2016 US Presidential Election Thread Part V

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.
Might as well...i swear i saw on SP the other night that Caitlyn Jenner and Mr. Garrison were running on the GOP ticket. That would be a step-up over TRUMP! and Cruz666 :wave:
 
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.

Ha, this reminds me of an article I read during the last US election cycle trying to explain the US system for an Australian audience, which explained why US politics is so awash with cash simply by attributing it to "a cultural quirk that associates political donations with freedom of expression".

I'd say donation and spending limits actually promote greater freedom - that no person with shitloads of money can monopolise the field - but perhaps that's just a "cultural quirk" too.
 
i find that funny in that it's because of my religious values that i do not support Ted Cruz.

i find that funny in that it's because of my religious values that i do not support Ted Cruz.

i find that funny in that it's because of my religious values that i do not support Ted Cruz.

i find that funny in that it's because of my religious values that i do not support Ted Cruz.

i find that funny in that it's because of my religious values that i do not support Ted Cruz.

:up:
 
I must say that this is actually a pretty good debate. Sanders and Clinton are having a good back-and-forth on some of these issues.
 
I feel bad for the Bernie supporters. Despite Bern cleaning her clock by 20% in NH, that witch if making off with more delegates from the contest. She has the backing of more super-delegates by a margin of 6-1.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
I feel bad for the Bernie supporters. Despite Bern cleaning her clock by 20% in NH, that witch if making off with more delegates from the contest. She has the backing of more super-delegates by a margin of 6-1.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference



It seems someone read a UsUncut article and thinks he knows something about party politics.
 
It seems someone read a UsUncut article and thinks he knows something about party politics.

tee-hee.gif
 
I still have a hard time backing any candidate.

And honestly, closed primaries in my state are a big reason as to why I don't feel a desire to choose.
 
I back Sanders and Im confident of my decision; however, this weirdly heated "who's better?" type of arguments amongst Democrats is kinda making me alienated.
 
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.
Unless he changes his tune Sanders won't offer the GOP anything that could lead to a compromise. With a GOP majority in Congress that would lead to a complete standstill. A standstill the GOP would be able to justify.
While Hillary has many flaws, she does know how politics work. She will be aware she will have to move to the left for the starting point in 'negotiations' to end somewhere in the center.

I think her supporters would probably applaud Hillary slightly moving to the left. I don't think Sanders would feel the same if he would move towards the center. I think they would feel quite betrayed.
 
I think her supporters would probably applaud Hillary slightly moving to the left. I don't think Sanders would feel the same if he would move towards the center. I think they would feel quite betrayed.


We've already seen that in here. Apparently real progressives don't compromise.

And I think this is where Irvine was trying to draw the comparisons to the Tea Party, they both have the unrealistic notion of uncompromising.

Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
Last edited:
We've already seen that in here. Apparently real progressives don't compromise.

And I think this is where Irvine was trying to draw the comparisons to the Tea Party, they both have the unrealistic notion of uncompromising.

Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference


I get the comparison to the Tea Party, but I think it's a bit off. I think this Bernie movement is akin to Ron Paul's libertarian youthful uprising during his two runs. Try telling a Paul supporter that Ted Cruz is libertarian. They'll scoff and say "Ted Cruz is a Goldman Sacha puppet."

So, the common denominator there is their sincerity and honesty of their candidacies. Many people who supported Paul, surprisingly have reached way across the spectrum in support of Bernie. Go read Paul's Facebook page and see... whenever he criticizes Bernie, his own followers always suggest that Paul and Bernie are somehow alike because they don't accept big dollar.

Ultimately, I think that's why you see an unrelenting "far left." It's not because it's the left equivalent to the tea party. It's because it's an admiration of honesty and sincerity that can create a cult-like following, regardless of content.
 
Is it actually ironic? I don't think Donald Trump "lies" in the same sense that Ted Cruz does. Trump just says anything. It's not really the same as lying. It's more like making things up.


I was more referring to the reply from the pro-Trump person. They said that they could see straight through Cruz's "fake Christianity". Yet, they can't see through Trump's blatant and insulting pandering of evangelicals.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
Just to clarify -- I don't think that the Berners/Bernie Bros/Sanderistinas are the equivalent of the Tea Party. I'm just noticing some similarities and positing that we could be witnessing the birth of something that could become a left version of the TP.
 
Just to clarify -- I don't think that the Berners/Bernie Bros/Sanderistinas are the equivalent of the Tea Party. I'm just noticing some similarities and positing that we could be witnessing the birth of something that could become a left version of the TP.


Could it succeed in being unified in the way that Occupy Wall Street failed?


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
Just to clarify -- I don't think that the Berners/Bernie Bros/Sanderistinas are the equivalent of the Tea Party. I'm just noticing some similarities and positing that we could be witnessing the birth of something that could become a left version of the TP.
I think the left is far, far away from finding an answer to the Tea Party, because the only reason the Tea Party was able to gain traction was down ballot. While I understand your point about demanding ideological purity (and your point has made me question some things I've been reading that I wasn't questioning before), this is so largely concentrated on just the presidential election that I don't see it really being a left version of the Tea Party.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom