Jump to content

2016 Presidential Election Thread


Skin

Recommended Posts

That's a lot, but it doesn't even compare to the numbers Bernie Sanders is getting. If Trump is pulling in Madonna '85 crowds, than Bernie is pulling in Madonna '90 crowds

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although there's never a good time for a bathroom break during a Madonna concert if there ever was it would be during speechdonna. It is possible to be a total M loon and not give two shits about her political views.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although there's never a good time for a bathroom break during a Madonna concert if there ever was it would be during speechdonna. It is possible to be a total M loon and not give two shits about her political views.

For me I don't see how. They are so intertwined you cant separate one from the other. Like I said, once someone has an opinion on world matters they are automatically in the political arena if they want to be or not and Madonna has been pushing buttons and breaking down barriers since day one. Strip away Madonna having strong opinions, and you are left with a brain dead bimbo like Mariah Carey. Eeek.

I just laugh during I'm Going to Tell You a Secret when the one guy says "Madonna should keep politics OUT of it!" and they other guy says he didn't know he was coming to a democratic convention and he thought he was seeing a concert. Well DUH! This is MADONNA!!!!! She has opinions on world matters and she WILL voice them. The fact that people still see her in concert and are taken back by this after all this time amazes me. I wouldn't have it any other way though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can see where people are coming from though. As an atheist I know she has a strong belief in a God and voices that as well, and we all lived through the height of her preachy Kabbalah years and through it all I still loved the shit out of her. Maybe because I knew her intent was pure and coming from the right place? I don't know. But from that perspective I can see what you mean.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can see where people are coming from though. As an atheist I know she has a strong belief in a God and voices that as well, and we all lived through the height of her preachy Kabbalah years and through it all I still loved the shit out of her. Maybe because I knew her intent was pure and coming from the right place? I don't know. But from that perspective I can see what you mean.

Yep I think you get it. I'm an agnostic but still love the fuck outta ray of light. Madonna is a much more effective artist visually (a genius in that regard) rather than verbally. And, visually, things are left more open to interpretation. She can say whatever she wants, and of course has, but I ain't hearing them when I'm watching the Hung Up video or even Express Yourself. I'm not implying her work is shallow lyrically it's just that she's so brilliant. ... visually. Hope this made sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Pud Whacker

Yep I think you get it. I'm an agnostic but still love the fuck outta ray of light. Madonna is a much more effective artist visually (a genius in that regard) rather than verbally. And, visually, things are left more open to interpretation. She can say whatever she wants, and of course has, but I ain't hearing them when I'm watching the Hung Up video or even Express Yourself. I'm not implying her work is shallow lyrically it's just that she's so brilliant. ... visually. Hope this made sense.

Just want it on record that she is also brilliant musically!

:thumbsup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been thinking, Bernie Sanders has a really good chance at getting the nomination. I know what the polls are saying, but a lot of those polls only include those who voted in the past two presidential elections. That means that people under 26 are not being counted. Millenials are one of his biggest demographics and Hillary seems to be getting nervous trying to be misleading and condescending about him and his positions/plans. People thought Hillary Clinton was inevitable in 2008 and that turned out to be very untrue. I think Bernie Sander's base and willingness to vote have been extremely underestimated and I'm started to seriously think he will become the 45th President of the United States.

I'm really looking forward to see what happens since it's a little more exciting than following the 2016 Australian General election haha

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been thinking, Bernie Sanders has a really good chance at getting the nomination. I know what the polls are saying, but a lot of those polls only include those who voted in the past two presidential elections. That means that people under 26 are not being counted. Millenials are one of his biggest demographics and Hillary seems to be getting nervous trying to be misleading and condescending about him and his positions/plans. People thought Hillary Clinton was inevitable in 2008 and that turned out to be very untrue. I think Bernie Sander's base and willingness to vote have been extremely underestimated and I'm started to seriously think he will become the 45th President of the United States.

I'm really looking forward to see what happens since it's a little more exciting than following the 2016 Australian General election haha

Sanders could still be leading in New Hampshire and within distance of Clinton in Iowa so he will win a few states but I think his chances of garnering the nomination require something happening to Clinton. Probably less than 5 percent honestly, Trump maybe 40-50%. Although we've been saying all year voters get more pragmatic the closer they are to the vote so I'm also anything but confident in these predictions... :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been thinking, Bernie Sanders has a really good chance at getting the nomination. I know what the polls are saying, but a lot of those polls only include those who voted in the past two presidential elections. That means that people under 26 are not being counted. Millenials are one of his biggest demographics and Hillary seems to be getting nervous trying to be misleading and condescending about him and his positions/plans. People thought Hillary Clinton was inevitable in 2008 and that turned out to be very untrue. I think Bernie Sander's base and willingness to vote have been extremely underestimated and I'm started to seriously think he will become the 45th President of the United States.

I'm really looking forward to see what happens since it's a little more exciting than following the 2016 Australian General election haha

People under 26 vote in very small numbers - and even smaller in primaries - so this would be very difficult to imagine - no matter what the make up of his rallies. Though, you are correct that the polls definitely do not reflect the enthusiasm among this demographic. But are they even registered to vote?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's a lot, but it doesn't even compare to the numbers Bernie Sanders is getting. If Trump is pulling in Madonna '85 crowds, than Bernie is pulling in Madonna '90 crowds

Just because people go to see someone and hear them speak doesn't mean they are going to vote for them. A lot go out of curiosity or because they read the media hype. Neither Trump or Sanders are going to be the nominee.

Now Trump has started this stupid thing about how maybe Ted Cruz isn't qualified to run for President because he's not a natural born citizen just like how he did with Obama! Who cares! How is that an important issue? (Cruz was born in Canada but says he never had a Canadian passport and his mother was a US citizen living here for a long period of time, his father was born in Cuba.)

I know it says that in the Constitution but I think that's another provision like the Second Amendment that doesn't relate to modern times. Why can't someone born in another country be President if they are a naturalized citizen. It was written in the old days when the US was rebelling against the UK. Today it's a global society, where people from all over the world have become US citizens.

Trump is also going on about how Obama and Clinton want to take away everyone's guns with Obama putting out his executive order on background checks. If you are interested in that issue, Obama is doing a town meeting on gun control tonight hosted by Anderson Cooper at 8 on CNN.

Trump just appeals to the worst in people whether it's anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim or pro gun. What's funny about Trump was years ago he was a Democrat and he was friends with all kinds of people from all political viewpoints including Russell Simmons, the hip hop guy and also Bill and Hillary Clinton until he changed his mind about them! So if he was friends with Ingrid, it's not surprising. It doesn't mean she supports his viewpoints now. It just seems that Trump jumped on this conservative bandwagon as a way to get attention and win the Presidency.

Madonna already said in that Australian interview don't get her started on Trump. Obviously she's against his viewpoints and tactics.

I don't really see why people are against Madonna speaking her mind on political issues. Not every song she does is about that so if you don't like it, you can get other things from her. But she has always had a point of view. It is what makes her interesting and unique. Most of the issues she speaks about are about racial, sexual, gay equality or against wars and violence, which is about the world as one and bringing people together, which has always been part of her message. It's not like she's telling us her prescription for health care reform or some other wonky policy issue like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.............Why can't someone born in another country be President if they are a naturalized citizen. It was written in the old days when the US was rebelling against the UK. Today it's a global society, where people from all over the world have become US citizens.........

The clause exists because there is a big difference between wanting to "live" in America and wanting to actually "be" an American. This is a seriously big difference. As a holder of 3 passports, I completely support such a clause.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The clause exists because there is a big difference between wanting to "live" in America and wanting to actually "be" an American. This is a seriously big difference. As a holder of 3 passports, I completely support such a clause.

Yes, but the clause seems to imply that you can only be President if you were actually physically born in the US. I understand what you're saying but if someone born in another country becomes a citizen and is a citizen for a certain amount of time than that should show they want to be an American. You have no choice in where you are actually born or where your parents are from.

