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 wrote:

True dat... which is fething ironic as Obama didn't have experience either.

That doesn't seem to fit with the definition of "ironic".

 whembly wrote:

That's why I thought it was funny.

I doubt that. I think you thought it was funny because you're a Republican.

 jasper76 wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
No experience though, she hasn't even been a senator.

I'm inclined to believe that this might be perceived by Republican voters as a strength, rather than a weakness. The base seems pretty disaffected with Republicans in the House and Senate.

Yes.

I'd give good odds of a Fiorina/Rubio ticket. After the clownact of Trump, the party will be eager to restart its recruitment efforts. Fiorina is the outsider who neutralizing the "first female" advantage, is coherent/vicious (almost Texan there), while Rubio is youthful and gives good policy arguments. I'd take that bet against Team Private Server.

Brown is making noise again. Interesting. hopefully he runs and gets crushed.

Fiorina's biggest hurdle will be overcoming her time at HP. Amongst the conservatives I discuss politics with, she is a non-starter, because she laid off thousands of people and shipped jobs to China, or at least that's the impression anecdotally my acquaintances have of her.

 jasper76 wrote:
Fiorina's biggest hurdle will be overcoming her time at HP. Amongst the conservatives I discuss politics with, she is a non-starter, because she laid off thousands of people and shipped jobs to China, or at least that's the impression anecdotally my acquaintances have of her.

Yeah she pretty much drove HP towards the dirt, walked away with a ton of money, but did damage that is now fixed by others with more competency at managing a corporation than her. She already said she would push for trillions of dollars worth of war machines and then seek out to use them on someone, she would crash America as she almost did to HP.

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

That's why I thought it was funny.

I doubt that. I think you thought it was funny because you're a Republican.

That makes no sense.

You're not in my head.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jasper76 wrote:
Fiorina's biggest hurdle will be overcoming her time at HP. Amongst the conservatives I discuss politics with, she is a non-starter, because she laid off thousands of people and shipped jobs to China, or at least that's the impression anecdotally my acquaintances have of her.

*meh*

I doubt that... in the General Election I think she'll have a harder time being that outsider and a woman.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:

Brown is making noise again. Interesting. hopefully he runs and gets crushed.

Actually... isn't Brown "like" HRC but w/o her baggage?

He might make some noise...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 shasolenzabi wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
Fiorina's biggest hurdle will be overcoming her time at HP. Amongst the conservatives I discuss politics with, she is a non-starter, because she laid off thousands of people and shipped jobs to China, or at least that's the impression anecdotally my acquaintances have of her.

Yeah she pretty much drove HP towards the dirt, walked away with a ton of money, but did damage that is now fixed by others with more competency at managing a corporation than her. She already said she would push for trillions of dollars worth of war machines and then seek out to use them on someone, she would crash America as she almost did to HP.

False. You're lapping up her opposition's talking points.

She got fired because she championed the merger between HP and Compaq.

That was instrumental in solidifing HP's computer side in the industry and what's overlooked, she solidified the printer business…
Back then... how many fething printers were there in the market and it's crazy ink business?

She also opened up Central and South America to the HP printing business, a huge move, and solidified that market area.

Freaking Craig Bartlett, CEO of Intel stated that, she saved HP because of her bold moves.

Leaders makes those hard decisions.

Now, it one thing to say that you don't believe Carly is qualified for the Presidency because of her lack of political experience... that criticism is warranted. But, to simply say she "ran HP to the ground" is blatantly false.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 IAmTheWalrus wrote:

Could you elaborate a little bit, or point me in the direction of a good explanation?

The "fair use" system would abolish the current tax code. Instead, it would place around a 19-25% tax on every item you buy. This tax would be displayed on the item's price tag in the store, instead of as the sales tax in the US, where it's calculated at the register.

In essence, you only pay taxes on money you spend. So when you buy a car, you pay the "fair" tax for the goods and the materials that went into it. When you buy a house, same thing. The good side of this "system" as far as I've read, is that when more people spend money at all levels, more tax revenue is had. The bad side of this is, as numerous studies have shown, the super wealthy, especially that top 1% crowd, don't really spend money the way us plebes do. And at all levels I mean: the mining company rates their raw material with taxes. The company that makes aluminum for Ford Motors pays that tax. Ford then pays a tax to buy that aluminum for their cars/trucks. The consumer then pays the tax on the ford vehicle that they just bought.

