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.

 Ouze wrote:

 Breotan wrote:
Either way, it seems we're in the middle of a perfect storm of terribad choices, either Hillary or Trump, for President. What a great time to be alive, eh?

On this, there is consensus. This is easily the worst electoral lineup I've seen in my life, IMO.

The line-ups have been bad since Reagan left office. And until Reagan, the line-up sucked since Kennedy.


The only reason I even voted was that I preferred having neo-con Republicans, or rural populist Democrats, over the moonbattery that I witnessed the leftist wings of both parties slide into back in the '70's and '80's.

 whembly wrote:
[

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

Rubio is an early replicant prototype which is incapable of processing responses to questions in real time.

Cruz is a religious fanatic who thinks that it is christian to bomb people until sand glows.

Trump looks the same if you photoshop his mouth onto his eyes.

Rubio: misuse of official state party credit card, horrible attendance record in the Senate (which was used heavily against Obama if I recall), lying about being forced to leave by Castro, seeking earmarks for a hospital he later worked for, and was hired by the university that received increased funding during his speakership while other jobs were cut.

That's just the stuff from Wikipedia.

 d-usa wrote:
Rubio: misuse of official state party credit card, horrible attendance record in the Senate (which was used heavily against Obama if I recall), lying about being forced to leave by Castro, seeking earmarks for a hospital he later worked for, and was hired by the university that received increased funding during his speakership while other jobs were cut.

That's just the stuff from Wikipedia.

What was it that Whembly said? Something about if he is proven wrong he will admit to it or something like that.....

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Rubio: misuse of official state party credit card, horrible attendance record in the Senate (which was used heavily against Obama if I recall), lying about being forced to leave by Castro, seeking earmarks for a hospital he later worked for, and was hired by the university that received increased funding during his speakership while other jobs were cut.

That's just the stuff from Wikipedia.

What was it that Whembly said? Something about if he is proven wrong he will admit to it or something like that.....

My guess: be prepared to see the "factual" qualifier in action.

 d-usa wrote:
Rubio: misuse of official state party credit card, horrible attendance record in the Senate (which was used heavily against Obama if I recall), lying about being forced to leave by Castro, seeking earmarks for a hospital he later worked for, and was hired by the university that received increased funding during his speakership while other jobs were cut.

That's just the stuff from Wikipedia.

Wow... that's beyond the pale. Certainly HRC is looking like a better option... eh?

/snark

The only one I have a problem with is his lying about his family being forced to leave by Castro.

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Rubio: misuse of official state party credit card, horrible attendance record in the Senate (which was used heavily against Obama if I recall), lying about being forced to leave by Castro, seeking earmarks for a hospital he later worked for, and was hired by the university that received increased funding during his speakership while other jobs were cut.

That's just the stuff from Wikipedia.

Wow... that's beyond the pale. Certainly HRC is looking like a better option... eh?

/snark

The only one I have a problem with is his lying about his family being forced to leave by Castro.

You don't have a problem with his misuse of money or the fact that he rarely did his job?

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

I'm pretty sure that quote didn't originally belong to Mussolini though. IIRC its just an ancient Roman proverb, and I think it was repeated in "The Prince" as well.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Rubio: misuse of official state party credit card, horrible attendance record in the Senate (which was used heavily against Obama if I recall), lying about being forced to leave by Castro, seeking earmarks for a hospital he later worked for, and was hired by the university that received increased funding during his speakership while other jobs were cut.

That's just the stuff from Wikipedia.

Wow... that's beyond the pale. Certainly HRC is looking like a better option... eh?

/snark

The only one I have a problem with is his lying about his family being forced to leave by Castro.

You don't have a problem with his misuse of money or the fact that he rarely did his job?

He did pay back when he used is campaign card.

And, he's campaigning. EVERY Congressional candidate running for POTUS does that.

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Rubio: misuse of official state party credit card, horrible attendance record in the Senate (which was used heavily against Obama if I recall), lying about being forced to leave by Castro, seeking earmarks for a hospital he later worked for, and was hired by the university that received increased funding during his speakership while other jobs were cut.

That's just the stuff from Wikipedia.

Wow... that's beyond the pale. Certainly HRC is looking like a better option... eh?

/snark

The only one I have a problem with is his lying about his family being forced to leave by Castro.

Fact: you didn't ask for stuff that made him worse than Clinton.
Fact: you accepted a challenge that someone should come up with stuff that would disqualify someone unless they are a Clinton.
Fact: I gave you a list.
Fact: you moved the goalposts.
Fact: I'm the idiot in this exchange because I knew this was going to happen and yet I replied anyway.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Rubio: misuse of official state party credit card, horrible attendance record in the Senate (which was used heavily against Obama if I recall), lying about being forced to leave by Castro, seeking earmarks for a hospital he later worked for, and was hired by the university that received increased funding during his speakership while other jobs were cut.

That's just the stuff from Wikipedia.

Wow... that's beyond the pale. Certainly HRC is looking like a better option... eh?

/snark

The only one I have a problem with is his lying about his family being forced to leave by Castro.

You don't have a problem with his misuse of money or the fact that he rarely did his job?

Our only candidate from the legislative branch in recent history who was pretty clean on the money issue was McCain. Of course it sucks, but honestly when you look at the whole playing field, you really aren't finding any white lily's on those regards.

 djones520 wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Rubio: misuse of official state party credit card, horrible attendance record in the Senate (which was used heavily against Obama if I recall), lying about being forced to leave by Castro, seeking earmarks for a hospital he later worked for, and was hired by the university that received increased funding during his speakership while other jobs were cut.

That's just the stuff from Wikipedia.

Wow... that's beyond the pale. Certainly HRC is looking like a better option... eh?

/snark

The only one I have a problem with is his lying about his family being forced to leave by Castro.

You don't have a problem with his misuse of money or the fact that he rarely did his job?

Our only candidate from the legislative branch in recent history who was pretty clean on the money issue was McCain. Of course it sucks, but honestly when you look at the whole playing field, you really aren't finding any white lily's on those regards.

Very true.

For me it wasn't a case of "look how dirty he is" and more just an example to counter "only a Clinton would get away with stuff like this".

To risk the "everyone is doing it" square: but everyone has dirt.

 d-usa wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Rubio: misuse of official state party credit card, horrible attendance record in the Senate (which was used heavily against Obama if I recall), lying about being forced to leave by Castro, seeking earmarks for a hospital he later worked for, and was hired by the university that received increased funding during his speakership while other jobs were cut.

That's just the stuff from Wikipedia.

Wow... that's beyond the pale. Certainly HRC is looking like a better option... eh?

/snark

The only one I have a problem with is his lying about his family being forced to leave by Castro.

Fact: you didn't ask for stuff that made him worse than Clinton.

True. But, that's the logical conclusion of such discussions. Comparing the respective candidates.

Fact: you accepted a challenge that someone should come up with stuff that would disqualify someone unless they are a Clinton.

Fact: I didn't challenge *you*. FWIW, replace RUBIO wiht CLINTON, and those wouldn't be on the radar.

Fact: I gave you a list.

Indeed you did.

Fact: you moved the goalposts.

Incorrect.

Fact: I'm the idiot in this exchange because I knew this was going to happen and yet I replied anyway.

Sorry you felt that way.

That list is small potatoes man... I mean really?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:

To risk the "everyone is doing it" square: but everyone has dirt.

No argument from me there.

So business as usual then?

 Grey Templar wrote:

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

I'm pretty sure that quote didn't originally belong to Mussolini though. IIRC its just an ancient Roman proverb, and I think it was repeated in "The Prince" as well.

on the other hand if you are running to be THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES you should know not use a quote that was used by a Fascist dictator. Unless you're really an HRC plant that has gone off the rails of course. Am I the only one who sees Trump's actions as what the NYT thinks a Republican is?

Plant or not, he's certainly popular with a lot of republicans.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

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

I'm pretty sure that quote didn't originally belong to Mussolini though. IIRC its just an ancient Roman proverb, and I think it was repeated in "The Prince" as well.

on the other hand if you are running to be THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES you should know not use a quote that was used by a Fascist dictator. Unless you're really an HRC plant that has gone off the rails of course. Am I the only one who sees Trump's actions as what the NYT thinks a Republican is?

No, you are not the only one.

But yeah, no argument that it was a poor choice of a quote. But its Trump, poor choices are his MO.

That said, its a decent proverb on its own merit.

 Dreadwinter wrote:
So business as usual then?

Claiming for that "only a Clinton gets away with this stuff" while turning around and claiming "everybody gets away with it" an hour later?

That's a yes.

 Da Boss wrote:
Plant or not, he's certainly popular with a lot of republicans.

He seems to be popular with a lot of people no matter what, if you want to take the newest polls from New York into account.

 Da Boss wrote:
Plant or not, he's certainly popular with a lot of republicans.

A lot of something. His positions are anathema to conservatives, to the establishment, to Libertarians, and small government Republicans. With the exception of the Putinesque/racist stuff, he's a clone of HRC.

His nationalist anti-Muslim stance makes him popular across a good section of the political spectrum.

And while a sizable number of his supporters are racist bigots as well as republicans, I honestly don't think that you have to be republican to be racist or racist to be republican.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
Plant or not, he's certainly popular with a lot of republicans.

A lot of something. His positions are anathema to conservatives, to the establishment, to Libertarians, and small government Republicans. With the exception of the Putinesque/racist stuff, he's a clone of HRC.

What the old man says.

If Trump's the GOP candidate... look for folks like me to revolt. Either "primarying" the incumbents, or going indie/3rd party.

 d-usa wrote:
His nationalist anti-Muslim stance makes him popular across a good section of the political spectrum.

And while a sizable number of his supporters are racist bigots as well as republicans, I honestly don't think that you have to be republican to be racist or racist to be republican.

The Venn diagram of racist and Republican has a lot of commonalities

Is it possible he's tapped a pool of republicans who are sick of the libertarian, small government, and establishment parts of the party? Perhaps if HRC didn't have 20 years of negative publicity and the R's a Pavlovian hatred of a Clinton, they would all be excited to vote for her. A HRC clone in red might be just what the party was waiting for.

 skyth wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
His nationalist anti-Muslim stance makes him popular across a good section of the political spectrum.

And while a sizable number of his supporters are racist bigots as well as republicans, I honestly don't think that you have to be republican to be racist or racist to be republican.

The Venn diagram of racist and Republican has a lot of commonalities

That doesn't imply causation though.

The hatred for the Clintons is less than the hatred for Obama from the right from what I've seen. Hatred against the Clintons gets less traction than against Obama.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:

 skyth wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
His nationalist anti-Muslim stance makes him popular across a good section of the political spectrum.

And while a sizable number of his supporters are racist bigots as well as republicans, I honestly don't think that you have to be republican to be racist or racist to be republican.

The Venn diagram of racist and Republican has a lot of commonalities

That doesn't imply causation though.

Didn't say it does...though I would believe a racist would be more in support of conservative viewpoint, thus the Republicans.

I don't want the Republicans to begin using super delegates the way Democrats do, but fething hell this stupidity with Trump has got to stop.

Why the hell are people so blind to who Trump really is and what he actually represents?

 Breotan wrote:
I don't want the Republicans to begin using super delegates the way Democrats do, but fething hell this stupidity with Trump has got to stop.

Why the hell are people so blind to who Trump really is and what he actually represents?

You assume that they don't know who he really is and what he represents. It is possible that they do.

 d-usa wrote:
His nationalist anti-Muslim stance makes him popular across a good section of the political spectrum.

And while a sizable number of his supporters are racist bigots as well as republicans, I honestly don't think that you have to be republican to be racist or racist to be republican.

I am saddened to say we are in agreement.

Even in this instance there's weirdness. For example: I do not agreeing with bringing in non-family Syrian refugees, as that is an efficient avenue for importing AQ or ISIL and thats the mother of all kafkaesque situations (no way to vet them-thats a joke). But I am not again legal immigration for Muslims, thats just stupid.

 skyth wrote:
The hatred for the Clintons is less than the hatred for Obama from the right from what I've seen. Hatred against the Clintons gets less traction than against Obama.

 d-usa wrote:

 skyth wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
His nationalist anti-Muslim stance makes him popular across a good section of the political spectrum.
And while a sizable number of his supporters are racist bigots as well as republicans, I honestly don't think that you have to be republican to be racist or racist to be republican.

The Venn diagram of racist and Republican has a lot of commonalities

That doesn't imply causation though.

Didn't say it does...though I would believe a racist would be more in support of conservative viewpoint, thus the Republicans.

You would be very wrong. The Republicans certainly get a bad rap due to their own inability to deal with the charge, actual racists in the party spouting off in front of news cameras, and being joined at the hip to Fox News. There are a lot of racists in the Democrat party, too, but Democrat voters just don't seem to care about them. Even when they show up in the news, it doesn't seem to affect Democrat numbers. I'm really not sure why the Democrat party gets a pass on this but until the Republicans figure out how things like "optics" and "situational awareness" work I guess the Democrats continue to get one.

If I had to guess, I'd guess that racists in the Democrat party are shown as being clowns or cartoonish while racists in the Republican party are come off as sinister or dangerous.