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: Only a complete mystery when you whitewash/ignore Clinton's malfeasance and downright poor decisions.
....
This goes to the heart of the mystery.
There isn't any evidence of malfeasance by Clinton, while there is lots of evidence of malfeasance by Trump.
Clinton as a high ranking politician on the international stage has not managed to control international events, much like most high ranking politicians on the international stage, while many other aspects of her professional life have been a great success.
Trump, OTOH has been a failure in the limited area of US real estate development, despite a rocket boosted start as the heir to a real estate development company, and has only succeeded as a reality TV star. Yet Trump is lauded as a huge success while Clinton is pilloried as a uniquely bad political failure.
It isn't whitewashing/ignoring blah blah blah, it is taking an objective look from the foreign viewpoint at the two candidates.
Kilkrazy wrote: The weird mystery of this election is how it came to the point that Clinton and Trump became viewed as equally vile and useless candidates by so many people.
Don't misunderstand me: I'm absolutely casting my vote against Trump. I'll pull the lever next to Hillary's name without a moment's hesitation. I won't lose nay sleep over doing it, because I know that she is in no way, shape, or form anywhere near as reprehensible as Trump. She is unquestioningly more qualified in anything government-related than Trump. I'm not one of these "they're both equally bad" people trying to justify voting for Trump.
But my point was that, Trump aside, Hillary just wasn't all that great of a candidate from an electibility standpoint. Every conservative in America hates her, and at least a third of the liberals aren't fans of her, if Bernie's numbers were anything to go by. Independents aren't crazy about her, due to 25 years of smear campaigns designed to poison her reputation with anyone who isn't a dyed in the wool liberal. That means she can (in an election where the GOP ran somebody less dumpster-firey) only reasonably expect to pull 2/3rds of the Democrat voters, and none of anybody else. And that's if every Democrat shows up to vote. A sufficiently not-Trump GOP candidate could reasonably expect to pull all the Republicans and some of the independents. That would, under normal circumstances, give the GOP candidate a bigger share of the popular vote pie. Yes, the popular vote doesn't win the election, but if the % of voters voting for the GOP guy is spread evenly across the country, it makes it easier to flip blue states into red ones.
I just assumed the Democrats would run Hillary because its "her turn" and the GOP would find another McCain or Romney who could say crazy gak during the primary and then play the moderate during the general, and their 25 year long plan would finally bear fruit and the GOP would see the defeat and political demise of their most hated foe.
I was not expecting the GOP to work so very hard to find the one person in America who could give Hillary a fighting chance.
'Tis why whoever wins (c'mon, it's going to be Clinton yo)... they're going to be so unpopular, it'll be an achievement to get much of anything consequential done.
whembly wrote: Only a complete mystery when you whitewash/ignore Clinton's malfeasance and downright poor decisions.
....
This goes to the heart of the mystery.
There isn't any evidence of malfeasance by Clinton, while there is lots of evidence of malfeasance by Trump.
Clinton as a high ranking politician on the international stage has not managed to control international events, much like most high ranking politicians on the international stage, while many other aspects of her professional life have been a great success.
Trump, OTOH has been a failure in the limited area of US real estate development, despite a rocket boosted start as the heir to a real estate development company, and has only succeeded as a reality TV star. Yet Trump is lauded as a huge success while Clinton is pilloried as a uniquely bad political failure.
It isn't whitewashing/ignoring blah blah blah, it is taking an objective look from the foreign viewpoint at the two candidates.
That is definitely one view.
It's the view that matches reality.
Please don't mistake your very own opinion as 'reality'.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/05 21:30:55
Kilkrazy wrote: The weird mystery of this election is how it came to the point that Clinton and Trump became viewed as equally vile and useless candidates by so many people.
Don't misunderstand me: I'm absolutely casting my vote against Trump. I'll pull the lever next to Hillary's name without a moment's hesitation. I won't lose nay sleep over doing it, because I know that she is in no way, shape, or form anywhere near as reprehensible as Trump. She is unquestioningly more qualified in anything government-related than Trump. I'm not one of these "they're both equally bad" people trying to justify voting for Trump.
