| |
Discussion: U.S. Election 2016: Primary Season
Member Since: 4/6/2011
Posts: 31,849
|
Quote:
Originally posted by iheartBrit
Donald Trump is most definitely not Racist.
|
sure jan
|
|
|
|
ATRL Senior Member
Member Since: 3/22/2012
Posts: 53,769
|
Quote:
Originally posted by @michael
I've already come to terms with Hillary being a one-term president. She'll win this time, but her time as president will be hellish, and people will be wanting a party change because that's just how things naturally go.
|
I disagree. I don't see her as a First Bush figure - I think her first term will go fine and Republicans will fail to find a figure who can defeat her.
|
|
|
|
ATRL Contributor
Member Since: 8/18/2013
Posts: 3,968
|
donald trump isnt racist. but he sure as hell has purposely ignited and encouraged racists.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 59,596
|
Quote:
Originally posted by @michael
I've already come to terms with Hillary being a one-term president. She'll win this time, but her time as president will be hellish, and people will be wanting a party change because that's just how things naturally go.
|
I dunno, there's a very high chance of Dems retaking the Senate and the GOP losing a good chunk of the House by this upcoming election. She'll have the time to build on things that would hopefully be popular - a public option, reduced interest and cost affordability on higher education, a higher national minimum wage. I think she'd be safe if she got those things passed and avoided any war or a huge economic depression.
I'm also unsure if the GOP (if it even still exists at this point) will be able to undo the past twelve years of instability to rebuild themselves by that point.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 10/16/2005
Posts: 16,872
|
I think Hillary needs to tap into Latino support more. Get someone like Shakira, Taylor, or Selena to endorse her.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/20/2012
Posts: 27,830
|
Quote:
Originally posted by KimmyBella
Omg!  |
This is normal, I don't understand
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 9/17/2011
Posts: 9,051
|
Quote:
Originally posted by @michael
I've already come to terms with Hillary being a one-term president. She'll win this time, but her time as president will be hellish, and people will be wanting a party change because that's just how things naturally go.
|
Depends, if the economy continues to grow and we don't get in any more conflicts in the middle east/ steers clear of scandals then she'll be a strong incumbent candidate
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 4/6/2011
Posts: 31,849
|
Quote:
Originally posted by keepitundercover
donald trump isnt racist. but he sure as hell has purposely ignited and encouraged racists.
|
if it looks like a duck and walks like a duck....
|
|
|
|
ATRL Senior Member
Member Since: 3/22/2012
Posts: 53,769
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Reza
if it looks like a duck and walks like a duck....
|
And if it enables other ducks by saying Mexicans are rapist criminals...
I mean, I guess we can say he's not JUST a racist. He hates Muslims and women too!
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 59,596
|
Not to mention if she got a stacked liberal Supreme Court lineup.. that would be really good. Ugh, pleaaaaase let all the infighting let the Dems retake the Senate.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 7/4/2007
Posts: 24,859
|
Because I find brokered conventions fascinating, I looked up all the DNCs that ended up with the leader on the first ballot NOT being the eventual candidate:
1844 Democratic Convention had Buren in the lead and Cass in the lead later. Polk who’d just wanted to be VP entered on the 8th ballot and won on the 9th.
He won the presidential election 170-105.
1852 Democratic Convention had 4 candidates on the first 34 ballots; each of them was in 1st place at some point. Franklin Pierce was thrown in on the 35th and though he didn’t want to run he won on the 49th ballot. He didn’t campaign, and the Whig candidate had almost the same platform.
He won the presidential election 254-42 but is considered crap and irrelevant. A Felicia president, if you will.
1868 Democratic Convention is a really fun one. It had 22 ballots with Pendleton the early frontrunner and Hendricks the late frontrunner.
Horatio Seymour was popular and North Carolina threw him on the 4th ballot; he was like “gurl, no, do not try it” and pushed for Chase. But on the 22nd ballot they pushed for him again; he was still like “I don’t want it; no means no” and left the room cuz they were doing too much. While he was out, everyone voted for him.
He lost 80-214.
1896 Democratic Convention had 5 ballots; Bryan moved from 2nd to 1st.
He lost 176-271.
1912 Democratic Convention had 46 ballots. Champ Clark was ahead of Woodrow Wilson initially, and got a majority in the 9th ballot, but at the time you needed a two-thirds majority. He got that initial majority thanks to support from the corrupt NY Tammany Hall, which started a movement against him and towards Wilson.
