US Presidential Race

Betty La Fea wrote:Here is a handy little map of how every neighborhood in NYC voted:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/04/19/us/elections/new-york-city-democratic-primary-results.html?_r=0#11/40.6916/-74.0884

Look at the Asian vote.  Not even just China town, but Elmhurst which has the younger voters.

Asians are #WithHer

What you are doing is wrong - Sanders is sweeping the Asian vote in most states - You and selecting NY City - The hub of Dem establishment & the uber wealthy which Clinton swept. Sanders won almost the entire state of NY but lost as he lost NY City.

So you are taking figures from a Clinton sweep & mis-interpreting it -

NYC figure according to your data -

Sanders Black Vote - 30.3%
Sanders Hispanic Vote - 35.1%
Sanders White Vote - 39.2%
Sanders Asian Vote - 42.2%

Sanders won the White Vote in NY & was very close in the Hispanic vote. So this is NY City which Clinton swept where Sanders' best performance was the Asian vote over the White Vote.

If you count upstate, it will be a solid win among the Asian vote for Sanders - This is not even a debate - We have 100's of people in every Asian country phonebanking for Sanders - People even flying in to their relatives homes canvassing for Sanders!

footyfan01 wrote:

Betty La Fea wrote:Here is a handy little map of how every neighborhood in NYC voted:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/04/19/us/elections/new-york-city-democratic-primary-results.html?_r=0#11/40.6916/-74.0884

Look at the Asian vote.  Not even just China town, but Elmhurst which has the younger voters.

Asians are #WithHer

What you are doing is wrong - Sanders is sweeping the Asian vote in most states - You and selecting NY City - The hub of Dem establishment & the uber wealthy which Clinton swept. Sanders won almost the entire state of NY but lost as he lost NY City.

So you are taking figures from a Clinton sweep & mis-interpreting it -

NYC figure according to your data -

Sanders Black Vote - 30.3%
Sanders Hispanic Vote - 35.1%
Sanders White Vote - 39.2%
Sanders Asian Vote - 42.2%

Sanders won the White Vote in NY & was very close in the Hispanic vote. So this is NY City which Clinton swept where Sanders' best performance was the Asian vote over the White Vote.

If you count upstate, it will be a solid win among the Asian vote for Sanders - This is not even a debate - We have 100's of people in every Asian country phonebanking for Sanders - People even flying in to their relatives homes canvassing for Sanders!

I admire your enthusiasm, but him staying in is simply hurting the party.

He needs to get behind her ASAP to start going after Trump.

The neighborhoods shows the Asian community. They showed elhurst park,historic china town, and flat brush. Asians are clearly going for her, and she will remember the support we gave her.

He can't catch her, and staying in just in case she gets indicted by the FBI, which she won't, is almost as disgusting as Hillary staying in and bringing up Robert Kennedy being assassinated as a reason in 2008. There is a time to go with dignity, to maintain party unity don't you think? Sanders has made his point, and Hillary will give his views some concessions in the future. Obviously the country has got back into shape from 2008, where us youth used our protest vote to make change. Hillary will continue our revolution. Join the winning team footyfan

Tawainese Animators also went in after these past few states:

So either Trump or Clinton will be president of this country...

That's just depressing.

Feel the Bern? There's a Cure.:

funny

M99 wrote:So either Trump or Clinton will be president of this country...

That's just depressing.

Have the past 8 years been depressing?

Prime Obama >>>>>>> Hillary and Trump

Considering we had 8 years of Bush and now at least 4 of either Hillary or Trump that will make Obama the best president of the past 20 years by 2020

BarrileteCosmico wrote:Considering we had 8 years of Bush and now at least 4 of either Hillary or Trump that will make Obama the best president of the past 20 years by 2020

Obama is easily top 2-3 president out of them all though.

His only true competition are either:

1.Lincoln-Saved the union/Freed the slaves
2.Truman-Solidified our nation as a world power and created the fair deal.

Simply because I already know your response if I were to say FDR I'll change to this: Washington?

CBarca wrote:Simply because I already know your response if I were to say FDR I'll change to this: Washington?

Washington was a good President, but I can't put a slaver next to Truman and Lincoln lol.

He'd be my pick after Obama.

Betty La Fea wrote:

BarrileteCosmico wrote:Considering we had 8 years of Bush and now at least 4 of either Hillary or Trump that will make Obama the best president of the past 20 years by 2020

Obama is easily top 2-3 president out of them all though.