But my point was that, Trump aside, Hillary just wasn't all that great of a candidate from an electibility standpoint. Every conservative in America hates her, and at least a third of the liberals aren't fans of her, if Bernie's numbers were anything to go by. Independents aren't crazy about her, due to 25 years of smear campaigns designed to poison her reputation with anyone who isn't a dyed in the wool liberal. That means she can (in an election where the GOP ran somebody less dumpster-firey) only reasonably expect to pull 2/3rds of the Democrat voters, and none of anybody else. And that's if every Democrat shows up to vote. A sufficiently not-Trump GOP candidate could reasonably expect to pull all the Republicans and some of the independents. That would, under normal circumstances, give the GOP candidate a bigger share of the popular vote pie. Yes, the popular vote doesn't win the election, but if the % of voters voting for the GOP guy is spread evenly across the country, it makes it easier to flip blue states into red ones.
I just assumed the Democrats would run Hillary because its "her turn" and the GOP would find another McCain or Romney who could say crazy gak during the primary and then play the moderate during the general, and their 25 year long plan would finally bear fruit and the GOP would see the defeat and political demise of their most hated foe.
I was not expecting the GOP to work so very hard to find the one person in America who could give Hillary a fighting chance.
Excellent summary. Whether deserved or not, HRC's electability was compromised long ago. Her numbers were bad before the race began and she had high unfavorable built in and is a strong motivator for GOP voters, but a pretty weak one for the Democrats. Ignoring that is ignoring reality.
Kilkrazy wrote: The weird mystery of this election is how it came to the point that Clinton and Trump became viewed as equally vile and useless candidates by so many people.
Don't misunderstand me: I'm absolutely casting my vote against Trump. I'll pull the lever next to Hillary's name without a moment's hesitation. I won't lose nay sleep over doing it, because I know that she is in no way, shape, or form anywhere near as reprehensible as Trump. She is unquestioningly more qualified in anything government-related than Trump. I'm not one of these "they're both equally bad" people trying to justify voting for Trump.
But my point was that, Trump aside, Hillary just wasn't all that great of a candidate from an electibility standpoint. Every conservative in America hates her, and at least a third of the liberals aren't fans of her, if Bernie's numbers were anything to go by. Independents aren't crazy about her, due to 25 years of smear campaigns designed to poison her reputation with anyone who isn't a dyed in the wool liberal. That means she can (in an election where the GOP ran somebody less dumpster-firey) only reasonably expect to pull 2/3rds of the Democrat voters, and none of anybody else. And that's if every Democrat shows up to vote. A sufficiently not-Trump GOP candidate could reasonably expect to pull all the Republicans and some of the independents. That would, under normal circumstances, give the GOP candidate a bigger share of the popular vote pie. Yes, the popular vote doesn't win the election, but if the % of voters voting for the GOP guy is spread evenly across the country, it makes it easier to flip blue states into red ones.
I just assumed the Democrats would run Hillary because its "her turn" and the GOP would find another McCain or Romney who could say crazy gak during the primary and then play the moderate during the general, and their 25 year long plan would finally bear fruit and the GOP would see the defeat and political demise of their most hated foe.
I was not expecting the GOP to work so very hard to find the one person in America who could give Hillary a fighting chance.
hillary is a great candidate and electable, that's what started the conservatives smear campaign against her. starting with her first run and never letting up. think about it, she's being blamed for stuff obama and kerry did, and all of her accomplishments are denied and downplayed. the GOP has always been afraid of her.
Of course she is. She's running as Obama Term III. Thats normal dude.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
It's the view that matches reality.
Please don't mistake your very own opinion as 'reality'.
Exactly.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/05 21:42:09
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
whembly wrote: Only a complete mystery when you whitewash/ignore Clinton's malfeasance and downright poor decisions.
....
This goes to the heart of the mystery.
There isn't any evidence of malfeasance by Clinton, while there is lots of evidence of malfeasance by Trump.
