~*~Unofficial 2016 US Presidential Election Thread~*~

For discussion of politics, and what's going on in the world today.

Moderators: kiore, Blip, The_Metatron

Re: ~*~Unofficial 2016 US Presidential Election Thread~*~

#1381  Postby Columbus » Apr 16, 2016 11:50 pm

Whom is Sanders debating?

The Democrat.

One of the people who helped build the platform Sanders' bully pulpit is sitting on.
Nice of Clinton to share it with him, now wasn't it? She didn't have to. She owns the Democratic party. If she said "no" to letting Sanders run as a Democrat he would be in Vermont right now.
I think she picked him to run against in the primary. Because she knew he wouldn't win, didn't even want to. But he has protected her "left flank". In return, he got a lot of national attention to his agenda.
Win-win.
Tom
Last edited by Columbus on Apr 17, 2016 12:01 am, edited 2 times in total.
Nothing real can be threatened
Nothing unreal exists
Herein lies the peace of God
User avatar
Columbus
 
Name: Tom
Posts: 565
Age: 65
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: ~*~Unofficial 2016 US Presidential Election Thread~*~

#1382  Postby proudfootz » Apr 16, 2016 11:55 pm

Columbus wrote:
Whom is Sanders debating?

The Democrat.

One of the people who helped build the platform Sanders' bully pulpit is sitting on.
Tom


:lol:

Yup. Like Reagan said: "I paid for that microphone."

Not a very good argument to show how 'different' Clinton and her supporters are from the Tea Party Republicans to suggest they'd join forces against a progressive elected as the democratic nominee.

Thanks for proving my point! :thumbup:
"Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't." - Mark Twain
User avatar
proudfootz
 
Posts: 11041

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: ~*~Unofficial 2016 US Presidential Election Thread~*~

#1383  Postby Columbus » Apr 17, 2016 12:04 am

proudfootz wrote:
Columbus wrote:
Whom is Sanders debating?

The Democrat.

One of the people who helped build the platform Sanders' bully pulpit is sitting on.
Tom


:lol:

Yup. Like Reagan said: "I paid for that microphone."

Not a very good argument to show how 'different' Clinton and her supporters are from the Tea Party Republicans to suggest they'd join forces against a progressive elected as the democratic nominee.

Thanks for proving my point! :thumbup:

What point do you think you are making? I never said any of that.
Tom
Nothing real can be threatened
Nothing unreal exists
Herein lies the peace of God
User avatar
Columbus
 
Name: Tom
Posts: 565
Age: 65
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: ~*~Unofficial 2016 US Presidential Election Thread~*~

#1384  Postby proudfootz » Apr 17, 2016 1:09 pm

Columbus wrote:
proudfootz wrote:
Columbus wrote:
Whom is Sanders debating?

The Democrat.

One of the people who helped build the platform Sanders' bully pulpit is sitting on.
Tom


:lol:

Yup. Like Reagan said: "I paid for that microphone."

Not a very good argument to show how 'different' Clinton and her supporters are from the Tea Party Republicans to suggest they'd join forces against a progressive elected as the Democratic nominee.

Thanks for proving my point! :thumbup:

What point do you think you are making? I never said any of that.
Tom


My bad.

It seemed as though you were supporting the argument that Democrats in Congress would join forces with Republicans to block policies put forward by Sanders as President elected on the Democratic ticket.
"Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't." - Mark Twain
User avatar
proudfootz
 
Posts: 11041

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: ~*~Unofficial 2016 US Presidential Election Thread~*~

#1385  Postby Boyle » Apr 17, 2016 5:10 pm

Columbus wrote:
Whom is Sanders debating?

The Democrat.

