Politics - USA

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**whembly**

Ouze wrote:
whembly wrote:
dogma wrote:

Bush managed to win the Presidency despite the Iraq War, GITMO, the Patriot Act, and DHS.

In 2004, those really didn't manifest as "baggage" to the scale of Clinton's.

And this is where you skate just past rationality, giving it a wave as you go.

If you were suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS), then you'd be right.

However, I'd argue it was closer to how djones described above...

In other news... I found this article by Nate Silver refreshing:
How I Acted Like A Pundit And Screwed Up On Donald Trump
<content is massive, so take a look>

**Rosebuddy**

sebster wrote:
If you take the whole of US politics, assume the center is the center, because it is, you can then take the voting records of each person elected to office and see how they compare to the center. That might mean people on the far left of US politics might be center or even center right in Swedish politics, but who gives a gak when we're talking about US politics.

This way of thinking about politics destroys meaning. A person who wants to break your leg isn't actually kinder than a person who wants to break both your legs. As I said, Clinton doesn't represent leftism other than if you define it as having a D after your name which, as I also already said, is what the party has been doing and is what you're doing. The way you use "center" here is nonsense because it's a relative term itself anyway. You treat it as being objectively politically neutral which is the absolute height of being blind to ideology. I use "leftism" to refer to the actual and not relative content of its policies and its way of looking at the world. I don't get bogged down in myopic false dichotomies. So when I say that Sanders is actually just a social democrat and while refreshing by the standards of a country that once purged leftists from all arenas does have his limitations I have a far clearer view of things than you do. You can talk to me about nine million "far leftists" when they arm themselves, start killing cops and CEOs and proclaim that they will gladly die to uphold Mao and Stalin. Your perspective is too narrow.

sebster wrote:
As for the rest, well I was a student once as well, and you gave me a nice feeling of nostalgia, so I won't be mean in responding.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. I point out that Clinton is more of the same since Bush and earlier and that this system of thinking isn't going to be able to meet or even understand the challenges of today and the near future... and you respond with condescension.

**Ouze**

djones520 wrote:
Hell, his favorability admist these scandals was way beyond Clintons today.

This time in 2004, George W. Bush's favorability rating was 36%. Hillary Clinton's is about 40%. Her unfavorables are a bit higher, but the post 9/11 boost was most definitely off by mid 2004.

djones520 wrote:
Iraq's favorability was split almost entirely on party lines in 2004.

Yes, but it was still averaging out nationally to about 50% of the population thinking it was a mistake, it actually rose to like 52% mistake, 47% right plan around June 2004. When Dogma said that was significant baggage, I think that's an accurate statement even if you parse it as being less unpopular among Republicans. They way you're parsing it only makes sense if we're arguing why W. Bush was successful in the primaries, not when discussing baggage going into a general election as we are now. Truthfully, I think the wars were nearly the only reason that George W. Bush got re-elected - Americans are historically loathe to dump a President during a war, though of course playing "what-if" is a game you can't really win or lose.

**kronk**

djones520 wrote:
If the Republicans had not picked such a divisive candidate themselves, I'd have to say it would be a shoe in for the R's.

Trump is an undercover Democratic spy, entering the 2016 election to destroy the Republican Party and make creepy comments about his daughter.

**whembly**

kronk wrote:
djones520 wrote:
If the Republicans had not picked such a divisive candidate themselves, I'd have to say it would be a shoe in for the R's.

Trump is an undercover Democratic spy, entering the 2016 election to destroy the Republican Party and make creepy comments about his daughter.

But mostly, creeping on his daughter...

**Gordon Shumway**

whembly wrote:
kronk wrote:
djones520 wrote:
If the Republicans had not picked such a divisive candidate themselves, I'd have to say it would be a shoe in for the R's.

Trump is an undercover Democratic spy, entering the 2016 election to destroy the Republican Party and make creepy comments about his daughter.

But mostly, creeping on his daughter...

At least it brought this spectacularly creepy image to my attention. Look at the birds. Who wouldn't be in the mood for love?

**dogma**

whembly wrote:

In 2004, those really didn't manifest as "baggage" to the scale of Clinton's.

Krauthammer coined Bush Derangement Syndrome in 2003, meaning the baggage existed at that point.

