View Full Version : POTUS Election thread
Hooahguy
08-07-2016, 22:28
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQ7_bo74VMA
The thing is, the invisible hand of the self-regulating market and libertarian logic tell us that he is a better human than everybody who has less money than him or at least he works really hard.
If you work as hard as Trump, you can be a billionaire, too!
The thing is, the invisible hand of the self-regulating market and libertarian logic tell us that he is a better human than everybody who has less money than him or at least he works really hard.
If you work as hard as Trump, you can be a billionaire, too!
In a free economy, perhaps. Maybe you've heard of crony capitalism (http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=crony+capitalism)?
Montmorency
08-09-2016, 03:38
Maybe you've heard of crony capitalism?
The only kind. A "free economy" exists only in the sense(s) of masturbation.
CrossLOPER
08-09-2016, 16:39
In a free economy, perhaps. Maybe you've heard of crony capitalism (http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=crony+capitalism)?
Any form of economic policy devolves into varying states of perverted money grabbing without careful, well thought out regulation.
In a free economy, perhaps. Maybe you've heard of crony capitalism (http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=crony+capitalism)?
First of all, that is a very stupid link combined with the question whether I've heard of it. How could I be too lazy to search for something if I don't know it exists?
Secondly: http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2014/04/crony-capitalism-and-crony-communism/
It's not like changing the name slightly changes anything about reality and reality tells us that the "pure forms" tend to get corrupted in some way. The happiest countries on the planet seem to go for a balance between the two ideas. The ones most zealous about one idea usually end up in a pretty bad shape one way or another.
CrossLOPER
08-09-2016, 21:39
It's not like changing the name slightly changes anything about reality and reality tells us that the "pure forms" tend to get corrupted in some way. The happiest countries on the planet seem to go for a balance between the two ideas. The ones most zealous about one idea usually end up in a pretty bad shape one way or another.
BUT AMERICA LANDED ON THE MOON!
BUT AMERICA LANDED ON THE MOON!
And Russia beat Hitler.
If you combine the two, you can bea the Nazis on the dark side of the Moon...
Hooahguy
08-09-2016, 22:39
And Russia beat Hitler.
If you combine the two, you can bea the Nazis on the dark side of the Moon...
Sounds like a bad action film. Oh wait they already did that (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1034314/).
Sounds like a bad action film. Oh wait they already did that (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1034314/).
In hindsight, Palin for President doesn't seem that bad compared to this election cycle...
Greyblades
08-10-2016, 04:59
I know, a narcisistic psychopath seemingly on death's door vs the narcissistic lunatic trying to push her through.
I know, a narcisistic psychopath seemingly on death's door vs the narcissistic lunatic trying to push her through.
One way to describe Trump's 2nd Amendment solution to push her through.
One way to describe Trump's 2nd Amendment solution to push her through.
Dangerously close to calling for violence that one
Dangerously close to calling for violence that one
At least this time he didn't offer to pay for their legal fees if they did it.
So he is improving.
At least this time he didn't offer to pay for their legal fees if they did it.
So he is improving.
Make it extremily dangerous close than if that is true. If I were American I wouldn't vote at all, they are boh dangerous people.
Greyblades
08-10-2016, 21:05
Between the devil and the deep toupee.
Greyblades
08-11-2016, 00:19
This is the video of the assassination comment:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pz7kaVeuiQM
“Hillary wants to abolish, essentially abolish the Second Amendment, and by the way, and if she gets to pick, if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks…Although the Second Amendment people maybe there is, I dunno.”
So many ways of interpriting what it means; assassination, civil war, impeachment by pro second amendment congress/senate, rally of second amendment supporters behind trump getting him elected? Not to mention was it a joke, prediction, endorsment, trumpism?
Either way I'm not exactly impressed that this got more coverage than the story of the British mental patient who actually tried to assassinate Trump.
Hooahguy
08-11-2016, 00:49
Wasnt there also the story today of that guy who scaled part of Trump tower in New York? I think he got to the 12th floor before he was pulled inside.
EDIT: he got to the 21st floor. I think thats impressive.
So many ways of interpriting what it means; assassination, civil war, impeachment by pro second amendment congress/senate, rally of second amendment supporters behind trump getting him elected? Not to mention was it a joke, prediction, endorsment, trumpism?
Maybe that is intentional? He says so many things that are "misinterpreted" and yet he uses such a simple language. Perhaps he should express himself clearer , as a businessman he should know that miscommunication can lead to big trouble. Don't be so naive to think he just has one vocal accident after another. I think the government calls it plausible deniability. Like, if nothing happens, he made a pro 2nd amendment statement, if someone shoots Hillary, he never meant it that way and noone can prove otherwise because he was so vague with his statement. He is a terrible person and I don't just say that because he is rich.
Hooahguy
08-11-2016, 19:44
Kind of like how the far-right in Israel were having rallies in the early 90's where they were chanting "with blood and fire we'll throw Rabin out!" Not to mention the infamous rally where they had a coffin with Rabin's name on it. Sure, people like Netanyahu who were leading those rallies can deny that they encouraged the assassination, but they certainly didnt do anything to stop the ugly things being thrown around. So when video surfaces of Trump rallies where people are shouting to hang Hillary, one cant help but wonder how long it will be until someone actually tries to do it.
Veho Nex
08-11-2016, 20:54
Maybe Trump has been working for Hillary this whole time. What better way to guarantee yourself the presidency than to have your only opponent say everything stupid that he possibly could. Yesterdays rally where he said and I quote here:
He is the founder of ISIS. He is the founder of ISIS. He’s the founder. He founded ISIS. And I would say the co-founder would be crooked Hillary Clinton. Co-founder. Crooked Hillary Clinton.
My 6 year old cousin debates like that. He repeats the same thing over and over and over (I want this I want this I want this). I give up, this election is Clintons. This whole thing has been a farce.
Hooahguy
08-11-2016, 21:06
I think its more a scathing indictment of the GOP base than anything else.
Maybe Trump has been working for Hillary this whole time. What better way to guarantee yourself the presidency than to have your only opponent say everything stupid that he possibly could. Yesterdays rally where he said and I quote here:
My 6 year old cousin debates like that. He repeats the same thing over and over and over (I want this I want this I want this). I give up, this election is Clintons. This whole thing has been a farce.
Thar thought sneaks up on me sometimes as well, how can you say some things THAT dumb
Thar thought sneaks up on me sometimes as well, how can you say some things THAT dumb
Perhaps his whole campaign is just a publicity stunt done as a joke, he probably over estimated the intelligence of a large proportion of the people who voted in the Republican primary.
Trump gets a lot of shit for his "build the wall" rhetoric and stance on immigrants but when it comes down to actual policies the Democrats under Clinton and Obama aren't much better:
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/08/immigration-democrats-hillary-clinton-barack-obama/
Veho Nex
08-12-2016, 00:25
They're both a joke.
Ungh.... The Clintons are so slimy that it almost makes me want to vote for Trump.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFVhHTXNp8U
Of course, then I realize what a ego-centric, morally bankrupt mental midget Trump is. Which is why I can't in good conscience vote for either of them. :no:
Any form of economic policy devolves into varying states of perverted money grabbing without careful, well thought out regulation.If by well thought out, you mean 'restrained and minimalist', I might agree with you. Virtually all regulation is driven by special interests- most of whom are looking to line their own pockets.
CrossLOPER
08-15-2016, 05:31
Virtually all regulation is driven by special interests- most of whom are looking to line their own pockets.
This argument is at about the level of the argument that criminals will get guns despite gun laws.
If you have "restrained and minimalist" regulation, you're going to have people who will easily circumvent basic laws for their own gain. You need regulation to establish firm and clear guidelines. You can't have simple laws for a complex system. I'm sorry. It just won't work.
Seamus Fermanagh
08-15-2016, 22:40
I think its more a scathing indictment of the GOP base than anything else.
Much of the GOP base was voting for someone else. Unfortunately, several someone elses. Trump took some of the TEA party side, and a whole lotta new faces came to the polls to vote to "Build that Wall!" or "Flog the system!" The Base never did settle on a candidate -- never got below two others -- and Trump went first past the post.
The GOP is neither grand nor much of a party....it is simply looking very old.
Pannonian
08-15-2016, 22:59
Much of the GOP base was voting for someone else. Unfortunately, several someone elses. Trump took some of the TEA party side, and a whole lotta new faces came to the polls to vote to "Build that Wall!" or "Flog the system!" The Base never did settle on a candidate -- never got below two others -- and Trump went first past the post.
The GOP is neither grand nor much of a party....it is simply looking very old.
The Democratic Party is even older though. Perhaps the Republicans need to get back to their roots and campaign to abolish slavery.
Kind of like how the far-right in Israel were having rallies in the early 90's where they were chanting "with blood and fire we'll throw Rabin out!" Not to mention the infamous rally where they had a coffin with Rabin's name on it. Sure, people like Netanyahu who were leading those rallies can deny that they encouraged the assassination, but they certainly didnt do anything to stop the ugly things being thrown around. So when video surfaces of Trump rallies where people are shouting to hang Hillary, one cant help but wonder how long it will be until someone actually tries to do it.
You made afreudian slip u just lied they say lock her up not hang her, you probably pass your nose when berniemodo's lot advocate to shoot trump. I havent got a dog in this fight but either way Hillary or Trump cant pull a Justinian the next 10 years for america is bleak reserve currency is going chinas way soon unless severe economic collapse happens there sorry pal but your american empire is over.
Hooahguy
08-16-2016, 00:05
Lol ok. (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/04/us/politics/donald-trump-supporters.html?_r=0)
Fun starts at 2:11.
Seamus Fermanagh
08-16-2016, 16:24
The Democratic Party is even older though. Perhaps the Republicans need to get back to their roots and campaign to abolish slavery.
Slavery is a bigger problem now than in the 1850s....maybe you are right.
There is quite a lot of information campaigns about modern-day slavery in the UK. it is a real problem, and a rather hidden one too.
Seamus Fermanagh
08-17-2016, 00:43
Got it's own wiki (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contemporary_slavery) and everything.
I wonder if Trump's new team is going to start issuing matching uniforms to supporters now. Armbands at the very least.
Gilrandir
08-19-2016, 09:54
On Manafort and Yanukovych:
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/08/14/ledgers-in-ukraine-show-cash-listed-for-trumps-campaign-chief-manafort-from-yanukovychs-party-nyt.html
With him out of the picture, the Putin love-fest from the Trump camp may die down somewhat. But Bannon is probably going to go all in stoking the far right.
Artist's rendering of a planned Trump rally in October:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_leY_LgOuQ
HopAlongBunny
08-19-2016, 18:52
Trump gets max exposure across America!:
http://wonkette.com/605704/america-finally-gets-chance-to-see-donald-trumps-penis-immediately-vomits-to-death
Hooahguy
08-19-2016, 20:10
The New York City Parks Department's response was the best. :laugh4:
HopAlongBunny
08-19-2016, 21:27
Tiny or Tall
We will have no erections
No matter how Small
(with apologies to Dr. Seuss)
Sarmatian
08-21-2016, 22:35
Trump ahead 2 points nationally according to the LA Times latest poll.