One of the people who helped build the platform Sanders' bully pulpit is sitting on.
Nice of Clinton to share it with him, now wasn't it? She didn't have to. She owns the Democratic party. If she said "no" to letting Sanders run as a Democrat he would be in Vermont right now.
I think she picked him to run against in the primary. Because she knew he wouldn't win, didn't even want to. But he has protected her "left flank". In return, he got a lot of national attention to his agenda.
Win-win.
Tom

You know, you make it real hard for me to check "Clinton" when it comes to that. Might as well stay home if she's the Queen.
Boyle
 
Posts: 1632

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: ~*~Unofficial 2016 US Presidential Election Thread~*~

#1386  Postby crank » Apr 18, 2016 4:57 pm

I mentioned this in the Sanders thread, but only mentioned it. It deserves a post here because I've seen evidence this isn't recognized by many, that racism [and Xenophobia, anti-Islam, etc] isn't what primarily fuels support for Trump. It's from the awesome Thomas Frank, Imagewriting in The Guardian, much better in covering the US election than any of our MSM.

Millions of ordinary Americans support Donald Trump. Here's why
When he isn’t spewing insults, the Republican frontrunner is hammering home a powerful message about free trade and its victims
...

When members of the professional class wish to understand the working-class Other, they traditionally consult experts on the subject. And when these authorities are asked to explain the Trump movement, they always seem to zero in on one main accusation: bigotry. Only racism, they tell us, is capable of powering a movement like Trump’s, which is blowing through the inherited structure of the Republican party like a tornado through a cluster of McMansions.
...

All this stuff is so insane, so wildly outrageous, that the commentariat has deemed it to be the entirety of the Trump campaign. Trump appears to be a racist, so racism must be what motivates his armies of followers. And so, on Saturday, New York Times columnist Timothy Egan blamed none other than “the people” for Trump’s racism: “Donald Trump’s supporters know exactly what he stands for: hatred of immigrants, racial superiority, a sneering disregard of the basic civility that binds a society.”
...

Or so we’re told. Last week, I decided to watch several hours of Trump speeches for myself. I saw the man ramble and boast and threaten and even seem to gloat when protesters were ejected from the arenas in which he spoke. I was disgusted by these things, as I have been disgusted by Trump for 20 years. But I also noticed something surprising. In each of the speeches I watched, Trump spent a good part of his time talking about an entirely legitimate issue, one that could even be called leftwing.

Yes, Donald Trump talked about trade. In fact, to judge by how much time he spent talking about it, trade may be his single biggest concern – not white supremacy. Not even his plan to build a wall along the Mexican border, the issue that first won him political fame. He did it again during the debate on 3 March: asked about his political excommunication by Mitt Romney, he chose to pivot and talk about … trade.

It seems to obsess him: the destructive free-trade deals our leaders have made, the many companies that have moved their production facilities to other lands, the phone calls he will make to those companies’ CEOs in order to threaten them with steep tariffs unless they move back to the US.
...

But there is another way to interpret the Trump phenomenon. A map of his support may coordinate with racist Google searches, but it coordinates even better with deindustrialization and despair, with the zones of economic misery that 30 years of Washington’s free-market consensus have brought the rest of America.
...

Here is the most salient supporting fact: when people talk to white, working-class Trump supporters, instead of simply imagining what they might say, they find that what most concerns these people is the economy and their place in it. I am referring to a study just published by Working America, a political-action auxiliary of the AFL-CIO, which interviewed some 1,600 white working-class voters in the suburbs of Cleveland and Pittsburgh in December and January.

Support for Donald Trump, the group found, ran strong among these people, even among self-identified Democrats, but not because they are all pining for a racist in the White House. Their favorite aspect of Trump was his “attitude”, the blunt and forthright way he talks. As far as issues are concerned, “immigration” placed third among the matters such voters care about, far behind their number one concern: “good jobs / the economy”.


This Atlantic article sees a similar story: Are Donald Trump's Supporters Racist?
That anger and frustration is representative of a large swath of blue-collar workers who feel not only abandoned by the industries they once built their lives around, but also by the political elites in both parties. And for many of them, Trump is the candidate who understands that pain, the one who echoes that rage, and the one who promises not just help—but deliverance.


Thinking Trump's supporters are primarily racist, and that that's where his main support comes from, is just wrong, and misleading. It's one reason Birnie does so much better against Trump than Hillary, and why a lot of Birnie supporters have reasons to not vote for Hillary in the general election, does anyone believe her about TPP? That was sadly transparent weather-vaning to Birnie's position. And also reason's why a lot of Trump supporters are likely to support Birnie if the GOP manages to foil Trump, the rest of the GOP are gungho trade-deal supporters. Plus, there's a good chance a good percentage of Trump supporters might switch to Birnie due to Trump being Trump.

Another popular Trump trait is his bluntness, and while being blunt, he's often spewing utter BS, BUT, he also often spews utter truth, the kind that is usually considered a gaff when a regular pol utters such things. And it's Birnie who tends to tell us the blunt truth, the kind anathema to Clinton.

So to sum up, it's likely thinking Trump supporters are all mostly racist [and xenophobes etc], that his support stems largely from racism, leads to excess support for the unelectability of Birnie.
“When you're born into this world, you're given a ticket to the freak show. If you're born in America you get a front row seat.”
-George Carlin, who died 2008. Ha, now we have human centipedes running the place
User avatar
crank
RS Donator
 
Name: Sick & Tired
Posts: 10413
Age: 9
Male

Country: 2nd miasma on the left
Pitcairn (pn)
Print view this post

Re: ~*~Unofficial 2016 US Presidential Election Thread~*~

#1387  Postby Columbus » Apr 18, 2016 5:15 pm

Boyle wrote:
Columbus wrote:
Whom is Sanders debating?

The Democrat.

One of the people who helped build the platform Sanders' bully pulpit is sitting on.
Nice of Clinton to share it with him, now wasn't it? She didn't have to. She owns the Democratic party. If she said "no" to letting Sanders run as a Democrat he would be in Vermont right now.
I think she picked him to run against in the primary. Because she knew he wouldn't win, didn't even want to. But he has protected her "left flank". In return, he got a lot of national attention to his agenda.
Win-win.
Tom

You know, you make it real hard for me to check "Clinton" when it comes to that. Might as well stay home if she's the Queen.

So you are going to vote Cruz?
That will be your other choice.
In terms of The Revolution, you are either with us or you're against us. Not even voting for Bernie's choice of political party is a vote for Satan. Bern in hell infidel!
Tom
Nothing real can be threatened
Nothing unreal exists
Herein lies the peace of God
User avatar
Columbus
 
Name: Tom
Posts: 565
Age: 65
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: ~*~Unofficial 2016 US Presidential Election Thread~*~

#1388  Postby Willie71 » Apr 18, 2016 5:20 pm

Columbus wrote:
Boyle wrote:
Columbus wrote:
Whom is Sanders debating?

The Democrat.

One of the people who helped build the platform Sanders' bully pulpit is sitting on.
Nice of Clinton to share it with him, now wasn't it? She didn't have to. She owns the Democratic party. If she said "no" to letting Sanders run as a Democrat he would be in Vermont right now.
I think she picked him to run against in the primary. Because she knew he wouldn't win, didn't even want to. But he has protected her "left flank". In return, he got a lot of national attention to his agenda.
Win-win.
Tom

You know, you make it real hard for me to check "Clinton" when it comes to that. Might as well stay home if she's the Queen.

So you are going to vote Cruz?
That will be your other choice.
In terms of The Revolution, you are either with us or you're against us. Not even voting for Bernie's choice of political party is a vote for Satan. Bern in hell infidel!
Tom


Why on earth do you post this nonsense? Clinton doesn't want a revolution. She hasn't ever said that. She makes a few plattitudes, but has never supported the majority of what the revolution stands for. It seems you are projecting your wishes on the Clinton campaign ignoring her history and funding sources. She will not bite the hand that feeds her. The real question is: why do you speak out against the revolution?
We should probably go for a can of vegetables because not only would it be a huge improvement, you'd also be able to eat it at the end.
User avatar
Willie71
 
Name: Warren Krywko
Posts: 3247
Age: 52
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: ~*~Unofficial 2016 US Presidential Election Thread~*~

#1389  Postby Columbus » Apr 18, 2016 5:31 pm

Why on earth do you post this nonsense?

What nonsense?
The presidential choices in November are overwhelmingly likely to be Clinton and Cruz.
Who do you think more likely to push the Sanders agenda?

