News 2016 U.S. Presidential election - the highs and lows

Obama shot himself in the foot by using Rahm Emanuel to strong arm the ACA through congress. From that point on, it's no surprise that he was stone walled at every turn.

Indian Summer said:
To me, as a foreigner, Obama seems like the best US president in a very long time. He's made mistakes in his foreign policy, but he appears to have learnt from those mistakes. (Maybe it helped that he got rid of Clinton, a so-called "liberal hawk", as secretary of state.) He's had to deal with a Congress full of neocons and tea partiers who put their own and their sponsors' interests before the interests of the nation, so it's a miracle he got anything done at all. And yet he did: Restored ties with Cuba, made a nuclear deal with Iran (which probably helped a more moderate government get elected in Iran), stood up to the Israeli government on a few occasions, withdrew troops from Afghanistan and Iraq, he's working to close Guantánamo bay prison etc.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
beancounter said:
What is the same, is that, like Obama, he's promising things that he knows will never get pass congress.
Click to expand...

Obama didn't have a cohesive plan. I expect one of the first things President Sanders would do is, break up the almighty banks, using executive power, if necessary. Without unlimited cash-flow behind them, the Congress would become less crystaline, and more fluid- more, shall we say, cooperative. If there's one thing Congress understands, it's money. Obama may have been well-intentioned, but he didn't grasp the big picture. He wanted to have the cake and to eat it too, as does Hillary and Donald. No such problem with Bernie. Poor bankers- my eyes weep for them, but as they say, money talks, ******** walks. Obama was too greedy, too concerned with protecting the Obama family fortune- not a good attribute for a public servant- and it made him vulnerable.
 
Last edited:
It's really fascinating that suddenly the same people who have been complaining bitterly about the inherent unfairness of the existence of super delegates now think that they are the greatest thing since sliced bread, if only they would vote counter to the majority of the voters....

How the worm has turned.

It's equally fascinating how people completely forget that there are three branches of government, two of which are absolutely necessary to the enactment of any legislation.
 
Last edited:
Mischief said:
It's equally fascinating how people completely forget that there are three branches of government, two of which are absolutely necessary to the enaction of any legislation.
Click to expand...

SCOTUS doesn't get involved unless there are claims that a proposed law is unconstitutional.

If a super delegate doesn't vote with the majority of the people in their state, then that's an issue IMO. They should be obligated to vote with the majority.

Otherwise, they act as nothing more than a fail safe for maintaining the status quo. Regardless of whether they smoke or not.
 
Mischief said:
It's really fascinating that suddenly the same people who have been complaining bitterly about the inherent unfairness of the existence of super delegates now think that they are the greatest thing since sliced bread, if only they would vote counter to the majority of the voters....
Click to expand...

It's really fascinating that suddenly some people have forgotten the majority of votes hasn't been determined yet. Well, not really. That sort of inaccuracy is really quite predictable. Boring, actually.
 
Last edited:
beancounter said:
SCOTUS doesn't get involved unless there are claims that a proposed law is unconstitutional.
Click to expand...
I wasn't talking about the judicial branch (which is a lot more than just the Supreme Court) when I said two o the three branches are necessary to the enactment of legislation. If you recall your basic civics lessons, the two branches to which I was referring are the legislative and the executive.
 
Capstan said:
It's really fascinating that suddenly some people have forgotten the majority of votes hasn't been determined yet. Well, not really. That sort of inaccuracy is really quite predictable. Boring, actually.
Click to expand...

The majority of votes will be determined tonight by the time the polls close, and only those who live in lala land think that that majority is going to change between now and this evening.
 
Mischief said:
The majority of votes will be determined tonight by the time the polls close, and only those who live in lala land think that that majority is going to change between now and this evening.
Click to expand...