Clinton is making the same mistake she made during primary season - playing it too safe, no clear message or easily identifiable goals, doublespeak on every issue...
Hooahguy
08-22-2016, 02:05
Eh, the rest of the polls have her up anywhere between 5 and 9 points ahead so yeah.
In other news, the Trump campaign is claiming they will be pivoting on amnesty for illegals this week so we will see how that goes.
Sarmatian
08-22-2016, 15:09
Eh, the rest of the polls have her up anywhere between 5 and 9 points ahead so yeah.
In other news, the Trump campaign is claiming they will be pivoting on amnesty for illegals this week so we will see how that goes.
That's why I said "the latest".
Trump will generally be hurt less by an occasional 180. He managed to solidify a cult of personality among his base supporters. He really needs to do something extraordinary, like sexually assault the Pope or something for it to break down.
I don't know, Trump becoming president doesn't seem that far fetched anymore.
Seamus Fermanagh
08-22-2016, 19:23
Trump ahead 2 points nationally according to the LA Times latest poll.
Clinton is making the same mistake she made during primary season - playing it too safe, no clear message or easily identifiable goals, doublespeak on every issue...
Her problem is a balancing act issue. The more she is in the public eye, especially in un-choreographed situations, the more she reminds people of how unlikeable and untrustworthy she is. Very beatable candidate, had the GOP been running a live one.
HopAlongBunny
08-23-2016, 05:15
A little more nuanced look at polling data; national and state
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-national-polls-show-the-race-tightening-but-state-polls-dont/ and
My favorite comment from a 538 column; by Harry Enten, Senior Political writer:
No matter how good a magician is, if the bunny in his or her hat is dead, the magician will stink. I don’t know if Ailes can do anything.
Her problem is a balancing act issue. The more she is in the public eye, especially in un-choreographed situations, the more she reminds people of how unlikeable and untrustworthy she is. Very beatable candidate, had the GOP been running a live one.
I don't understand need more than milisecond to see that she is she a ruthless and dangerous woman. And of course a woman has to be ruthless to be where she is now but I can almost understand why some think she's the antichrist. These eyes, brrrrrrrr she scares me
Trump is the best chance for Hillary to win the elections and the opposite.
Could we add a public poll to the thread with four choices (Hillary, Trump, Johnson, Stein)?
Hooahguy
08-23-2016, 18:19
Trump is the best chance for Hillary to win the elections and the opposite.
Could we add a public poll to the thread with four choices (Hillary, Trump, Johnson, Stein)?
Agreed, I think the polls will be a LOT closer if anyone other than Trump was running on the GOP side.
As for a poll here, Ill see if I can add one.
Hooahguy
08-23-2016, 18:20
Made a poll. Results will show the day before the election. Seems more suspenseful that way. :yes:
Sarmatian
08-23-2016, 18:22
Trump is the best chance for Hillary to win the elections and the opposite.
Can't remember who it was (Trevor Noah?) who said that Trump and Clinton are the two luckiest presidential candidates in history - they're opposed by the one single opponent they can beat.
a completely inoffensive name
08-25-2016, 03:40
I like how the Dems have a solid shot of winning the Senate, yet everyone agrees that there is still no way in hell they will win the House.
Gerrymandering will keep the GOP alive for another 10 years.
Just a musing, what is known about the democratic vice-president if Clinton wins and resigns because of health-related issues (can just be fatigue of course but she looks drugged up until her eyeballs) but he will be president then.
Just a musing, what is known about the democratic vice-president if Clinton wins and resigns because of health-related issues (can just be fatigue of course but she looks drugged up until her eyeballs) but he will be president then.
There may be lots of deaths and catastrophes due to boredom and bad jokes.
There may be lots of deaths and catastrophes due to boredom and bad jokes.
If you don't look/read quality-medialol there are plenty of moments to see where she is obviously confused and obviously has health problems. Question worth asking, who is the guy who will be president if Hillary resigns because of health issues
HopAlongBunny
08-25-2016, 12:37
If Hillary were to get sick or flee back to her home planet of Amazonia, the VP would likely be made president.
Hillary's vp pick is Tim Kaine; as about as middle-of-the-road Democrat as you can get; competent and unexciting:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/hillary-clinton-tim-kaine-vp/
Basically just a really nice guy.
I like how the Dems have a solid shot of winning the Senate, yet everyone agrees that there is still no way in hell they will win the House.
Definitely a good thing. Hillary is going to walk into the White House under the delusion that she has a mandate, with everyone else knowing she probably would have lost if the GOP had nominated a homo sapien. Someone is going to have to pump the brakes on her agenda.
If you don't look/read quality-medialol there are plenty of moments to see where she is obviously confused and obviously has health problems. Question worth asking, who is the guy who will be president if Hillary resigns because of health issues
Kaine is a decent guy, he was my governor. Probably not experienced enough to be president, but he's a better person than the two sociopaths currently running for the job.
Trump got a famous supporter from the 51st state:
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-37177938
Outgoing UKIP leader Nigel Farage has urged Republicans to "get your walking boots on" and drum up support for Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump.
In other news, Nigel Farage found a new calling... ~;)
This man knows a good cause when he sees it.
Greyblades
08-25-2016, 18:51
Trump is the candidate with more sympathy for brexit so it makes sense to suppoort him in hope that when he gets in power he'll treat us better, which we'll need.
On the other hand a foreigner interfering in politics is both bad form and not exactly a good idea, as Obama showed us 2 months ago it can backfire badly.
I'm torn on this.
HopAlongBunny
08-25-2016, 21:11
It seems Trump is closing the gap somewhat:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/grenier-uselection-update-aug22-1.3730844?cmp=rss&CMP=news-digests-politics
This early you can find surveys that change almost daily...depending on the source
Seamus Fermanagh
08-25-2016, 23:21
I like how the Dems have a solid shot of winning the Senate, yet everyone agrees that there is still no way in hell they will win the House.
Gerrymandering will keep the GOP alive for another 10 years.
Gerrymandering is one of our oldest political traditions, and practiced by all of the major parties from the Federalists forward.
Seamus Fermanagh
08-25-2016, 23:22
It seems Trump is closing the gap somewhat:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/grenier-uselection-update-aug22-1.3730844?cmp=rss&CMP=news-digests-politics
This early you can find surveys that change almost daily...depending on the source
Inevitable. Clinton has no likability factor and comes with baggage. Neither of them can double digit win over the other.
Greyblades
08-26-2016, 01:48
At this point I want trump to win just to see The Young Turks have a meltdown.
Hooahguy
08-26-2016, 02:00
At this point I want trump to win just to see The Young Turks have a meltdown.
They already had a meltdown when Bernie lost. It was hilarious.
Greyblades
08-31-2016, 16:48
So, nothing to day about the clinton cringefest speech a week ago?
Seamus Fermanagh
08-31-2016, 20:40
So, nothing to day about the clinton cringefest speech a week ago?
"...sound and fury, signifying nothing."
Hooahguy
08-31-2016, 23:07
I wonder how Trump's trip to Mexico today will impact the race. Apparently both Clinton and Trump were invited by President Peña Nieto to go to Mexico, but only Trump went. Peña Nieto is not well liked (http://www.businessinsider.com/r-mexican-presidents-approval-rating-plumbs-new-low-2016-8?IR=T) over there so Im guessing that he wanted some good press for him when he railed on Trump or something but this was a big win for Trump I think as it made him look more presidential.
HopAlongBunny
09-04-2016, 12:44
As we get closer to the election, things get tighter:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-as-the-race-tightens-dont-assume-the-electoral-college-will-save-clinton/
The "pumpkin with a hair-do" could be the President :laugh4:
Hooahguy
09-04-2016, 15:40
Yup, Trump has done a good job as of late not being in the headlines so much with gaffes. I have no idea how the debates will go, if Trump can look presidential and not resort to insults then Clinton will have a much harder time than the polls predicted.
Sarmatian
09-04-2016, 16:21
Trump's gonna have an easier job in the debates.The expectations are so low, he just needs to look firm and sound presidential and he's gonna go do well. Clinton needs to take risks. If she continues to play it safe, to use political double speak (which amounts to her speaking a long time without actually saying anything), it's gonna be bad for her.
Fortunately, Trump will probably sound and act idiotic.
HopAlongBunny
09-04-2016, 22:23
..., he just needs to look firm and sound presidential and he's gonna go do well....
And therein lies the rub.
Sounding like an authority is easy if you are not contradicted by facts, and that is Trump's trump as it were.
If moderators let him bloviate like Foghorn Leghorn without a reality check, he could well win the debates. If he yodels out "facts" that are challenged by ppl more in touch with reality, his temper and his arguments will expose him for the carnival barker he is.
https://youtu.be/5MGBEbo1gmA
Hooahguy
09-04-2016, 22:24
I think Clinton knows this and will try to bait him into attacking without thought and thus making a gaffe. A single major gaffe for Trump means a massive blow as theres no crowd to feed off of and you know it will be blasted on the news cycles for a while.
Seamus Fermanagh
09-06-2016, 18:39
Still early, but this political season is clearly messed up. Latest CNN/ORC poll (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_stein-5952.html).
Greyblades
09-10-2016, 14:01
US election: Clinton calls half of Trump supporters 'deplorables' (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-37327156)
US Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton has called half of Donald Trump's supporters a "basket of deplorables".
Speaking at a fundraiser, she said they were "racist, sexist, xenophobic, Islamophobic - you name it".
She then went on to say the rest of the Republican nominee's supporters were "just desperate for change".
Mr Trump's campaign manager said Mrs Clinton had insulted "millions of Americans", with her comments.
Polls released earlier this week suggest Mr Trump is gaining on Mrs Clinton, and the rivals are neck-and-neck in the key battleground states of Ohio and Florida.
Remind me, what happened when Romney was caught saying much milder stuff about the left?
Gilrandir
09-10-2016, 14:22
US election: Clinton calls half of Trump supporters 'deplorables' (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-37327156)
Remind me, what happened when Romney was caught saying much milder stuff about the left?
The sooner is the election day, the harhser the claims become and the more condoning the public grows.
HopAlongBunny
09-10-2016, 14:53
Has similarities to the rise of Andrew Jackson.
The self-proclaimed "outsider" with supporters described as "white trash"; sharing a loose connection with the truth and the law.
All that remains is to see who walks the Trail of Tears" should he become elected :whip:
Hooahguy
09-10-2016, 20:26
Wont be like Romney's 47% comment, not at all. The 47% comment helped sink his campaign because it played into the idea that he was a rich guy who was out of touch with the American public. Had Clinton said that half the country is racist and bigoted and whatnot then comparisons could be made but I dont see this having any real impact. She already made a speech that Trump was playing into the hands of the far right, this is just a follow up.
Montmorency
09-11-2016, 00:42
The problem with the statement is that it leaves it at deprecation. If such a large proportion of the politically-active population is really full of undesirables and garbage humans, then that demands an active and decisive policy response to the degeneracy of the American subject. Trump has a similar issue in this vein; better to just leave well enough alone than to introduce it as a social problem that you refuse to grapple with.
Seamus Fermanagh
09-11-2016, 19:06
It confirms in the minds of some Trump supporters that the US political left does not merely see them as being in the wrong politically, but as people to be looked down upon and scorned. Anything that reminds them of this dismissive attitude (be it real or imagined) solidifies their support of "The Donald" because he seems to share the same "political incorrectness" they see in themselves.
This is why attacks upon Trump that go beyond hammering him on policy experience and the like have little traction. Many of the GOP would-be's tried to have at Trump over his supporter's attitudes etc. and it always backfired. So too for Hillary.
It is an interesting campaign in a way. Both nominees seem to fair best when they shut up and say nothing. What a comment.
a completely inoffensive name
09-11-2016, 19:59
Well, its time for Hooahguy to come tell us that Clinton fainting was not a big deal and that she suffered "overheating" at a stifling 75 degrees.
a completely inoffensive name
09-11-2016, 20:01
Gerrymandering is one of our oldest political traditions, and practiced by all of the major parties from the Federalists forward.
So was patronage, until it wasn't.
Hooahguy
09-11-2016, 20:05
It confirms in the minds of some Trump supporters that the US political left does not merely see them as being in the wrong politically, but as people to be looked down upon and scorned. Anything that reminds them of this dismissive attitude (be it real or imagined) solidifies their support of "The Donald" because he seems to share the same "political incorrectness" they see in themselves.
This is why attacks upon Trump that go beyond hammering him on policy experience and the like have little traction. Many of the GOP would-be's tried to have at Trump over his supporter's attitudes etc. and it always backfired. So too for Hillary.
It is an interesting campaign in a way. Both nominees seem to fair best when they shut up and say nothing. What a comment.
Oh, they have confirmed that in their minds a long time ago. This is just public confirmation. And there are a ton of racists and other bigots among the ranks of Trump supporters. While personally I would not have used "half" I would have said "a good portion" if I was to use this strategy. Though to be honest I do not think it was a good move for her because it briefly gave the moral high ground to the Trump campaign. Its rich though how Trump's side will fire back how wrong it is to denigrate a portion of the populace when they have done that to Hispanics, gay people, Muslims, black people, women, the list goes on.
Hooahguy
09-11-2016, 20:07
Well, its time for Hooahguy to come tell us that Clinton fainting was not a big deal and that she suffered "overheating" at a stifling 75 degrees.
I have seen young and physically fit soldiers faint while in formation. Not a huge deal. But of course you will grasp for anything to claim that shes physically unfit to be president. Plus it was hotter than that but I oh well. Not to mention wearing a heavy suit, kevlar ain't light.
a completely inoffensive name
09-11-2016, 20:20
I have seen young and physically fit soldiers faint while in formation. Not a huge deal. But of course you will grasp for anything to claim that shes physically unfit to be president. Plus it was hotter than that but I oh well. Not to mention wearing a heavy suit, kevlar ain't light.
lol was Clinton doing some PT before the ceremony?
I never said she was physically unfit even once in this thread. I just like prodding you to see what the latest talking points from the campaign are.
Hooahguy
09-11-2016, 20:28
Fainting in formation has nothing to do with the level of physical exertion. You aren't supposed to lock your knees while standing for very long because blood will pool in your legs and not get pumped back into your heart and brain, causing blood pressure to drop and then you get dizzy and faint. This process seems to speed up when standing in the heat, from experience.
And it was implied, admit it. And I wish this was the first time someone accused me of being a campaign spokesman right because I dare think shes not the epitome of evil. Oh how I wish to get some of that campaign cash, money is tight nowadays. :rolleyes:
EDIT: for the record I dont think Trump is evil either.
a completely inoffensive name
09-11-2016, 20:35
Fainting in formation has nothing to do with the level of physical exertion. You aren't supposed to lock your knees while standing for very long because blood will pool in your legs and not get pumped back into your heart and brain, causing blood pressure to drop and then you get dizzy and faint. This process seems to speed up when standing in the heat, from experience.
And it was implied, admit it. And I wish this was the first time someone accused me of being a campaign spokesman right because I dare think shes not the epitome of evil. Oh how I wish to get some of that campaign cash, money is tight nowadays. :rolleyes:
You receive those accusations because you have never strayed far from the campaign message. The biggest deviations you show are slight tweaks of verbiage.
Either you and Clinton have somehow managed to be the first human pair to have 99.9% political likeness, or there is something afoot.
a completely inoffensive name
09-11-2016, 20:42
Btw, I am going to vote for Clinton. Trump really is evil.
Hooahguy
09-11-2016, 20:47
Eh, hardly 99.9% political likeness I would say. I really dislike how she went anti-free trade. And her position on guns. And minimum wage. And free college. And unions. Nothing to say of her handling of the email thing. I just think that the topics discussed in this thread happen to really only tread on the topics I do agree with her on.
Hooahguy
09-11-2016, 22:30
So it seems like Hillary has pneumonia (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/hillary-clinton-has-pneumonia-doctor-says-228012?cmpid=sf). Looks like I stand corrected on this incident then. I certainly hope she recovers, but it is something that her supporters should be worried about. Last summer my elderly grandfather just barely survived his bout with pneumonia and I know it left him in a weakened state so we will see what impact this has on her.
EDIT: I am aware that people can have walking pneumonia.
Montmorency
09-12-2016, 08:50
So was patronage, until it wasn't.
Bittersweet thing, for someone who detests direct election to the Senate.
So it seems like Hillary has pneumonia.
Could be the biggest twist of the election, really. :dizzy2:
A lot of people seem to doubt that it is "just" pneumonia since she basically collapsed in front of the car.
Some say she shows signs of Parkinson's and so on. I really don't know, but then again the US had a number of presidents whose health wasn't that great.
On the other hand, if she were to retreat, a Kaine/Sanders or Sanders/Kaine candidacy may do really well. ~;)
Montmorency
09-12-2016, 10:29
Of course it need not categorically disqualify a candidate - keep it well-managed and the symptoms actively and transparently controlled - but some of the apologetics I'm seeing amount to, 'It's just pneumonia. It's nothing. Besides, she's trucking along really well so she must be very tough.'
It's all fine and well for a leader to work themselves to death, but we prefer that towards the end of their tenure. William Harrison's legacy is not an inspiring one.
Gilrandir
09-12-2016, 15:04
I have seen young and physically fit soldiers faint while in formation. Not a huge deal. But of course you will grasp for anything to claim that shes physically unfit to be president. Plus it was hotter than that but I oh well. Not to mention wearing a heavy suit, kevlar ain't light.
Fainting in formation has nothing to do with the level of physical exertion. You aren't supposed to lock your knees while standing for very long because blood will pool in your legs and not get pumped back into your heart and brain, causing blood pressure to drop and then you get dizzy and faint. This process seems to speed up when standing in the heat, from experience.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iuzMT0YXu7k
Seamus Fermanagh
09-12-2016, 18:51
Oh, they have confirmed that in their minds a long time ago. This is just public confirmation. And there are a ton of racists and other bigots among the ranks of Trump supporters. While personally I would not have used "half" I would have said "a good portion" if I was to use this strategy. Though to be honest I do not think it was a good move for her because it briefly gave the moral high ground to the Trump campaign. Its rich though how Trump's side will fire back how wrong it is to denigrate a portion of the populace when they have done that to Hispanics, gay people, Muslims, black people, women, the list goes on.
Depends on how you define bigots and racists. By the traditional "Bull Conners" definition, those all migrated to Wallace in 1968, which allowed Nixon to split the Dems and go to the White House. When the Dems ran McGovern, Nixon painted him as a left-wing peacenik (all of the REAL left wing peaceniks WERE supporting him to be fair) and enacted the "solid south" strategy. These have voted reliably GOP since, because even as racial sensibilities have changed and the numbers of such "Bull Conneresque" idiots has dwindled and the GOP itself has moved largely past a racist stance, the GOP represents most of their OTHER conservative values (traditional social culture, 2nd amendment, etc.) and the Dems avidly do not. It is not as though these folks needed Trump to vote against the Dems. Trumps problem with this crowd is that he will re-tweet some of their "code" crap without checking to see if he is being played by them. Trump and crew being a bit on the naïve side politically have been embarrassed repeatedly on this.
Trump has, himself, said some stupid things.
Most of his recent comments about Blacks in America seem to center on Obama and or the Dems letting them down. Any actually disparagements of blacks (http://gawker.com/the-collected-quotes-of-donald-trump-on-the-blacks-1719961925)in jokes/comments seem to be 25+ years old.
He has made numerous comments about Latinos (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/9-outrageous-things-donald-trump-has-said-about-latinos_us_55e483a1e4b0c818f618904b). Most of these center on illegal immigrants who he claims carry with them a host of problems that the USA has to deal with. His comments are at least partly based on government documented facts. (http://www.cairco.org/issues/united-states-crime)
Trump's stance vis-a-vis gays? Apparently, guilt by association (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/matt-baume/is-donald-trump-a-friend-to-the-gays_b_10702926.html)is enough.
The upshot of my thoughts on this? Trump isn't much of a bigot or racist personally and would do little or nothing to support an anti-gay or racist agenda if elected. If trying to curb illegal immigration is racist then I guess I must be a racist as well.
Got a LOT of problems with Trump vis-a-vis leadership [the boss who calls the shots for his corporation is never ready to deal with a bureaucracy; he's far too willing to MAKE a decision without scanning for the long term consequences, etc.], but the GOP nominee is ALWAYS tarred with this kind of crap by the media. You'd think, listening to USA media, that any GOP voter like myself secretly keeps a Klan hood and robes in the closet and cannot wait to be out and burning crosses somewhere. That crap gets old it does.
Seamus Fermanagh
09-12-2016, 19:06
Of course it need not categorically disqualify a candidate - keep it well-managed and the symptoms actively and transparently controlled - but some of the apologetics I'm seeing amount to, 'It's just pneumonia. It's nothing. Besides, she's trucking along really well so she must be very tough.'
It's all fine and well for a leader to work themselves to death, but we prefer that towards the end of their tenure. William Harrison's legacy is not an inspiring one.
Will her condition affect her ability to physically or mentally perform the job? Note that the physical side of things, aside from stamina for long hours and limited sleep, is pretty minimal. If not, then who cares?
Will her condition significantly increase the likelihood of her dying in office? Makes the vice-presidential nominee worthy of a lot more scrutiny if so, otherwise who cares?
Presidential health (http://www.fitnessmagazine.com/health/americas-10-unhealthiest-presidents/) has not always been much of a limiting factor. Interestingly enough FDR, who had been crippled by polio and would die in office of a stroke resulting from congestive heart failure, didn't make their list of 10 unhealthiest presidents...
Greyblades
09-12-2016, 21:30
FDR served longer than any other president did or will in one of the most turbulent period of american history, that he lasted that long indicates that aside from his legs he had the physical constitution of a bull moose.
Seamus Fermanagh
09-12-2016, 22:45
FDR served longer than any other president did or will in one of the most turbulent period of american history, that he lasted that long indicates that aside from his legs he had the physical constitution of a bull moose.
He certainly had the stamina for the job -- which was really my point. Of itself, the polio was secondary to his skills as POTUS.
Hooahguy
09-13-2016, 02:12
To quote something I saw on Reddit (https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDiscussion/comments/52gddh/what_do_you_think_of_how_the_clinton_camp_handled/d7k1xa7):
Had that video of her collapse not been posted to the internet we would never have heard about her diagnosis. Even now, due to her consistent history of trickle truthing, I have no confidence that we are getting the full story of her health status. She never learns and the truth always has to be extracted from her by force. That is not an admirable trait for a president.
Montmorency
09-13-2016, 04:29
Will her condition affect her ability to physically or mentally perform the job? Note that the physical side of things, aside from stamina for long hours and limited sleep, is pretty minimal. If not, then who cares?
Will her condition significantly increase the likelihood of her dying in office? Makes the vice-presidential nominee worthy of a lot more scrutiny if so, otherwise who cares?
Presidential health (http://www.fitnessmagazine.com/health/americas-10-unhealthiest-presidents/) has not always been much of a limiting factor. Interestingly enough FDR, who had been crippled by polio and would die in office of a stroke resulting from congestive heart failure, didn't make their list of 10 unhealthiest presidents...
Less risk of accident, but I'd say the job is demonstrably more stressful and grinding than most labor.
It doesn't have to be an issue until you make it one, leaving aside those unforeseeable vicissitudes. We just have to hope that Hillary and her team take the issue less flippantly than some onlookers and supporters do.
FDR recovered nicely in the 20s. Holding office did his health no benefits, that's certain.
FDR served longer than any other president did or will in one of the most turbulent period of american history, that he lasted that long indicates that aside from his legs he had the physical constitution of a bull moose.
Case in point. Too much admiration for "walking dead".
Anyway, Trump is just a Daffy Duck dinner-party racist. If there's something to fear, then it's down more to what desirable things he would not pay attention to than a particular threatening agenda. As for Latin immigrants - the old standby of Mexico, we're not really talking about immigrants at all, but merely itinerant migrants. The border and the populations around it are actually more permeable than even the most rabid border hawk claims. The more appropriate approach is North-American federalization, as it would more acknowledge the reality. That gives you then a chokepoint on land in Central America, which combined with sensible port and visa control would give border hawks everything they claim to want and more. :shrug:
a completely inoffensive name
09-13-2016, 04:35
Bittersweet thing, for someone who detests direct election to the Senate.
Anti-Patronage doesn't mean all jobs are based on merit. Even Chicago's anti-patronage laws allow for political affiliation as a criteria for policy making positions.
Montmorency
09-13-2016, 04:43
Anti-Patronage doesn't mean all jobs are based on merit.
??
I mean that party patronage, and local elite patronage, are very much part of the spirit of the old senatorial selection process.
a completely inoffensive name
09-13-2016, 04:55
??
I mean that party patronage, and local elite patronage, are very much part of the spirit of the old senatorial selection process.
I am saying that's acceptable as those are policy making positions. Different than stacking the bureaucracy with friends and family.
Montmorency
09-13-2016, 08:36
Different than stacking the bureaucracy with friends and family.
What are you talking about here? Why "different"? That was a big part of the picture.
HopAlongBunny
09-13-2016, 08:43
This election is fascinating.
In an era of the "threatened and dwindling" middle-class it is very much a conversation of who gets thrown under the bus.
Trump dances from group to group, disparaging here praising there; on everyone's side...so long as they aren't losers!
It has the hallmarks of a disinformation campaign; everything is true and false, your filters can "choose their own adventure".
Clinton seems to be more of a "all boats can rise" sort.
Is it even possible without mobilization and structural change not seen since post WWII re-construction?
Unfortunately, Trumpsters seem to be the firebrands. Enthusiasm, a sense of mission, appears absent from the Clinton campaign.
She should get those minsters who preached the social gospel at her convention to write some speeches for her.
HopAlongBunny
09-13-2016, 08:44
double-post
Strike For The South
09-13-2016, 16:52
My current favorite theory: she's already dead and Roting in Chelsea's apartment. Something about 68 years of cutting throats to get ahead, only to be undone so ignominiously, has such a poetic quality to it. Her health has been autrocious the whole time and the campaign has continually been trickle truthing the media, usually only after it simply becomes untenable to toe the official story. I see no reason to believe what they are saying now, when they have been lying the whole time.
My less crazy theory: She has some type of degenerative disease (Parkisnons probably) that has been exacerbated by the stress of campaigning. This is why she has limited appearances and has a seemingly insane reluctance to debate Trump. The campaign has adopted a policy of half measures, stop gaps, and Nixonian levels of information control, hoping that the condition would abate at least long enough for her to win the election.
Hooahguy
09-13-2016, 17:06
Clinton is reluctant to debate Trump? I thought it was Trump who was making excuses and stuff? I thought her reluctance was to debate Bernie during the Primaries.
Seamus Fermanagh
09-13-2016, 18:05
Clinton is reluctant to debate Trump? I thought it was Trump who was making excuses and stuff? I thought her reluctance was to debate Bernie during the Primaries.
Both know they have to debate -- it is a now-hallowed part of the process and side-stepping it will not be allowed by media or public.
Both candidates are engaging in the usual head-games to "lower expectations" so that they can appear to perform "better than expected." It is all arrant nonsense.
This election is fascinating.
In the same way as this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmRkPyuet_o
My less crazy theory: She has some type of degenerative disease (Parkisnons probably) that has been exacerbated by the stress of campaigning. This is why she has limited appearances and has a seemingly insane reluctance to debate Trump. The campaign has adopted a policy of half measures, stop gaps, and Nixonian levels of information control, hoping that the condition would abate at least long enough for her to win the election.
So this is all just a plot to get Kaine into the White House in a year or so? I may actually vote for her then. ~D
So this is all just a plot to get Kaine into the White House in a year or so? I may actually vote for her then. ~D
Nah, the one who left her daughter's place was just another lizardmen shapeshifter, that really shouldn't be a big problem for them. ~;)
Somehow the Parkinson's theory might be true though, but that didn't stop the Pope from ruling the Catolic world either.
Greyblades
09-13-2016, 20:54
Then again Popes overall had pretty low life expectancies; some holy fathers dropped dead within weeks of thier selection and most of them had less responsibility to die of stress from than what has turned Obama's hair grey.
a completely inoffensive name
09-14-2016, 03:08
What are you talking about here? Why "different"? That was a big part of the picture.
I really don't know how to make this more clear. Bureaucratic workers with no authority over the policies they are implementing should be picked based on merit.
United States Senators and Cabinet members to name a few, are policy making positions and it makes sense to select fellow party members or supporters who share party affiliation.
Montmorency
09-14-2016, 04:42
That is your preferred position, but what does it have to do with patronage and its course in American history? We might be talking at different things. My point was just that despite the problems patronage caused in US politics, it was in the same principle as indirect selection of Senators, and the removal of one weakened the other. A return to indirect selection does not simply mean a return to boss-style patronage (at once - as with many things, the mortal blow came after Nixon), but in abstract that is what increased emphasis on local and state politics would look like. Hence, bittersweet.
Bureaucratic workers with no authority over the policies they are implementing should be picked based on merit.
Depends on who you're talking about. Even DMV tellers have a bit of authority over implementation.
Depends on who you're talking about. Even DMV tellers have a bit of authority over implementation.
That's why you need to pick the heartless and strict ones who apply the rules without mercy before the citizens get the impression that the system/government were actually there to help or benefit them in some way. It's not like the people pay for it or anything like that.
Gilrandir
09-14-2016, 16:10
This may cause an increase in Trump voters:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/09/13/donald-trump-joined-by-ivanka-trump-to-outline-child-care-policy/
Trump also laid out specific plans for enabling parents to deduct the cost of child-care expenses from their income taxes. Trump first mentioned allowing parents to “fully deduct” expenses last month when he announced his economic agenda in Detroit. Some of these expenses are already deductible under the law.
A fact sheet released by the Trump campaign proposed to "rewrite the tax code to allow working parents to deduct from their income taxes child care expenses for up to four children and elderly dependents.”
Something big commin up, should have been, hmmmm 5 minutes ago but that' not US time
nope nothing
Kralizec
09-15-2016, 14:01
Why is the poll in this thread hidden?
I haven't voted btw because I wasn't sure wether it was intended for non-Americans as well.
Seamus Fermanagh
09-15-2016, 14:02
Why is the poll in this thread hidden?
I haven't voted btw because I wasn't sure wether it was intended for non-Americans as well.
Go ahead and vote. It is not as though there isn't a major party seeking votes from non-Americans anyway...
HopAlongBunny
09-15-2016, 21:56
The themes of this election go right back to before the revolution.
Noted at the time: The concentration of wealth and power leads to greater concentration of wealth and power.
This is on one hand an unqualified good thing: breeding, blood, genetics, superior culture...etc. have all been used as justifications.
The detractors have exposed each of the self-serving elite myths as so much bupkiss. Calling for a deepening and expansion of democracy (voting rights for ex.) and a widening of opportunity.
The debate hasn't much changed since the 1630's.
Trump and Clinton embody the debate in the present: privilege for Winners! vs. programs for the less well off funded by the well off
I don't see how this is a hard choice.
http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/noam-chomsky-wants-you-wake-american-dream
Hooahguy
09-15-2016, 23:33
Why is the poll in this thread hidden?
I haven't voted btw because I wasn't sure wether it was intended for non-Americans as well.
I thought it would be more interesting if I made it so the results were hidden until the day before the election. Or did I make it so on election day the results were revealed? I honestly cant remember. Feel free to vote though. :yes:
HopAlongBunny
09-18-2016, 11:11
http://doonesbury.washingtonpost.com/
Kralizec
09-20-2016, 20:40
Bush Senior is going to vote for Clinton, apparently.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/09/20/with-george-h-w-bush-maybe-voting-for-hillary-clinton-a-look-at-how-unusual-it-is-for-a-president-to-buck-his-party/
It's remarkable, but does anybody think it is surprising?
Knowing Trump he will probably tweet that Bush senior is a loser within the next three hours or so.
Montmorency
09-20-2016, 20:44
Who is Jimmy Carter voting for?
Bush Senior is going to vote for Clinton, apparently.
This just affirms my opinion that 41 was the best president of my lifetime.
Seamus Fermanagh
09-21-2016, 02:34
This just affirms my opinion that 41 was the best president of my lifetime.
but not of mine, youngling. Still, 41 was an honorable sort, and better than many to have held that office.
Sarmatian
09-21-2016, 13:03
but not of mine, youngling.
Do tell, please.
Seamus Fermanagh
09-21-2016, 23:43
Do tell, please.
I am old enough* that I would pick Ronnie over GHWB.
* = The first POTUS I was alive for was LBJ (or JFK if you go by Catholic definition). Unlike most on this site, I was old enough to vote for Reagan against Mondale.
Gregoshi
09-22-2016, 02:21
* = The first POTUS I was alive for was LBJ (or JFK if you go by Catholic definition). Unlike most on this site, I was old enough to vote for Reagan against Mondale.
You young whipper snapper! I liked Ike when I was born (though I have no memory of him).
I personally would further qualify your choice by specifying "first term" Ronnie. I was, and still am, a huge GHWB fan, though I wished his presidency was more noteworthy than it was.
Nixon (term #1) was my first, but really any of the LBJ/Nixon/Ford/Carter set aren't going to win popularity contests.
Maybe it was my youth at the time, but I always got the impression 41 was there to serve.
Montmorency
09-22-2016, 03:18
the LBJ/Nixon/Ford/Carter set aren't going to win popularity contests.
LBJ and Nixon aren't so much unpopular as disappointing. They were the Icarus decade of the American executive.
Of course the Roosevelts would then be Daedalus. :grin:
Gilrandir
09-22-2016, 15:11
* = The first POTUS I was alive for was LBJ (or JFK if you go by Catholic definition). Unlike most on this site, I was old enough to vote for Reagan against Mondale.
You young whipper snapper! I liked Ike when I was born (though I have no memory of him).
I remember talking to Abe L. in my high school days...
HopAlongBunny
09-22-2016, 19:28
https://youtu.be/xrkPe-9rM1Q
Gilrandir
09-23-2016, 13:12
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/75-retired-senior-diplomats-sign-letter-opposing-trump-for-president/2016/09/21/5c5dff10-8046-11e6-b002-307601806392_story.html
edyzmedieval
09-26-2016, 19:20
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1Lfd1aB9YI
Seamus Fermanagh
09-26-2016, 19:48
Is everyone ready for tonight's cage match?
Are any of the betting houses taking bets on this thing?
What are the chances that Holt blows a bolt and bashes their heads together repeatedly until neither can continue campaigning?
HopAlongBunny
09-26-2016, 23:21
heading into the debate chances are roughly 50/50:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-where-the-race-stands-heading-into-the-first-debate/
:party3:
Enjoy the debate
Well, the Donald certainly made himself look like a prick throughout the debate.
Well, the Donald certainly made himself look like a prick throughout the debate.
Didn't expect anything good from him I hope?
Was fun to watch. Trump strongest asset is that he isn't a very good debater. Hillary will never be likable she's too fake.
HopAlongBunny
09-27-2016, 09:02
... Hillary will never be likable she's too fake.
She's too fake!?
Please watch the video posted by edyzmedieval :p
How can you not really see her for what she is, she's dangerous, always trust your intuition.
Pannonian
09-27-2016, 09:47
How can you not really see her for what she is, she's dangerous, always trust your intuition.
He does trust his intuition. He doesn't trust yours.
CNN instant polls on winner of first debate:
2008
Obama 51%
McCain 38%
2016 (tonight)
Clinton 62%
Trump 27%
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WozEaFcmBhQ
Hardly surprising, she's much better at this. Clinton is much more intelligent (and fake) that much is obvious.
Pannonian
09-27-2016, 13:41
Hardly surprising, she's much better at this. Clinton is much more intelligent (and fake) that much is obvious.
So Trump's USP is that he's genuinely stupid.
So Trump's USP is that he's genuinely stupid.
At least he isn't anyone's poodle. I'd give the man a chance if I was American. Better for us Eurpeans as well because he isn't all that interested in global politics. A president is only as powerfull as the strings attached and America is starting to look like a country of incestious political dynasties. Should have bolded ties in dynasties
So Trump's USP is that he's genuinely stupid.
Better someone who ruins the country with genuinely stupid intentions than someone who wants to fix the actual problems but has rehearsed the correct answers to the important questions. :clown:
http://theconcourse.deadspin.com/even-stormfront-thinks-hillary-clinton-won-the-debate-1787121521
No one thinks he won except horserace journalists. Worst debate performance I've ever seen, and short of calling Hillary the B or C word or body slamming her, the worst that could possibly be given.
Gilrandir
09-27-2016, 15:18
18958
Better someone who ruins the country with genuinely stupid intentions than someone who wants to fix the actual problems but has rehearsed the correct answers to the important questions. :clown:
What are genuinly stupid intentions, I don't really see them, I would say most Trump says makes perfect sense. If he runs the country like a good manager with the right people at the right places he could be a really good president. He isn't all that political I like that.
Gilrandir
09-27-2016, 16:10
If he runs the country like a good manager with the right people at the right places he could be a really good president. He isn't all that political I like that.
The key word is IF.
The key word is IF.
Sure but I would give him the chance. Clinton is a politician through and through, Trump is not he's obviously new to this Clinton absolutily destroyed him yesterday, pretty painful to watch really, Trump is obviously not in the same lague as the highly prepared Drllary, she was really good she fits her role as a glove. It's going to be interesting how this turns out. Drillary has the advantage of being female and women don't like Trump (not that I blame them for that I wouldn't like him either)
What are genuinly stupid intentions, I don't really see them, I would say most Trump says makes perfect sense. If he runs the country like a good manager with the right people at the right places he could be a really good president. He isn't all that political I like that.
But doesn't he have a history of being a bad manager and putting the wrong people in place.
Just look at his business boast from last night...he completed his building project 2 years ahead of schedule?
So was that the announced schedule to open in 2016, late 2015, the end of 2015, mid 2016, Autumn 2016?
Or was it the partial opening a year behind schedule he was on about, partial opening because they still haven't finished building it.
Well one thing in Trumps favour, he certainly lies like a politician.
Sure but I would give him the chance. Clinton is a politician through and through, Trump is not he's obviously new to this Clinton absolutily destroyed him yesterday, pretty painful to watch really, Trump is obviously not in the same lague as the highly prepared Drllary, she was really good.
The thing is, if he gets the job that is the sort of person he is going to have to deal with. If a politicain as bad as Clinton can easily destrioy him how on earth will he not get slaughtered when dealing with other politicians and diplomats.
The thing is, if he gets the job that is the sort of person he is going to have to deal with. If a politicain as bad as Clinton can easily destrioy him how on earth will he not get slaughtered when dealing with other politicians and diplomats.
By outsourcing, he will have to assemble a good crew because there are obviously things he just can't do himself. Just getting the best people regardless of affiliation. Trump has no ideoligy to cater, that's a plus imho
Montmorency
09-27-2016, 16:58
Are Trump's best people better than Hillary's best people? Such a strange, borderline-irrelevant position to take.
Are Trump's best people better than Hillary's best people? Such a strange, borderline-irrelevant position to take.
Clinton DOES have to cater people, she exists at the grace of lobbyists, mi casa su casa
Montmorency
09-27-2016, 17:33
What do you mean by "people", then? Executive staff? Those aren't the lobbyists themselves, and will themselves be vulnerable to lobbies in the usual way, whether they are picked by Clinton or by Trump.
She will no doubt have competent people, but Clinton is a product of politics, Trump is not. I see that as a major plus, he's an ousider who doesn't have to answer to anyone. Maybe he will be a total disaster but he is basicly untied to lobbyists; banks, wallstreet arms-industry etc. That is of course not fully true, but a whole lot more
Pannonian
09-27-2016, 17:52
By outsourcing, he will have to assemble a good crew because there are obviously things he just can't do himself. Just getting the best people regardless of affiliation. Trump has no ideoligy to cater, that's a plus imho
So Trump's strong card is that he is pointless. Might as well have a cardboard cut out in his place. At least a cardboard cut out won't actively do anything stupid. All your positive points listed above would apply equally to said cardboard cut out.
Kralizec
09-27-2016, 18:08
I've watched the first 45 minutes of the debate. Trump's answers sound like what you would get if you take a statement of 5 minutes long, condense it into a two-sentence Tl;DR version and then spread that two-sentence version out over the same 5 minutes again. Clinton's performance was good but not extraordinary IMO.
Not sure wether I'm going to watch the rest of that train wreck...it's not pretty, but fascinating to watch anyway.
Seamus Fermanagh
09-27-2016, 18:13
Clinton did a solid, and clearly well prepped, job. I loathe the policy set she represents, but cannot fault her for this performance. She came over as poised and engaging as I have ever seen from her.
Trump was lackluster, and not glib enough "off the cuff" to create a sense that he was genuine whereas she was contrived. She was, of course, but he did not take advantage of it.
The next question is how effectively he tackles the learning curve he is facing by debate #2.
So Trump's strong card is that he is pointless. Might as well have a cardboard cut out in his place. At least a cardboard cut out won't actively do anything stupid. All your positive points listed above would apply equally to said cardboard cut out.
Well yes, said cardbox would have less negative ones
By outsourcing, he will have to assemble a good crew because there are obviously things he just can't do himself. Just getting the best people regardless of affiliation. Trump has no ideoligy to cater, that's a plus imho
Best people ?
If he hired the best people maybe his htel would have been finished on schedule, or even on one of the revised schedules , but then best people wouldn't be someone choosing the drapery who had managed to get as some "high quality" trump fabrics outsourced from China which left them open to potential lawsuits as it was firehazard.
Luckily the evil federal government spotted the substandard material didn't meet its silly burdomsome regulations in time and got the whole lot recalled and scrapped.
But hey he knows how to pick the best staff regardless of affiliation....unless of course someone affiliated wants the job right.
Greyblades
09-27-2016, 18:46
Clinton did a solid, and clearly well prepped, job. I loathe the policy set she represents, but cannot fault her for this performance. She came over as poised and engaging as I have ever seen from her.
Trump was lackluster, and not glib enough "off the cuff" to create a sense that he was genuine whereas she was contrived. She was, of course, but he did not take advantage of it.
The next question is how effectively he tackles the learning curve he is facing by debate #2.
I think he did well in the first 20 minutes or so but fell to bits when they reached gun control, I'm actually finding it hard to keep watching after the 40 minute mark, really is dumb vs evil.
No one thinks he won except horserace journalists. Worst debate performance I've ever seen, and short of calling Hillary the B or C word or body slamming her, the worst that could possibly be given. Calling her names would actually have been an improvment, and bodyslamming would probably be the best thing he could do, with how fragile clinton is he'd likely end up killing her and force america to start the election over.
18958
My first though seeing your post: Why is Gilrandir posting MTW unit animations in the Backroom. ~D
What are genuinly stupid intentions, I don't really see them, I would say most Trump says makes perfect sense. If he runs the country like a good manager with the right people at the right places he could be a really good president. He isn't all that political I like that.
Much the same was said about W. His "people" then promptly ran the country into the ground pursuing their own agendas.
Hillary clearly did better in the debate, but she also failed to come across as someone who gives a damn about other people (something her husband was a master at). Trump's trolling was polite at least, but he repeated himself several times and didn't have any real comebacks. Overall, it was definitely more entertaining than the Falcons/Saints MNF game. ~:rolleyes:
Best people ?
If he hired the best people maybe his htel would have been finished on schedule, or even on one of the revised schedules , but then best people wouldn't be someone choosing the drapery who had managed to get as some "high quality" trump fabrics outsourced from China which left them open to potential lawsuits as it was firehazard.
Luckily the evil federal government spotted the substandard material didn't meet its silly burdomsome regulations in time and got the whole lot recalled and scrapped.
But hey he knows how to pick the best staff regardless of affiliation....unless of course someone affiliated wants the job right.
Don't know anything about any hotel I must have missed that. What's important (I think) is that he said not everybody will be pleased with his choices. That sounds to me that some republicans will not be happy with his choices and there might as well be democrats holding key positions and that he can't please everyone. There are more than enough really bright and able people if you don't care about party-politics all too much. That's how I took it anyway, a healthy way to look at things if so imho
HopAlongBunny
09-27-2016, 19:49
Make of it what you will; sums up the whole debate for me:
https://youtu.be/Q5FPTPkeomA
edyzmedieval
09-28-2016, 00:48
Frag, you mentioned that Trump has no connections with Wall Street and that he's not part of the establishment - he has connections with every major bank, having had the banks to lend him for his businesses, and Carl Icahn, a very known Wall Street investor, is a Trump backer/supporter.
He clearly does not have the same connections as Hillary does because of the nature of the work they do, and given that he is not dealing with banks on a daily basis, but he has relatively strong Wall Street connections.
Just pointing that out as a bit of info, nothing more.
NY Times article - http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/24/business/dealbook/donald-trump-relationship-bankers.html?_r=0
At the end of the day, Trump is a billionaire businessman who has the same interests as the billionaires who lobby politicians to get what they want. Electing Trump is just cutting out the middleman.
Frag, you mentioned that Trump has no connections with Wall Street and that he's not part of the establishment - he has connections with every major bank, having had the banks to lend him for his businesses, and Carl Icahn, a very known Wall Street investor, is a Trump backer/supporter.
He clearly does not have the same connections as Hillary does because of the nature of the work they do, and given that he is not dealing with banks on a daily basis, but he has relatively strong Wall Street connections.
Just pointing that out as a bit of info, nothing more.
NY Times article - http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/24/business/dealbook/donald-trump-relationship-bankers.html?_r=0
Of course he does, but his contacts aren't nearly as shady, Hillary is as hawkish as they come
Montmorency
09-28-2016, 06:42
Of course he does, but his contacts aren't nearly as shady, Hillary is as hawkish as they come
So is it a problem with Hillary, or with her "contacts"?
So is it a problem with Hillary, or with her "contacts"?
Both of course.
Montmorency
09-28-2016, 07:15
Then what do "contacts" have to do with anything? The good guys have the good ones and the bad guys have the bad ones. Straightforward enough.
Then what do "contacts" have to do with anything? The good guys have the good ones and the bad guys have the bad ones. Straightforward enough.
Very straightforward indeed, Trump is an outsider in their inner circle that simply cannot be controlled because he simply doesn't need them. Clinton on the other hand is the company-poodle of some very dubious people.
Montmorency
09-28-2016, 07:26
Clinton on the other hand is the company-poodle of some very dubious people.
Not the other way around?
Not the other way around?
Goes both ways I guess. Most important is that Trump is an outsider in a very much closed circuit
Of course he does, but his contacts aren't nearly as shady, Hillary is as hawkish as they come
Hawkish?
Trump wants to invade and occupy about 30 countries and wants to order the US to commit war crimes to do so.
He sounds pretty much as Hawkish as its possible to be.
Sarmatian
09-28-2016, 08:24
Trump wants to invade and occupy about 30 countries
???
Montmorency
09-28-2016, 08:26
He wants to invade and occupy Russia, in order to remodel it and make it a more profitable venture for Vladimir Putin.
???
Sarmatian
09-28-2016, 10:19
Sorry . About 20 not 30.
Still ???
Trump is not an outsider.
And I thought he wanted to build a wall and isolate.
You may skip the following to around 2:15 for the relevant part.
https://youtu.be/grO3HP6782U?t=134
He said he want to go in and fight a group which claims a presence in about 20 countries spread over 3 continents.
Airpower would not be sufficient so he needs to invade.
He also said he wanted to sieze the resources in those places so the group counldn't get revenue. That means he has to occupy them.
I agree it is a hell of a ??? as it makes no sense, but when does Trump make sense on any subject?
I mean this is the crazy man who said...
"I know more about ISIS than the generals do, Believe me."
Sarmatian
09-28-2016, 18:37
I'm starting to lean towards the opinion that Trump is indeed a pathological liar and an egomaniac.
So far, I've always attributed it to showmanship, an image he was trying to sell, but now I'm beginning to think he's the real deal.
Seamus Fermanagh
09-28-2016, 18:40
At the end of the day, Trump is a billionaire businessman who has the same interests as the billionaires who lobby politicians to get what they want. Electing Trump is just cutting out the middleman.
I am not sure I agree completely. Trump the private citizen, yes. Trump the would-be President? I do think he actually believes he can lead better than the current crowd and make a positive change for the USA.
I am much less certain that his belief is correct, mind you, but that is another issue.
Seamus Fermanagh
09-28-2016, 18:47
I'm starting to lean towards the opinion that Trump is indeed a pathological liar and an egomaniac.
So far, I've always attributed it to showmanship, an image he was trying to sell, but now I'm beginning to think he's the real deal.
Egotist is practically a job requirement if you are going to run for the presidency these days.
Step one: Believe that YOU are the best answer to the leadership problems of the free world. Step two: spend inordinate amounts of otherwise useful cash and willingly submit to 'colonoscopy by media' for you AND your family for at BEST an 11-20 chance of winning, and Step three: win OR lose, everyone in the country and many around the world will know your name and at least 20% of them will think you are a rectal sphincter (substantially more is likely).
Egotist and Presidential candidate may as well be synonyms.
edyzmedieval
09-28-2016, 21:04
I'm not debating here about the value/trustworthiness of the contacts, I'm outlining the fact that he is just as connected to Wall Street as Hillary Clinton is, it just varies in influence and the number of donations.
Trump is not an outsider in inner circles - given that the major banks like Goldman Sachs, J.P. Morgan, Morgan Stanley and Citigroup have lent to him a considerable amount of money, that's not part of the outsider group. That's an inner circle, because you don't simply lend hundreds of millions to someone whom you do not trust.
A number of billionaires, hedge fund managers, Wall Street investors... are connected to Trump, either directly or indirectly, and he relies on their support because he has worked with them.
WSJ article - http://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trump-steps-up-wall-street-fundraising-efforts-1466724320
Hooahguy
09-29-2016, 22:12
Johnson makes another blunder (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/gary-johnson-blunders-again-i-guess-im-having-an-aleppo-moment-228876). Most of his blunders are forgivable as all he seems to care about is pot, but this one is just... ugh.
Not to be outdone, Jill Stein jumped in (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/jill-stein-gary-johnson-foreign-leaders-228899?cmpid=sf) and made a gaff that somehow seems worse.
Kralizec
09-29-2016, 22:45
Newsweek (http://europe.newsweek.com/donald-trump-cuban-embargo-castro-violated-florida-504059?rm=eu): Trump violated the Cuba embargo in 1998. Essentially he hired consultants to visit Cuba and investigate investment possibilities for the future, in case the embargo would be lifted. That in itself was illegal.
Greyblades
09-30-2016, 02:01
Johnson makes another blunder (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/gary-johnson-blunders-again-i-guess-im-having-an-aleppo-moment-228876). Most of his blunders are forgivable as all he seems to care about is pot, but this one is just... ugh.
Not to be outdone, Jill Stein jumped in (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/jill-stein-gary-johnson-foreign-leaders-228899?cmpid=sf) and made a gaff that somehow seems worse.
At this point I'd vote Donald Trump to punish the political system for the affront of trying to foist such inept and/or repulsive alternatives on the american people. They goddamn deserve having to spend the next 4 years under trump.
Not to be outdone, Jill Stein jumped in (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/jill-stein-gary-johnson-foreign-leaders-228899?cmpid=sf) and made a gaff that somehow seems worse.
I don't think this was a gaffe at all. Leftists tend to respect social activists a lot more than they do establishment politicians. There was a statement behind Stein's tweet which says "A world leader can be someone other than a head of state" that the article totally missed.
Pannonian
09-30-2016, 16:32
At this point I'd vote Donald Trump to punish the political system for the affront of trying to foist such inept and/or repulsive alternatives on the american people. They goddamn deserve having to spend the next 4 years under trump.
Brexit, Jeremy Corbyn, Donald Trump.
Bingo! (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-truth_politics)
Greyblades
09-30-2016, 16:45
You're really trying to get your money's worth out of that buzzword arent you?
Pannonian
09-30-2016, 17:39
You're really trying to get your money's worth out of that buzzword arent you?
Actually, no. I wish the phenomenon wouldn't exist at all. I was taught to evaluate evidence and form judgements based on evidence.
CrossLOPER
09-30-2016, 18:03
You're really trying to get your money's worth out of that buzzword arent you?
You just proved his point.
Greyblades
09-30-2016, 18:22
The only point he's making is that he wants to lable everyone who doesnt share his priorities as post truth.
AE Bravo
09-30-2016, 22:00
At this point I'd vote Donald Trump to punish the political system for the affront of trying to foist such inept and/or repulsive alternatives on the american people. They goddamn deserve having to spend the next 4 years under trump.
Donald Trump is both inept and repulsive. If anything they deserve Clinton for that affront. Now why don't you admit to everyone why you actually support him.
Sarmatian
09-30-2016, 22:08
If anything they deserve Clinton for that affront.
I like how you put this, and sums up the disdain the public feels about both of them.
A few months ago, I've stumbled upon a poll which said Americans disliked Putin less than either of them.
Pannonian
09-30-2016, 22:34
The only point he's making is that he wants to lable everyone who doesnt share his priorities as post truth.
Post-truth politics has a specific definition, detailed in the wiki entry I linked to. There are specific common characteristics that aren't normally seen as a group in traditional politics. The bit that most interests me is the ignoring of evidence, as the lesson I remember most from my school days was how to properly evaluate evidence. There are a number of campaigns in the Anglosphere that are recognised as fitting the post-truth definition. You support three of them.
Hooahguy
09-30-2016, 23:19
There was a great article in the Economist (http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21706498-dishonesty-politics-nothing-new-manner-which-some-politicians-now-lie-and) about post-truth politics a couple weeks ago. Highly recommend reading it.
EDIT: and another (http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21706525-politicians-have-always-lied-does-it-matter-if-they-leave-truth-behind-entirely-art)related one from the same week.
Pannonian
10-01-2016, 00:47
There was a great article in the Economist (http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21706498-dishonesty-politics-nothing-new-manner-which-some-politicians-now-lie-and) about post-truth politics a couple weeks ago. Highly recommend reading it.
EDIT: and another (http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21706525-politicians-have-always-lied-does-it-matter-if-they-leave-truth-behind-entirely-art)related one from the same week.
See Greyblades's argument here (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?151784-UK-referendum-Out&p=2053716609&viewfull=1#post2053716609) that Europhilia is the preserve of the white upper and middle classes who don't have to confront the effects of immigration, with evidence provided by the separation between poor non-whites and rich whites. A look at the actual evidence, as in matching up demographic breakdowns of each individual borough and how they voted in the referendum, shows that the reverse was true. A classic case of post-truth: a plausible sounding argument to those already inclined to believe, but which is unsupported by facts, and indeed is refuted by facts.
HopAlongBunny
10-01-2016, 01:03
The Donald doubles down and wallows in the gutter:
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/trump-early-tweet-storm-alicia-machado-228947
Fat shaming was not enough
He makes it "all better" with a dose of "slut shaming"
Schoolyard bully would be an elevating description at this point
Greyblades
10-01-2016, 02:44
See Greyblades's argument here (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?151784-UK-referendum-Out&p=2053716609&viewfull=1#post2053716609) that Europhilia is the preserve of the white upper and middle classes who don't have to confront the effects of immigration, with evidence provided by the separation between poor non-whites and rich whites. A look at the actual evidence, as in matching up demographic breakdowns of each individual borough and how they voted in the referendum, shows that the reverse was true. A classic case of post-truth: a plausible sounding argument to those already inclined to believe, but which is unsupported by facts, and indeed is refuted by facts.
To note for those reading; he makes this claim without including the fact that he didnt actually provide any of his own evidence that I was wrong.
Post-truth politics has a specific definition, detailed in the wiki entry I linked to. There are specific common characteristics that aren't normally seen as a group in traditional politics. The bit that most interests me is the ignoring of evidence, as the lesson I remember most from my school days was how to properly evaluate evidence. There are a number of campaigns in the Anglosphere that are recognised as fitting the post-truth definition. You support three of them.
Bigfoot has a wikipedia page as well.
Your conviction in the infallibility of your evidence, in the few times you actually employ it, is so great that you consider any questioning or debunking as plain denial, that your percieved phenomenon has an established screed only proves that you are not alone in having this convenient self affirming belief.
Donald Trump is both inept and repulsive. If anything they deserve Clinton for that affront. Now why don't you admit to everyone why you actually support him.
Because the democrats wanted Hillary, planned it for over a decade, bent the system to make sure this amoral psychopath won the primaries over any alternative and are going full steam ahead to push her into office. You can say all you want about the republican party leadership but none of them wanted Trump, they were forced to back him by thier electorate, but the democrats wanted Hillary from the start.
For that spending the political blood and treasure required to block trump's extremes for 4 years is barely a harsh enough punishment.
It's not surprising that the uneducated are more likely to vote for Brexit or Trump.
I cannot say whether it is laziness, an innate inability or just their poor education or even a mix of those, but they seem more likely to be misled, to resort to seemingly simple solutions or even to think things are logical when they aren't, I'm thinking of trickle down for example.
Of course educated people can also fall for complete nonsense, see anti-vaccination people.
http://www.populus.co.uk/2016/05/brexit-index-whos-remain-leave-supporters/
It is quite possible that it takes a certain amount of intelligence to grasp the somewhat more complicated network of benefits from the EU for example, Brexit is basically the "simpleton solution". That does by no means have to mean the simpler solution is always wrong, but given how the debate was led with "simple lies" such as "Britain will have x amount more money", where the amount was wrong and all factors that could influence it omitted...
Which gets us right back to Trump, who also uses the language of a 4th grader and people praise him for "telling it like it is".
Meanwhile, Germany has a lot of old school buildings that are starting to fall apart and now that the government expects to have 15 billion € in taxes left over, they promise "the biggest tax reduction ever" once the upcoming election next year is over... :wall:
This only shows that the "great achievements of humankind" are just window dressing in the cell of barbarism that our minds are still in.
We are animals, animals I tells ya, and we are encroaching this planet like a cancer until we bring about our own downfall.
Yin and Yang, relativity theory, all os one, nothing is all and this makes no sense. :creep: :dizzy2:
Greyblades
10-01-2016, 03:19
Have you considered that the same frustration, at the ineptitude of the traditional political structure that causes you to bash your head against the wall, is what incites such votes for brexit and trump, not this "lack of education" theory you latch on to?
Have you considered that the same frustration, at the ineptitude of the traditional political structure that causes you to bash your head against the wall, is what incites such votes for brexit and trump, not this "lack of education" theory you latch on to?
Not really. If the ineptitude of the current problem was to be replaced by anything worhwhile you would need something offering a better alternative than the current mess.
Since Trump makes no sense at all he cannot be offering a better alternative no matter how bad Clinton is.
To choose a worse alternative can only be put down to stupidity, which could be covered by "lack of education" or more fittingly lack of any rational thinking.
As far as Brexit goes you have a good example of that lack of rational thought up in Sheffield following the Nissan statement.
The Turkeys who voted for Chritmas have been giving out some great ideas today from paying the "blackmail, making illegal subsidy payments or even somehow nationalising Japanese/French industry.
Have you considered that the same frustration, at the ineptitude of the traditional political structure that causes you to bash your head against the wall, is what incites such votes for brexit and trump, not this "lack of education" theory you latch on to?
You mean like the people who voted Brexit because they thought their vote wouldn't count for much anything and then regretted it?
Or the ones who just can't be bothered with actual solutions and so just vote for dismantling the status quo?
The people who vote for Trump are even worse, they either latch onto racism or want tp keep their racist world view or they choose a billionaire to fix a system that they think has too much greed...
There is no greater logic to be found there. More logical protest voters can be found among the voters for Johnson and Stein, who are not perfect but still better than Trump. And of course there was Sanders, who also offered a better alternative than Trump and attracted a lot of people. The Bernie bros who go to Trump now cannot be very logical people either though...
Seamus Fermanagh
10-01-2016, 14:40
Not really. If the ineptitude of the current problem was to be replaced by anything worhwhile you would need something offering a better alternative than the current mess....
That's absolutely logical, but an electorate is not often well-staffed with rational actors and/or those rational actors are ignorant of much that they would need to be familiar with to make a truly rational choice.
Most folks in the USA are reasonably smart -- but many of us wallow in ignorance and we are thus prone as an electorate to lash out or seek change even when we don't know what the change will produce.
Past Examples:
"Hope and Change" 2008 (what real change occurred?)
"Too boring to win" 2000 (After 8 years of economic success, Gore could not win his home state; mind-boggling)
"Giant Sucking Sound" 1992 (Perot takes 19% of the vote and hands the victory to Clinton -- because Perot was the "outsider")
"Tanned and charming" 1960 (Listeners picked Nixon, viewers picked good looks and an apparent tan)
....and others of a more historical character.
That's absolutely logical, but an electorate is not often well-staffed with rational actors and/or those rational actors are ignorant of much that they would need to be familiar with to make a truly rational choice.
Most folks in the USA are reasonably smart -- but many of us wallow in ignorance and we are thus prone as an electorate to lash out or seek change even when we don't know what the change will produce.
I think it is relatively safe to say humans, I don't think that happens only in the USA.
Perhaps your ratio is a bit higher than in some other countries, but it still applies everywhere.
"Hope and Change" 2008 (what real change occurred?)
Healthcare?
You're right that it was partially rather emotional though. I wouldn't even say the emotional choice is always wrong though. The emotional and logical choice can be the same, of course when it comes to economic and social issues, different people apply a different "logic". E.g. for some life begins at birth, for others at conception. But then again for some, life is always sacred and others would take antibiotics to stay alive. :sweatdrop:
Point being that in a strict sense, life begins at conception, because every cell in our body is about as alive as a bacterium, certainly more so than a virus. Might even say life doesn't begin, it just perpetuates in a different body. :creep:
Not that I want to derail anything, I just wanted to say that one should always try to weigh emotions against logic IMO. And of course with logic it is important to apply it correctly, which can be a topic of dispute as I tried to show.
HopAlongBunny
10-01-2016, 19:14
Post debate bump:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-clintons-debate-performance-is-helping-her-in-swing-states/
A different look at the election:
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2016/09/presidential-debate-hillary-hillary-clinton-160927053459366.html
Hillary's biggest challenger might be Hillary
Seamus Fermanagh
10-02-2016, 17:09
...Healthcare?....
About the only thing the ACA has accomplished is to fail (failure in progress not complete) in such a manner as to encourage a government bail out in a number of states. Since this IS the camel-nose under the tent towards single payer European style healthcare sought by our political left, this will constitute a long-term success towards their agenda.
On the other hand, that is NOT what the electorate voted for at the time they pulled the lever. While numerous policy proposals on healthcare were made during the 2008 race (many of which did appear in the ACA in some form source (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/subjects/health-care/?page=2)) the only ones that got any press were the coverage for pre-existing conditions and the extension of coverage for children into their adulthood so that all schooling though masters and some doctoral level work would be covered by the parent's insurance. This would be paid for by the vast increase in the number of persons covered, thus spreading the costs and keeping overall prices down. GOP predicted it would not work.
The real costs and results of the ACA are more mixed -- and not much of a savings. source (http://money.cnn.com/2015/08/05/news/economy/obamacare-facts/)
Moreover, the current costs and concerns are likely to increase (source (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/06/obamacare-exchanges-premium-increases/486674/)) and precipitate more federal spending/control of healthcare.
I will not say that Obama did not seek change on this issue, he did, but I do NOT think what was being sold matches what is being purchased very well at all.
Seamus Fermanagh
10-02-2016, 17:10
Post debate bump:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-clintons-debate-performance-is-helping-her-in-swing-states/
A different look at the election:
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2016/09/presidential-debate-hillary-hillary-clinton-160927053459366.html
Hillary's biggest challenger might be Hillary
BOTH of the major candidates are their own greatest potential point of failure -- and not simply because of the potential for a Ford-esque "Eastern Europe will not be Soviet dominated under a Ford administration" gaffe.
About the only thing the ACA has accomplished is to fail (failure in progress not complete) in such a manner as to encourage a government bail out in a number of states. Since this IS the camel-nose under the tent towards single payer European style healthcare sought by our political left, this will constitute a long-term success towards their agenda.
On the other hand, that is NOT what the electorate voted for at the time they pulled the lever. While numerous policy proposals on healthcare were made during the 2008 race (many of which did appear in the ACA in some form source (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/subjects/health-care/?page=2)) the only ones that got any press were the coverage for pre-existing conditions and the extension of coverage for children into their adulthood so that all schooling though masters and some doctoral level work would be covered by the parent's insurance. This would be paid for by the vast increase in the number of persons covered, thus spreading the costs and keeping overall prices down. GOP predicted it would not work.
The real costs and results of the ACA are more mixed -- and not much of a savings. source (http://money.cnn.com/2015/08/05/news/economy/obamacare-facts/)
Moreover, the current costs and concerns are likely to increase (source (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/06/obamacare-exchanges-premium-increases/486674/)) and precipitate more federal spending/control of healthcare.
I will not say that Obama did not seek change on this issue, he did, but I do NOT think what was being sold matches what is being purchased very well at all.
At least you got some change you can believe in, enough for a coffee at least
HopAlongBunny
10-02-2016, 19:39
As far as I can tell Obamacare is a mixed bag.
http://www.fool.com/investing/2016/06/12/this-statistic-suggests-obamacare-is-failing-you-b.aspx
In particular, if you are within the subsidy range-you are golden; outside of that range costs could rise considerably.
It is a very complex environment-many different moving parts/many definitions of terms/competing goals; so do you "socialize" the whole mess (single payer) or do you let the "bulls run" (wild west approach)
That choice is crucial for issues of transparency, confidence, fairness, even profit.
Good luck with finding a system that mollifies insurance companies and provides affordable/comprehensive coverage.
HopAlongBunny
10-02-2016, 22:46
Trump, Republican or too Republican?:
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2016/10/donald-trump-dummies-161002090830970.html
a completely inoffensive name
10-03-2016, 03:35
About the only thing the ACA has accomplished is to fail (failure in progress not complete) in such a manner as to encourage a government bail out in a number of states. Since this IS the camel-nose under the tent towards single payer European style healthcare sought by our political left, this will constitute a long-term success towards their agenda.
On the other hand, that is NOT what the electorate voted for at the time they pulled the lever. While numerous policy proposals on healthcare were made during the 2008 race (many of which did appear in the ACA in some form source (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/subjects/health-care/?page=2)) the only ones that got any press were the coverage for pre-existing conditions and the extension of coverage for children into their adulthood so that all schooling though masters and some doctoral level work would be covered by the parent's insurance. This would be paid for by the vast increase in the number of persons covered, thus spreading the costs and keeping overall prices down. GOP predicted it would not work.
The real costs and results of the ACA are more mixed -- and not much of a savings. source (http://money.cnn.com/2015/08/05/news/economy/obamacare-facts/)
Moreover, the current costs and concerns are likely to increase (source (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/06/obamacare-exchanges-premium-increases/486674/)) and precipitate more federal spending/control of healthcare.
I will not say that Obama did not seek change on this issue, he did, but I do NOT think what was being sold matches what is being purchased very well at all.
Our system was designed to fail from the beginning, whether we knew it or not.
The fact is, we committed to the transition to single payer in the 60s when we created medicare to protect the elderly. Where was the free market solution to cover those people in days before big government?
100% privatized healthcare creates winners and losers like any market. If we cant accept that, then we can't have private healthcare. Obviously, roughly half the country doesn't, but the half that does has already lost. The market will continue to shift towards fewer winners, and more losers.
Montmorency
10-03-2016, 03:44
The market does not believe in tears, except the bottled kind.
owwwwwwww Killary you feisty minx
Pannonian
10-04-2016, 12:28
As far as I can tell Obamacare is a mixed bag.
http://www.fool.com/investing/2016/06/12/this-statistic-suggests-obamacare-is-failing-you-b.aspx
In particular, if you are within the subsidy range-you are golden; outside of that range costs could rise considerably.
It is a very complex environment-many different moving parts/many definitions of terms/competing goals; so do you "socialize" the whole mess (single payer) or do you let the "bulls run" (wild west approach)
That choice is crucial for issues of transparency, confidence, fairness, even profit.
Good luck with finding a system that mollifies insurance companies and provides affordable/comprehensive coverage.
Perhaps have a dual system. Obamite liberals can have Single Payer, while religious conservatives can have the Lord's Payer.
Seamus Fermanagh
10-04-2016, 18:31
The market does not believe in tears, except the bottled kind.
Writer's Tears (http://walshwhiskey.com/writers-tears-irish-whiskey/) is tasty stuff.
Sarmatian
10-05-2016, 21:31
So, who won the VP debate thingy?
Hooahguy
10-05-2016, 23:00
I thought Pence won. I remember reading a good quote about it that Kaine seemed vice presidential while Pence seemed presidential. Personally I think Pence is setting up for 2020 but who knows.
AE Bravo
10-05-2016, 23:02
I thought both were good besides not being able to deflect attacks on their running mates. Pence had nothing to defend stupid things Trump says and Kaine had nothing to defend Hillary emails or cybersecurity.
Only reason I watched it was to know what a Trump administration would really be about. Most Americans and focus groups preferred Pence but I think it's a tie.
Pannonian
10-05-2016, 23:06
I thought Pence won. I remember reading a good quote about it that Kaine seemed vice presidential while Pence seemed presidential. Personally I think Pence is setting up for 2020 but who knows.
I thought Pence was on the money, pounding his opponent a hundredfold for every dig that Kaine got in. A sterling performance by Pence.
HopAlongBunny
10-06-2016, 00:39
The V.P. debate reminded me of a Key and Peel skit where one of them acted as Obama's "Anger Translator"; premise=Obama cannot channel his rage at Conservatives very well so the "Anger Translator" rephrases the statements to get the rage out.
Pence was Trump's "Sanity Translator"; each of the bat**** crazy things Trump said, was rephrased as something more reasonable.
Pence of course was helped by never actually needing to answer the question he was asked (and he never did) but replying to a different question that he felt he could reply to.
HopAlongBunny
10-06-2016, 03:02
A column from The Atlantic:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/10/can-pences-tactic-succeed/502928/
Pretty much captures my view of the debate.
CrossLOPER
10-06-2016, 21:33
Pence of course was helped by never actually needing to answer the question he was asked (and he never did) but replying to a different question that he felt he could reply to.
This is a great debate tactic, especially when the viewers are lethargic, apathetic, and unwilling to compromise.
A column from The Atlantic:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/10/can-pences-tactic-succeed/502928/
Pretty much captures my view of the debate.
"Nuh-uh" is also a pretty great tactic. It's a lazy tactic, but you can use it if you are confident the audience is as lazy as you are.
a completely inoffensive name
10-08-2016, 07:22
Man, that Access Hollywood video is something. A presidential candidate who thinks you can just "grab them by the pussy".
lol just read it, that isn't going to be liked by female voters. I can see it working it's favour as well because he said it years ago and bringing up a drunk quote is kinda nasty.
HopAlongBunny
10-08-2016, 17:16
It might hurt him a little; honestly I've heard worse from people I know.:rolleyes:
No matter what you say, they think its clever and puts them in a "good light"
Seamus Fermanagh
10-08-2016, 18:27
He wasn't a 20-year old swapping tall-tales in a locker room -- but behaved as though he were.
This is a well-choreographed effort by master manipulators perfectly timed to play off the last debate controversy and skew the upcoming one. Mr. Trumps accidental (heartfelt?) misogyny is being used to prevent him from closing the gender gap he faces in the polls and each facet of this program: Clinton's bringing up the issue in the first debate, the former contestant's self defense, Trump's predictable counter-attacks (doomed to fail since the US population has decided long since that Bill Clinton's predations were irrelevant), and now this release, conveniently found by Infotainment news who have, of course, "just gotten around" to reviewing old interviews etc. involving Donald Trump. Brilliantly played -- Trump is wrong footed through this debate and more of his fragile support carved off as they fear contamination.
Montmorency
10-08-2016, 18:58
The only thing more predictable than essential campaign spin are the reflexive protestations toward it. A static narrative is one that does not exist.
edyzmedieval
10-08-2016, 23:26
The New York Times has a detailed Presidential forecast, in depth and well researched.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/upshot/presidential-polls-forecast.html?_r=0
HopAlongBunny
10-09-2016, 01:22
https://youtu.be/Cup60p9pii8
https://youtu.be/YX5thhxtIeA
"Lincoln was murdered by a mentally ill actor desperate for attention, and so was his party."
https://vine.co/v/5ggt2YqzvTx/embed/simple
18994
Hooahguy
10-09-2016, 02:12
Trump's latest scandal and so many GOP bigwigs jumping ship kinda makes me think that his campaign is done for. Wonder if he will step down now, despite him saying he wont. Maybe when the next few polls come out we will see how much of a plunge he took.
Doubt it, everybody already knows he's kinda vulgar, when compared to the impossible to like Hillary he comes across as a real human being. He can also bring up that 'first women president' Hillary used to intimidate her husband's 'victims', making her look even more cold and calculating than she already does. I can't look in the American mindset though but it could be that way.
Doubt it, everybody already knows he's kinda vulgar, when compared to the impossible to like Hillary he comes across as a real human being. He can also bring up that 'first women president' Hillary used to intimidate her husband's 'victims', making her look even more cold and calculating than she already does. I can't look in the American mindset though but it could be that way.
So the people who molested women and did what Trump talked about in Cologne, do they also come across as human beings to you now or do you just not compare oranges and browns?
rory_20_uk
10-09-2016, 16:39
Why oh why can't Michelle Obama run for President?
~:smoking:
Hooahguy
10-09-2016, 18:04
If there werent so many big GOP names jumping ship (and I think they just shut down their Trump victory fund or something) I would agree that this is just another scandal that will roll off him.
HopAlongBunny
10-09-2016, 19:11
Beautiful SNL cold open:
https://youtu.be/R4HfwBXNvgM
Seamus Fermanagh
10-09-2016, 21:15
Why oh why can't Michelle Obama run for President?
~:smoking:
Because she is smarter than that?
So the people who molested women and did what Trump talked about in Cologne, do they also come across as human beings to you now or do you just not compare oranges and browns?
What does it matter what I think? What happened in Collogne is your problem. But thereis a difference between saying and doing anyway, certainly there would be charches against a very rich guy.
What does it matter what I think?
Why do you post it if it's useless? :dizzy2:
But thereis a difference between saying and doing anyway, certainly there would be charches against a very rich guy.
Oh, I did not know that. The difference between actually getting a chance to do it and get away with it and just wanting to do it if one wouldn't have to fear severe repercussions is not so big though. Would you call someone a friend or a nice guy if he told you he 'd like to murder you but won't because he'd get arrested? After all he just talked about it. :dizzy2:
Tonight's debate, in a nutshell:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQCU36pkH7c
Not even a debate, just two people slagging each other off for 90 minutes. I don't think any of the questions asked were even answered. What a disgrace. :stwshame:
Why do you post it if it's useless? :dizzy2:
Oh, I did not know that. The difference between actually getting a chance to do it and get away with it and just wanting to do it if one wouldn't have to fear severe repercussions is not so big though. Would you call someone a friend or a nice guy if he told you he 'd like to murder you but won't because he'd get arrested? After all he just talked about it. :dizzy2:
Trump would be a goldmine for the type of women he abused and I haven't heard of any lawsuits. He was just larking probably. everybody already knows he's a sexist who thinks lowly of women. Probably with good reason as he's rich, atracts certain types
Trump would be a goldmine for the type of women he abused and I haven't heard of any lawsuits. He was just larking probably. everybody already knows he's a sexist who thinks lowly of women. Probably with good reason as he's rich, atracts certain types
And you think that is "presidential"? :thumbsdown:
And you think that is "presidential"? :thumbsdown:
Bill Clinton was a notorious womeniser. Trump has said much more stupid things than this, and didn't say it 10 years ago. Hillary is a much worse person, Trump probably has only blood on his hands once a month if he actually does it
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.