Sanders has a ton of support. I fully expect Clinton to pivot Sanders' way by July. Because that is what politicians do.
Tom
Nothing real can be threatened
Nothing unreal exists
Herein lies the peace of God
User avatar
Columbus
 
Name: Tom
Posts: 565
Age: 65
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: ~*~Unofficial 2016 US Presidential Election Thread~*~

#1390  Postby Willie71 » Apr 18, 2016 5:41 pm

Columbus wrote:
Why on earth do you post this nonsense?

What nonsense?
The presidential choices in November are overwhelmingly likely to be Clinton and Cruz.
Who do you think more likely to push the Sanders agenda?

Sanders has a ton of support. I fully expect Clinton to pivot Sanders' way by July. Because that is what politicians do.
Tom


You keep forgetting Sanders is supported by the people, Clinton is supported by the donors. You can't really believe she will reject what her donors want do you? You confuse me on this, because this is the most obvious principle in American politics. If you don't get this, there is something wrong. Policy has not followed the will of the people in nearly four decades, since the push to corporatize politics at obscene levels.
We should probably go for a can of vegetables because not only would it be a huge improvement, you'd also be able to eat it at the end.
User avatar
Willie71
 
Name: Warren Krywko
Posts: 3247
Age: 52
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: ~*~Unofficial 2016 US Presidential Election Thread~*~

#1391  Postby Columbus » Apr 18, 2016 6:10 pm

You keep forgetting Sanders is supported by the people,

So is Trump. Just ask his supporters or look at the polls they find definitive.
Tom
Nothing real can be threatened
Nothing unreal exists
Herein lies the peace of God
User avatar
Columbus
 
Name: Tom
Posts: 565
Age: 65
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: ~*~Unofficial 2016 US Presidential Election Thread~*~

#1392  Postby Byron » Apr 18, 2016 6:17 pm

crank wrote:[...] Millions of ordinary Americans support Donald Trump. Here's why
When he isn’t spewing insults, the Republican frontrunner is hammering home a powerful message about free trade and its victims

[...]

Thinking Trump's supporters are primarily racist, and that that's where his main support comes from, is just wrong, and misleading. It's one reason Birnie does so much better against Trump than Hillary, and why a lot of Birnie supporters have reasons to not vote for Hillary in the general election, does anyone believe her about TPP? [...]

Excellent op-ed, couldn't agree more.

Trump's support is, above all else, rooted in economics, & the fallout from neoliberalism. Offshoring & illegal aliens undercut millions of blue collar workers, something the latte liberals of the metro elite just don't understand. Well, time for them to get with the frickin' program: it's damn simple; and they're extremely well educated. The neoliberal consensus embraced by both parties has created Trumpery: the only way to stop it is to address its root causes.

It needn't be by building a wall: a radical alternative is to introduce free movement of workers in North America, modeled after the European Union (its omission was a major failing of NAFTA); combined with a minimum wage hike in Mexico. Combined with tariffs against countries that pay less than the federal minimum wage, Trump's support would swiftly evaporate.
I don't believe in the no-win scenario.
Kirk, Enterprise

Ms. Lovelace © Ms. Padua, resident of 2D Goggles
User avatar
Byron
 
Posts: 12881
Male

Country: Albion
Print view this post

Re: ~*~Unofficial 2016 US Presidential Election Thread~*~

#1393  Postby Columbus » Apr 18, 2016 6:21 pm

You can't really believe she will reject what her donors want do you?

Sure, no doubt in my mind.
She'll set her sails to the prevailing political winds. She has done it many times before.

She is now for gay rights, because that gets her what she wants. I remember when the Clinton's curried favour with the gay vote by talking about equality and human rights. Then threw us under the bus with DOMA and DADT. Yes, I am certain that Hillary will stick up her finger, see where the wind is blowing and fuck her old supporters without a backwards glance. Because she only cares about the supporters of the future.

Tom
Nothing real can be threatened
Nothing unreal exists
Herein lies the peace of God
User avatar
Columbus
 
Name: Tom
Posts: 565
Age: 65
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: ~*~Unofficial 2016 US Presidential Election Thread~*~

#1394  Postby Willie71 » Apr 18, 2016 6:41 pm

Columbus wrote:
You can't really believe she will reject what her donors want do you?

