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 is right. The powers of the presidential office in the US is quite limited (compared to other presidential systems). Trump may flavour the late 2010's, but he wont change the society, unless the gop gets on board with him, and they wont.

The best he is likely to do is to build an alliance that defeats ISIS.

I thought he was going to drive up healthcare costs in the US because of all the winning.

 Ouze wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

 whembly wrote:
However, saying Clinton is a "Republican-lite" is taking waaay too many liberties.

The problem with this is, what is a Republican anymore? Can anyone say for sure at this point.

Well, what would you call these stances?

Spoiler:

Supports a ban on abortions after 24 weeks, with exceptions for the life of the mother.

Didn't support gay marriage until 2013.

Would support military action against Iran.

Voted for the Iraq war

Supports sending weapons to rebels in Syria

Co-sponsored a bill to criminalize flag burning

Voted to loosen restrictions on wiretapping.

Deeply religious and says her faith guides her

Advocates for the death penalty.

Pushed for 3-strikes laws

Supported keeping the Cuban embargo in place

Pledged more support for Israel

Would not ask Israel to stop building settlements

Supported removing habeas corpus for foreign detainees

Voted for the Patriot Act, and then voted to re-authorize it.

The only reason she's not considered a moderate Republican is because in the last few years, the brakes have come off the Republican crazy-train. Despite that, I'm already seeing people say that the only reason that they're in trouble is that they're just not being conservative enough. I truly cannot fathom what is workably to the right of Ted Cruz.

I think you may have missed my point, which was not that Clinton is either liberal or conservative, but that comparisons to Republicans are almost meaningless now, because what it means to be a Republican now is largely unknown.

The Republican voters chose as their leader a candidate who (a) is not conservative on social issues like abortion and gay marriage, (b) does not believe in small government, (c) does not believe in free markets and free trade, and (d) does not support, for lack of a better phrase, US military hegemony.

These four issues (social conservatism, small government, free trade, and military dominance) have been core Republican platforms since I've been aware of the GOP, but they just got rejected soundly by Republican voters.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:
She is a blue dog pretty much. So yes whembly feeder is kinda right

No... that isn't right.

She represent the contemporary Democrat party..

I beg to differ. It's really still Obama who represents contemporary Democrats. He's pretty much in the middle of Sanders and Clinton, and maybe what we're seeing with the prolonged campaign is the tension between the liberal and conservative factions within the Democratic Party.

So it looks like Bernie supporters (and probably more than a few Trump ones) got "#dropouthillary" treading on Twitter. For some reason. I guess they think that a bunch of angry people with twitter accounts is going to convince the current front-runner to drop out.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
So it looks like Bernie supporters (and probably more than a few Trump ones) got "#dropouthillary" treading on Twitter. For some reason. I guess they think that a bunch of angry people with twitter accounts is going to convince the current front-runner to drop out.

That's the Sanders path to victory at this point. I heard on the radio that he'd have to win each of the remaining states by 25 points or more to secure the nomination.

Trump has Ben Carson in charge of vetting VPs, so that should turn out well.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
For some reason. I guess they think that a bunch of angry people with twitter accounts is going to convince the current front-runner to drop out.

That's how things are done these days isn't it?

After all, Michelle Obama freed all those girls in Africa that way.

Oh, wait...

 Nostromodamus wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
For some reason. I guess they think that a bunch of angry people with twitter accounts is going to convince the current front-runner to drop out.

That's how things are done these days isn't it?

After all, Michelle Obama freed all those girls in Africa that way.

Oh, wait...

Hashtags are the prayers of the social media age. You get to feel like you're doing something, while actually doing feth all.

 d-usa wrote:
Trump has Ben Carson in charge of vetting VPs, so that should turn out well.

I really need to see this made into an SNL sketch.

Our brave Governor of Oklahoma also made the bold decision to finally endorse a Republican candidate today.

 jasper76 wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
So it looks like Bernie supporters (and probably more than a few Trump ones) got "#dropouthillary" treading on Twitter. For some reason. I guess they think that a bunch of angry people with twitter accounts is going to convince the current front-runner to drop out.

That's the Sanders path to victory at this point. I heard on the radio that he'd have to win each of the remaining states by 25 points or more to secure the nomination.

Dont listen to the radio. They consistently dont add the 500+ superdelegates who can vote for whovever they choose. If they see Sanders have momentum or Clintons poor health (according to scott adams!) they can pretty much choose which candidate should become presidential candidate.

 d-usa wrote:
Our brave Governor of Oklahoma also made the bold decision to finally endorse a Republican candidate today.

Kasich?

 jasper76 wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
Holy crap, this is getting really depressing fast.....

Meh...almost every poll has Clinton beating Trump by double digits. And the demographics haven't really changed. The Republicans still need to make improvements with Latinos and women in order to win, and the hand may already be dealt for Trump with those voting blocks, particularly Latinos.

As far as women go, it's hard to see this unfolding in any other way than months and months of Trump publicly denigrating an accomplished woman, so I don't see his low polling numbers with women improving.

Your kidding right?

And I wouldn't be so sure about Latino's being locked up. A lot of Latino's don't want more Latinos in America. And I am pretty sure some women out there don't see Hillary as a paragon of women's issues after covering for philandering Bill.

 SickSix wrote:

Your kidding right?

And I wouldn't be so sure about Latino's being locked up. A lot of Latino's don't want more Latinos in America. And I am pretty sure some women out there don't see Hillary as a paragon of women's issues after covering for philandering Bill.

You're probably right on both of those counts.... but it still doesn't change anything of what was written above. It's been shown time and again that the Latino and Women's voting blocs are in large majority, swinging AWAY from Trump.... I'd venture to say that those two groups as a whole may be more vehemently #AnyonebutTrump than any other voter group.

 SickSix wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
As far as women go, it's hard to see this unfolding in any other way than months and months of Trump publicly denigrating an accomplished woman, so I don't see his low polling numbers with women improving.

Your kidding right?

Today I learned graduating Yale Law, serving as a congressional legal advisor, writing a book that spent 18 weeks on the New York Times bestseller list (3 weeks at #1), winning a Grammy, getting elected US Senate and then serving as Secretary of State somehow are not accomplishments.

I would say that's like a swing and a miss, but it's more like a swing, a miss, and your pants fell down, while the waa waa waaaa sound played.

 Ouze wrote:

 SickSix wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
As far as women go, it's hard to see this unfolding in any other way than months and months of Trump publicly denigrating an accomplished woman, so I don't see his low polling numbers with women improving.

Your kidding right?

Today I learned graduating Yale Law, serving as a congressional legal advisor, writing a book that spent 18 weeks on the New York Times bestseller list (3 weeks at #1), winning a Grammy, getting elected US Senate and then serving as Secretary of State somehow are not accomplishments.

I would say that's like a swing and a miss, but it's more like a swing, a miss, and your pants fell down, while the waa waa waaaa sound played.

I don't think anyone isn't asserting that HRC hasn't been successful in her career.

The issue here is that those "accomplishments" you've listed isn't what's defining HRC.

Take Trump (or any GOP candidate for that matter) out of the picture for a moment - Do you consider HRC a 'good candidate' for President by whatever definition you deem reasonable?

Sorry, I couldn't hear your question over the screeching sound the goalposts made when you dragged them - it was super, super loud!

 Ouze wrote:
Sorry, I couldn't hear your question over the screeching sound the goalposts made when you dragged them - it was super, super loud!

Are we not talking about HRC's accomplishments that you've listed previously?

Someone posted she was "an accomplished woman". SickSix asked if that person was kidding, repeating a popular idea first espoused by perpetual Washington outsider/failure hobbyist Carly Fiorina that Hillary Clinton has accomplished nothing.

Now, you wish to shift to conversation to "oh, not those accomplishments". I'm not sure why we're doing that, other than you feel the reflexive need to help out someone on the red team.

16 senators have gone on to become president, so why are we just discounting that (alone) out of hand? Because facts are inconvenient?

 Ouze wrote:
Because facts are inconvenient?

Reminds of that time Obama tried to nominate (or was it approve, I forget what the goalpost was) a Court justice in an election year

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibbgi6WdAps

 whembly wrote:

 Charles Rampant wrote:
Kasich is reported to be out.

Kasich as VP?

Hmmmmmmmmmm....

And so it begins.

I got $5 on July.

 Ouze wrote:
Someone posted she was "an accomplished woman". SickSix asked if that person was kidding, repeating a popular idea first espoused by perpetual Washington outsider/failure hobbyist Carly Fiorina that Hillary Clinton has accomplished nothing.

Now, you wish to shift to conversation to "oh, not those accomplishments". I'm not sure why we're doing that, other than you feel the reflexive need to help out someone on the red team.

Now who's tugging the goalpost now?

You've listed those accomplishments above. I'm not arguing that it's not an achievement.

Which of those do you think prepared her for the WH?

The only one I would say, is that she has had 4 years of Secretary of State. But even then, we'd have to discuss Benghazi.

But, in a weird way, I think her being the First Lady in Bill Clinton's administration prepared her for the job more than anything.

At least she has a clue. (don't take that as a ringing endorsement. )

16 senators have gone on to become president, so why are we just discounting that (alone) out of hand? Because facts are inconvenient?

Where did I say it wasn't? I've harped for Rubio (and held my nose for Cruz). o.O

Although, simply being Senator doesn't make for a good President, either... just look at the current occupant of the WH.

 whembly wrote:

Although, simply being Senator doesn't make for a good President, either... just look at the current occupant of the WH.

Yeah, because actually doing something about deficit spending, having economic policies that didn't hurt jobs markets (ya know... unemployment actually went down under big O), murders are down (not really attributable to him) but gun sales are booming....

Yep, all those are the hallmarks of a terrible president. But then again, we all know that because he's "Team Blue" you're gonna reflexively say that he's terrible and destroying the country.

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/01/obamas-numbers-january-2016-update/

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Although, simply being Senator doesn't make for a good President, either... just look at the current occupant of the WH.

Yeah, because actually doing something about deficit spending,

Yeah, thanks the GOP House for that ya'know?

having economic policies that didn't hurt jobs markets (ya know... unemployment actually went down under big O),

Labor Participation is lower than the '70s. Not something you'd want to push.

murders are down (not really attributable to him) but gun sales are booming....

Weird. Obama's is a vigilante taking on the bad guy?

Or, could it be that the public fears that Obama wants to push for more gun control legislations, and thus started buying more guns ahead of that hypothetical.... THANK THE LAWD CONGRESS DIDN"T GO ALONG!

Yep, all those are the hallmarks of a terrible president. But then again, we all know that because he's "Team Blue" you're gonna reflexively say that he's terrible and destroying the country.

He's terrible... except that he strengthened the Blue Team by stacking the lower courts with liberal justices. So, by that measure, he'll have a lasting impact.

 whembly wrote:

Or, could it be that the public fears that Obama wants to push for more gun control legislations, and thus started buying more guns ahead of that hypothetical.... THANK THE LAWD CONGRESS DIDN"T GO ALONG!

Whatever gets the job done, amirite?

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Or, could it be that the public fears that Obama wants to push for more gun control legislations, and thus started buying more guns ahead of that hypothetical.... THANK THE LAWD CONGRESS DIDN"T GO ALONG!

Whatever gets the job done, amirite?

Sure. I just won't give Obama credit for this, 'cuz that'd be asinine.

In other news... I know I've been slacking on this, but a Judge left open the possibility to depose HRC and that her SoS staff *will* be questioned under oath *soon*.

Maybe Bernie Sanders knows something's going to hit HRC hard behind the scene, hence why he's staying till the convention...

I love the fact that the judge in question was appointed by Bill Clinton.

Edit: Although, I have to say, this is just a FOIA thing, so it's not such a big deal.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I love the fact that the judge in question was appointed by Bill Clinton.

Edit: Although, I have to say, this is just a FOIA thing, so it's not such a big deal.

It sure is a big deal. This has all of this:

Screaming at the Clintonites...

They'd be deposed under oath. Guess who's waiting in the wings?

Somehow I doubt that a conservative watchdog group can get anything out of her or her people that a congressional hearing can't. But I guess you really want choose between a socialist and a fascist, huh.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Somehow I doubt that a conservative watchdog group can get anything out of her or her people that a congressional hearing can't. But I guess you really want choose between a socialist and a fascist, huh.

A Sanders vs. Trump election would be waaaay more interesting than a Clinton vs. Trump.

Just saying...