2016 US Presidential Election Thread Part X

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.
Everybody who endorsed Sanders got to cash in big when it came to political contributions as evidenced by the incredible amount of contributions received by Grayson. It was actually the more strategically sound move unless you were certain that Clinton was going to give you some plush cabinet position. After all, would you rather get a flood of donations from Sanders' vast network or just be the 431st prominent Democrat to endorse Hillary?
 
The orange douche announces his VP pick (of another slightly orange guy) via Twitter. Classy as ever!

Well, to be fair, it was going to be a Big Event today, but he cancelled that in lieu of the events in Nice. So for once in his orange life, I don't think this is worthy of a callout.

Edit: shoulda read the rest of the thread. Hewson beat me to it.
 
This is going to be a polling landslide for Clinton eventually...it's just a question of when. Unless people really dislike her to the point that millions of expected voters don't even bother showing up, she's eventually going to grab all of those people on the fence.

She has 43 points in the two-way polling race compared to Trump's 40. If they just matched the 2012 totals, that would mean Clinton is 8 points off Obama's 51% and Trump is seven points behind Romney's 47%. But Trump's general shittiness and a demographic swing that continues to favor Democrats should mean he sits at about 45%, tops.

And of course, none of that is throwing Johnson into the equation. Ultimately, I think those Clinton voters that really dislike her are going to check her name off the box on their vote-by-mail ballots and that will be the end of all of this "worry" from certain groups on the left. It will be the first election in American history where the winner has nearly half of their supporters downright loathing them, but in a firmly entrenched two-party system, it was bound to happen at some point.

And let's be honest, she'll look like Mother friggin' Teresa when she debates that clown in the fall.
 
Last edited:
2 minds that are 2 legit 2 quit.

giphy.gif
 
I think so. And it's exactly the key reason why I think Sanders would do better. Nobody that supports Clinton would not vote for Sanders in November.

No, it sums up everything that is wrong with your posts and the mentality of Sanders' disciples(not all supporters but the disciples).

You feel entitled. It's a double edged sword you guys made him, but you're also a big reason why he failed. You rant on and on about how you and Sanders voters will not vote for Clinton unless she introduces some of Sanders platform. But you feel ENTITLED to Clinton's votes without a single mumble of adopting part of her platform.
 
I don't feel entitled to them, I feel they're a given. A lifelong Democrat is surely going to vote for the Democratic presidential candidate when the opportunity presents itself. That's not on Sanders or his supporters, it's on people that are willing to check the D box regardless of who it happens to be.
 
I don't feel entitled to them, I feel they're a given. A lifelong Democrat is surely going to vote for the Democratic presidential candidate when the opportunity presents itself. That's not on Sanders or his supporters, it's on people that are willing to check the D box regardless of who it happens to be.

Well you did say entitled.

Of course he'll get the blanket voters, but I think you're underestimating a couple of things; there would be a lot that would be scared of his tax plan and the fact that he seems clueless about how to enact some of his other "plans" so they might go looking for a third option or write in, you also are extremely naive about how much roasting and fear mongering he would get from the right. Yes, there is still a middle in America, don't fool yourself, and Sanders would be a hard sell to them. Even at this point he's still an unknown to most he hasn't been vetted and been in office since 91 without any big accomplishments attached to his name.
 
You say he's clueless but how exactly is Clinton going to enact her plans with a Republican House? Still waiting for an answer...sources from inside the Clinton campaign say she discusses this all the time in her close circle of confidants. It boggles the mind, really, that they think Republicans might be amenable to her when they weren't to Barack. Clinton is an executive action President and that's it. She's never going to pass a major bill through Congress unless it's a complete "fuck you" to the left.

What are Clinton's big accomplishments in office? Voting for the Patriot Act, No Child Left Behind and the Iraq War? Taking a stand against something like Sanders did at various key points in recent American history is just as valuable as supporting something that passes. And in the case of those examples I just gave, morally right and courageous.
 