Sure, no doubt in my mind.
She'll set her sails to the prevailing political winds. She has done it many times before.

She is now for gay rights, because that gets her what she wants. I remember when the Clinton's curried favour with the gay vote by talking about equality and human rights. Then threw us under the bus with DOMA and DADT. Yes, I am certain that Hillary will stick up her finger, see where the wind is blowing and fuck her old supporters without a backwards glance. Because she only cares about the supporters of the future.

Tom


You are conflating progressive switches on social issues, with progressivism on economic issues. Any evidence Clinton has been progressive on economic issues? Not promises, but actual policy or votes?
We should probably go for a can of vegetables because not only would it be a huge improvement, you'd also be able to eat it at the end.
User avatar
Willie71
 
Name: Warren Krywko
Posts: 3247
Age: 52
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: ~*~Unofficial 2016 US Presidential Election Thread~*~

#1395  Postby Columbus » Apr 18, 2016 6:55 pm

Willie71 wrote:
Columbus wrote:
You can't really believe she will reject what her donors want do you?

Sure, no doubt in my mind.
She'll set her sails to the prevailing political winds. She has done it many times before.

She is now for gay rights, because that gets her what she wants. I remember when the Clinton's curried favour with the gay vote by talking about equality and human rights. Then threw us under the bus with DOMA and DADT. Yes, I am certain that Hillary will stick up her finger, see where the wind is blowing and fuck her old supporters without a backwards glance. Because she only cares about the supporters of the future.

Tom


You are conflating progressive switches on social issues, with progressivism on economic issues. Any evidence Clinton has been progressive on economic issues? Not promises, but actual policy or votes?

I'm not conflating anything. I'm pointing out that she is a consummate politician. She will support whatever is the wave of the future. If that is Sanders' agenda, she will be lying about having invented it before the midterm elections in 2018.
I don't care about ideological purity or punishing people for water under the bridge. If Sanders can convince his supporters to support his new party affiliation, she will be the best thing that has happened to progressives in decades. If he can't, it will be business as usual. Because the most skilled and entrenched politician in the USA will go right back to the olden days of 2014.
Tom
Nothing real can be threatened
Nothing unreal exists
Herein lies the peace of God
User avatar
Columbus
 
Name: Tom
Posts: 565
Age: 65
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: ~*~Unofficial 2016 US Presidential Election Thread~*~

#1396  Postby ScholasticSpastic » Apr 18, 2016 6:59 pm

I see the candidates like this: We want fish and chips.

Cruz will take away any extant fish and chips because they're immoral.
Trump understands (and channels) our frustration, and will make Mexico buy us a cheeseburger and pay for a wall.
Sanders has promised us fish AND chips.
But Sanders' supporters are reticent to vote for Clinton because she's only offering the chips.

If you want your fish and chips, and if Sanders doesn't make it through the primaries, fucking vote for Clinton. Getting part of what you want is better than losing ground with Cruz or Trump.
"You have to be a real asshole to quote yourself."
~ ScholasticSpastic
User avatar
ScholasticSpastic
 
Name: D-Money Sr.
Posts: 6354
Age: 48
Male

Country: Behind Zion's Curtain
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: ~*~Unofficial 2016 US Presidential Election Thread~*~

#1397  Postby Willie71 » Apr 18, 2016 7:08 pm

Columbus wrote:
Willie71 wrote:
Columbus wrote:
You can't really believe she will reject what her donors want do you?

Sure, no doubt in my mind.
She'll set her sails to the prevailing political winds. She has done it many times before.

She is now for gay rights, because that gets her what she wants. I remember when the Clinton's curried favour with the gay vote by talking about equality and human rights. Then threw us under the bus with DOMA and DADT. Yes, I am certain that Hillary will stick up her finger, see where the wind is blowing and fuck her old supporters without a backwards glance. Because she only cares about the supporters of the future.

Tom


You are conflating progressive switches on social issues, with progressivism on economic issues. Any evidence Clinton has been progressive on economic issues? Not promises, but actual policy or votes?