Clinton as a high ranking politician on the international stage has not managed to control international events, much like most high ranking politicians on the international stage, while many other aspects of her professional life have been a great success.
Trump, OTOH has been a failure in the limited area of US real estate development, despite a rocket boosted start as the heir to a real estate development company, and has only succeeded as a reality TV star. Yet Trump is lauded as a huge success while Clinton is pilloried as a uniquely bad political failure.
It isn't whitewashing/ignoring blah blah blah, it is taking an objective look from the foreign viewpoint at the two candidates.
That is definitely one view.
It's the view that matches reality.
While you are technically correct, you have to remember that everyone views reality through their own interpretive lens. It is possible for someone to be fully informed, and come to the correct (through their lens) conclusion that HRC and Trump are equally unsuited for different reasons. It's depressing to think that the objectively worse candidate (Trump) may get in because of this, but that's life.
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
Please don't mistake your very own opinion as 'reality'.
Coming from you, really, it's rich.
To me, it's not a mystery. It's just the consequences of Republican "Clinton bashing" strategy. It's easy to believe a lie when it is repeated over and over. Even more when that's what a lot of media are reporting, to try to make the election "a fair fight between two sides".
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/05 21:51:42
whembly wrote: Only a complete mystery when you whitewash/ignore Clinton's malfeasance and downright poor decisions.
....
This goes to the heart of the mystery.
There isn't any evidence of malfeasance by Clinton, while there is lots of evidence of malfeasance by Trump.
Clinton as a high ranking politician on the international stage has not managed to control international events, much like most high ranking politicians on the international stage, while many other aspects of her professional life have been a great success.
Trump, OTOH has been a failure in the limited area of US real estate development, despite a rocket boosted start as the heir to a real estate development company, and has only succeeded as a reality TV star. Yet Trump is lauded as a huge success while Clinton is pilloried as a uniquely bad political failure.
It isn't whitewashing/ignoring blah blah blah, it is taking an objective look from the foreign viewpoint at the two candidates.
That is definitely one view.
It's the view that matches reality.
While you are technically correct, you have to remember that everyone views reality through their own interpretive lens. It is possible for someone to be fully informed, and come to the correct (through their lens) conclusion that HRC and Trump are equally unsuited for different reasons. It's depressing to think that the objectively worse candidate (Trump) may get in because of this, but that's life.
Don't sweat it... Clinton has this thing in the bag. Only way she loses is if the Cheeto Jesus strokes out, and Pence becomes the Top of the Ticket. Even then, that's not a sure thing.
whembly wrote: Only a complete mystery when you whitewash/ignore Clinton's malfeasance and downright poor decisions.
....
This goes to the heart of the mystery.
There isn't any evidence of malfeasance by Clinton, while there is lots of evidence of malfeasance by Trump.
Clinton as a high ranking politician on the international stage has not managed to control international events, much like most high ranking politicians on the international stage, while many other aspects of her professional life have been a great success.
Trump, OTOH has been a failure in the limited area of US real estate development, despite a rocket boosted start as the heir to a real estate development company, and has only succeeded as a reality TV star. Yet Trump is lauded as a huge success while Clinton is pilloried as a uniquely bad political failure.
It isn't whitewashing/ignoring blah blah blah, it is taking an objective look from the foreign viewpoint at the two candidates.
That is definitely one view.
It's the view that matches reality.
While you are technically correct, you have to remember that everyone views reality through their own interpretive lens. It is possible for someone to be fully informed, and come to the correct (through their lens) conclusion that HRC and Trump are equally unsuited for different reasons. It's depressing to think that the objectively worse candidate (Trump) may get in because of this, but that's life.
Don't sweat it... Clinton has this thing in the bag. Only way she loses is if the Cheeto Jesus strokes out, and Pence becomes the Top of the Ticket. Even then, that's not a sure thing.
Hillary Clinton got this you guys.
Right, unless she doesn't, in which case people who have been pushing the "BOTH BAD!" angle need to take a long, hard drink of water and think about what they have done.
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
Please don't mistake your very own opinion as 'reality'.
Coming from you, really, it's rich.
When have I ever advocated my views is "reality"?
I'm just very opinionated.
To me, it's not a mystery. It's just the consequences of Republican "Clinton bashing" strategy. It's easy to believe a lie when it is repeated over and over. Even more when that's what a lot of media are reporting, to try to make the election "a fair fight between two sides".
There's a saying...
If George H.W. Bush, Bob Dole, George W. Bush, John McCain and Mitt Romeny are literally Hilter!1!!!!!... ...
Seriously... Romney was possibly the most moderate, milquetoast GOP candidate in some time and even he was demonized... ... ...
whembly wrote: Only a complete mystery when you whitewash/ignore Clinton's malfeasance and downright poor decisions.
....
This goes to the heart of the mystery.
There isn't any evidence of malfeasance by Clinton, while there is lots of evidence of malfeasance by Trump.
Clinton as a high ranking politician on the international stage has not managed to control international events, much like most high ranking politicians on the international stage, while many other aspects of her professional life have been a great success.
Trump, OTOH has been a failure in the limited area of US real estate development, despite a rocket boosted start as the heir to a real estate development company, and has only succeeded as a reality TV star. Yet Trump is lauded as a huge success while Clinton is pilloried as a uniquely bad political failure.
It isn't whitewashing/ignoring blah blah blah, it is taking an objective look from the foreign viewpoint at the two candidates.
That is definitely one view.
It's the view that matches reality.
While you are technically correct, you have to remember that everyone views reality through their own interpretive lens. It is possible for someone to be fully informed, and come to the correct (through their lens) conclusion that HRC and Trump are equally unsuited for different reasons. It's depressing to think that the objectively worse candidate (Trump) may get in because of this, but that's life.
Don't sweat it... Clinton has this thing in the bag. Only way she loses is if the Cheeto Jesus strokes out, and Pence becomes the Top of the Ticket. Even then, that's not a sure thing.
Hillary Clinton got this you guys.
Right, unless she doesn't, in which case people who have been pushing the "BOTH BAD!" angle need to take a long, hard drink of water and think about what they have done.
Why? If they're both bad... then the outcome doesn't fething matter.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Co'tor Shas wrote: I'd imagine all the Trumsters would be too busy rioting and blaming Clinton, calling for her head, ect, to go and vote if he died.
O.o
Nah... they'd rally around Pence (even though I'd rather it'd be Rubio).
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/10/05 21:59:19
Politico founder Jim Vandehei excoriated their colleagues in the media for flashing their liberal bias “in a way they never did before” in their collective desire to take down Donald Trump (to the benefit of Hillary Clinton).
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/05 22:05:36
It's not liberal bias to think Trump is a worse candidate that HRC in every possible way.
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
You know very well what you are doing. Trump will reward you when he will win, loyal supporter of the Republican Clinton bashing strategy supporting his candidature.
If George H.W. Bush, Bob Dole, George W. Bush, John McCain and Mitt Romeny are literally Hilter!1!!!!!...
...
Seriously... Romney was possibly the most moderate, milquetoast GOP candidate in some time and even he was demonized...
You're the one invoking Hitler, here, remember.
But that's actually the trouble. For you (and maybe most of your side), you think of him as "moderate". But for the others, who actually listened to everything he was saying, that's not the case.
To me, that's why Trump won the GOP race; basically, all Republican candidates were trying to tell the same message to their base. It's just that Trump was saying it more directly (and in words easier to understand, as well).
It's been a long time your party's true moderates are just a minor faction in your side. Face it; your party is now a racist, bigoted one. It lost itself.
That's how we ended up with Cheeto F'n Jesus.
Yes. Exactly.
That's also why it's rich.
Mind you, you still support them.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/05 22:26:35
As another outsider, it seems like Romney demonised himself, as do the vast majority of Republican candidates.
I go back to a saying once about someone making a game out going down a Republican candidates Wikipedia page and placing bets on how far through you would get before going "that's bat guano insane, I'm out" - getting thorough the whole page want even seen as a possibility.
