2016 US Presidential Election Thread Part XI

[BigMacPhisto]

Originally Posted by Diemen

It almost seems like you'll be disappointed if Hillary does win the election.

Of course I will be...we're getting either a Trump Presidency or someone who is going to gleefully fuck over the left-side of this country the second she gets into office.

[Diemen]

Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto

Of course I will be...we're getting either a Trump Presidency or someone who is going to gleefully fuck over the left-side of this country the second she gets into office.

Thank you again, fellow man, for explaining what a woman's motives really are.

And to clarify, I should have said "it seems like you'll be more disappointed if Hillary wins than if Trump wins."

[Vlad n U 2]

Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7

Also, we get it, nobody is as progressive as you. What is a "far left progressive" anyways?

I have no idea either. I have never heard a term featuring those three words together, and I think with the mish-mash of various views on what constitutes this or that, it makes things a bit confusing.

[Kieran McConville]

For mine, I'm reluctant to use the label 'progressive' at all. It has certain US historical connotations that don't necessarily encompass the left at all, let alone social democratic or egalitarian politics. I'm not American and I'm not a Progressive. Not with a capital P anyhow.

[PhilsFan]

You guys are fighting a futile fight. BMP has convinced himself a progressive can win a general election because he's convinced himself the numbers show Sanders would have stomped Trump, even though the only way to do that is to ignore any numbers that look unfavorably upon Sanders. And to ignore the context of how Trump's fear mongering would be a lot more effective against a socialist. Do you think these ties to Russia would be nearly as damaging for Trump if he was running against a socialist?

[Vlad n U 2]

Much of the media would follow suit in that case, I'd reckon. Red baiting is still fairly widespread, much to my unsurprising annoyance.

[cobl04]

Originally Posted by PhilsFan

You guys are fighting a futile fight. BMP has convinced himself a progressive can win a general election because he's convinced himself the numbers show Sanders would have stomped Trump, even though the only way to do that is to ignore any numbers that look unfavorably upon Sanders. And to ignore the context of how Trump's fear mongering would be a lot more effective against a socialist. Do you think these ties to Russia would be nearly as damaging for Trump if he was running against a socialist?

Even Shaun King wrote an article about voting for Hillary. And he's a big man baby. Or at least I thought so, until I read all the top comments on his post.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto

Of course I will be...we're getting either a Trump Presidency or someone who is going to gleefully fuck over the left-side of this country the second she gets into office.

So someone who will "gleefully fuck over" you AND the entire country over someone who will "gleefully fuck over" the so called left?

Your narcissism and ignorance knows no bounds. Is this what defines "far left progressive"? Because honestly with the exception of a few anti-capitalism views you've expressed you align more with Trump, it's really not surprising that you're stumping for him now.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[diamond]

Originally Posted by Diemen

It almost seems like you'll be disappointed if Hillary does win the election.

Well first things first they have:
to fill the arena for HRC, as they are approx 700 empty seats that some have denied here.

As a courtesy Im posting the Craig's List ad for my under or unemployed left leaning associates trapped in the crap Obama economy: to help out any qualified HRC Supporters (they threw out Bernie Supporters) on the east coast.

Good luck

Love,
<>

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto

As a far left progressive, I'd say Obama is the best President since Truman and I'd give him a D+.

It could be a while for him to have any real competition. Clinton is clearly to his right politically and might even be more so once she takes office and there's always the possibility that another "centrist"-type like Cory Booker succeeds her, etc.

And as brought up in here, there will certainly be Democrats in the future that achieve far more than he could due to a more favorable Congressional environment. Clinton is probably likely to achieve even less as she'll need to score a big House win in 2020 if she ever wants to be able to pass significant left-leaning legislation. I don't see that happening.


How I Rate Them

Truman: Can't rate. Continued FDR's policies but also dropped nukes, so, maybe a C?

Eisenhower: D

Kennedy: D-

Johnson: D (Best domestic policy improvements since FDR, but that foreign policy...oy.)