What's of interest is, superdelegates have already started switching to Senator Sanders, and there's still a month and a half to go, before the convention. Anyone who believes it can't happen lives in la la land, and anyone who believes the DNC figures are an accurate representation of the will of the people lives with their head in the sand. Clinton sets a Democratic record for low favorability ratings, has multiple scandals to her credit, faces possible trial, and scores abysmally against Donald Trump, while the DNC itself is under fire for its questionable conduct of the primaries and caucuses- including voter suppression. If the DNC wants to commit political suicide, it can nominate Hillary Clinton, and enjoy its time in la la land.
 
Last edited:
Just got done voting. Hillary is one vote closer to becoming president.

You're welcome. :D
 
Calliegirl said:
Just got done voting. Hillary is one vote closer to becoming president.

You're welcome. :D
Click to expand...

My mom said she voted for Bernie because he's the most honest candidate. I'm voting for Hillary (I still have to take my completed ballot over to my polling place) because I think she's the most qualified candidate, she has the best temperament to be president, and I think she's more likely to get things done. I love Bernie, but I think he makes a better senator than president. And besides, if Hillary wins in November, she's got an instant ally in the Senate, but since Hillary no longer holds public office, President Sanders would have to work harder to find allies in Congress.
 
Capstan said:
What's of interest is, superdelegates have already started switching to Senator Sanders, and there's still a month and a half to go, before the convention. Anyone who believes it can't happen lives in la la land, and anyone who believes the DNC figures are an accurate representation of the will of the people lives with their head in the sand. Clinton sets a Democratic record for low favorability ratings, has multiple scandals to her credit, faces possible trial, and scores abysmally against Donald Trump, while the DNC itself is under fire for its questionable conduct of the primaries and caucuses- including voter suppression. If the DNC wants to commit political suicide, it can nominate Hillary Clinton, and enjoy its time in la la land.
Click to expand...

Oh really?!

Bernie Sanders has flipped a grand total of zero superdelegates so far
 
Mischief said:
I wasn't talking about the judicial branch (which is a lot more than just the Supreme Court) when I said two o the three branches are necessary to the enactment of legislation. If you recall your basic civics lessons, the two branches to which I was referring are the legislative and the executive.
Click to expand...

Which is why I was wondering why you mentioned three to begin with, since only two are typically involved.
 
beancounter said:
Which is why I was wondering why you mentioned three to begin with, since only two are typically involved.
Click to expand...

Just read the post, why don't you. Here, I'll quote it for you:

"It's equally fascinating how people completely forget that there are three branches of government, two of which are absolutely necessary to the enactment of any legislation."
 
Mischief said:
Oh really?!

Bernie Sanders has flipped a grand total of zero superdelegates so far
Click to expand...

That is clearly a biased piece of journalism- not surprising, coming from the Washington Post, which is owned by Nash Holdings LLC, founded by the CEO of Amazon.com, whose personal wealth is estimated to be 63.3-billion dollars. He's the 19th richest man on the planet, and the Post is his newspaper. I noticed, they posted only two sentences from the "exchange," which leads me to believe it's taken out of context. Hardly reliable.

I'll try to get you some bone fide links, when I have more time. I'm off to mow the front yard.
 
Last edited:
Mischief said:
Just read the post, why don't you. Here, I'll quote it for you:

"It's equally fascinating how people completely forget that there are three branches of government, two of which are absolutely necessary to the enactment of any legislation."
Click to expand...

There you go again, trying your best to unify the party.

Yet failing miserably.
 
Last edited:
beancounter said:
There you go again, trying your best to unify the party.

Yet failing miserably.
Click to expand...
Oh, it's not my job to unify the party.

The way I see it, the Sanders supporters on here will never see anything they don't want see. Pretty much a lost cause.

I would note, however, that it was not I who started an argument about a clearly worded sentence.
 
I didn't realize Hillary gained more superdelegates last night and that was why all the media outlets were reporting she was the presumptive nominee. I wish they hadn't though, it kind of stole her thunder, and I was looking forward to her announcing it first. :pout:
 
Top Bottom