**Prestor Jon**

Co'tor Shas wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:
Co'tor Shas wrote:
whembly wrote:
Co'tor Shas wrote:
whembly wrote:
Co'tor Shas wrote:

Than you will stand with me to support an IR voting system? It's one of the simplest solutions to the two-party system.

In the Primary? Sure.

Why just the primary? That will stop extremist candidates like Trump, but it will not deal with the problem the two-party system poses.

Because it'll require another US Constitutional Amendment to change how Presidents are elected. It'll be so difficult, it's almost a non-starter.

Next best thing is to change the Primary nomination process and encourage more engagement in local politics.

I'm not saying get rid of the delegate system, I'm saying have the delegates be elected by IRV. I'll have to check, but I don't think the Constitution says only FPTP is allowed.

Changing the primaries has nothing to do with the constitution. The primaries are completely controlled by the political parties that run them. The Republican Party and Democrat Party can change the primary voting system tomorrow if they felt like it. Candidates and nominees still have meet the constitutional requirements for eligibility for the office but that's it. If you wanted to change how people are elected to Congress that would involve changing the constitution.

Of course, but I'm talking about delegates for the electoral college.

Article II Section 1 of the constitution and the 12th amendment both specify FTFP voting for PotUS and VP. You can't install IRV voting or make other changes to the current electoral collage without passing another amendment.

**dogma**

djones520 wrote:
Gotta say that Clintons issues of trustworthiness do cut much more deeply then Bush's issues of his day.

Really? You looked at Dick Cheney and thought "Yeah, I can trust that guy."?

Seriously, one of his staff members was sent to prison.

**Prestor Jon**

dogma wrote:
djones520 wrote:
Gotta say that Clintons issues of trustworthiness do cut much more deeply then Bush's issues of his day.

Really? You looked at Dick Cheney and thought "Yeah, I can trust that guy."?

Seriously, one of his staff members was sent to prison.

Bush is/was much more personable than Hillary. While having some charisma doesn't make you trustworthy it makes you more likeable which in the current media driven campaigns is often conflated to be the same thing in the eyes of the public. I'm not a huge fan of Bush43 or Bill Clinton but I think it would be infinitely more pleasant to spend a few hours hanging out with either of them rather than Hillary. I can't think of a scenario in which being forced to spend hours in a room with Hillary wouldn't be painfully awkward, uncomfortable and unpleasant.

**dogma**

Prestor Jon wrote:
I can't think of a scenario in which being forced to spend hours in a room with Hillary wouldn't be painfully awkward, uncomfortable and unpleasant.

But you aren't going to hang out with them. You're not electing a friend, you're electing a President.

**TheMeanDM**

I thought this was an interesting read....describes things on both sides pretty well, I think, and how distracted everybody has become (sometimes intentionally, sometimes un intentionally).

http://newbostonpost.com/blogs/enjoy-your-transgender-bathrooms-we-just-lost-america/

(snip)

We say we hate what Democrats have done to the country, so we elect a House and Senate full of Republicans who proceed to also place THEIR heads up their collective asses as well. It seems as if both parties forgot what they were supposed to be doing and whom they are supposed to be representing.

We pick sides and parties and teams and defend them to the ends of the Earth, ignoring the facts, pointing the fingers and hoping someone else will cover the cost of our skyrocketing and borderline pointless health insurance.

We talk about the number of homeless vets who we have to feed and clothe and house when it’s convenient for us to leverage them like pawns in a game – yet tomorrow, so many will forget to feed and clothe and house them.

**djones520**

dogma wrote:
djones520 wrote:
Gotta say that Clintons issues of trustworthiness do cut much more deeply then Bush's issues of his day.

Really? You looked at Dick Cheney and thought "Yeah, I can trust that guy."?

Seriously, one of his staff members was sent to prison.

Trust? Hardly. Respect. Yes. He shot someone, and that guy apologized for it.

Hillary will never command that type of fear/power/respect.

**feeder**

Prestor Jon wrote:
dogma wrote:
djones520 wrote:
Gotta say that Clintons issues of trustworthiness do cut much more deeply then Bush's issues of his day.

Really? You looked at Dick Cheney and thought "Yeah, I can trust that guy."?

Seriously, one of his staff members was sent to prison.