I'm not conflating anything. I'm pointing out that she is a consummate politician. She will support whatever is the wave of the future. If that is Sanders' agenda, she will be lying about having invented it before the midterm elections in 2018.
I don't care about ideological purity or punishing people for water under the bridge. If Sanders can convince his supporters to support his new party affiliation, she will be the best thing that has happened to progressives in decades. If he can't, it will be business as usual. Because the most skilled and entrenched politician in the USA will go right back to the olden days of 2014.
Tom


Short answer: she hasn't been progressive on economic issues.
We should probably go for a can of vegetables because not only would it be a huge improvement, you'd also be able to eat it at the end.
User avatar
Willie71
 
Name: Warren Krywko
Posts: 3247
Age: 52
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: ~*~Unofficial 2016 US Presidential Election Thread~*~

#1398  Postby Columbus » Apr 18, 2016 7:38 pm

Short answer: she hasn't been progressive on economic issues.

So?
The evidence shows that she will pivot on a dime and take positions she opposed a month ago.

To date, that has been taking the positions that the billionaires take. Because that is where the political support has been. If that changes, so will she.
Frankly, I think she chose Sanders to lose the Democratic nomination race. So she could market test her plans to "leave a legacy". She'll adopt the parts of his agenda that get support from enough voters to be winning propositions. And ignore the rest.
So whenever a Sanders supporter says, "I'm just not going to vote if not for Bernie", it makes me a bit angry. Not voting for the Democratic party is voting for their opposition.
That ain't progressive, however much it sounds good to the Bernie Bros you hang out with at parties.
Tom
Nothing real can be threatened
Nothing unreal exists
Herein lies the peace of God
User avatar
Columbus
 
Name: Tom
Posts: 565
Age: 65
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: ~*~Unofficial 2016 US Presidential Election Thread~*~

#1399  Postby Willie71 » Apr 18, 2016 8:07 pm

Columbus wrote:
Short answer: she hasn't been progressive on economic issues.

So?
The evidence shows that she will pivot on a dime and take positions she opposed a month ago.

To date, that has been taking the positions that the billionaires take. Because that is where the political support has been. If that changes, so will she.
Frankly, I think she chose Sanders to lose the Democratic nomination race. So she could market test her plans to "leave a legacy". She'll adopt the parts of his agenda that get support from enough voters to be winning propositions. And ignore the rest.
So whenever a Sanders supporter says, "I'm just not going to vote if not for Bernie", it makes me a bit angry. Not voting for the Democratic party is voting for their opposition.
That ain't progressive, however much it sounds good to the Bernie Bros you hang out with at parties.
Tom


This is not supported by any objective evidence.

If Clinton was truly progressive, no one would refuse to vote for her. That's pretty simple, isn't it? While I don't agree with sitting out the election, as a therapist, I understand the principle behind letting people have what they ask for. If Clinton gets in, the economic failure will be blamed on so called progressive ideas, when they are really conservative ideas. This will hand 8 years to republicans. If the republicans tank the country, it will hand 8 years to democrats, or the new Bernie inspired party. This is a real debate in many people's mind. I'm glad I don't have to make that choice, as both provincially and federally, we went with a true progressive agenda where I live. We didn't have those options 10 years ago, but we demanded change, and got it.
We should probably go for a can of vegetables because not only would it be a huge improvement, you'd also be able to eat it at the end.
User avatar
Willie71
 
Name: Warren Krywko
Posts: 3247
Age: 52
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: ~*~Unofficial 2016 US Presidential Election Thread~*~

#1400  Postby Columbus » Apr 18, 2016 8:17 pm

If Clinton was truly progressive, no one would refuse to vote for her.

What a Can-yuck-yuck-istanian.

Trump has as many voting supporters as Sanders does, roughly.
You are an idiot suffering terribly from Dunning-Kruger effect.

I am glad you are one of the idiots who is ineligible to vote in my country.
Tom
Nothing real can be threatened
Nothing unreal exists
Herein lies the peace of God
User avatar
Columbus
 
Name: Tom
Posts: 565
Age: 65
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to News, Politics & Current Affairs

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest

cron