It probably still related to the whole primary process.
Or course, you could do the same with British politicians, or probably ones anywhere but I dunno, it feels scarier when it's talking about a potential American president.
You know very well what you are doing. Trump will reward you when he will win, loyal supporter of the Republican Clinton bashing strategy supporting his candidature.
Ah... so the ol'binary choice again.
You do know that we have more than two parties here in the US... no?
If George H.W. Bush, Bob Dole, George W. Bush, John McCain and Mitt Romeny are literally Hilter!1!!!!!...
...
Seriously... Romney was possibly the most moderate, milquetoast GOP candidate in some time and even he was demonized...
You're the one invoking Hitler, here, remember.
Was I being hyperbolic? I bit, yes.
Were those GOP politicians roundly demonized as the worst person ever? Absolutely.
But that's actually the trouble. For you (and maybe most of your side), you think of him as "moderate". But for the others, who actually listened to everything he was saying, that's not the case.
With respect boyo... Romney was a moderate in US politics. Don't believe me? Just look at his tenure as Governor of Massachusetts.
Frankly, had he jump into the 2016 race, he could've ran a "I Told You So" campaign and kick Clinton's ass.
To me, that's why Trump won the GOP race; basically, all Republican candidates were trying to tell the same message to their base. It's just that Trump was saying it more directly (and in words easier to understand, as well).
Not really.
Much of Trump's rise has more to do with being that outsider pick (which is beyond ridiculous).
It's been a long time your party's true moderates are just a minor faction in your side. Face it; your party is now a racist, bigoted one. It lost itself.
Nope. That's a cop out.
That's how we ended up with Cheeto F'n Jesus.
Yes. Exactly.
That's also why it's rich.
Mind you, you still support them.
I support much of the Republican plank... I just dont' support their leadership and the Cheeto Jesus.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/06 01:24:36
whembly wrote: You do know that we have more than two parties here in the US... no?
And none of them matter.
Much of Trump's rise has more to do with being that outsider pick (which is beyond ridiculous).
The "outsider" stuff is just a flimsy pretense of legitimacy covering the awful stuff. None of the other "outsider" candidates had any success, and what's the obvious difference between them and Trump? The fact that Trump is willing to go beyond hinting at racism and generally being a horrible person and embrace the worst elements of the right.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
jmurph wrote: In terms of demeanor, I think Pence came out way ahead and looked almost presidential. He wisely avoided defending Trump and pressed the attacks on HRC. Kaine looked off balance and unnecessarily aggressive. Interrupting the moderator on several occasions played very poorly, I think, and distracts from Trump's temperament. Pence is showing to be a very strong camp as the straight man to Trump's theatrics. Overall, I would say Pence won it, but it doesn't really matter for anything except for his possible 2020 ambitions.
Note that everything you describe above relates to performance, not to content. Pence was more calm and measured, but what people say should matter a lot more than how people say it. There was, of course, sadly little real policy discussion in the debate, but there was Pence refusing to defend Trump about a dozen times, or denying that Trump had said things we have on record.
That should matter a lot more than who interrupted who.
sirlynchmob wrote: it's almost like the clinton campaign planned it that way. But really, who didn't see that coming.
Yeah, it was a pretty straightforward strategy for the Democrats, and it put Pence in to a tough position. Pence either had to sink his own career by trying to justify what Trump said, or hurt the Trump/Pence ticket by showing that Trump's comments are indefensible.
Apart from the silliness of sometimes lying about what Trump had said, Pence made the smarter choice. Basically Pence chose himself and his political future. It's not hard to see why, Trump's website doesn't even have a bio for Pence. Trump is basically ignoring Pence, he's too busy running the Trump show. Why spend your own political capital on a guy who's treating you like an afterthought?
I've got little time for Pence, but at least with that political judgement he showed himself to be more astute than Christie or Giuliani.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: That sad state though... the GOP voters fethed up big time. EVEN Mike Pence would've curb stomped Clinton.