Wilson ended up dominating with 435-88. This was probably helped by ex-president Theodore Roosevelt running under a 3rd party and ending up 2nd, after the Republicans didn’t choose him.
1920 Democratic Convention had 44 ballots. McAdoo had a few more votes than Palmer in the first round, but eventually James Cox who started in 3rd place won.
He lost the presidential election 127-404.
1924 Democratic ballots included, out of 103: McAdoo vs. Smith 39-22%, 44-28%, 40-28%, 38-29%, 46-29%, 43-31%, 48-30%, 48-33%, 30-33%, 18-32%
Finally Davis won when he started with less than 3% in 7th place, because McAdoo and Smith’s supporters refused to switch to one or the other in enough numbers.
He lost the presidential election 136-382.
1952 Democratic's frontrunner Estes Kefauver was too disliked by the establishment, so the party ended up going with Adlai Stevenson who didn’t agree to run until the convention. Stevenson was 3rd initially, then 2nd, then won on the 3rd ballot.
He lost the presidential election 89-442.
1839 Whig National Convention Clay led Harrison at first but Harrison snatched it on the 5th ballot.
He won 234-60.
1852 Whig National Convention Fillmore closely led Scott at first. Scott took the lead on the 8th ballot and finally took it on the 52nd ballot.
He lost 42-254.
1856 RNC Banks was 1st initially while Fremont started in 2nd but won on the 11th ballot.
He won 114-74.
1860 RNC Seward was in 1st and eventual DDL Oscar winner was 2nd but took it on the 3rd ballot.
Obviously Lincoln won. 180-72-39-12.
1876 RNC Blaine led at 1st. Hayes started to surge on the 5th ballot after starting in like 5th place, and ended up taking it on the 7th.
He won 185-184.
1880 RNC Grant (former 2x president) was mostly 1st but Garfield who spent most of the ballots with 0-2 votes ended up winning on the 36th ballot.
He won 214-155.
1888 RNC John Sherman was initially 1st. Harrison was initially 5th but won on the 8th ballot.
He won 233-168.
1920 RNC Wood was initially 1st, and Lowden was initially 2nd while jumping to the lead on some ballots. Harding was initially 6th with 7% but won on the 10th ballot.
He won 404-127.
1940 RNC Dewey was initially 1st, as Manhattan’s DA famous for putting away mafiosos but with youth and inexperience; Wall Street industrialist Willkie who’d never run for anything was 3rd, then 2nd, then the winner.
He lost 82-449 to uber-president FDR.
*Not totally related, but in 1836 the Whigs decided to throw 4 different people into the election and hoped one would get popular enough to beat Van Buren, but he got the majority of the electoral and popular votes anyway.
I mean, it probably won't end up being relevant, but I was curious.
1852 and 1920 had both parties not going with their initial choice.
|
|
|
|
ATRL Senior Member
Member Since: 11/14/2008
Posts: 24,988
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Retro
Deplorable? I'll get to what's "deplorable" about all of this in just a second.
- On War: Her position on whether we need active troops in one location may have changed, but her overall position has NOT. She was the New York Senator after 9/11 and voted with others in her party who now regret the decision; that's not changing position, that's recognizing that a bad call was made in reaction to the horrific attacks we suffered, and acknowledging that mistake. That's not poor character at all. Additionally, her position has been relatively stable for the last nine years on this issue.
- Healthcare: that's bull. Straight up bull. She's been working for healthcare since before most of us in this thread were born, pushing for universal coverage for two and a half decades. She's not changed a bit on that. Like many Democrats she likely thinks of single payer as an ideal end, but acknowledges that it simply cannot happen. She's consistent and tough on this issue, don't lie.
- Gay Marriage: not only has her position on the issue been exactly in line with the actual American people, and in some ways with Sanders as well since we all know about that time he voted against certain measures, but also, she's been a proven advocate for the community for years despite her opinions on marriage itself. This is a weak line of attack to either her character or her consistency.
- Crime: if you pull back your focus from the two things that have repeatedly been peddled throughout this election season (the superpredators comment and the corresponding bill vs. her statements now that we need to reduce mass incarceration), you'd find she's remarkably consistent there as well.
- Trade: Also essentially a myth. Her votes and emails on trade have been rather consistent in supporting attempts at trade deals, but responsibly acknowledging when they fail. This is also well-documented. I would say that expecting a blanket position on trade is economically and practically irresponsible.
Now, what's deplorable is your uninformed and irresponsible stance on Trump. His campaign might be "white noise" to you, but to those of us who have been paying attention, he is absolutely the worst possible choice. He is a racist. He is a misogynist. He advocates for violence and encourages it at his rallies. He's failed to put forth an actual plan for virtually any of his proposals. He talked about his penis size on national television, openly mocks and derides anyone with whom he comes into contact, and is generally the polar opposite of Bernie, both on most of the issues and in character. Supporting Bernie over Hillary on some nebulous and ill-informed perception of character is a problem in and of itself, but hopping over to Trump in response to Bernie's inviability? That's even worse.
Hillary believes what she has preached and has always stood for solid Democratic Party ideals, and has been a member of the party for 48 years. Holding her to an unreasonably and ridiculously high standard does not change this. Her character has not been successfully questioned: neither you nor any other person opposed to her can actually point to unethical behavior, to actual examples of pandering to any voters, to any actual reason why her character and record should be questioned. You say she's out of touch, but she curiously seems to be the candidate with the MOST support on either side, and with the best and most thorough plans. You say she's hated by millions for good reasons, but you have failed to provide a single one that's nearly good enough, or really that's good at all.
Hillary is a better candidate than any of the others; attacks on her as "untrustworthy" or "dishonest" simply do NOT hold up upon any measure of scrutiny; and she will be the next President. That's all there is to it. |
 Like, you better go hard in the paint, Retro.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/20/2012
Posts: 27,830
|
Single payer healthcare is possible. Obamacare will never work the way they're trying to say it will and we'd get a much better system if the establishment stopped trying to protect a broken accomplishment.
Free trade agreements destroy American jobs and wages. There is no reason to support them if you truly care about the people.
And I find it a bit ironic how she advocated for mass incarceration and is now completely against it  but I can understand this.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/7/2015
Posts: 11,012
|
How can anyone insist that Trump isn't racist and actually believe it?
Anyway, even if you don't believe he's racist, he's indisputably xenophobic. Both are as bad as each other as far as I'm concerned.
Voting for Trump says more about you than Trump himself.
|
|
|
|
ATRL Senior Member
Member Since: 3/22/2012
Posts: 53,769
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Marvin
Single payer healthcare is possible. Obamacare will never work the way they're trying to say it will and we'd get a much better system if the establishment stopped trying to protect a broken accomplishment.
Free trade agreements destroys American jobs and wages. There is no reason to support them if you truly care about the people.
And I find it a bit ironic how she advocated for mass incarceration and is now completely against it but I can understand this. |
Single payer isn't possible because of passing it. Actually doing it probably wouldn't be the issue.
As for free trade...
I absorbed new info and changed my mind to oppose TPP. (Oct 2015)
TPP must produce jobs, raise wages, & protect security. (Apr 2015)
Smart, pro-American trade: NAFTA has hurt workers. (Aug 2007)
End tax breaks for outsourcing jobs. (Jun 2007)
Though Bill supported it, Hillary opposed NAFTA. (Oct 2007)
Voted against CAFTA despite Bill Clinton's pushing NAFTA. (Oct 2005)
Rated 17% by CATO, indicating a pro-fair trade voting record. (Dec 2002)
She supports trade when possible, but understands that it hasn't always worked and seems to lean more for fair-trade than free, but prefers either to a lack of trade negotiations.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/7/2015
Posts: 11,012
|
Quote:
Originally posted by KyIe
Because Hillary is the most untrustworthy candidate to have ever run for president. She has changed her position on a litany of issues over her career and her character is just deplorable. Her position of trade, the war, gay marriage, crime, healthcare have all changed and thats just a few. Even in the past few months she has changed positions because it seemed more politically prudent to support progressive values rather than moderate ones. A person who will do or say anything just to get into a position of power is not somebody I want leading the United States. Donald Trump is a populist moderate who's positions are politically center enough to actually make "deals" as he loves to say across the table. Yes, he's under qualified and yes he has said some ridiculous statements, but if it comes down to the two of them, I'd prefer Trump anyway. His campaign up until this point has been white noise to me because its obvious he has been appealing to a very specific demographic.Thus, I cannot support Hillary given all mounting evidence that she is just a terrible politician and person in general.
And I much prefer Bernie over Hillary. I respect Bernie because at least he believes what he is preaching, even if it is democratic socialism. I'd rather have him in the white house with an actually core set of values than her. Hillary is out of touch with the upcoming generation, and disliked by millions for very valid reasons.
|
So, you're okay with the fact that fascism could be an outcome of a Trump Presidency, just as long as Hillary Clinton isn't the nominee. Look at it this way, we do know what to expect with Hillary - little but significant change. She's going to expand and consolidate Obama's work, and introduce her own policies simultaneously. As we know, she generally agrees with most of Bernie's views, so a Clinton Presidency wouldn't be too different from a Sanders Presidency. In fact, they'd be very similar on everything, apart from Healthcare, some Foreign Policy, and the Economy.
If you compare the worst case scenarios for a Trump vs. Clinton Presidency, I think anyone with two brain cells to rub together could conclude that a Trump Presidency would be worse. He's an owner of a Billion+ dollar organisation. You think he's going to tax the rich and corrupt organisations? NO. He's going to help the rich in anyway he can. That literally repels every single Policy that Bernie has ever had. So how the hell could you go from supporting a non-racist, non-xenophobic, non-fascist, pro Middle-class, pro-women's rights, civil rights activist, and pro-immigration candidate; to someone who is the opposite in every sense of the word. You really can't make this **** up. I beg that you educate yourself. Bernie would literally laugh in your face. I literally can't fathom this level of ignorance.
Ahh, it's starting to make sense. It's either one of two reasons, or both.
- You're sexist. Anyone is better than a woman in your eyes. You can't stand it when she raises her voice and when she stands up for herself. You hold her to a different standard than any male candidate because she's a woman, and women are supposed to know better.
- You only care about one thing and that's making sure you're richer in 8 years, and the rich are poorer. You don't care about Women's rights, immigration and families being torn apart, gay rights, and you certainly don't care about the rights of African Americans.
If you're going to go from voting Bernie to voting for Trump, you seriously have to fall under either of the two. Which one is it? And before you mention campaign finance, Trump would not do a damn thing about it either. Rest assured, if he wasn't worth Billions, he would be using Super PACs too.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 5/12/2012
Posts: 7,989
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Retro
Deplorable? I'll get to what's "deplorable" about all of this in just a second.
- On War: Her position on whether we need active troops in one location may have changed, but her overall position has NOT. She was the New York Senator after 9/11 and voted with others in her party who now regret the decision; that's not changing position, that's recognizing that a bad call was made in reaction to the horrific attacks we suffered, and acknowledging that mistake. That's not poor character at all. Additionally, her position has been relatively stable for the last nine years on this issue.
- Healthcare: that's bull. Straight up bull. She's been working for healthcare since before most of us in this thread were born, pushing for universal coverage for two and a half decades. She's not changed a bit on that. Like many Democrats she likely thinks of single payer as an ideal end, but acknowledges that it simply cannot happen. She's consistent and tough on this issue, don't lie.
- Gay Marriage: not only has her position on the issue been exactly in line with the actual American people, and in some ways with Sanders as well since we all know about that time he voted against certain measures, but also, she's been a proven advocate for the community for years despite her opinions on marriage itself. This is a weak line of attack to either her character or her consistency.
- Crime: if you pull back your focus from the two things that have repeatedly been peddled throughout this election season (the superpredators comment and the corresponding bill vs. her statements now that we need to reduce mass incarceration), you'd find she's remarkably consistent there as well.
- Trade: Also essentially a myth. Her votes and emails on trade have been rather consistent in supporting attempts at trade deals, but responsibly acknowledging when they fail. This is also well-documented. I would say that expecting a blanket position on trade is economically and practically irresponsible.
Now, what's deplorable is your uninformed and irresponsible stance on Trump. His campaign might be "white noise" to you, but to those of us who have been paying attention, he is absolutely the worst possible choice. He is a racist. He is a misogynist. He advocates for violence and encourages it at his rallies. He's failed to put forth an actual plan for virtually any of his proposals. He talked about his penis size on national television, openly mocks and derides anyone with whom he comes into contact, and is generally the polar opposite of Bernie, both on most of the issues and in character. Supporting Bernie over Hillary on some nebulous and ill-informed perception of character is a problem in and of itself, but hopping over to Trump in response to Bernie's inviability? That's even worse.
Hillary believes what she has preached and has always stood for solid Democratic Party ideals, and has been a member of the party for 48 years. Holding her to an unreasonably and ridiculously high standard does not change this. Her character has not been successfully questioned: neither you nor any other person opposed to her can actually point to unethical behavior, to actual examples of pandering to any voters, to any actual reason why her character and record should be questioned. You say she's out of touch, but she curiously seems to be the candidate with the MOST support on either side, and with the best and most thorough plans. You say she's hated by millions for good reasons, but you have failed to provide a single one that's nearly good enough, or really that's good at all.
Hillary is a better candidate than any of the others; attacks on her as "untrustworthy" or "dishonest" simply do NOT hold up upon any measure of scrutiny; and she will be the next President. That's all there is to it. |
OMG, spill the tea, Retro... 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/3/2010
Posts: 71,871
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Retro
Deplorable? I'll get to what's "deplorable" about all of this in just a second.
- On War: Her position on whether we need active troops in one location may have changed, but her overall position has NOT. She was the New York Senator after 9/11 and voted with others in her party who now regret the decision; that's not changing position, that's recognizing that a bad call was made in reaction to the horrific attacks we suffered, and acknowledging that mistake. That's not poor character at all. Additionally, her position has been relatively stable for the last nine years on this issue.
- Healthcare: that's bull. Straight up bull. She's been working for healthcare since before most of us in this thread were born, pushing for universal coverage for two and a half decades. She's not changed a bit on that. Like many Democrats she likely thinks of single payer as an ideal end, but acknowledges that it simply cannot happen. She's consistent and tough on this issue, don't lie.
- Gay Marriage: not only has her position on the issue been exactly in line with the actual American people, and in some ways with Sanders as well since we all know about that time he voted against certain measures, but also, she's been a proven advocate for the community for years despite her opinions on marriage itself. This is a weak line of attack to either her character or her consistency.
- Crime: if you pull back your focus from the two things that have repeatedly been peddled throughout this election season (the superpredators comment and the corresponding bill vs. her statements now that we need to reduce mass incarceration), you'd find she's remarkably consistent there as well.
- Trade: Also essentially a myth. Her votes and emails on trade have been rather consistent in supporting attempts at trade deals, but responsibly acknowledging when they fail. This is also well-documented. I would say that expecting a blanket position on trade is economically and practically irresponsible.
Now, what's deplorable is your uninformed and irresponsible stance on Trump. His campaign might be "white noise" to you, but to those of us who have been paying attention, he is absolutely the worst possible choice. He is a racist. He is a misogynist. He advocates for violence and encourages it at his rallies. He's failed to put forth an actual plan for virtually any of his proposals. He talked about his penis size on national television, openly mocks and derides anyone with whom he comes into contact, and is generally the polar opposite of Bernie, both on most of the issues and in character. Supporting Bernie over Hillary on some nebulous and ill-informed perception of character is a problem in and of itself, but hopping over to Trump in response to Bernie's inviability? That's even worse.
Hillary believes what she has preached and has always stood for solid Democratic Party ideals, and has been a member of the party for 48 years. Holding her to an unreasonably and ridiculously high standard does not change this. Her character has not been successfully questioned: neither you nor any other person opposed to her can actually point to unethical behavior, to actual examples of pandering to any voters, to any actual reason why her character and record should be questioned. You say she's out of touch, but she curiously seems to be the candidate with the MOST support on either side, and with the best and most thorough plans. You say she's hated by millions for good reasons, but you have failed to provide a single one that's nearly good enough, or really that's good at all.
Hillary is a better candidate than any of the others; attacks on her as "untrustworthy" or "dishonest" simply do NOT hold up upon any measure of scrutiny; and she will be the next President. That's all there is to it. |
Yikes. Retro clocking and this being ignored 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 59,596
|
Who all has tried pushing for single payer in the past? I know it has a rich history (usually ending with failure) particularly with Hillary and Ted Kennedy. Bernie has tried getting it passed in the past too, right?
|
|
|
|
ATRL Senior Member
Member Since: 3/22/2012
Posts: 53,769
|
Quote:
Originally posted by The Countess
Who all has tried pushing for single payer in the past? I know it has a rich history (usually ending with failure) particularly with Hillary and Ted Kennedy. Bernie has tried getting it passed in the past too, right?
|
It actually happened in Vermont, or at least a plan was passed, but it was abandoned because of costs and tax raises.
This is a pretty good summary of key points.
|
|
|
|
|
|
