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.

Should Hilary Clinton run again in 2020?

 jasper76 wrote:
Should Hilary Clinton run again in 2020?

I think few would want her to. Much like Romney, McCain, Gore, etc, those bolts have been shot.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
Should Hilary Clinton run again in 2020?

I think few would want her to. Much like Romney, McCain, Gore, etc, those bolts have been shot.

So if few would want her to run again, maybe it's time to stop pretending she was such a good candidate.

Standard Disclaimer: Because I think Clinton was a bad candidate, does not mean I think Trump was a good one.

Just Tony wrote:It was purchased INSIDE the Dachau concentration camp memorial. I picked it up as we finished touring the facilities. Bear in mind that my argument wasn't that all Socialists were Nazis, but that the Nazis at least ran on a Socialist platform. With your description of the factions within the Nazi party, this becomes both correct and incorrect. lol Schrodinger's Nazis.

You can't forget the National in Nationalsozialismus which was the actual focus. Being a national socialist was a populist right wing platform, as in: the "socialist" element was for the welfare of the race/nation and against outsiders, not general socialist ideas. They were pro isolationism and against internationalisation. They were opposed to the social democrats, the communists, and the monarchists. They also positioned themselves as a better alternative to the old conservatism of older nationalist parties and aimed themselves at the working and middle class (thus using socialist in the name). They also positioned themselves as a movement and not just a party to collect jaded protest voters. They even had some anti-capitalistic elements which were related to nationalism and isolationism, not because they were against capitalism but because nationalism was the biggest priority ("us versus them", stuff like that). Their idea of socialism was "for the nation/race" (jews/gypsies/"others" are parasites in our nation) but it has nothing to do with actual socialists.

Source: I live in Munich which is located right next to Dachau and we learned a lot about Nazis in school.

 jasper76 wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
Should Hilary Clinton run again in 2020?

I think few would want her to. Much like Romney, McCain, Gore, etc, those bolts have been shot.

So if few would want her to run again, maybe it's time to stop pretending she was such a good candidate.

Standard Disclaimer: Because I think Clinton was a bad candidate, does not mean I think Trump was a good one.

Who is pretending she was a good candidate? I'm sure you can agree that pointing out how she is a superior candidate to Trump is hardly a statement that she was good overall (even if you disagree). IMO that bar is so low it's essentially subterranean.

 jasper76 wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
Should Hilary Clinton run again in 2020?

I think few would want her to. Much like Romney, McCain, Gore, etc, those bolts have been shot.

So if few would want her to run again, maybe it's time to stop pretending she was such a good candidate.

The current conversation on the last page was not centered around Clinton being a "good candidate", it was about ridiculous double standards and a single protocol issue being blown out of proportion (not that it wasn't serious, but it wasn't what it was made out to be either) and put on equal footing with far numerous instances of a wide array of failings that were individually arguably just as bad or worse, not that Clinton was a great candidate. To go back to my previous example, swift kick in the balls or hand in the meatgrinder, neither are good, one has more permanent repercussions than the other.

Likewise, in a more general sense, just because a candidate shouldn't run again doesn't mean they were a bad candidate to begin with. McCain was a good candidate for the Republicans in 2008. That he shouldn't run again isn't because he was a bad candidate, but because his time and chance have come and gone.

@Valkathi and Ninth Musketeer: Fair enough, I think I misread something.

Back to Instinctive Behavior (Lurk)

 sebster wrote:

 AegisGrimm wrote:
Well, yeah. That's the whole game of US politics. If your party does it, it's necessary business. If the other party does it...."Oh god! The sky is falling !"

If Obama was like Trump, the Republicans would have lost their friggin' minds like the Dems are now. Both sides are knee-jerk idiots, which sucks in a two-party system.

This 'both sides' thing is a throw away line. It is the cheap way to sound cynical without having to actually learn anything about what is happening. When one side is mediocre, and the other side is a fething disaster of historic proportions.... then 'both sides' just doesn't cut it anymore.

I meant that in terms of rhetoric, not ability or power. Both Dems and Republicans are guilty of such extreme levels of party polarization it's insane, and they spend more of their time than anything else thinking of opportunities to tear the other side down and overturn that other side's accomplishments in favor of theirs, rather than making things better. It used to be that each side had both conservatives and liberals, and as such they had more chances to meet in the middle. Now it's like a big game of over-paid internet trolls going at each other full of goddamn mocking hyperbole and straw-men arguments.

It was always a case of liberals versus conservatives, but now each side is so damn one-dimensional they are about worthless. It's like they are now two political parties right out of a Star Trek episode, or the two groups in my son's Dr Seuss book about which group butters which side of toast and spends all day posturing at each other over a wall.

Mario wrote:

Just Tony wrote:It was purchased INSIDE the Dachau concentration camp memorial. I picked it up as we finished touring the facilities. Bear in mind that my argument wasn't that all Socialists were Nazis, but that the Nazis at least ran on a Socialist platform. With your description of the factions within the Nazi party, this becomes both correct and incorrect. lol Schrodinger's Nazis.

You can't forget the National in Nationalsozialismus which was the actual focus. Being a national socialist was a populist right wing platform, as in: the "socialist" element was for the welfare of the race/nation and against outsiders, not general socialist ideas. They were pro isolationism and against internationalisation. They were opposed to the social democrats, the communists, and the monarchists. They also positioned themselves as a better alternative to the old conservatism of older nationalist parties and aimed themselves at the working and middle class (thus using socialist in the name). They also positioned themselves as a movement and not just a party to collect jaded protest voters. They even had some anti-capitalistic elements which were related to nationalism and isolationism, not because they were against capitalism but because nationalism was the biggest priority ("us versus them", stuff like that). Their idea of socialism was "for the nation/race" (jews/gypsies/"others" are parasites in our nation) but it has nothing to do with actual socialists.

Source: I live in Munich which is located right next to Dachau and we learned a lot about Nazis in school.

Your city was an absolute treat, btw. And the Hoffbrau Haus (Sweet Asuryan I hope I spelled that right...) set a standard that none have managed to hit.

And yes, I get that Nazi practice isn't at all what Socialism is today, nor even what it was then. I'm more along the thinking that they used the buzzword to get their foot in the door before casting off the wool, so to speak.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jasper76 wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
Should Hilary Clinton run again in 2020?

I think few would want her to. Much like Romney, McCain, Gore, etc, those bolts have been shot.

So if few would want her to run again, maybe it's time to stop pretending she was such a good candidate.

Standard Disclaimer: Because I think Clinton was a bad candidate, does not mean I think Trump was a good one.

I've really been fighting the urge to whip up a meme in the free time I don't have. It'll be about the saddest looking Hillary pic I can find with #NOTANYONE'SPRESIDENT across the bottom.

 d-usa wrote:
Trump: doing all the gak that people hated Clinton for and more; still not as bad as Clinton.

Yep. The argument at this point is that if you squint hard enough then the stuff Trump is actually doing is not that much worse than the hyperbolic and often fictional stuff Clinton was accused of.

It isn't much of an argument.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sarouan wrote:
But, Sebster, since the Republicans have always targeted the government being the issue and always trying to make governance look as it actually doesn't matter for their basing vote, why do you think it would matter to them? That's actually what they always were against, after all.

Thing is, Republicans have always said it, but it's never actually been very true. Republicans love some big government, whether its morality laws, tax cuts to encourage certain activities, big cash handouts for agriculture, they love getting government involved.

Small government is a sales pitch, a means of attacking certain kinds of government involvement that Republicans don't like, while ignoring all the government intervention they do like. The small government thing is most useful when Republicans are out of power, as it gives them an easy way to justify any and all Democrat initiatives.

But now they're in power, and the base expects things, and small government rhetoric won't suffice. I mean, the whole point of the appeal of a businessman president is he is supposed to know how things get done. People wanted things to get done. That stupid Mexican wall flounders and I don't think 'small government' will cut it.

It would be awesome if the Democrats got into the small government game, and toned down their own version of morality laws.

I think many if not most people in this country want a smaller, more efficient, less wasteful federal government, and don't want morality being legislated from either the right or the left. That's what I see as the center amongst the citizenry. If only we had a party to represent us...

The thing is that Republicans have morality laws dictating what people can do, and Democrats have morality laws that dictate what businesses can do to people.

I honestly have no problem with the approach used by the democrats because I don't think that businesses are people. I believe that the moment you file legal paperwork separating yourself from your business to protect yourself from liabilities, you also no longer have a claim that you are your business when it comes to stuff like "my religion says X".

 Vaktathi wrote:
Here's the problem....the Republican Party has spent nearly the last decade actively stifling governance and the last 30 building a platform that fundamentally centered around the entire concept that anything even related to "government" is bad and awful. Actual governance is anathema to the fundamental platform the Republican party offered its voters, and "Government is the problem with everything" is the core concept they push to the electorate.