That's a fairly dubious claim. Remember that Pence is famous on the national stage for one thing - a bizarre effort to pass a law controlling who is allowed in to what bathroom. The Democrats would have a field day painting him as an old fashioned bigot with a weird bathroom fixation. The attack ads write themselves.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: The weird mystery of this election is how it came to the point that Clinton and Trump became viewed as equally vile and useless candidates by so many people.
I read a great piece the other day; "The ongoing normalization of Trump is the most disorienting development of the presidential campaign, but the most significant may be the abnormalization of Clinton."
The article goes on to point out that Clinton's email scandal has somehow become the defining feature of her candidacy. This is very strange because a similar scandal ran throughout the Bush administration, with many staffers running private emails to evade public record keeping, which ended up with 22 million emails being deleted. This was only a smaller part of a larger scandal where DoJ staff were fired when they failed to find evidence of Democrat voter fraud that the Bush admin just believed must be out there. Which in turn was only a minor scandal compared to some of the other doozies of the Bush admin.
And yet, if you described the Bush admin as scandal filled, and that Clinton's emails are extremely minor in comparison, people wouldn't believe you, or even understand how you could reach that conclusion.
Of course, this isn't to say that Clinton didn't do anything wrong. But in the words of the article; "Yet the question is not whether Clinton’s ethics problems exist at all but whether they ought to separate her from normal politicians. The inability to contextualize these flaws has been a signal failure of the general election."
feeder wrote: They are both bad. If the US election was a walk to work, HRC would be like getting bird poop on your hat. Trump would be like getting hit by a car. See? Both bad.
No, Clinton would be like... actually having to go through the hassle of walking to work. Annoying not really the way you'd like to do things, but given the basic concept it's how things have to be, and it's kind of foolish to think they're going to be any different.
Whereas Trump would be like deciding you hate everything about having to walk to work, so you're going to put your foot in a wood chipper.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: Clinton is the ultimate status quo candidate. If you like how things are going you like her. Plus she's been disliked for decades by a large portion of the US voting population.
Yeah, however will the Democrats do without those Republican voters who've hated Clinton for 20 years, and who hated Obama, and before that Kerry, Gore, the other Clinton...
She's about the worst candidate the Democrats could have run.
Man, if Clinton is the worst person in the Democratic party, then the Democrats must be in incredible shape. The Democrats are not in amazing shape, of course, actually the cupboard is pretty bare once you look past Clinton.
But this 'omg Clinton so horrible' thing just keeps finding new depths of silliness, and for some reason I have to keep commenting on it each and every time.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Only a complete mystery when you whitewash/ignore Clinton's malfeasance and downright poor decisions.
If you want to go back and find the threads from 10 years ago where you were complaining about the 22 million emails deleted by Bush admin staffers, then maybe I'll start to listen to your outrage about Clinton's missing emails.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
squidhills wrote: (in an election where the GOP ran somebody less dumpster-firey)
I agree with your point that Clinton's favourability is low and this has made her vulnerable. But I would like to question the above assumption - that the GOP might have run someone who was less of a dumpster fire. There's a narrative starting to take place that Trump was just a black swan event that came out of nowhere. But Ted fething Cruz came second. Now Mike Pence is being talked about as what might have been, and that guy is only famous for trying to pass an utterly bizarre bathroom law. Even the establishment candidates that got smashed, like Rubio, Bush, Kasich, they were all still running with policy sets that were utterly horrible - huge tax cuts for the rich that would tank the budget.
whembly wrote: 'Tis why whoever wins (c'mon, it's going to be Clinton yo)... they're going to be so unpopular, it'll be an achievement to get much of anything consequential done.
Obama had strong popularity, but got little done. The US system is designed to need constructive negotiation, and if one party decides it simply isn't going to give that, there's nothing that can be done.
Basically at this point in your country's political dysfunction, the presidency is a fight for control of the executive branch, to achieve what can possibly be achieved through executive action. This is pushing the bounds of constitutionality, but it's basically the way things have to be as long as the Republican Party refuses to be part of constructive politics.
And before you say it, no the Democrats aren't 'just as bad'. But they're threatening to be, and getting there steadily. There is now a real risk that by the time Republicans wake up stop being crazy, Democrats will have entered their own period of crazy.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
feeder wrote: Right, unless she doesn't, in which case people who have been pushing the "BOTH BAD!" angle need to take a long, hard drink of water and think about what they have done.
Republicans blamed Obama when they overturned his veto and put a piece of bad legislation in place. I have no problem believing that in the event of a Trump presidency lots of people that voted for Trump would immediately decide that it is Clinton's fault that they voted for Trump.
This message was edited 11 times. Last update was at 2016/10/06 02:55:42
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Special insult to injury points for it being the North Carolina republican party making the news over this, once again making me embarrassed to admit I live here.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
whembly wrote: Seriously... Romney was possibly the most moderate, milquetoast GOP candidate in some time and even he was demonized...
Yeah, he was the most moderate. And this left him an almost impossible position when running for president, because he has a long record of reasonable and informed decision making, while at the same he now had to pretend to be a total nutjob to secure the base of his party and positive coverage from the conservative pundits.
I mean, when a guy with a decent record of positive and effective reform has to run away from his own history, you might have a pretty big problem with your political party.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Partly yes. Trump is that "outsider" candidate that the GOP primary voters wanted (which is fething laughable).
Mostly it lands on the GOP leadership (for not listening to their constituents) and the media (for flouting that liberal/lefty bias).
Blame for Trump rests entirely on the idiots who voted for him, and on the GOP that has spent the last 8 years running a campaign of muck and bs. They've traded in a constant stream of lies designed to make their base think ridiculous things about the Obama administration. They've used or quietly accepted countless conspiracy theories. In that environment it should be no surprise to anyone that Trump might turn up, turn the lies and conspiracies up to 11, and find a ready built base ready to eat up that crazy nonsense.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/06 03:15:42
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Special insult to injury points for it being the North Carolina republican party making the news over this, once again making me embarrassed to admit I live here.
I'm not even sure it's Kaine, but I know I've heard stories about that pin before.
One more reason to not vote for Trump: he doesn't know how to pronounce Nevada, my adopted home state. This also isn't the first time he's done it and his daughter did it in a "get out the vote" video for the caucus.
Seriously people, it's Nev-AD-uh, not Nev-AH-duh. Get it right.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/06 03:41:09
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
sebster wrote: This is where this campaign has gotten to.
Broken image links?
I'd venture to say it's far worse than that.
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
Really? I can see it. Its a CNN headline that reads "Pence denies that Trump said things he said"
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Mostly it lands on the GOP leadership (for not listening to their constituents)
Well, the problem is that the constituents they actively made the core of their party base over the last couple decades are the crazy ones that are thrilled with the likes of a Trump or a Cruz, and their response to every election they lost due to adopting crazy platforms was to double down on the crazy. That crazy has now overtaken the party. The old GOP leadership that dominated up through GW is either dead or has essentially "turned traitor" in the eyes of the base. The family that had two members in the white house under the Republican banner is now openly supporting Hillary, which is unforgivable to the base, and they're probably out for good at this point.
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
Kilkrazy wrote: The weird mystery of this election is how it came to the point that Clinton and Trump became viewed as equally vile and useless candidates by so many people.
They are both bad. If the US election was a walk to work, HRC would be like getting bird poop on your hat. Trump would be like getting hit by a car. See? Both bad.
Even your example shows massive difference in scale. Don't know anybody who would prefer getting hit by car. I would pick getting pooped to head(rather than hat) any day over getting hit by car. Poop you can clean away and won't kill you. Car hit can kill you.
Similarly Trump elected could get into death of everybody...So yeah not fan of the idea. While I will die one day I would prefer it to be bit further away. Trump could see me killed before I even get to try walking the Shikoku pilgrimage and that's less than 6 months ahead!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/06 05:47:06
3000
4000 