Bush is/was much more personable than Hillary. While having some charisma doesn't make you trustworthy it makes you more likeable which in the current media driven campaigns is often conflated to be the same thing in the eyes of the public. I'm not a huge fan of Bush43 or Bill Clinton but I think it would be infinitely more pleasant to spend a few hours hanging out with either of them rather than Hillary. I can't think of a scenario in which being forced to spend hours in a room with Hillary wouldn't be painfully awkward, uncomfortable and unpleasant.

I don't know. Do you watch House of Cards? Apparently she plays a mean game of beer pong.

**whembly**

djones520 wrote:
dogma wrote:
djones520 wrote:
Gotta say that Clintons issues of trustworthiness do cut much more deeply then Bush's issues of his day.

Really? You looked at Dick Cheney and thought "Yeah, I can trust that guy."?

Seriously, one of his staff members was sent to prison.

Trust? Hardly. Respect. Yes. He shot someone, and that guy apologized for it.

Hillary will never command that type of fear/power/respect.

Exalted.

**d-usa**

Prestor Jon wrote:
Co'tor Shas wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:
Co'tor Shas wrote:
whembly wrote:
Co'tor Shas wrote:
whembly wrote:
Co'tor Shas wrote:

Than you will stand with me to support an IR voting system? It's one of the simplest solutions to the two-party system.

In the Primary? Sure.

Why just the primary? That will stop extremist candidates like Trump, but it will not deal with the problem the two-party system poses.

Because it'll require another US Constitutional Amendment to change how Presidents are elected. It'll be so difficult, it's almost a non-starter.

Next best thing is to change the Primary nomination process and encourage more engagement in local politics.

I'm not saying get rid of the delegate system, I'm saying have the delegates be elected by IRV. I'll have to check, but I don't think the Constitution says only FPTP is allowed.

Changing the primaries has nothing to do with the constitution. The primaries are completely controlled by the political parties that run them. The Republican Party and Democrat Party can change the primary voting system tomorrow if they felt like it. Candidates and nominees still have meet the constitutional requirements for eligibility for the office but that's it. If you wanted to change how people are elected to Congress that would involve changing the constitution.

Of course, but I'm talking about delegates for the electoral college.

Article II Section 1 of the constitution and the 12th amendment both specify FTFP voting for PotUS and VP. You can't install IRV voting or make other changes to the current electoral collage without passing another amendment.

I don't think either would prohibit IRV. They dictate the process of how the electors conduct their vote, but it doesn't restrict how the electors themselves are chosen. The electoral college couldn't use an IRV, but they could be elected via IRV. At least that's how I read it.

**Ouze**

dogma wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:
I can't think of a scenario in which being forced to spend hours in a room with Hillary wouldn't be painfully awkward, uncomfortable and unpleasant.

But you aren't going to hang out with them. You're not electing a friend, you're electing a President.

So much this. I can't stand the "I'd like to have a beer with them" test. I mean, I know it's a real thing, much like the Kardashians, and I know that it actually matters to some people, much like the Kardashians, but I hate that that's the way it is, because no one should care about having a beer with a candidate or the Kardashians.

**Prestor Jon**

dogma wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:
I can't think of a scenario in which being forced to spend hours in a room with Hillary wouldn't be painfully awkward, uncomfortable and unpleasant.

But you aren't going to hang out with them. You're not electing a friend, you're electing a President.

I understand that but apparently, according to media that covers and promotes these elections the degree to which I'd like to hang out with or have a beer with a candidate is a key factor in determining for whom I should cast my vote. The campaign is for the popular vote so it's just a popularity contest which makes personality important. It seems to be commonly accepted that Bill Clinton is a good politician because he's good at communicating with people and being personable. People enjoy his company so they're comfortable with him and therefore more accepting of him being in a position of authority. Being intelligent or capable or experiences or all three is nice but if people think you're a gakky person they're not going to want to put you in a position of authority and you're unlikely to win a popularity contest. Being likeable is important even if you're just putting on a facade. Hillary isn't very likeable so it's difficult for people to get past that dislike and put more value on her policy positions and voting record. Heck, Hillary and Bernie have almost identical voting records in the senate yet the way they each deal witht he public and interact with voters has a very strong impact on whether or not people want to support them.