Of course, the way this hurts Ford, is when you or I buy a used vehicle, instead of brand new, since the only people making money off the tax, is the dealership/seller.

How does the government collect the tax on private sales?

The "fair use" system hurts the majority of people because most of us pay much less than 19-25% of our net income in taxes. While paychecks will increase by the amount that used to be withheld for federal income tax it won't be nearly enough to allow people to maintain current spending habits when prices rise 19-25%. Living expenses would rise by wages would still be the same so people would just spend less money and the government would collect less taxes. If the tax system incentivizes frugality then people will spend less.

That is one reason why I'm not particularly a fan of it. It totally is dependent on people spending money on the dumb stuff we do.

 jasper76 wrote:
Debate reaction: obviously Fiorna won the debate. But the debate went best for Jeb Bush, who showed that he has some of a pair. You can tell Bush is still the establishments choice. One of the biggest applause lines was when he referenced GW "kept us safe".

Sure, as long as you don't count the largest terrorist attack in history that happened on his watch, it's a fair rap. And after all, why would you count that?

 whembly wrote:
Now, it one thing to say that you don't believe Carly is qualified for the Presidency because of her lack of political experience... that criticism is warranted. But, to simply say she "ran HP to the ground" is blatantly false.

When she took over, the company had 42 billion in sales and 3.1 billion in net profits. When she left, it was making 87 billion in sales (since the merger made a much larger company) yet only 2.4 billion in net profits, and literally halved the stock value. While she was doing that, she tripled her salary and after laying off nearly 30,000 people and sending their jobs overseas, she was rewarded with a 40 million dollar golden parachute. These are not opinions, they are facts. Unless she is claiming she will double the size of the national debt while halving revenue, that's not a track record to run on.

I've seen a few op-eds trying to kickstart the "Carly Didn't Run HP Into The Ground" lie-train, but I think they're going to need a bigger bs battery for that particular locomotive - I don't think the usual mixture of "intellectual dishonesty, disregard for the inconvenient facts, and ability to out-endure the people willing to call you a liar" will be adequate this time.

 whembly wrote:
That was instrumental in solidifing HP's computer side in the industry and what's overlooked, she solidified the printer business…
Back then... how many fething printers were there in the market and it's crazy ink business?

What I'm sure you meant to say is she slashed the printer business to get more into the (already declining) PC business. This was not considered a great idea even back then - here's the Forbes article from 2005 (while she was still CEO) if anyone would like to read it.

The problem Fiorina has to face is perception, not facts. Regardless of what the actual facts may be regarding her time at HP, to a large part of America she represents what is hated about corporate America: the fatcat CEO that fiddles away as thousands lose their jobs and she bails out on her golden parachute worth millions.

 Ouze wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
Debate reaction: obviously Fiorna won the debate. But the debate went best for Jeb Bush, who showed that he has some of a pair. You can tell Bush is still the establishments choice. One of the biggest applause lines was when he referenced GW "kept us safe".

Sure, as long as you don't count the largest terrorist attack in history that happened on his watch, it's a fair rap. And after all, why would you count that?

 whembly wrote:
Now, it one thing to say that you don't believe Carly is qualified for the Presidency because of her lack of political experience... that criticism is warranted. But, to simply say she "ran HP to the ground" is blatantly false.

When she took over, the company had 42 billion in sales and 3.1 billion in net profits. When she left, it was making 87 billion in sales (since the merger made a much larger company) yet only 2.4 billion in net profits, and literally halved the stock value. While she was doing that, she tripled her salary and after laying off nearly 30,000 people and sending their jobs overseas, she was rewarded with a 40 million dollar golden parachute. These are not opinions, they are facts. Unless she is claiming she will double the size of the national debt while halving revenue, that's not a track record to run on.

I've seen a few op-eds trying to kickstart the "Carly Didn't Run HP Into The Ground" lie-train, but I think they're going to need a bigger bs battery for that particular locomotive - I don't think the usual mixture of "intellectual dishonesty, disregard for the inconvenient facts, and ability to out-endure the people willing to call you a liar" will be adequate this time.

 whembly wrote:
That was instrumental in solidifing HP's computer side in the industry and what's overlooked, she solidified the printer business…
Back then... how many fething printers were there in the market and it's crazy ink business?

What I'm sure you meant to say is she slashed the printer business to get more into the (already declining) PC business. This was not considered a great idea even back then - here's the Forbes article from 2005 (while she was still CEO) if anyone would like to read it.

I got ninja'd! , I was about to link him that Forbes magazine article which I was basing my post on actually, not the silliness of trump, but her actual track record. She came out of that mess smelling pretty sweet according to her sign on deal/compensation and severance packs, and that is why CEOs are getting looked at closely these days, those insane packages!

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
The problem Fiorina has to face is perception, not facts. Regardless of what the actual facts may be regarding her time at HP, to a large part of America she represents what is hated about corporate America: the fatcat CEO that fiddles away as thousands lose their jobs and she bails out on her golden parachute worth millions.

Good thing she doesn't have the body of Chris Christie then

 whembly wrote:

I doubt that... in the General Election I think she'll have a harder time being that outsider and a woman.

She isn't an outsider. She has certainly tried to present herself as one because she knows her supporters will eat it up without thinking critically about such a claim. She is quite like Trump in that regard.

I mean, the woman was John McCain's adviser during his 2008 Presidential campaign. The fact that she got that nod means she was making political inroads well before that. A significant portion of her opposition in the General and Primary will actively try to establish her as one more politician. This will not be unlike what some people are attempting to do to Trump now.

I think it's going to be a little easier to hang that hat on Mrs. Fiorina than it is on Mr. Trump. While he's run for office many times, it's always been presumed that he wasn't a serious candidate and was just doing it for publicity and lulz.

Which is how I think this run started, but I no longer think it is. I think he's deadly serious, and why not? Look at this crowd of has-beens and never weres. He could actually win the nomination, FFS.

Not that the Democrats are better. I suspect most Americans realize that the drama with the private server is exactly how the rest of Mrs. Clinton's presidency would be; just a few plausible deniable notches above one sleazy scandal after another. And will the GOP work with her? I daresay, they will not. It would make the last 8 years look like minor friction, and the excitement of the historic First Woman President would be quickly surpassed by the First Woman President / First Husband & Wife Presidents To Get Impeached. So, it's that, or Senator Nochance, or Whats His Face with a name recognition marginally less than mine.

Maybe I'm just getting old and tired and jaded, but man, this is the worst electoral match I have seen in my entire life.

 jasper76 wrote:
Fiorina's biggest hurdle will be overcoming her time at HP. Amongst the conservatives I discuss politics with, she is a non-starter, because she laid off thousands of people and shipped jobs to China, or at least that's the impression anecdotally my acquaintances have of her.

Indeed. She is not liked here for what she did to Compaq.

I find it interesting how quiet the Democrats are. No huge publicity stunt debates on major TV (that I'm aware of). Its like they are actually a little worried to get in the open right now.

Personally I think they are laying low and trying to see if the Republicans will implode on Trump before stepping up.

If Trump can achieve what I still feel is his personal goal, a more moderate Democrat could step up and sweep the race by appealing to some of the Republicans. Now who that is I have no idea because it sure is not HRC and Bernie is too socialist for any one right to even nightmare about voting for.

 BrotherGecko wrote:
I find it interesting how quiet the Democrats are. No huge publicity stunt debates on major TV (that I'm aware of). Its like they are actually a little worried to get in the open right now.

Personally I think they are laying low and trying to see if the Republicans will implode on Trump before stepping up.

I suspect the DNCs silence has a LOT more to do with the fact that they did not intend to have to deal with a real Primary. They assumed Clinton would sweep away anyone with the audacity to run against her. Unfortunately, the leftist base is sick of establishment types like Hilary and loves the self proclaimed socialist candidate (and hoped they would get an even further left leaner like Warren to jump in). Clinton self immolating over her emails just adds to the dissatisfaction of those who think Obama did not go hard enough left.

Now, the DNC and big money types are trying to figure out the best timing to announce a Biden run, probably while trying to convince Hilary to quietly fade away (slim chance of that happening, after all it is her turn...) They hope a establishment controlled Not Hilary in the form of Biden will steal enough of the Sanders voters away from Sanders to shut him down.

 Ouze wrote:
And will the GOP work with her? I daresay, they will not. It would make the last 8 years look like minor friction,

I think what's sad is, based on Sanders' comments at that "Liberty University" speech he gave, he genuinely would try to work with the GOP, but I suspect that with today's climate, that would largely be a one way street.

 BrotherGecko wrote:
I find it interesting how quiet the Democrats are. No huge publicity stunt debates on major TV (that I'm aware of).

The first DNC debate is October 13th, 2015 at the Wynn in Las Vegas. I dearly wish I was making that last bit up.

 BrotherGecko wrote:

Personally I think they are laying low and trying to see if the Republicans will implode on Trump before stepping up.

Traditionally neither side attacks the other until the General. At least unless there is a very likely opponent who is not only polarizing, but in the midst of a significant scandal.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
And will the GOP work with her? I daresay, they will not. It would make the last 8 years look like minor friction,

I think what's sad is, based on Sanders' comments at that "Liberty University" speech he gave, he genuinely would try to work with the GOP, but I suspect that with today's climate, that would largely be a one way street.

The fault lies with both parties and Sanders' is just making comments for good PR when he knows it's worthless. Bernie Sanders' positions on most issues are so far apart from a lot of the GOP Representatives in the House that even meeting halfway requires both sides to move so far away from the positions supported by their respective bases that it's politically untenable. All Sanders is saying is the same stuff every politician says, I'll stake a claim to my position that nowhere near what the opposition is comfortable with supporting and then use their refusal to support a position that is diametrically opposed to theirs as proof that the two parties can't work together, blame the other side for not compromising their views to support mine and then move ahead with whatever unilateral action I can get away with. None of the politicians ever actually offer to change their positions to be more palatable for the other side to support, they just demand support from the other side and then when it's not given blame them for not compromising. It's how politicians avoid challenges from their base and convince people that they're doing something or at least trying really hard to do something when they're really doing nothing at all besides just repeating hard line partisan campaign speeches. The game isn't about actually solving problems, the game is about taking a side on an issue that lets you pander to the people likely to turn out and vote in the next election and keep the issue unresolved so you can keep running on solving it.

 dogma wrote:
The GOP will probably maintain control of Congress, and there are lots of Republican supporters who hate anyone whose last name is "Clinton". That means anything a hypothetical President Hillary Clinton tries to do will be stonewalled by Congress because there is hay to made by claiming "I opposed something a Clinton tried to do!".

I think we're probably a point where Clinton Derangement Syndrome has spread to anyone who dares to hold the Presidency while a Democrat.

It used to make sense that it was just the Clintons they hated so very much, but having watch the frequently flying rodent gak opposition they put up against Obama, I'm pretty confident Republicans will do just the same if another Democrat is elected.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
The three "outsiders" are leading this poll 1-2-3.

Yowsa!

Yep, I called it a while back. In 2012 it looked like the sequence of briefly popular candidates was a case of 'anyone but Mitt'... but now watching this extremely bizarre 2016 primary, it seems the defining mood among Republican voters is anyone but a Republican.

The party is in the process of rejecting itself.

CptJake wrote:

 BrotherGecko wrote:
I find it interesting how quiet the Democrats are. No huge publicity stunt debates on major TV (that I'm aware of). Its like they are actually a little worried to get in the open right now.

Personally I think they are laying low and trying to see if the Republicans will implode on Trump before stepping up.

I suspect the DNCs silence has a LOT more to do with the fact that they did not intend to have to deal with a real Primary. They assumed Clinton would sweep away anyone with the audacity to run against her. Unfortunately, the leftist base is sick of establishment types like Hilary and loves the self proclaimed socialist candidate (and hoped they would get an even further left leaner like Warren to jump in). Clinton self immolating over her emails just adds to the dissatisfaction of those who think Obama did not go hard enough left.

Now, the DNC and big money types are trying to figure out the best timing to announce a Biden run, probably while trying to convince Hilary to quietly fade away (slim chance of that happening, after all it is her turn...) They hope a establishment controlled Not Hilary in the form of Biden will steal enough of the Sanders voters away from Sanders to shut him down.

I'd say that is a pretty fair assessment of the situation. After seeing Kasich debate (not sure how controversial this is buuuttt), I believe he is just moderate enough to steal disenfranchised Democrats that are not comfortable with the party pandering to the far left. If he could get some more exposure I think he would be a much much stronger candidate. I'm fairly impressed with him. Maybe he could tap a multiparty cabinet plan and really appeal to Americans on the fence.

dogma wrote:

 BrotherGecko wrote:
I find it interesting how quiet the Democrats are. No huge publicity stunt debates on major TV (that I'm aware of).

The first DNC debate is October 13th, 2015 at the Wynn in Las Vegas. I dearly wish I was making that last bit up.
-_- Oi, way to make your first showing a zoo Denocrats...

 BrotherGecko wrote:

Personally I think they are laying low and trying to see if the Republicans will implode on Trump before stepping up.

Traditionally neither side attacks the other until the General. At least unless there is a very likely opponent who is not only polarizing, but in the midst of a significant scandal.

Well I suppose so but the Republican candidates are going hard in the mudda fething paint on both HRC and Bernie (because who else is running again?) with no effective return fire.

Prestor Jon wrote:
The limited govt libertarian-esque small c conservative part of the Republican party is constantly marginalized by the big govt big business party establishment appartchiks and politicians.

It seems the life of libertarians to be endlessly frustrated that politicians don't dedicate themselves to ignoring the vast majority of their voting base to instead follow the whim of this tiny fringe of extreme ideologues.

It's such a constant and ceaseless complaint that I kind of have to wonder if getting to feel smugly faux-outraged might actually the appeal of libertarianism.

It's not so much that the Dems are laying low, it's just that their side of the race isn't really much of a race. The media loves a fight, the Dems aren't playing along, instead mostly talking about wonky policy positions. Those won't get covered because they are hard to put into a ten second sound byte. So the media focuses on the "scandals" of emails and the horse race of Sanders catching up (though still way behind nationally) and the rumors of a possible Biden run. That is when they aren't focusing on Trumpmania.

 angelofvengeance wrote:
What's the likelihood of you guys having Donald Trump for president?

None.

He's alienated the chicks, and no democrat would vote for him (except crazies).

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Also, Santorum is an idiot. He was trying to argue that the supreme court ruling in favor of gay marriage is unconstitutional (wut?), and trying to argue against judicial supremacy. You know, that thing that's been part of our government since the beginning.

It's not so much that Santorum is an idiot, more that he doesn't give a gak about stuff like that. He'll talk a lot about law, the constitution, and religious libery but he doesn't actually give one gak about any of those subjects.

Santorum cares about increasing/maintaining the power of his tribe - Conservative Christians. They're his people, they are the people he feels comfortable around and what makes them happy is the only thing that worries him.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CptJake wrote:
Trump has had plenty of moments that would have been implosions for another candidate already.

I'm not sure what an implosion for Trump would even look like at this point.

That was the point things reached with Palin. It got to a point where there was just no point continuing to show that she was woefully incapable of holding national office, because her supporters just did not care.

 BrotherGecko wrote:

Well I suppose so but the Republican candidates are going hard in the mudda fething paint on both HRC and Bernie (because who else is running again?) with no effective return fire.

What are they supposed to say? Any attack will only strengthen the "persecuted conservatives" concept that most of the GOP candidates are trying to play to.

 sebster wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
The limited govt libertarian-esque small c conservative part of the Republican party is constantly marginalized by the big govt big business party establishment appartchiks and politicians.

It seems the life of libertarians to be endlessly frustrated that politicians don't dedicate themselves to ignoring the vast majority of their voting base to instead follow the whim of this tiny fringe of extreme ideologues.

It's such a constant and ceaseless complaint that I kind of have to wonder if getting to feel smugly faux-outraged might actually the appeal of libertarianism.

Not sure where you get your information about US politics but the Republican party has always chosen to portray itselfin the modern era as the party of limited government. You might want to go read some of the speeches and interviews of politicians like Goldwater, Reagan, Ron Paul, Eisenhower and pundits like William F Buckley. The Republican Party actively claims to hold political positions that align with those of limited govt fiscal conservatives and Libertarians. If the Republican party stopped claiming to hold certain ideals yet act in contradiction to them people would stop complaining about it. I'm not sure why people trying to hold political parties accountable for the politics they espouse is such a rich source of schadenfreude for you. Would you prefer that people be more apathetic and give up on trying to get politicians to live up to their rhetoric?

You know Santorum can both be for his 'tribe' and an idiot. No need to limit him.

 Ahtman wrote:
You know Santorum can both be for his 'tribe' and an idiot. No need to limit him.

I'm fairly certain Santorum has already provided evidence that both are indeed true, and done so on more than one occasion.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
In essence, you only pay taxes on money you spend. So when you buy a car, you pay the "fair" tax for the goods and the materials that went into it. When you buy a house, same thing. The good side of this "system" as far as I've read, is that when more people spend money at all levels, more tax revenue is had. The bad side of this is, as numerous studies have shown, the super wealthy, especially that top 1% crowd, don't really spend money the way us plebes do.

Yep. The strength of a tax like that is that it is much harder to avoid, a lot more grey market stuff is picked up (ie plumbers offering discounts for cash).

The issue, though, isn't just that the tax is regressive (the poor spend all the income so are fully taxed, the rich spend only a portion so are taxed much less). The greater issue is that a modern country simply needs a progressive tax system. Not even for the sake of fairness, but because you just can't set the rate high enough to raise enough money. About 30% of US households earn less than $30,000 a year. Right now they pay no tax. If a flat tax was put in place they'd be paying the same as everyone else. Make it 20% and those households would be losing up to $6,000. Is anyone honestly going to claim that families with a couple of kids that are really struggling at $30,000 a year are going to survive at $24,000?

Facing that reality, the tax rate gets pushed down. Maybe it seems not too cruel to only take $3,000, so a 10% tax rate is accepted. But that's the rate you're now taxing everyone. and so your total tax revenue is just 10%. About the lowest spending budget you'll ever see a modern economy run at is about 20% of GDP.

It just doesn't work. The only way you can make it work is by talking about all sorts of unstated spending cuts, the ever popular but completely meaningless 'small government'.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
No experience though, she hasn't even been a senator.

Experience is really just a thing people like to say about other people's favourite candidates. If the other guy's candidate was a senator they've got no 'executive experience'. If the other guy's candidate was a governor then they 'don't know how to get things done in Washington'. Nobody ever considers the government experience of their guy when deciding where their vote goes.

It's really just an attack with no meaning. By definition anyone who wins through a primary and a general is connected enough, and experienced in running a huge juggernaut of an organisation.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 sebster wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
The limited govt libertarian-esque small c conservative part of the Republican party is constantly marginalized by the big govt big business party establishment appartchiks and politicians.

It seems the life of libertarians to be endlessly frustrated that politicians don't dedicate themselves to ignoring the vast majority of their voting base to instead follow the whim of this tiny fringe of extreme ideologues.

It's such a constant and ceaseless complaint that I kind of have to wonder if getting to feel smugly faux-outraged might actually the appeal of libertarianism.

Not sure where you get your information about US politics but the Republican party has always chosen to portray itselfin the modern era as the party of limited government. You might want to go read some of the speeches and interviews of politicians like Goldwater, Reagan, Ron Paul, Eisenhower and pundits like William F Buckley. The Republican Party actively claims to hold political positions that align with those of limited govt fiscal conservatives and Libertarians. If the Republican party stopped claiming to hold certain ideals yet act in contradiction to them people would stop complaining about it. I'm not sure why people trying to hold political parties accountable for the politics they espouse is such a rich source of schadenfreude for you. Would you prefer that people be more apathetic and give up on trying to get politicians to live up to their rhetoric?

Ever since FDR.