Yeah, much of the problem comes from the basic dishonesty of that position. Add in the dishonesty of almost all dedicated think tanks aligned to the modern day Republican party (an extraordinary number are funded by a single source - the Koch brothers) and you get a party which has genuinely no idea what it actually wants to do with government. Hence the comedyas Republicans swept in to power, all set from day one to bring in their tax reform and their ACA repeal and replace... and now nothing. ACA has been pushed back one or two years as Republicans decide they need to actually have some idea of the replacement. Meanwhile tax reform has broken down in to pitched factions, with Ryan arguing for an in/out tax, Cotton slating that and offering up vague suggestions of an across the board cut, and Trump picking a new policy almost daily - all conversations that were supposed to happen years ago.

 d-usa wrote:
The thing is that Republicans have morality laws dictating what people can do, and Democrats have morality laws that dictate what businesses can do to people.

I honestly have no problem with the approach used by the democrats because I don't think that businesses are people. I believe that the moment you file legal paperwork separating yourself from your business to protect yourself from liabilities, you also no longer have a claim that you are your business when it comes to stuff like "my religion says X".

I think that people can come together and form businesses, and if those groups of people collectively have common religious convictions, then the government should not be in the business of compelling them to violate those convictions (unless acting on the conviction poses a significant threat to someone else's rights). To the extent that the Democratic Party has done that, I think they are in the wrong.

It's worth noting that if the government has the power to compel one group to violate their convictions, it then has the power to do so to all groups, even the ones whose convictions you share.

 Just Tony wrote:
It was purchased INSIDE the Dachau concentration camp memorial. I picked it up as we finished touring the facilities.

And? Exactly how close does this purchase place have to be to the site of the atrocity for the truthiness to start leaking in to the text?

Bear in mind that my argument wasn't that all Socialists were Nazis, but that the Nazis at least ran on a Socialist platform. With your description of the factions within the Nazi party, this becomes both correct and incorrect. lol Schrodinger's Nazis.

Its schrodingers Nazis if in 1934 Schrodinger took the cat out of the box and shot it, after which people kept claiming they didn't know if the cat was dead or alive. Because I can't fething stress this enough - there were socialist elements to the early Nazi party and Hitler murdered the gak out of them.

 sebster wrote:
Its schrodingers Nazis if in 1934 Schrodinger took the cat out of the box and shot it, after which people kept claiming they didn't know if the cat was dead or alive. Because I can't fething stress this enough - there were socialist elements to the early Nazi party and Hitler murdered the gak out of them.

But the truth doesn't help build a false narrative about socialism.

 jasper76 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
The thing is that Republicans have morality laws dictating what people can do, and Democrats have morality laws that dictate what businesses can do to people.

I honestly have no problem with the approach used by the democrats because I don't think that businesses are people. I believe that the moment you file legal paperwork separating yourself from your business to protect yourself from liabilities, you also no longer have a claim that you are your business when it comes to stuff like "my religion says X".

I think that people can come together and form businesses, and if those groups of people collectively have common religious convictions, then the government should not be in the business of compelling them to violate those convictions (unless acting on the conviction poses a significant threat to someone else's rights). To the extent that the Democratic Party has done that, I think they are in the wrong.

It's worth noting that if the government has the power to compel one group to violate their convictions, it then has the power to do so to all groups, even the ones whose convictions you share.

And if those groups of people got together, drafted up legal paperwork saying "we are not our business", then their beliefs should not matter because a business is not a person and shouldn't have religious protections.

A Sole Proprietorship or a simple partnership is really the only form of business where the religious belief of the owner(s) should come into question, but the moment you incorporate then it shouldn't matter because you as the owner/operator made the decision that you are no longer legally your own business. You decided to remove yourself so that if I slip and fall in your business, I cannot sue you personally for your money, or to keep the government from coming after your home in order to satisfy your debts to the government. When you legally separate yourself from your business, then that separation should be legally complete and not just when it benefits you. You shouldn't be able to claim that you are not your business while also claiming that your business is you.

Either you are your business, with all benefits and liabilities of being one and the same, or you are not your business, with all the benefits and liabilities being separated between the two entities.

Whoa there D. You're getting into some serious head twisting Lovecraftian cosmic business stuff there.

Lets all just sit down and agree that a multi-billion dollar corporation isn't a person and we probably shouldn't treat it like a person because it's just kind of silly

Also, am I allowed to write off the Dunce caps as dependents on my taxes? Because really those guys just drain money right out of the HatCoffers and they don't really give much back beyond fart jokes and being able to belittle children in 1950s television.

 jasper76 wrote:
I think that people can come together and form businesses, and if those groups of people collectively have common religious convictions, then the government should not be in the business of compelling them to violate those convictions (unless acting on the conviction poses a significant threat to someone else's rights). To the extent that the Democratic Party has done that, I think they are in the wrong.

It's worth noting that if the government has the power to compel one group to violate their convictions, it then has the power to do so to all groups, even the ones whose convictions you share.

The government isn't forcing anyone to violate their convictions here. If your convictions are incompatible with things like "you can't have a 'whites only' policy at your business" you are free to not run a business. The government will not force you to start one.

Ahtman wrote:

 sebster wrote:
Its schrodingers Nazis if in 1934 Schrodinger took the cat out of the box and shot it, after which people kept claiming they didn't know if the cat was dead or alive. Because I can't fething stress this enough - there were socialist elements to the early Nazi party and Hitler murdered the gak out of them.

But the truth doesn't help build a false narrative about socialism.

Feel better? This meet your requirement of daily swoop and poop comments? I applaud you.

sebster wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
It was purchased INSIDE the Dachau concentration camp memorial. I picked it up as we finished touring the facilities.

And? Exactly how close does this purchase place have to be to the site of the atrocity for the truthiness to start leaking in to the text?

Bear in mind that my argument wasn't that all Socialists were Nazis, but that the Nazis at least ran on a Socialist platform. With your description of the factions within the Nazi party, this becomes both correct and incorrect. lol Schrodinger's Nazis.

Its schrodingers Nazis if in 1934 Schrodinger took the cat out of the box and shot it, after which people kept claiming they didn't know if the cat was dead or alive. Because I can't fething stress this enough - there were socialist elements to the early Nazi party and Hitler murdered the gak out of them.

You should say that again, because maybe that will retcon what I said. Scroll the feth up. I just addressed it. SEVERAL TIMES. Find my post about getting the foot in the door.

 whembly wrote:
Sure, 'tis why the GOP is a losing party eh??

How do you explain Democrats losing 900+ seats and feth ton of local elections?

And here it is, again, confusing the ability to win elections with the ability to govern. Republicans have recovered their electoral position very strongly from the disasters of 2006/08, no argument there. But once they've won power they've done nothing. Not just since Trump won the presidency, but since 2010 they've held the house, and the senate since 2014. Sure they were blocked then by a president from the other team, but look at all those bills they passed in those years, all the ACA repeal bills. All of a sudden they have the power to put them in to law, and they don't. Nor do they have anything else set up and ready to go that they actually want to pass. They don't even have agreed on concepts for what they want to pass.

Because they are a party that's traded in incendiary rhetoric and crazy claims for so long, they have no idea what they actually want to enact now they're in power.

This isn't even really a debateable point, to be honest. Is it possible for anyone to look at the last four weeks and say that this lives up to the expectations of what a government should deliver? Of course not, and the reasons why should be discussed. Trying to close down that discussion by saying 'but they're winning elections' strikes me as a key part of the problem.

You're correct, but not thorough enough. A more comprehensive list is as follows.

•Voter Suppression - The GOP pushes policies intended to prevent people not on their side (minorities, college students, etc) from voting, through shutting down polling places, making voter ID laws, and messing with voter registration.

•Democrats Being Idiots - The GOP votes in lockstep, all the time. They are almost completely unified. Party > all. Democrats aren't like that. If a candidate isn't absolutely perfect, Democrats tend to not vote for them, or waste their vote with a third party.

•Gerrymandering - Do I really have to explain this?

•Fundraising - The GOP is excellent at making money. They have some very rich people on their side, who are very involved in politics. In addition, oil money, arms company money, and bank money, plus all of the other corporate money they get. Democrats don't have that base.

•Single-issue Voters - Some people will base their vote on only one issue. Usually abortion or guns. Guess who appeals to those single issue voters? Republicans. And even if the Democrat in the race is pro-gun, the Republican can straight up lie, say they'll "take yer guns!", and the single issue voters flock over like cultist flies on a holy gak.

 jasper76 wrote:
Should Hilary Clinton run again in 2020?

I am an outsider so this might sound silly or perhaps even neo-colonial.
But no not even close. What should happen is a drastic reform of your system. The 2 big parties need to fracture into smaller ones, and the whole indirect voting system has to go.
In this way you could end the crazy stigmatisation of team A vs team B and start with a system that looks for compromises. Also it might be a good moment to seriously restrict the power of your future presidents.

 whembly wrote:
I mean, if redistricting is the primary reason why they control the US House... how does that explain the US Senate?

Because each state gets two senators regardless of population, and Democrats control most of the bigger states, but far fewer small states. Come on mate, this is basic stuff.

To explain it one last time for the ages, a tick over 50% of the population lives in just 9 states. Those states have 18 senators, and Democrats hold 11 of them to the Republican’s 7. In the other 41 states, representing the other 50% of the population but 82 senators, Republicans have 45 senators to the Democrats 37.

Or to demonstrate another way, if we assign half of a state’s population per senator and count up each party’s total represented populations, Democrats represent 175m people, Republicans represent 140m people. Despite Democrats representing 56% of the population, they have 48% of senators, Republicans represent 44% of the population but have 52% of senators.

This doesn’t mean the system is unfair or needs to change. It is what it is to reflect the federal system. But it does mean that it a party can get a minority of the vote and still win power, if it appeals more in the smaller states, which Republicans do.

No one in a civilised country should be forced to vote for 2 elderly untrustworthy candidates with dubious ideas or the even less sane other candidates.

 jasper76 wrote:
Should Hilary Clinton run again in 2020?

No. For starters its been a long time since a party gave a candidate a second chance, the whiff of loser is strong on any failed candidate.

On top of that Clinton ran a bad campaign. Her messaging was weak, she was completely unable to dismiss the weakest or most ludicrous claims against her, and he campaigning strategy was all over the map. Ultimately, she failed to mobilise a large portion of the democratic base when her opponent was the worst candidate imaginable.

As a different question, will there be a major primary challenge to Trump in 2020? If there is, will the Republican establishment learn the lesson of 2016 and quickly form behind a single mainstream candidate, or will we get another clown car?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jasper76 wrote:
So if few would want her to run again, maybe it's time to stop pretending she was such a good candidate.

You've tried this argument before, I've explained its failing before. Then you spring up again, repeating the argument. fething groundhog day.

A campaign is different from being in the job. For instance, a person can be great at phrasing an idea so it appeals just perfectly to just the right the people, but utterly unable to translate that idea in to legislation to make it actually happen. Clinton had the opposite problem, she built a massive and sophisticated series of proposals for what she wanted to do to take the country forward, these were ideas with ambition that were grounded in reality. This is good governance. To sell these to voters, she rarely talked about the ideas herself, she just said 'go to my website'. This is awful campaigning.

See the difference? Okay, so now you can stop asking that question?

Note that you don't have to believe she would have been a good president, but it does mean you can stop asking your question about why if she was such a bad campaigner why did people think she would have been a good (or even fair) president?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AegisGrimm wrote:
I meant that in terms of rhetoric, not ability or power. Both Dems and Republicans are guilty of such extreme levels of party polarization it's insane, and they spend more of their time than anything else thinking of opportunities to tear the other side down and overturn that other side's accomplishments in favor of theirs, rather than making things better.

But that's just not true. Let me put it this way, when Democrats retook congress they undertook investigations in to Iraq. With two congressional investigations having already happened, Democrats undertook a fact finding operation but held no more congressional inquiries. They basically moved past the subject. This was in response to a massive strategic blunder that got 4,500 US soldiers killed.

In contrast, Benghazi was a screw up that got 4 US government employees killed. A tragedy no doubt, but the scale is nothing like Iraq. The Republicans started 7 investigations in to Benghazi, and only the first could be sensibly called anything other than a partisan witch hunt.

The way the two parties have used congressional powers couldn't be in greater contrast.

It used to be that each side had both conservatives and liberals, and as such they had more chances to meet in the middle. Now it's like a big game of over-paid internet trolls going at each other full of goddamn mocking hyperbole and straw-men arguments.

Yeah, agreed there. Partisanship has come to dominate politics in the US, and it is often focused on issues of great symbolic value but little real meaning.

It was always a case of liberals versus conservatives, but now each side is so damn one-dimensional they are about worthless.

I think a lot of the individuals on both sides aren't actually very one dimensional. I think most people, outside of the true believers, actually have pretty interesting, nuanced views of politics. But the debate seems to destroy all of that, it reduces people down to simple, and often very single line arguments. This, of course, is exactly how a willful liar like Trump can flourish.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Just Tony wrote:
And yes, I get that Nazi practice isn't at all what Socialism is today, nor even what it was then. I'm more along the thinking that they used the buzzword to get their foot in the door before casting off the wool, so to speak.

It wasn't a cynical exercise, there was a real strain of Nazi socialism. It was called Strasserism and its adherents took it very seriously. Seriously enough that its adherents challenged Hitler over it, and Hitler killed them. You can find plenty about it on the internet (it basically boils down to standard socialist hate the capitalists stuff, but with an extra assumption that all the capitalists are Jews).

But the thing is, the Nazis also had an even big strain of anti-marxism. It's weird that both things could co-exist within one party, but there were actually all kids of weird, contradictory nonsense with in the Nazi party. Coherent ideology wasn't really the point of the party. It was about people being angry at the state of Germany and the state of their own lives, and being given a voice for their anger and their powerlessness, and being given an idea that they were part of a new, powerful movement. The economic detail just didn't matter.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jasper76 wrote:
I think many if not most people in this country want a smaller, more efficient, less wasteful federal government, and don't want morality being legislated from either the right or the left.

The problem is this is rhetoric, not reality. Everyone wants smaller government, except for where government benefits them personally. Go ask a farmer if he wants small government, and of course he'll say yes, but not to his corn subsidies. Go ask a 55 year old if he'd like smaller government, and see if he still agrees after you tell him smaller government means no medicare when he retires, and no government guaranteeing his social security. There's always a crop of young libertarians on college, ask them how many of them went and took out personal loans for their tuition, instead of government underwritten sutdent loans. See how long the small business owner remains in support of your small government proposal after you tell him it means his accelerated depreciation tax write off will have to go.

This isn't to say government can't be smaller, there are plenty of areas in which can argue very effectively that government should reduced or removed entirely. The issue is that government isn't just about big and small, but about the details of each individual thing it does. 'Smaller government' doesn't actually mean anything. 'Private retirement plans', no more agricultural subsidies, no government loans for college, no more line item tax incentives... those are smaller government proposals that actually mean something, and they are much harder things to sell.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Just Tony wrote:
You should say that again, because maybe that will retcon what I said. Scroll the feth up. I just addressed it. SEVERAL TIMES. Find my post about getting the foot in the door.

Your foot in the door post, which I replied to later on, still didn't capture even part of what was going on in the Nazi party. You seem to be trying to build this narrative of 'careful what socialism promises, because it might just lead to nazism' and it just doesn't match the history.

 sebster wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
So if few would want her to run again, maybe it's time to stop pretending she was such a good candidate.

You've tried this argument before, I've explained its failing before. Then you spring up again, repeating the argument. fething groundhog day.

A campaign is different from being in the job. For instance, a person can be great at phrasing an idea so it appeals just perfectly to just the right the people, but utterly unable to translate that idea in to legislation to make it actually happen. Clinton had the opposite problem, she built a massive and sophisticated series of proposals for what she wanted to do to take the country forward, these were ideas with ambition that were grounded in reality. This is good governance. To sell these to voters, she rarely talked about the ideas herself, she just said 'go to my website'. This is awful campaigning.

See the difference? Okay, so now you can stop asking that question?

Note that you don't have to believe she would have been a good president, but it does mean you can stop asking your question about why if she was such a bad campaigner why did people think she would have been a good (or even fair) president?

Calm down there Sebster... he already admitted he was mistaken:

 jasper76 wrote:
@Valkathi and Ninth Musketeer: Fair enough, I think I misread something.

I do understand how absolutely frustrated you must be with the responses you put up with (and I respect you for doing so, its more than I can handle) but it's not worth being abrasive.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Calm down there Sebster... he already admitted he was mistaken:

It isn't the first time he's asked that exact question, set up in the exact same one-two punch.

I do understand how absolutely frustrated you must be with the responses you put up with (and I respect you for doing so, its more than I can handle) but it's not worth being abrasive.

That's a fair call. Thanks for the reminder.

 Just Tony wrote:
Feel better? This meet your requirement of daily swoop and poop comments? I applaud you.

Well I don't post much in the politics threads anymore because of the sheer amount of stupidy that gets regurgitated by some posters makes it really not worth responding to and the mods already have to deal with enough. Still once in awhile someone mentally challenged will say something so egregiously foolish that I feel the need to say something. I know I know, I should be better but I am only human and the ignorance on display is breathtaking.

Can we all stop pretending that Gerrymandering is something that only Republicans do? Both sides do this and it's despicable.


Also, what would it take for an incumbent President to NOT receive the nomination of his own party for a reelection? Let's just say, hypothetically, Republicans realize that Trump is a giant pile of poo. They back someone else (preferably a sane person with qualifications) and the Democrats do the same. Would we have a three-way race?