**djones520**

Ouze wrote:
dogma wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:
I can't think of a scenario in which being forced to spend hours in a room with Hillary wouldn't be painfully awkward, uncomfortable and unpleasant.

But you aren't going to hang out with them. You're not electing a friend, you're electing a President.

So much this. I can't stand the "I'd like to have a beer with them" test. I mean, I know it's a real thing, much like the Kardashians, and I know that it actually matters to some people, much like the Kardashians, but I hate that that's the way it is, because no one should care about having a beer with a candidate or the Kardashians.

I prefer a little personable charisma in our President. I don't like Obama as a president, but I think he's a decent person. I thought that Bush was a good person at heart. Neither Trump or Clinton are either of those. Especially given my line of work, I want to trust that the guy signing the orders sending me somewhere is caring about me when he does that. I don't get that feeling at all from these two. At all.

**feeder**

djones520 wrote:
I prefer a little personable charisma in our President. I don't like Obama as a president, but I think he's a decent person. I thought that Bush was a good person at heart. Neither Trump or Clinton are either of those. Especially given my line of work, I want to trust that the guy signing the orders sending me somewhere is caring about me when he does that. I don't get that feeling at all from these two. At all.

She had a big enough heart to forgive Bill for Monica.

**Prestor Jon**

d-usa wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:
Co'tor Shas wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:
Co'tor Shas wrote:
whembly wrote:
Co'tor Shas wrote:
whembly wrote:
Co'tor Shas wrote:

Than you will stand with me to support an IR voting system? It's one of the simplest solutions to the two-party system.

In the Primary? Sure.

Why just the primary? That will stop extremist candidates like Trump, but it will not deal with the problem the two-party system poses.

Because it'll require another US Constitutional Amendment to change how Presidents are elected. It'll be so difficult, it's almost a non-starter.

Next best thing is to change the Primary nomination process and encourage more engagement in local politics.

I'm not saying get rid of the delegate system, I'm saying have the delegates be elected by IRV. I'll have to check, but I don't think the Constitution says only FPTP is allowed.

Changing the primaries has nothing to do with the constitution. The primaries are completely controlled by the political parties that run them. The Republican Party and Democrat Party can change the primary voting system tomorrow if they felt like it. Candidates and nominees still have meet the constitutional requirements for eligibility for the office but that's it. If you wanted to change how people are elected to Congress that would involve changing the constitution.

Of course, but I'm talking about delegates for the electoral college.

Article II Section 1 of the constitution and the 12th amendment both specify FTFP voting for PotUS and VP. You can't install IRV voting or make other changes to the current electoral collage without passing another amendment.

I don't think either would prohibit IRV. They dictate the process of how the electors conduct their vote, but it doesn't restrict how the electors themselves are chosen. The electoral college couldn't use an IRV, but they could be elected via IRV. At least that's how I read it.

Article. II.

Section. 1.

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; A quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice President.

The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.

The states can use whatever process they want to select the Electors to the Electoral College but the manner is which the Electors vote is very clearly defined by Article II and the 12th amendment.

**d-usa**

So we agree.

**whembly**

d-usa wrote:
So we agree.

d and co'tor...

You've turned me into a believer. I'm all for IRV for the Primary and GE

**Prestor Jon**

d-usa wrote:
So we agree.

With the caveat that I have no idea what limitations are placed on selecting Electors by the state constitutions yes. I think some states would have more difficulty than others changing their current systems and there's no way to pressure states to be uniform in their selection process. In theory every state could install IRV elections, in practice :shrug:

**the Signless**

Prestor Jon wrote:
dogma wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:
I can't think of a scenario in which being forced to spend hours in a room with Hillary wouldn't be painfully awkward, uncomfortable and unpleasant.

But you aren't going to hang out with them. You're not electing a friend, you're electing a President.

I understand that but apparently, according to media that covers and promotes these elections the degree to which I'd like to hang out with or have a beer with a candidate is a key factor in determining for whom I should cast my vote. The campaign is for the popular vote so it's just a popularity contest which makes personality important. It seems to be commonly accepted that Bill Clinton is a good politician because he's good at communicating with people and being personable. People enjoy his company so they're comfortable with him and therefore more accepting of him being in a position of authority. Being intelligent or capable or experiences or all three is nice but if people think you're a gakky person they're not going to want to put you in a position of authority and you're unlikely to win a popularity contest. Being likeable is important even if you're just putting on a facade. Hillary isn't very likeable so it's difficult for people to get past that dislike and put more value on her policy positions and voting record. Heck, Hillary and Bernie have almost identical voting records in the senate yet the way they each deal witht he public and interact with voters has a very strong impact on whether or not people want to support them.