Nixon: F

Ford: F

Carter: D

Reagan: F

Bush: D-

Clinton: D-

Bush: F-

Lolz

God we must suck, huh?

[BEAL]

What is the point? I guess the DNC is as relevant as a U2 show since neither can sell out all their shows


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[womanfish]

Originally Posted by diamond

Well first things first they have:
to fill the arena for HRC, as they are approx 700 empty seats that some have denied here.

As a courtesy Im posting the Craig's List ad for my under or unemployed left leaning associates trapped in the crap Obama economy: to help out any qualified HRC Supporters (they threw out Bernie Supporters) on the east coast.

Good luck

Love,
<>

DNC Hiring 'Actors' via Craigslist to Replace Delegates : snopes.com

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Originally Posted by diamond

Well first things first they have:
to fill the arena for HRC, as they are approx 700 empty seats that some have denied here.

As a courtesy Im posting the Craig's List ad for my under or unemployed left leaning associates trapped in the crap Obama economy: to help out any qualified HRC Supporters (they threw out Bernie Supporters) on the east coast.

Good luck

Love,
<>

You're really grasping for anything aren't you?

[BVS]

Now Craigslist is a source?! Well it's slightly more accurate than Breitbart, so I'll give you that.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[diamond]

Originally Posted by womanfish

DNC Hiring 'Actors' via Craigslist to Replace Delegates : snopes.com

WHAT'S UNDETERMINED: Who placed the ad

I wouldn't place too much emphasis on Snopes as being accurate: ran by a husband & wife team who are known Atheists and considered by some as liberal hacks.

Apparently this journalist believes the ad as authentic:

Are You An Actor at the DNC? (New York) hide this posting


© craigslist - Map data © OpenStreetMap
1020 Walnut Street
(google map)

no pay

I'm a journalist looking to speak to anyone who replied to the DNC's numerous posts on this forum looking for actors to fill seats at the convention. If you are someone who replied, or you are in fact filling a seat, and you are open to speaking with a writer, please reach out.

Thanks.

<>

[LuckyNumber7]

Originally Posted by Kieran McConville

For mine, I'm reluctant to use the label 'progressive' at all. It has certain US historical connotations that don't necessarily encompass the left at all, let alone social democratic or egalitarian politics. I'm not American and I'm not a Progressive. Not with a capital P anyhow.

Liberals will use the term progressive in place of liberal here, to avoid being labeled as laissez faire or non regulatory on economics.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by diamond

I wouldn't place too much emphasis on Snopes as being accurate: ran by a husband & wife team who are known Atheists and considered by some as liberal hacks.

<>

First of all if you're gullible enough to think any political party would put something out there so visible and obvious then you deserve Trump's Meeica.

Secondly Snopes hasn't had any of their major fact finds disputed. Being atheist has absolutely nothing to do with anything. And Oregoropa already tried this mission and failed.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[womanfish]

Originally Posted by diamond

I wouldn't place too much emphasis on Snopes as being accurate: ran by a husband & wife team who are known Atheists and considered by some as liberal hacks.

Apparently this journalist believes the ad as authentic:



<>

yeah, I can't see any possibility of a Bernie supporter, who walked out and then tried to claim it left the place empty, when it in fact did not, try and place a stupid ad like this out of petty hurt feelings. That seems TOTALLY out of the realm of possibility. Go ahead and reply to the ad and see how it goes. Report back with your 50 dollar check from the DNC.

[womanfish]

Originally Posted by diamond

I wouldn't place too much emphasis on Snopes as being accurate: ran by a husband & wife team who are known Atheists and considered by some as liberal hacks.

Apparently this journalist believes the ad as authentic:



<>

Odd how there were no empty seats on the actual night that the Bernie people left, and no empty seats last night either... So yeah. how does this make sense?

[BEAL]

Liberal media used technology to fill the empty seats. CGI!!!


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference