Clinton thing is concerned, I think the whole "compromises versus not compromises" thing would be a lot more valid if he were running against Obama in 2012. You have eloquently stated so often that some on the left are underselling his accomplishments over the last eight years because they are unwilling to accept the slow speed of the American political process. And if all of this rhetoric was Sanders vs. Obama, I think everything you've said would be dead on, and it would reflect poorly on Sanders' supporters. But as much as she wants to be, Clinton is not Obama. She's farther right than he is. It's one thing to have a leftist position and meet somewhere in the middle. It's another to already be there and knowing that it means the compromise will be even farther right.

[anitram]

Originally Posted by deep

Tennessee is a red state. If Romney had lost by one state and not won Massachusetts it would be silly to say he should have won his home state. Nader aside there are more credible issues with 2000 and the stealing of that election .

You say this as if Al Gore was some kind of socialist carpetbagger rather than a member of a well-known and liked Tennessee political family dynasty.

[PhilsFan]

I was 9-years-old in 2000 so I don't have anything to add about that election.

[bono_212]

Originally Posted by Axver

And I wouldn't use "very sane and levelheaded" to describe anybody who is either libertarian or anti-vax.

Also repeating myself, but Rand's anti-vax thing is about as disappointing to me, on a personal level, as his father's racism.

Originally Posted by LemonMelon

One of the reasons Bernie Sanders has endeared himself to some is that he's a staunch supporter of publicly funded elections that theoretically eliminate private donations/bribes. But honestly, that's only half the battle.

Publicly funded elections are a HUGE part of the battle. I wish all of these so-called angry young republicans, tired of the system, and turning to Trump out of desperation could see that.

[LemonMelon]

Originally Posted by bono_212

Publicly funded elections are a HUGE part of the battle. I wish all of these so-called angry young republicans, tired of the system, and turning to Trump out of desperation could see that.

If the public is funding ludicrously expensive two-party elections, that doesn't solve everything.

We need to level the playing field across the parties so new voices can make a legitimate impact.

[deep]

There is a whisper campaign going on in South Carolina that Rubio has an out of wedlock black love child and that his wife is a prescription drug addict

[Axver]

Originally Posted by LemonMelon

If the public is funding ludicrously expensive two-party elections, that doesn't solve everything.

We need to level the playing field across the parties so new voices can make a legitimate impact.

That's why a spending cap is also a good idea - everybody has to get their message out with the same amount of money. But public funding isn't unrestricted anyway. I think in Australia it's around $1.50 per vote that a party receives, as long as they get at least 4% of the vote (so they actually spend first and get paid later according to how good their results are). It's an imperfect system and it disproportionately benefits parties that are already successful. But it means candidates aren't out there with a begging bowl.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by bobsaget77

Who says that? Trump? Republican establishment? Liberals? Of course they do. Everyone in Washington hates him because he's taking the Washington machine head on and winning. We would be blessed as a nation to have Ted Cruz as our next president.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

Your savior doesn't like him. Ron Paul says he's owned by Goldman Sachs. How does that sit with you?


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[LemonMelon]

Cruz is a calculating sleazeball with a thin facade of humanity. He's also literally in bed with Wall Street. That fucker has to be my least favorite of the remaining GOP candidates and that's saying something.

Even Rubio, a babyfaced automaton that gets bullied by the likes of Chris Christie, is more appealing to me.

[bono_212]

Originally Posted by LemonMelon

If the public is funding ludicrously expensive two-party elections, that doesn't solve everything.

We need to level the playing field across the parties so new voices can make a legitimate impact.

But politicians, theoretically, aren't indebted to companies involved in Super PACs, so it's still a monster step in the right direction.

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Originally Posted by namkcuR

It's not just Florida, Ohio and New Hampshire are two more states that Bush won very closely where Nader had 2+% of the vote. We can't know for sure if either of those states would've flipped, but you can't completely discount it.

And even if Nader didn't cost anything, it doesn't change the fact that Bloomberg poses a threat to the Democratic nominee, especially if it's Bernie.

He is not going to win. His potential candidacy concerns me,

And I strongly disagree that the Democratic nominees are jokes. But then I'm a life-long progressive, so that shouldn't be surprising.




Sent from my iPad using U2 Interference

You have a socialist, who has zero chance of winning a national election. The other candidate is involved in an active investigation by the FBI.

On the other side we have a reality TV star with a history of bankruptcies and overstated real estate holdings who's offered literally no plans on how he is going to accomplish things through a year of campaigning, and Ted Cruz, a walking bucket of slime.

Oh yea. This is America's best hope.

[digitize]

Originally Posted by Headache in a Suitcase

You have a socialist, who has zero chance of winning a national election. The other candidate is involved in an active investigation by the FBI.

On the other side we have a reality TV star with a history of bankruptcies and overstated real estate holdings who's offered literally no plans on how he is going to accomplish things through a year of campaigning, and Ted Cruz, a walking bucket of slime.

Oh yea. This is America's best hope.

Godddddddd I hate this election


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[Mrs. Garrison]

Originally Posted by Headache in a Suitcase

You have a socialist, who has zero chance of winning a national election. The other candidate is involved in an active investigation by the FBI.

On the other side we have a reality TV star with a history of bankruptcies and overstated real estate holdings who's offered literally no plans on how he is going to accomplish things through a year of campaigning, and Ted Cruz, a walking bucket of slime.

Oh yea. This is America's best hope.

that pretty much sums it all up right there

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Originally Posted by digitize

Godddddddd I hate this election


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

It really makes you want to vomit

[Irvine511]

FDR got a third term. So should Obama.

Repeal the 22nd amendment! But just for this year!

[Headache in a Suitcase]

At this point I'm okay with that

[bobsaget77]

Originally Posted by BVS

Your savior doesn't like him. Ron Paul says he's owned by Goldman Sachs. How does that sit with you?


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

'Ol Ron likes to stir up the pot.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[bobsaget77]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

FDR got a third term. So should Obama.

Repeal the 22nd amendment! But just for this year!

Why? Because you know Hillary is a terrible candidate who will probably get beat in November?


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[Oregoropa]

I'm for no limits on campaign finance as long as they don't come from overseas entities. In my view it violates the 1st Amendment caveats of Freedom of Speech and Association.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference