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.

 d-usa wrote:
So you admit Trump is qualified to be president?

:throws up in my mouf:

If the voters vote him in...

<hangs head in shame>

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
So you admit Trump is qualified to be president?

:throws up in my mouf:

If the voters vote him in...

<hangs head in shame>

Just helping you along your path to acceptance towards voting for him

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Would *I* have made the decision to make her my Secretary of State? Hell no...

Obviously. I doubt you would nominate anyone with an iota of "liberalism" as a Cabinet member.

But that wasn't the question, was it?

Do you think, absent anything which subsequently occurred, that Hillary Clinton was qualified to be Secretary of State?

I told you what qualifications that are explicitly needed.

My desire that she'd never step foot in politics again doesn't matter. All that matters is what a) the President wanted and b) if the Senate confirms. They determines the qualification.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
So you admit Trump is qualified to be president?

:throws up in my mouf:

If the voters vote him in...

<hangs head in shame>

Just helping you along your path to acceptance towards voting for him

Please don't.

That'll traumatize me.

I'm still baffled that Trump is getting the nomination.

I'm hoping that Trump (and to certain extent Sanders) is just a symptom of a larger Party Civil War.

 whembly wrote:

I told you what qualifications that are explicitly needed.

Yes, you did, but in doing so you tried to dance around the question, and are still trying to do so, in order to avoid answering it.

 whembly wrote:

My desire that she'd never step foot in politics again doesn't matter.

The fact that you're emotionally compromised matters a great deal.

There is no complaining or asking people to be easy on you in Politics. This is a bloodsport, remember?

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

I told you what qualifications that are explicitly needed.

No, you didn't. You danced around the question, and are still doing so, in order to avoid answering it.

I *did* answer it... you just chose not to see it.

If I had the powah, I would've deemed her unqualified as she had no real experience in diplomacy. Secretary of State isn't an "on-the-job-training" appointment. I'd say, she should've asked for a high profile ambassadorship, then try for SoS in Obama's 2nd term.

 whembly wrote:

My desire that she'd never step foot in politics again doesn't matter.

The fact that you're emotionally compromised matters a great deal.

Oh come on doggie... Everyone's compromised emotionally with respect to politics.

 whembly wrote:
Everyone's compromised emotionally with respect to politics.

Not really.

 whembly wrote:

If I had the powah, I would've deemed her unqualified as she had no real experience in diplomacy. Secretary of State isn't an "on-the-job-training" appointment. I'd say, she should've asked for a high profile ambassadorship, then try for SoS in Obama's 2nd term.

Would that have changed your mind?

 whembly wrote:

Oh come on doggie... Everyone's compromised emotionally with respect to politics.

Most people are, but succumbing to such is madness.

 Ahtman wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Everyone's compromised emotionally with respect to politics.

Not really.

So... do you believe that your politics is the correct politics?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

If I had the powah, I would've deemed her unqualified as she had no real experience in diplomacy. Secretary of State isn't an "on-the-job-training" appointment. I'd say, she should've asked for a high profile ambassadorship, then try for SoS in Obama's 2nd term.

Would that have changed your mind?

By "that", you mean if she had prior Ambassadorial experience?

 whembly wrote:

Oh come on doggie... Everyone's compromised emotionally with respect to politics.

Most people are, but succumbing to such is madness.

It is madness.

Trump vs Hillary (almost Sanders)!!!!

 whembly wrote:

So... do you believe that your politics is the correct politics?

Have you ever been introduced to the concept of ambivalence?

 whembly wrote:
So... do you believe that your politics is the correct politics?

I think your ideas as well as your use of bold and italics are problematic.

 whembly wrote:

By "that", you mean if she had prior Ambassadorial experience?

Yes.

 whembly wrote:

It is madness.

Trump vs Hillary (almost Sanders)!!!!

Perhaps the GOP will need to move beyond the Reagan myth.

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

So... do you believe that your politics is the correct politics?

Have you ever been introduced to the concept of ambivalence?

You engage in politics... or not.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ahtman wrote:

 whembly wrote:
So... do you believe that your politics is the correct politics?

I think your ideas as well as your use of bold and italics are problematic.

You.Don't.Say?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

By "that", you mean if she had prior Ambassadorial experience?

Yes.

I'll concede that had she had that prior experience, I wouldn't object.

 whembly wrote:

It is madness.

Trump vs Hillary (almost Sanders)!!!!

Perhaps the GOP will need to move beyond the Reagan myth.C

Perhaps the Democrats need to move away from their Socialist foreplay as well...

FWIW: The GOP needs a reckoning... and I hoped it was someone like Rubio or Cruz. Trump is going to be a walking disaster...

 whembly wrote:


You engage in politics... or not.

Yeah, it doesn't work that way.

People engage with politics at different levels, and at different intervals.

Do you honestly think Ted Cruz was going to be the reckoning the GOP needed?

 Dreadwinter wrote:
Do you honestly think Ted Cruz was going to be the reckoning the GOP needed?

The guy that tried to be Reagan?

 dogma wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
Do you honestly think Ted Cruz was going to be the reckoning the GOP needed?

The guy that tried to be Reagan?

Nah, the zodiac killer.

But all kidding aside, a lot of Reagan's policies are being looked upon as blunders currently. Not somebody you would want to try and mimic.

So, on Ellen DeGeneres' talk show the topic of Hillary staring at Christina Aguilera's breasts came up again.



Most of the comments on youtube were about her excessive use of makeup. Christina's, not Hillary's.

 Ahtman wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Everyone's compromised emotionally with respect to politics.

Not really.

I think this might be the political equivalent of internet tough guyism.

 whembly wrote:

FWIW: The GOP needs a reckoning... and I hoped it was someone like Rubio or Cruz. Trump is going to be a walking disaster...

What sort of reckoning did you envision Rubio or Cruz providing?

Do you see Trump as a disaster because of his personality or because he's more likely then either of the above to compromise his (current) stated policies?

Seaward wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Everyone's compromised emotionally with respect to politics.

Not really.

I think this might be the political equivalent of internet tough guyism.

One doesn't become an "internet tough guy", political or otherwise, merely by disagreeing with a false statement.

Apparently Trump is lying on his tax forms...

http://news.groopspeak.com/breaking-trump-lied-on-candidate-disclosure-form/

 plastictrees wrote:

 whembly wrote:

FWIW: The GOP needs a reckoning... and I hoped it was someone like Rubio or Cruz. Trump is going to be a walking disaster...

What sort of reckoning did you envision Rubio or Cruz providing?

They're both Tea Party candidates.

Do you see Trump as a disaster because of his personality or because he's more likely then either of the above to compromise his (current) stated policies?

He doesn't know what the feth he's doing. He just wants to be loved...

 Breotan wrote:
So, on Ellen DeGeneres' talk show the topic of Hillary staring at Christina Aguilera's breasts came up again.



Most of the comments on youtube were about her excessive use of makeup. Christina's, not Hillary's.

I think briefly gazing at a magnificent chest and quietly thinking "nice" might be the most human thing Hillary has done so far this campaign.

That being said I wonder if it's a misleading picture - remember that one that looked like Obama was checking out that girl's ass, but when you saw the video, he wasn't? (Sarkozy, on the other hand).

 whembly wrote:

 plastictrees wrote:

 whembly wrote:

FWIW: The GOP needs a reckoning... and I hoped it was someone like Rubio or Cruz. Trump is going to be a walking disaster...

What sort of reckoning did you envision Rubio or Cruz providing?

They're both Tea Party candidates.

Do you see Trump as a disaster because of his personality or because he's more likely then either of the above to compromise his (current) stated policies?

He doesn't know what the feth he's doing. He just wants to be loved...

People choosing the established party 'alternative' seems like a pretty tame reckoning.
The GOP field being obliterated by someone that doesn't know what the feth he's doing sounds like a reckoning to me.

 Breotan wrote:
So, on Ellen DeGeneres' talk show the topic of Hillary staring at Christina Aguilera's breasts came up again.



Most of the comments on youtube were about her excessive use of makeup. Christina's, not Hillary's.

I for one don't blame HRC one bit, those things have a gravity well distortion slightly less than a black hole.

 Ahtman wrote:
One doesn't become an "internet tough guy", political or otherwise, merely by disagreeing with a false statement.

Which would be a fine response, if I'd said they did.

Claims of emotional neutrality are the political equivalent of internet tough guy-ism in that they're bravado lacking in credibility. Someone so closely aligned with political ideals of the side of the aisle that might as well use, "What about empathy?!" as its rallying cry ought to know that.

Besides, if you're genuinely looking for the least emotionally-motivated political group, you're looking for libertarians.

Just for a contrast, on 9th of May our Prime Minister called for a new election. On 2nd of July we’re going to vote. So the election has started around about a year after your primaries began (when Cruz nominated), and will finish more than 4 months before you guys actually vote.

 TheMeanDM wrote:
Not that reliable = unreliable

No, they’re different, and you use them at different times to mean different things. If you can’t grasp that then maybe communicating with other human beings isn’t for you, and you should try to find another way to occupy your time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ahtman wrote:
Sure, but anecdotally I still haven't met anyone that actually likes Clinton. I've met some that don't like Trump or Cruz, but that isn't the same thing. Even online it seems more like the people willing to go for her are holding their nose while doing it. It is very strange. Maybe it would be more accurate to say that Clinton supporters are generally acting more passive than Sanders supports?

I think you’re right about Clinton supporters being more passive. Part of this is probably because Clinton’s campaign is a lot more sensible than it is exciting.

“What do we want?”
“A continuation of the moderate progress achieved in the last eight years!”
“When do we want it?”
“Incrementally, as each element becomes achievable!”

Not really the kind of thing that’s going to draw a huge crowd

But at the end of the day, whatever the feeling we all get from the wide presence of Sanders supporters on-line (and even here in Australia those guys are inescapable on facebook)… we just need to look at the voting tallies. It doesn’t matter how much you talk about your guy on line, you still only get one vote. And so all those Sanders supporters translated to 9 million votes, while the much quieter Clinton voters produced 12 million votes.

Seaward wrote:

Besides, if you're genuinely looking for the least emotionally-motivated political group, you're looking for libertarians.

That honestly sounded like a bunch of BS... especially as the underlying rhetoric that I've seen most often surrounding Libertarians is fear. They are afraid of federal govt, they are afraid of "losing" rights, etc. etc. Obviously, this isn't a universal truth, just the majority of what I've seen. Additionally, based on what I've seen the "rationality" pretty much ends at "If it isn't in the constitution, we shouldn't have it."

And besides, that does seem to be a self-selected survey, which those who've taken a stats class will know that those are generally among the least reliable methods of collecting data.

 whembly wrote:
Oh how people forget how ugly the 2008 primary got.

I certainly never forgot how deeply ridiculous Christopher Hitchens was. He had an incredible gift for making complete and utter nonsense sound so poetic.