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.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I think Hillary would be a perfectly good and competent president, with significant experience as First Lady, in the senate, and as secretary of state (?) on top of her previous education and achievements. Being the first lady president would also give her a lot of cachet internationally, and her husband being an ex-president, you can save a lot of money on Secret Service assignments in the future.

What previous achievements does she have that you believe set her ahead of the pack?

For a start, not being Trump.

That's a huge achievement straight off.

Not being someone else is hardly an achievement by any objective definition. You cited "her previous. . .achievements", what are these achievements that you feel would make her "a perfectly good and competent president"?

Well she was an active First Lady, a Senator, and Secretary of State, to start. I don't like Clinton either but the idea she has no achievements seems a little off.

 Ahtman wrote:
Well she was an active First Lady, a Senator, and Secretary of State, to start. I don't like Clinton either but the idea she has no achievements seems a little off.

The statement was "I think Hillary would be a perfectly good and competent president, with significant experience as First Lady, in the senate, and as secretary of state (?) on top of her previous education and achievements"

I'm not taking away from the positions she held, but those were clearly considered as separate, and at no time did I say "she has no achievements". If I was being unkind I would say that you are shifting the goalposts a little there. What I did ask, and what remains to be answered, was; "What previous achievements does she have that you believe set her ahead of the pack?"

Frankly, other than for Washington, Eisenhower, Grant (that worked out so well), Jefferson, Hamilton, Roosevelt, Jackson (another sterling example) and Adams, I can't think of any achievements presidents made before they became president that would give us any insight to how well they would govern. What were Lincoln's achievements? He was a country lawyer, wasn't he? Or FDR's? Or Bush? Didn't he run a baseball team into bankruptcy?

What are Trump, Rubio, or Cruz's achievements that would make one think they would be a good president?

As to Clinton's, here is what good old Wikipedia has to say "A native of the Chicago area, Hillary Rodham graduated from Wellesley College in 1969, where she became the first student commencement speaker. She went on to earn her J.D. from Yale Law School in 1973. After a stint as a congressional legal counsel, she moved to Arkansas, marrying Bill Clinton in 1975. She co-founded Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families in 1977, became the first female chair of the Legal Services Corporation in 1978, and was named the first female partner at Rose Law Firm in 1979. While First Lady of Arkansas from 1979 to 1981, and 1983 to 1992, she led a task force that reformed Arkansas' public school system, and served on the board of directors of Wal-Mart among other corporations."

Not saying they are good or bad, but they are achievements.

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

What are Trump, Rubio, or Cruz's achievements that would make one think they would be a good president?

Trump: Managed to bankrupt multiple companies and come out well, if not better off than he went in.
Cruz: He's God's candidate, who can argue with that
Rubiobot: I honestly cant think of any "achievement" or aspect of him that would make him a "good" president, nor even worthy of consideration for the office.

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
What are Trump, Rubio, or Cruz's achievements that would make one think they would be a good president?

Assuming that I believe any of the above would make a good president as I do not recall advocating for any of those that you mentioned. So what would their achievements, if any, have to do with Hilary's achievements? Is her record unable to stand on it's own?

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
As to Clinton's, here is what good old Wikipedia has to say "A native of the Chicago area, Hillary Rodham graduated from Wellesley College in 1969, where she became the first student commencement speaker. She went on to earn her J.D. from Yale Law School in 1973. After a stint as a congressional legal counsel, she moved to Arkansas, marrying Bill Clinton in 1975. She co-founded Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families in 1977, became the first female chair of the Legal Services Corporation in 1978, and was named the first female partner at Rose Law Firm in 1979. While First Lady of Arkansas from 1979 to 1981, and 1983 to 1992, she led a task force that reformed Arkansas' public school system, and served on the board of directors of Wal-Mart among other corporations."

Not saying they are good or bad, but they are achievements.

"What previous achievements does she have that you believe set her ahead of the pack?" Are you considering her being marriage an achievement as I see that her being First Lady of Arkansas, and of the US being mentioned in this thread as an achievement?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
What are Trump, Rubio, or Cruz's achievements that would make one think they would be a good president?

Assuming that I believe any of the above would make a good president as I do not recall advocating for any of those that you mentioned. So what would their achievements, if any, have to do with Hilary's achievements? Is her record unable to stand on it's own?

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
As to Clinton's, here is what good old Wikipedia has to say "A native of the Chicago area, Hillary Rodham graduated from Wellesley College in 1969, where she became the first student commencement speaker. She went on to earn her J.D. from Yale Law School in 1973. After a stint as a congressional legal counsel, she moved to Arkansas, marrying Bill Clinton in 1975. She co-founded Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families in 1977, became the first female chair of the Legal Services Corporation in 1978, and was named the first female partner at Rose Law Firm in 1979. While First Lady of Arkansas from 1979 to 1981, and 1983 to 1992, she led a task force that reformed Arkansas' public school system, and served on the board of directors of Wal-Mart among other corporations."

Not saying they are good or bad, but they are achievements.

"What previous achievements does she have that you believe set her ahead of the pack?" Are you considering her being marriage an achievement as I see that her being First Lady of Arkansas, and of the US being mentioned in this thread as an achievement?

Sorry, my quote from Wikipedia, which, you know, you could look up too, unless you don't actually want the answer and we're just making some sort of political point in a passive aggressive way, didn't cut out those details. I would consider being a first student commencement speaker at Wellesley, being congressional counsel, cofounding Advocates for Children and Families, being the chair of Legal Services Corporation, a partner at a law firm, serving on Walmart's board of directors and reforming a public school system of a state achievements. Again, I make no claim to to if they are good are not.

Now you know. And knowing is half the battle. Go Joe!

Just for the lulz:

- Teachers really liked her
- Won numerous awards as a Brownie and Girl Scout
- Selected for National Honor Society in High School
- National Merit Finalist in High School
- Found evidence of electoral fraud in Chicago at age 13 (to be fair though, you could probably walk into any booth in Chicago and find evidence of election fraud)
- Served as President of the Wellesley Young Republicans
- Served as President of the Wellesley College Government Association
- As President of the WCGA organized a student strike
- Interned at the House Republican Conference
- Graduated with a BA with departmental honors in political science
- First student in Wellesley College to deliver the commencement address (she got a 7 minute standing ovation)
- Served on the editorial board of the Yale Review of Law and SOcial Action
- Volunteered at New Haven Legal Services
- Was awarded a grant to work at Marian Wright Edelman's Washington Research Project.
- Worked on the 1970 Campaign of Joseph Duffey
- Received a Juris Doctor egree from Yale
- Published in the Harward Education Review
- Member of the impeachment inquiry staff resulting in the resignation of President Nixon.
- First director of the University of Arkansas, Fayetteville legal aid clinic
- Published some more articles
- Described as "one of the more important scholar-activists of the last two decades"
- Cofounded Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families
- Served on the board of directors of the Legal Services Corporation (also the first woman to chair the board
- First woman to be made full partner of Rose Law Firm
- On the Board of Directors, and chair, of the New World Foundation
- Named twice as one of the most influential lawyers in America by the National Law Journal
- Served on the board of Arkansas Children's Hospital LEgal Services
- Chaired the Children's Defense Fund
- On the board of directors of Walmart
- Served on the Bill, HIllary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation since 2013
- Led the No Ceilings: The Full Participation Project


That should cover the "education" and "accomplishments" outside of her official duties.

No idea if they are good or bad, no idea if anybody cares about them, no idea if they should make her president.

Just pointing out that they are there.

DutchWinsAll wrote:
@Sebster I really enjoy your views on the modern state of the Republican Party. I think they fall very much in line with mine, but you can elucidate them much more succinctly. The fact the largest arguments you've gotten have brought up Democrats in the first line is telling.

Thanks

I lean left, but I find myself believing more in traditional Republican views; that is before they were taken over by the religious social conservatives.

I lean left in terms of the ends I believe in – I think the reason for prosperity is so that everyone has enough. But I lean right in terms of how we should get there – I believe very strongly that the free market is the primary driver of wealth creation and improved salaries.

In terms of US politics, well I’m always wary of union influence in national politics, so I have no great love for the Democrats. But they’re the only sensible choice right now because the modern Republican party has gone off the deep end, and going crazier with each election cycle.

There was a time in America when religion (let's be honest Christianity) wasn't viewed in such a strictly right-wing paradigm.

Yeah, while most churches have been pretty strongly conservative on social issues, they’ve typically been quite left wing on economic issues. But a lot of church powerbrokers made the choice to align themselves with the Republican party on what they thought were very important social issues. The unfortunate result of that decision is that many church leaders have ended up taking on Republican opinions on economic matters.

Also why is Sanders considered such an "outsider" like Trump? When one has been in office for decades and one has never held office once. Its a dubious comparison at best IMO.

It’s a pretty loose comparison. Sanders has been office for a long time, but only recently as a registered Democrat. Most of the time he’s been independent, and chasing a policy platform well to the left of normal American political discourse. And much of his appeal is similar to Trump, he’s out there as a fresh voice, giving a vision of America that isn’t compromised but any kind of political realities.

So in that sense he’s an outsider. It’s loose but it’s there. I think it only really gets problematic when people don’t just compare Trump and Sanders, but try to equate the two. As if wanting national public health and plans to build a wall and make another country pay for it are equal.

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
"What previous achievements does she have that you believe set her ahead of the pack?" Are you considering her being marriage an achievement as I see that her being First Lady of Arkansas, and of the US being mentioned in this thread as an achievement?

Sorry, my quote from Wikipedia, which, you know, you could look up too, unless you don't actually want the answer and we're just making some sort of political point in a passive aggressive way, didn't cut out those details. I would consider being a first student commencement speaker at Wellesley, being congressional counsel, cofounding Advocates for Children and Families, being the chair of Legal Services Corporation, a partner at a law firm, serving on Walmart's board of directors and reforming a public school system of a state achievements. Again, I make no claim to to if they are good are not.

Now you know. And knowing is half the battle. Go Joe!

Thank you for that list as I'm not familiar with her work prior to her being Secretary of State. Looking at other articles one of the problems that I see with touting her accomplishments is that for a long standing politician I did not see anything that could have been viewed as her signature legislation. When she herself struggled to articulate her accomplishments it is not an unreasonable question.

 TheMeanDM wrote:
Funny how things work....

Spoiler:

No offense intended, but that’s a steaming load. Winning 30 to 40% of the vote out of a field of five is very different to winning 30 to 40% of the vote in a two horse race. I refuse to believe there is a person on earth to whom that is not immediately obvious.

But people will ignore obvious things like that, when they’re trying to be clever. Or even worse, trying to find a clever way to score a little win for their political team.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Well, it does have something to do with the fact that the DNC has a super-delegate system to "keep things fair" and "protect against grassroots movements"

The super-delegates are a crappy way to let party insiders keep some power, but they’ve got nothing to do with why Sanders is extremely unlikely to win, and Trump is the most likely winner.

I mean come on. If you take 40% of the vote in a field of five, you’ve probably won by at least 10%, if at least two other candidates are a real chance. But if you win 40% of the vote in a two horse race, you’re down by 20. It’s the simplest, easiest maths there is.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheMeanDM wrote:
Not good for the two party system that runs out country...which our founding fathers warned against and feared.

It's pretty pointless to write a warning about something, while designing a system that makes party politics the only sensible way to play the game. You have electorate based, first past the post elections - any faction that allows multiple candidates to allow for minor differences only ends up splitting their votes and losing.

Think about an election between vanilla, who have 25% of the vote, vanilla with choc-chop, who have 35% of the vote, and chocolate, with 40%. It shouldn’t take vanilla and choc-chip very long to realise the will only win if they form a party that forms a compromise between their differences.

Or think about each time some third party has run in the general. It probably felt pretty good to progressives to cast a vote for Nader in 2000, but if his 2% of the vote had gone to Gore… well Nader ran again in 2004 and got 90% less votes. And the same is true in 1992 – independently minded conservatives probably loved having Perot there to vote for. But having a split in the conservative vote gave the election to the Democrats. Perot ran again in 1996, and just under half as many votes.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:
Oh yes. I would really like it if the Electoral College was awarded by percentage rather than winner takes all. If wouldn't have much effect on the outcomes of most elections, but it would display a better and more immediately accessible picture of the electorate.

Some states award proportionate votes. But really what’s needed to make extra parties viable is progressive voting, where voters rank their choices. So you can vote for a Green or Libertarian candidate, knowing that if they get only a few votes then you still get to show your preference between the Democrat and Republican candidates.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
The big baddies *is* HRC. It's *her* server.

As far as I'm concerned, the mere existence of this server *is* the smoking gun.

Well, I guess Clinton can take solace from the fact that you probably weren't going to vote for her anyway. I mean, that's just a wild guess, but something tells me...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
That'll be a disaster.

Just lock down CA, TX, NY, FL, IL, OH (maybe a few more) and tell the smaller states to go feth themselves.

If someone is able to win California, New York, Florida and Texas in a general election, then I’m pretty sure just about every smaller state is going that way as well.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
We are the United STATES of America.

The EC was designed to prevent the larger states from having total control in Federal Governance.

Otherwise, why should a presidential candidate campaign in RI? VT? AK? MT? ND? SD?

Going to pure popular vote w/ runoff will be a disaster.

Umm, Australia is also a Federation. Our PM is decided by whoever wins the most electorates. Most electorates are in NSW, Victoria and Queensland, the three most populous states. But each election the candidates spend a lot of time in WA, SA and Tasmania, because so much politics is local and national, it isn’t state based.

ie A politician going and shaking hands in a particular town will win votes in that town, not the greater state. And when that’s shown on the national news it will win votes nationally, not just in the state.

And remember that just like here in Australia, the senate is the key balance for smaller states. A president who won by being popular only in major states would probably see his party lose most senate elections in minor states, meaning he’d never hold the senate.

I’m not even really in favour of having the president decided on total votes. I’m just pointing out the arguments against it are pretty weak.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Continuing on my last post, getting rid of EC would actually give big states less power.

If you think in terms of 1D vote and 1R vote canceling out (which, for a strait majority with only two candidates, it very much does) it's quite interesting. In NY, obama won, and thus got all the deligates (100%), but if you cancel out the votes, only 28.601% of the votes matter. In CA it's 23.75% for Obama, in FL it's 0.88% for Obama, and in TX it's 16.02% for Romney.

Edit: here's another good example. Obama won by 23.42% of the EC, but a mere 3.93% of the popular.

Yeah, the irony is that people arguing for the electoral college are hoping for to make their state matter, but they’re actually making their own vote meaningless. If you don’t live in a swing state, your vote is meaningless. If you’re one of the 55% of Montanans who voted Republican in 2012, well your vote meant as little as the 42% who voted Democrat. Because Nebraska was always going Republican. An election in which your state is a swing state is a Democratic blow out. The same is true for small Democratic states – the only time Maine is in play is in a Republican landslide.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Breotan wrote:
The Democrats have Hillary locking the nomination even before the election season started with no other contenders having any real chance. On the other hand, the Republicans have had their nomination process turned into a three ring circus by a millionaire with hair so bad everyone thinks its a hairpiece.

It makes for an interesting case study. Which is better, to have a group of insider "Super" delegates control which candidates get nominated? Or allow pure democracy decide who your party's candidate is?

The super-delegates aren't why Clinton is winning. She's winning because she's up against one other candidate, who has niche appeal (though he's doing much better than anyone expected, including Sanders himself).

Here's a really good explanation, done before SC, that shows why Sanders is very unlikely to win, without ever mentioning the super-delegates.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/bernie-sanders-doesnt-need-momentum-he-needs-to-win-these-states/


Oh, but the answer to the question is that super-delegates are stupid. If you want the base of the party to decide, let the base of the party decide. If you want the leader to be decided from among his peers, then do that. But this hybrid system, where the base pretty much elects the candidate, but it's close then the elite can over-rule is really stupid.

 sebster wrote:

Oh, but the answer to the question is that super-delegates are stupid. If you want the base of the party to decide, let the base of the party decide. If you want the leader to be decided from among his peers, then do that. But this hybrid system, where the base pretty much elects the candidate, but it's close then the elite can over-rule is really stupid.

I agree that Sanders is unlikely to win the nomination under any system (but I can remain hopeful, right?) But this right here, I definitely agree with.

Perhaps if there MUST be a hybrid system, perhaps it'd be better to have a system where proposed candidates have to get a benchmark number of votes, and then the "party insiders" choose from that pool, or vice versa. I don't really know, but you're correct in saying that having a system where people can vote for a candidate that can be over-ridden is dumb.

"No offense intended"

Saying that is equivalent to saying "I'm not a racist, but..."

Please don't try to preface an insult to someone with that line...because the intention is clear.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
I agree that Sanders is unlikely to win the nomination under any system (but I can remain hopeful, right?) But this right here, I definitely agree with.

Perhaps if there MUST be a hybrid system, perhaps it'd be better to have a system where proposed candidates have to get a benchmark number of votes, and then the "party insiders" choose from that pool, or vice versa. I don't really know, but you're correct in saying that having a system where people can vote for a candidate that can be over-ridden is dumb.

Yeah, the point of a primary is in part to determine who should be the candidate, but also to get everyone in behind that candidate, supporting them. If a candidate wins the pledged delegates barely, and then the party insiders decide that's nice, but we're going with this other guy instead, well good luck in the general.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheMeanDM wrote:
Saying that is equivalent to saying "I'm not a racist, but..."

Please don't try to preface an insult to someone with that line...because the intention is clear.

No, I meant it exactly as I said it. I mean you no offense, I was commenting as I was in order to attack you, I was just speaking as plainly as possible. I recognised that given the strength of what I was saying about the logic fail behind the piece you quoted you'd be likely to take offense, so I said that wasn't my point.

You took offense anyway, obviously. Oh well.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I think Hillary would be a perfectly good and competent president, with significant experience as First Lady, in the senate, and as secretary of state (?) on top of her previous education and achievements. Being the first lady president would also give her a lot of cachet internationally, and her husband being an ex-president, you can save a lot of money on Secret Service assignments in the future.

What previous achievements does she have that you believe set her ahead of the pack?

For a start, not being Trump.

That's a huge achievement straight off.

Not being someone else is hardly an achievement by any objective definition. You cited "her previous. . .achievements", what are these achievements that you feel would make her "a perfectly good and competent president"?

Read her bio on Wikipedia. You'll find plenty of stuff, if you're objective.

 sebster wrote:

No offense intended, but that’s a steaming load. Winning 30 to 40% of the vote out of a field of five is very different to winning 30 to 40% of the vote in a two horse race. I refuse to believe there is a person on earth to whom that is not immediately obvious.

Not to mention that the vast majority of fear I've heard regarding Trump has come from conservatives.

I imagine they are worried that he might get elected.

I know of other Democrats who worry Bernie may still win the Primary, they fear he would lose to Rubio, and thus lose the WH for the Dems/slash roll back what few gains they have made over the years.

I still think there may be a way that Bernie can win both, but time will tell. My state votes later on in May.

Have to see what happens in "Super Tuesday"

Man, and I thought Last Week Tonight was gold even before they uploaded this three hours ago.




So, who here is voting Drumpf?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Read her bio on Wikipedia. You'll find plenty of stuff, if you're objective.

Objective is a little difficult with Hillary's wiki page. She literally has people volunteering their time to manage that page.

Clearly nothing negative lasts for long without either being erased or "managed" to the point where it can't possibly be damaging to her.

Unfortunately her people don't have quite such an iron grip on social media. This little gem, for example, is circulating Facebook this morning.

I don't think the career details on her page are lies.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I don't think the career details on her page are lies.

I never said lies. I said managed. Professionally managed the way a superstar executive might "manage" the details in his resume to reflect only the best aspects of his career and leave absent anything unflattering. Is there anything wrong with that being done? No. But it does mean that it isn't a truly objective source - at least in this instance.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I don't think the career details on her page are lies.

Who are you to argue with a simplistic image macro on an unrelated topic, though?

Its a sad day when Mussolini is smeared by being associated with Trump. . .

 Frazzled wrote:
Its a sad day when Mussolini is smeared by being associated with Trump. . .

Waaaaaaaaaat? He SAID his earpiece was broken! TALK..... LOUDER...... PLEASE!

 Breotan wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I don't think the career details on her page are lies.

I never said lies. I said managed. Professionally managed the way a superstar executive might "manage" the details in his resume to reflect only the best aspects of his career and leave absent anything unflattering. Is there anything wrong with that being done? No. But it does mean that it isn't a truly objective source - at least in this instance.

I see. Point taken.

When I said these facts should be viewed objectively, I meant that for example Hilary Clinton has a law degree. She therefore has proved her intellectual capacity. This is a point in her favour when considered for the office of president, whether one is a Republican or a Democrat.

 Breotan wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Read her bio on Wikipedia. You'll find plenty of stuff, if you're objective.

Objective is a little difficult with Hillary's wiki page. She literally has people volunteering their time to manage that page.

Clearly nothing negative lasts for long without either being erased or "managed" to the point where it can't possibly be damaging to her.

Unfortunately her people don't have quite such an iron grip on social media. This little gem, for example, is circulating Facebook this morning.

Spoiler:

I fail to see how "this person's spouse had an affair, therefore you shouldn't vote for them" can be seen as a valid argument.

I mean, what is the intended criticism of Hillary? That her husband had an affair?

Am I missing something here?

 Goliath wrote:

 Breotan wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Read her bio on Wikipedia. You'll find plenty of stuff, if you're objective.

Objective is a little difficult with Hillary's wiki page. She literally has people volunteering their time to manage that page.

Clearly nothing negative lasts for long without either being erased or "managed" to the point where it can't possibly be damaging to her.

Unfortunately her people don't have quite such an iron grip on social media. This little gem, for example, is circulating Facebook this morning.

Spoiler:

I fail to see how "this person's spouse had an affair, therefore you shouldn't vote for them" can be seen as a valid argument.

I mean, what is the intended criticism of Hillary? That her husband had an affair?

Am I missing something here?

It's crude humor on FB.

There are plenty of Clinton shenanigans that would've disqualified any other "not-Clinton".

And I'm sure if someone looked as hard at Rubio as they have at the Clintons, they'd find plenty of shenanigans that would disqualify him as well.

We already know that Trump and Cruz should be disqualified

 skyth wrote:
And I'm sure if someone looked as hard at Rubio as they have at the Clintons, they'd find plenty of shenanigans that would disqualify him as well.

We already know that Trump and Cruz should be disqualified

Okay.


What are the things do *you* think would disqualify:
-Rubio
-Cruz
-Trump (<--- easiest one)