His only true competition are either:

1.Lincoln-Saved the union/Freed the slaves
2.Truman-Solidified our nation as a world power and created the fair deal.

Please, is he even better than Clinton I?

I like Obama as a guy, but I think even he would agree that he has achieved far less than he imagined he would 8 years ago

BarrileteCosmico wrote:

Betty La Fea wrote:

BarrileteCosmico wrote:Considering we had 8 years of Bush and now at least 4 of either Hillary or Trump that will make Obama the best president of the past 20 years by 2020

Obama is easily top 2-3 president out of them all though.

His only true competition are either:

1.Lincoln-Saved the union/Freed the slaves
2.Truman-Solidified our nation as a world power and created the fair deal.

Please, is he even better than Clinton I?

I like Obama as a guy, but I think even he would agree that he has achieved far less than he imagined he would 8 years ago

Healthcare
Started to pull us out of the worst economic crisis since the depression.
Iran Nuclear deal
Ended the Afghan/Iraq wars.
Opened up Cuba

Dude has crapped on Bill, and this is coming from a guy who loved the Bill times. He just inherited less problems than Obama did.

I like Obama as well but crediting him with opening up Cuba is too shallow. He was just president at the right time in that case. That came to be because Fidel retired and has been dying for a while and Raul has been slowly transitioning Cuba out of their mess.

rincon wrote:I like Obama as well but crediting him with opening up Cuba is too shallow. He was just president at the right time in that case. That came to be because Fidel retired and has been dying for a while and Raul has been slowly transitioning Cuba out of their mess.

Fidel had relinquished power to his brother as wary as 2005, and was officially out in early 2008. Bush had ample time to open them up on his way out, but he lacked the leadership to do so. Hell, you could even say Clinton blew a chance of opening them up when the Elian Gonzalez thing was going on. Obama had the will, and political capital, to pull it off. Whether or not it was just based on time, it was GOAT-level presidential leadership.

Betty La Fea wrote:

rincon wrote:I like Obama as well but crediting him with opening up Cuba is too shallow. He was just president at the right time in that case. That came to be because Fidel retired and has been dying for a while and Raul has been slowly transitioning Cuba out of their mess.

Fidel had relinquished power to his brother as wary as 2005, and was officially out in early 2008. Bush had ample time to open them up on his way out, but he lacked the leadership to do so. Hell, you could even say Clinton blew a chance of opening them up when the Elian Gonzalez thing was going on. Obama had the will, and political capital, to pull it off. Whether or not it was just based on time, it was GOAT-level presidential leadership.

Raul has been number 1 one for a while but he didn't, and isn't, sharply changing Cuba. It was a process to be started with or without input from the US. Internal policies have been relaxing for some time and will continue to do so. Cuba won't be "open" with Obama still in power, it will take time and it will be done with a different president (Hillary, Trump, etc.) simply because of the timeframe.

Obama had the good will to accept and take part in some changes, but these transitions were due to changes in Cuba and Latin America, not really Obama's work.

rincon wrote:

Betty La Fea wrote:

rincon wrote:I like Obama as well but crediting him with opening up Cuba is too shallow. He was just president at the right time in that case. That came to be because Fidel retired and has been dying for a while and Raul has been slowly transitioning Cuba out of their mess.

Fidel had relinquished power to his brother as wary as 2005, and was officially out in early 2008. Bush had ample time to open them up on his way out, but he lacked the leadership to do so. Hell, you could even say Clinton blew a chance of opening them up when the Elian Gonzalez thing was going on. Obama had the will, and political capital, to pull it off. Whether or not it was just based on time, it was GOAT-level presidential leadership.

Raul has been number 1 one for a while but he didn't, and isn't, sharply changing Cuba. It was a process to be started with or without input from the US. Internal policies have been relaxing for some time and will continue to do so. Cuba won't be "open" with Obama still in power, it will take time and it will be done with a different president (Hillary, Trump, etc.) simply because of the timeframe.

Obama had the good will to accept and take part in some changes, but these transitions were due to changes in Cuba and Latin America, not really Obama's work.

Its impossible to think the process of a poor country <100 miles from our shores isn't influenced by us to be fair though.

He's the first president to go there since who? Coolidge? Definite work put in by Obama. People there are going to have better lives do to Obama making this show, and the same thing was true for Nixon opening up China. Was China always going to be a world power with us? Yes, but it took leadership to make the first move on our part.

Betty La Fea wrote:

CBarca wrote:Simply because I already know your response if I were to say FDR I'll change to this: Washington?

Washington was a good President, but I can't put a slaver next to Truman and Lincoln lol.

If you take a morally absolutist approach to history, there may come a point at which Obama is condemned as America's most notorious infanticidal president.

http://www.wnd.com/2013/05/why-obama-is-silent-on-killed-babies/

wat

Obama over Washington. Actually dying right now

VivaStPauli wrote:wat

Clink on the link. Nat hentoff, a liberal "legend". It's safe, you can read it.

Betty La Fea wrote:

BarrileteCosmico wrote:Considering we had 8 years of Bush and now at least 4 of either Hillary or Trump that will make Obama the best president of the past 20 years by 2020

Obama is easily top 2-3 president out of them all though.

His only true competition are either:

1.Lincoln-Saved the union/Freed the slaves
2.Truman-Solidified our nation as a world power and created the fair deal.

You really cannot accurately rate a president until a while after they leave office. Like lets say in the near future a republican wins and repeals obamacare. That absolutely trashes his legacy. FDR is so high up there because of how his legislation changed the country and were in place over several several decades, and still are (many of them)

Another example Bill Clinton would be a lot higher on the list of best presidents in my opinion if Gore had won in 2000. The economic growth, balanced budget, pretty much most of his high marks completely went to shit because of Bush. I know the whole florida situation and the supreme court, but Bills sex scandal platooned the partys image and allowed it to get close next time.

We can't really judge Obama on anything yet. I think Bill was a better in a lot of ways than Obama, but Obama will instantly be ahead of him if democrats retain the white house

DuringTheWar wrote:

Betty La Fea wrote:

CBarca wrote:Simply because I already know your response if I were to say FDR I'll change to this: Washington?

Washington was a good President, but I can't put a slaver next to Truman and Lincoln lol.

If you take a morally absolutist approach to history, there may come a point at which Obama is condemned as America's most notorious infanticidal president.

http://www.wnd.com/2013/05/why-obama-is-silent-on-killed-babies/

Thing is, even during washington's days owning slaves was considered by large segments of the population as tacky. That is why he freed them upon his death. This was nearly the 19th century, not the 17th.

Abortion is a right we have gave women over here. Public support is behind that, and rightfully so. It played a big part in crime rates here going down.

CBarca wrote:Obama over Washington. Actually dying right now

Lol just right now.

VendettaRed07 wrote:

Betty La Fea wrote:

BarrileteCosmico wrote:Considering we had 8 years of Bush and now at least 4 of either Hillary or Trump that will make Obama the best president of the past 20 years by 2020

Obama is easily top 2-3 president out of them all though.

His only true competition are either:

1.Lincoln-Saved the union/Freed the slaves
2.Truman-Solidified our nation as a world power and created the fair deal.

You really cannot accurately rate a president until a while after they leave office. Like lets say in the near future a republican wins and repeals obamacare. That absolutely trashes his legacy. FDR is so high up there because of how his legislation changed the country and were in place over several several decades, and still are (many of them)

Another example Bill Clinton would be a lot higher on the list of best presidents in my opinion if Gore had won in 2000. The economic growth, balanced budget, pretty much most of his high marks completely went to shit because of Bush. I know the whole florida situation and the supreme court, but Bills sex scandal platooned the partys image and allowed it to get close next time.

We can't really judge Obama on anything yet. I think Bill was a better in a lot of ways than Obama, but Obama will instantly be ahead of him if democrats retain the white house

This is very true. Obama benefits from the republican party imploding though. We are guaranteed a democrat being elected again this year simply because the tea party have hijacked the party to where all moderates are turned off.

We will have to see where history leaves him.

Betty La Fea wrote:

DuringTheWar wrote:

Betty La Fea wrote:


Washington was a good President, but I can't put a slaver next to Truman and Lincoln lol.

If you take a morally absolutist approach to history, there may come a point at which Obama is condemned as America's most notorious infanticidal president.

http://www.wnd.com/2013/05/why-obama-is-silent-on-killed-babies/

Thing is, even during washington's days owning slaves was considered by large segments of the population as tacky. That is why he freed them upon his death. This was nearly the 19th century, not the 17th.