Hillary Clinton may not be fun to hang out with, but you have to remember that the president's job is to attend boring meetings where the other people do not have much of a choice whether they want to talk with you or not. I trust Hillary Clinton to sit through a meeting with world leaders without causing too much of a fuss. Maybe she does not go out with them to grab a beer afterwards, but she gets the job done. Trump on the other hand I would not leave him in the room with any one else for fear that he would insult them and their mother. When the dust settles from World War III and the survivors are digging through the rubble of our past civilisations searching for what could have pushed us to annihilation, I do not want the answer to be "Trump got into a shouting match with Putin over the size of his hands".

TheMeanDM wrote:I thought this was an interesting read....describes things on both sides pretty well, I think, and how distracted everybody has become (sometimes intentionally, sometimes un intentionally).

http://newbostonpost.com/blogs/enjoy-your-transgender-bathrooms-we-just-lost-america/

(snip)

We say we hate what Democrats have done to the country, so we elect a House and Senate full of Republicans who proceed to also place THEIR heads up their collective asses as well. It seems as if both parties forgot what they were supposed to be doing and whom they are supposed to be representing.

We pick sides and parties and teams and defend them to the ends of the Earth, ignoring the facts, pointing the fingers and hoping someone else will cover the cost of our skyrocketing and borderline pointless health insurance.

We talk about the number of homeless vets who we have to feed and clothe and house when it’s convenient for us to leverage them like pawns in a game – yet tomorrow, so many will forget to feed and clothe and house them.

What are you trying to show with this article? It is nothing but a long rant in a blog where someone complains about people having issues.They make bizarre claims and base most of their article off of an appeal to emotion rather than any evidence. The only thing that I can gleam from reading this is that you still need to find better sources (a blog is not a good news source),

**dogma**

djones520 wrote:

Trust? Hardly. Respect. Yes. He shot someone, and that guy apologized for it.

You have respect for a guy that violated all gun safety rules?

djones520 wrote:

Hillary will never command that type of fear/power/respect.

Why? Because she's a woman?

**TheMeanDM**

Signless: it's not a source for anything news related...never claimed it was....so gear over to reverse and back the truck up

I find it to be an interesting commentary on what does indeed seem to be happening in the US today....everybody is so divided over everything and blaming everybody else.

**whembly**

So Trump released a list of jurists he'd nominate for SCOTUS:

...
The list of conservative federal and state judges includes Steven Colloton of Iowa, Allison Eid of Colorado and Raymond Gruender of Missouri.

Also on the list are: Thomas Hardiman of Pennsylvania, Raymond Kethledge of Michigan, Joan Larsen of Michigan, Thomas Lee of Utah, William Pryor of Alabama, David Stras of Minnesota, Diane Sykes of Wisconsin and Don Willett of Texas. Trump had previously named Pryor and Sykes as examples of kind of justices he would choose.
...

That's some red blood there...

Too bad we can't hold him to this list.

(I don't believe any of these would be nominated by Trump)

Also... just saw this on twittah:

“In politics and in life, ignorance is not a virtue.” —@POTUS https://t.co/3MGECPKU2e

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) May 16, 2016

Someone might wanna tell Clinton how Hamilton died.

**dogma**

Prestor Jon wrote:
Heck, Hillary and Bernie have almost identical voting records in the senate yet the way they each deal witht he public and interact with voters has a very strong impact on whether or not people want to support them.

Which is still the "Hang out!" meme. Probability dictates that you won't hang out with them.

**djones520**

dogma wrote:
djones520 wrote:

Trust? Hardly. Respect. Yes. He shot someone, and that guy apologized for it.

You have respect for a guy that violated all gun safety rules?

djones520 wrote:

Hillary will never command that type of fear/power/respect.

Why? Because she's a woman?

Honestly, you're going to go there? Ok, guess I can be done talking with you now.