You can be a member of Congress if you were born in another country and neither of your parents were citizens, if you are a US citizen. Why not President?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People under 26 vote in very small numbers - and even smaller in primaries - so this would be very difficult to imagine - no matter what the make up of his rallies. Though, you are correct that the polls definitely do not reflect the enthusiasm among this demographic. But are they even registered to vote?

Although millennials voted in 2008 and 2012 at about the percentage of the general population, and with free college and student debt relief initiatives now part of the package, who knows ?, all of the undercards are going to be a bit of unknown territory. Sanders' socialism could end up having more appeal than Clinton's plan for affordable college within a capitalist system. Then again as taxpayers, this age group may begin to grasp the concept that everything labeled free is in actuality paid for by somebody and is a subsidy, nothing more than a redistribution of the property of some to others more favored by the selecting power. Personally I don't think appeals to the youth vote are going to be major presidential issues, particularly if there is another severe economic downturn. :newspaper:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, but the clause seems to imply that you can only be President if you were actually physically born in the US. I understand what you're saying but if someone born in another country becomes a citizen and is a citizen for a certain amount of time than that should show they want to be an American. You have no choice in where you are actually born or where your parents are from.

You can be a member of Congress if you were born in another country and neither of your parents were citizens, if you are a US citizen. Why not President?

You are correct in the theory that an immigrant, by theoretical definition, chose to take on the identity of the host nation by the simple act of choosing to move here. However, our immigration policies may not live up to such strict measures. You may have witnessed the alarming rates of unassimilated immigrants. And we are back to determining the difference between wanting to live here versus wanting to be; therefore we err, constitutionally, on the safe side by never posing the question at all. The leader of a people has to embody the full experience and possession of life and cultural reference points that he/she shares with fellow citizens. Naturally, you can change the law; but, you will have to ask yourself how comfortable you will feel with a President Cruncher9123. :laugh:

PS Ted Cruz and John McCain are different issues. Even though neither was technically born on US soil; Cruz had at least one American parent, and McCain was born on a US-controlled base (if not US-controlled land).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are correct in the theory that an immigrant, by theoretical definition, chose to take on the identity of the host nation by the simple act of choosing to move here. However, our immigration policies may not live up to such strict measures. You may have witnessed the alarming rates of unassimilated immigrants. And we are back to determining the difference between wanting to live here versus wanting to be; therefore we err, constitutionally, on the safe side by never posing the question at all. The leader of a people has to embody the full experience and possession of life and cultural reference points that he/she shares with fellow citizens. Naturally, you can change the law; but, you will have to ask yourself how comfortable you will feel with a President Cruncher9123. :laugh:

PS Ted Cruz and John McCain are different issues. Even though neither was technically born on US soil; Cruz had at least one American parent, and McCain was born on a US-controlled base (if not US-controlled land).

No, actually I haven't witnessed any alarming rates of unassimiliated immigrants. Why because a few commit terrorist acts? The majority of people I know from other countries who have come here love America, because it gave them an opportunity for a better life, better job opportunities and freedom from religious fundamentalism and wars. Actually, a lot of immigrants I know are more American than me and would make a much better President than I would!

Trump bringing this up to me seems like it's part of his general theme that immigrants are bad, the enemy and are going to betray America when in reality they love America as much as if not more than the people that were born here for most part.

I'm not saying any immigrant should be able to run for President, just those who choose to become citizens and have lived in the US for a certain period of time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, actually I haven't witnessed any alarming rates of unassimiliated immigrants. Why because a few commit terrorist acts? The majority of people I know from other countries who have come here love America, because it gave them an opportunity for a better life, better job opportunities and freedom from religious fundamentalism and wars. Actually, a lot of immigrants I know are more American than me and would make a much better President than I would!

Trump bringing this up to me seems like it's part of his general theme that immigrants are bad, the enemy and are going to America when in reality they love America as much as if not more than the people that were born here for most part.

I'm not saying any immigrant should be able to run for President, just those who choose to become citizens and have lived in the US for a certain period of time.

I don't mean it in that way at all. The clause exists simply because people feel more comfortable when they know that their leader is "just like themselves." By that I mean what I wrote above, "The leader of a people has to embody the full experience and possession of life and cultural reference points that he/she shares with fellow citizens." Nothing that even goes as far as to consider "unassimilated immigrants," "terrorism," or "Trump." It's simply a preference/comfort people have. Imagine, I become president and a war breaks out between my new country and my old country. Which side do you think my heart will be at the end? Not even I know. That's why these laws exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't mean it in that way at all. The clause exists simply because people feel more comfortable when they know that their leader is "just like themselves." By that I mean what I wrote above, "The leader of a people has to embody the full experience and possession of life and cultural reference points that he/she shares with fellow citizens." Nothing that even goes as far as to consider "unassimilated immigrants," "terrorism," or "Trump." It's simply a preference/comfort people have. Imagine, I become president and a war breaks out between my new country and my old country. Which side do you think my heart will be at the end? Not even I know. That's why these laws exist.

That makes no sense though. Just because you are born in the United States doesn't mean you share the same cultural references or are like all the voters. A person from New York City has very different cultural references etc. from someone from rural Alabama.

If someone is a citizen and has lived in the US for years, they see themselves as American and not loyal to the country that there were born in and haven't lived in for years. Hopefully, presidents should be trying to avoid wars. I would rather have a President with a global perspective rather than a narrow nationalist one.

This all sounds like when the loyalty of Japanese Americans and immigrants were questioned in World War II and they were sent to internment camps. Just because some of them were born in Japan or ethnically Japanese, people assumed they would be loyal to Japan and not the United States which was not the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, actually I haven't witnessed any alarming rates of unassimiliated immigrants. Why because a few commit terrorist acts? The majority of people I know from other countries who have come here love America, because it gave them an opportunity for a better life, better job opportunities and freedom from religious fundamentalism and wars. Actually, a lot of immigrants I know are more American than me and would make a much better President than I would!

Trump bringing this up to me seems like it's part of his general theme that immigrants are bad, the enemy and are going to betray America when in reality they love America as much as if not more than the people that were born here for most part.

I'm not saying any immigrant should be able to run for President, just those who choose to become citizens and have lived in the US for a certain period of time.

It is important that the issue be aired now because some officials in Democrat states would no doubt try to leave him off the ballot as ineligible. Then Cruz would have to sue to be put on, and that could drag on through the election and beyond. The Supreme Court wouldn't touch the case until after the election in any case.

PS Ted Cruz and John McCain are different issues. Even though neither was technically born on US soil; Cruz had at least one American parent, and McCain was born on a US-controlled base (if not US-controlled land).

Cruz had at most one American parent, presuming his mother didn't renounce her American citizenship to become a naturalized Canadian. His father had taken on Canadian nationality at the time and American only after his birth. I simply don’t believe that someone as educated and passionate about the law as Ted Cruz would not know that Canada considered him a citizen given that almost all nations in the Americas have birthright citizenship. That should be covered in an undergrad International Law class. The rather tangled and contentious circumstances with facts still not fully established is exhibit A why the Founders were concerned a child that grows up in a household with split loyalties he will retain some of that divided loyalty even unconsciously as an adult.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is important that the issue be aired now because some officials in Democrat states would no doubt try to leave him off the ballot as ineligible. Then Cruz would have to sue to be put on, and that could drag on through the election and beyond. The Supreme Court wouldn't touch the case until after the election in any case.

PS Ted Cruz and John McCain are different issues. Even though neither was technically born on US soil; Cruz had at least one American parent, and McCain was born on a US-controlled base (if not US-controlled land).

Cruz had at most one American parent, presuming his mother didn't renounce her American citizenship to become a naturalized Canadian. His father had taken on Canadian nationality at the time and American only after his birth. I simply don’t believe that someone as educated and passionate about the law as Ted Cruz would not know that Canada considered him a citizen given that almost all nations in the Americas have birthright citizenship. That should be covered in an undergrad International Law class. The rather tangled and contentious circumstances with facts still not fully established is exhibit A why the Founders were concerned a child that grows up in a household with split loyalties he will retain some of that divided loyalty even unconsciously as an adult.

But it seems to me states before they allow someone to register to run in their primary or caucus should check to see if someone meets the requirements and determine one way or the other if they quality or not.

There was an article written by some very well known law professor or attorney general that says Cruz definitely qualifies based on the fact his mother had lived in the US most of her life before giving birth to him. So I think most legal scholars seem to agree that he qualifies. This is totally transparent on Trump's part. He's just bringing it up because Cruz is catching up with him and he doesn't want to discuss any real policy issues because he has no knowledge of them. Distraction is how Trump operates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been thinking, Bernie Sanders has a really good chance at getting the nomination. I know what the polls are saying, but a lot of those polls only include those who voted in the past two presidential elections. That means that people under 26 are not being counted. Millenials are one of his biggest demographics and Hillary seems to be getting nervous trying to be misleading and condescending about him and his positions/plans. People thought Hillary Clinton was inevitable in 2008 and that turned out to be very untrue. I think Bernie Sander's base and willingness to vote have been extremely underestimated and I'm started to seriously think he will become the 45th President of the United States.

I'm really looking forward to see what happens since it's a little more exciting than following the 2016 Australian General election haha

I don't know how true it is in its context but I have heard that Sanders is in a much better position now then even Obama was in 08 at this same time during the campaign.

Who knows though. Would be over the moon if he got the nomination, but like I said a billion times. If Hillary gets it she totally has my vote as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Pud Whacker

The 2008 elections are a huge blur for me, but I remember Obama going from nobody to HERO overnight. Absolutely anything can happen at this point.

certainly not your review of rebel heart tour!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you read anything other than the Huffington Post, you will recognise the narrative in the mainstream media is that Hillary Clinton has the Democratic nomination locked up. Of course, that is exactly what they said last time. During the closing months of 2015, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) was higher in the polls than Barack Obama was in 2007. In October 2007, Clinton had a thirty point lead over Obama, whereas in October 2015 she was only twenty points ahead of Sanders. In the first set of key states, Sanders has a ten-point lead in New Hampshire, is reportedly within the margin of error in recent Iowa polls and continues to gain nationally. It is worth noting that Hillary Clinton is still the frontrunner, but the tide turned after Obama’s first primary victory, and the tide can easily turn again. If Sanders can mimic Obama by winning Iowa and surpass him by taking New Hampshire, the potential is there for a bitter sense of déjà vu.

The truth is that Sanders is mobilizing an extensive network across the country. He has raised more money than all of the GOP candidates combined with only 1/23rd of the media coverage dedicated to him compared to vacuous fascist Donald Trump. In March 2015, he was polling 6 percent and entered 2016 with a 30 percent share of the vote. This would be an unprecedented boom in support for a self-proclaimed democratic socialist if it were not for the rise of Jeremy Corbyn in the United Kingdom. Only one mainstream political commentator, Stephen Bush of the New Statesman, predicted the rise of Jeremy Corbyn. Only one mainstream political commentator, H.A Goodman, has consistently backed Sanders to succeed. It would be foolish to write him off as we move closer to February 1.

Sanders has mobilised volunteers in a similar manner to Jeremy Corbyn, masterminding digital campaigns which inspire people enough to form real grassroots movements in their communities which advocate policies that the majority of the public actually agree with. Recent polling shows Sanders would wipe Trump off the map in this year’s presidential election by a staggering landside and perform better in the presidential election than Hillary Clinton, despite calls from her allies that he is unelectable. This accusation levelled at Sanders has no discernible evidence, in fact the opposite.

The Progressive Change Institute has recently polled some of the ideas Sanders has brought into the political arena, and the results clearly insinuate that the public are on board with his policy agenda. 71 percent believe in a huge infrastructure program to create jobs and tuition free college education. 59 percent are in favour of raising taxes on the rich and 55 percent believe a financial transactions tax should be implemented on Wall Street.

With this stunning level of support from not only Democrats but Republicans and Independents as well, it is no surprise that Clinton’s corporate war chest of donations has struggled to halt the progressive surge thus far, and as Sanders gears up to release a full tax plan ahead of the Iowa vote, it is only going to get harder for Clinton in the coming weeks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...