Abortion is a right we have gave women over here. Public support is behind that, and rightfully so. It played a big part in crime rates here going down.

CBarca wrote:Obama over Washington. Actually dying right now

Lol just right now.

VendettaRed07 wrote:

Betty La Fea wrote:


Obama is easily top 2-3 president out of them all though.

His only true competition are either:

1.Lincoln-Saved the union/Freed the slaves
2.Truman-Solidified our nation as a world power and created the fair deal.

You really cannot accurately rate a president until a while after they leave office. Like lets say in the near future a republican wins and repeals obamacare. That absolutely trashes his legacy. FDR is so high up there because of how his legislation changed the country and were in place over several several decades, and still are (many of them)

Another example Bill Clinton would be a lot higher on the list of best presidents in my opinion if Gore had won in 2000. The economic growth, balanced budget, pretty much most of his high marks completely went to shit because of Bush. I know the whole florida situation and the supreme court, but Bills sex scandal platooned the partys image and allowed it to get close next time.

We can't really judge Obama on anything yet. I think Bill was a better in a lot of ways than Obama, but Obama will instantly be ahead of him if democrats retain the white house

This is very true. Obama benefits from the republican party imploding though. We are guaranteed a democrat being elected again this year simply because the tea party have hijacked the party to where all moderates are turned off.

We will have to see where history leaves him.

Disposing of a newborn to die is considered by large segments of the population as tacky. On poll data only 50% of 50% of Americans are in favour of "legal under any circumstance" abortion (25%). Far cry from Obama.

DuringTheWar wrote:

Betty La Fea wrote:

DuringTheWar wrote:


If you take a morally absolutist approach to history, there may come a point at which Obama is condemned as America's most notorious infanticidal president.

http://www.wnd.com/2013/05/why-obama-is-silent-on-killed-babies/

Thing is, even during washington's days owning slaves was considered by large segments of the population as tacky. That is why he freed them upon his death. This was nearly the 19th century, not the 17th.

Abortion is a right we have gave women over here. Public support is behind that, and rightfully so. It played a big part in crime rates here going down.

CBarca wrote:Obama over Washington. Actually dying right now

Lol just right now.

VendettaRed07 wrote:




You really cannot accurately rate a president until a while after they leave office. Like lets say in the near future a republican wins and repeals obamacare. That absolutely trashes his legacy. FDR is so high up there because of how his legislation changed the country and were in place over several several decades, and still are (many of them)

Another example Bill Clinton would be a lot higher on the list of best presidents in my opinion if Gore had won in 2000. The economic growth, balanced budget, pretty much most of his high marks completely went to shit because of Bush. I know the whole florida situation and the supreme court, but Bills sex scandal platooned the partys image and allowed it to get close next time.

We can't really judge Obama on anything yet. I think Bill was a better in a lot of ways than Obama, but Obama will instantly be ahead of him if democrats retain the white house

This is very true. Obama benefits from the republican party imploding though. We are guaranteed a democrat being elected again this year simply because the tea party have hijacked the party to where all moderates are turned off.

We will have to see where history leaves him.

Disposing of a newborn to die is considered by large segments of the population as tacky. On poll data only 50% of 50% of Americans are in favour of "legal under any circumstance" abortion (25%). Far cry from Obama.

Depends on the poll data shown. I live in the deep religious south, and most people I come into contact with while not liking abortion, view it as a necessary evil.

The country is too big to get a very specific view point like that. Its nothing like 18th/19th century small America where only a select few of the southern elite viewed slavery favorable.

Betty La Fea wrote:Healthcare
Started to pull us out of the worst economic crisis since the depression.
Iran Nuclear deal
Ended the Afghan/Iraq wars.
Opened up Cuba

Healthcare: Ok, but he chose a faulty system when he had majority in both chambers, and had no reason to negotiate down.

Economy: 8 years later the economy still lags, abandoned stimulus after 2009 (even with ridiculously lagging infrastructure, this was really a missed chance), failed to pressure the Fed into doing more to reach its targets.

Iran Nuclear: good deal

Ended wars: ...and left Iraq ripe for ISIS to step into that vacuum of power. We are sure better off this way.

Opened up Cuba: Right now he only re-established communications, the real achievement would be ending the embargo.