Jill would be ok if she would a campaign on issues. The least I could say of Nader, is that he never based his campaign on using right wing smears against a Democratic Candidate.
Also, from the get go, she seemed to try and piggyback herself onto the Bernie campaign. She was a candidate of a different party, but her social media presence through the primaries was to praise a candidate of a different party (Bernie) while making visciously right-wing talking point attacks on Hillary.
Then for the topper, she says, hey Bernie, be MY running mate! LOL. When that didn't work. Hey Bernie, I'll step down and YOU can run third party!
JESUS. It became obvious she has no intention of actually being a serious change maker, she became an anti-hillary zealot.

Then, when Bernie does the right thing, and endorses Clinton, she goes after him.

Her resume reads like a trail of tears. I mean, if you applied for a job and your resume was a list of all the jobs you've applied for but DIDN'T get, how would that work out for you?

It may seem old fashioned, but I DO like a candidate based in reality. A read through of her "platform" sounds like a mix of about half of what Hillary is proposing, and half sounds like a conversation around a drum circle/sweat lodge.
Hillary did more in her first few years after college than she has done in a lifetime.

Where would our country be right now if Ralph Nader hadn't gotten enough votes in Florida (and NH) to hand to election to Bush?

would 9/11 have even happened? Even if it had, would the aftermath of it, Invasion of Iraq, which spurred on the crippling debt, the rise of terror groups, etc.. have happened? I don't think so.

Idealism is great. But being a spoiler that ends up bringing down a viable candidate with real progressive ideas and the ability to get them done is not ok in my book. In fact, in may be the least progressive thing you could do.

Oh, whoah, thanks for he info! And as former RN supporter in his (non-presidential) organization efforts on many issues through the decades, what he did in 2000 :|. Hell, yeah, where would we be?! :sigh:
 
Last edited:
You say he's clueless but how exactly is Clinton going to enact her plans with a Republican House?
That's not what I'm talking about, you know perfectly well what I'm talking about. There's precedent and pathways laid out for Clinton's platform. Sanders has no idea how he'll fund some of his ideas, he can't even explain sometimes the extent of his ideas, there's no real plan. Regardless of who is in the Congress you have to be able to have an executable because you have no idea how the landscape might change. He couldn't show us executables, it's one of the main reasons I couldn't ever come on board.

Taking a stand against something like Sanders did at various key points in recent American history is just as valuable as supporting something that passes. And in the case of those examples I just gave, morally right and courageous.
Not really. Of course taking the right stands are important but just generically saying they're just as valuable as getting something passed is a joke. If you want to make that claim you have to state specifics and then be able to show that it has or will make a difference.
 
I'd never heard of this Pence guy. Can anyone give a brief summary? I'm assuming he's odious to some degree, but is he Tea Party crazy, Trump batshit insane, generic old white guy grumpy, or...?
 
I'm getting the impression he's a right-wing Christian. So he could lean theocratic, like Cruz.
I remember also reading something when Kaiscich was still running approximately- don't let his mild-manner fool you, he's a serious Christian Right winger.
 
I'd never heard of this Pence guy. Can anyone give a brief summary? I'm assuming he's odious to some degree, but is he Tea Party crazy, Trump batshit insane, generic old white guy grumpy, or...?




Look up Indiana's "religious freedom" law that would protect The Christian right to discriminate against gay people by refusing to sell them cakes, sleep in hotel rooms, eat at the lunch counter, etc.

At least he lost that battle.
 
Yeah, he's part of the religious right. When he was in Congress, he also argued that smoking doesn't kill people.

He's supported anti-choice legislation including the full defunding of Planned Parenthood.

Basically, the Trump campaign felt they weren't suitably homophobic and misogynistic so they chose this guy.
 
Last edited:
:hmm:

Are we going to incorporate both conventions into this thread, or have dedicated (separate) threads for each?
If we make separate threads we can keep stuff here that might be less (or not at all but still about the race) connected to the conventions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom