POTUS Election thread

[Husar]

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]

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]

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.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

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 in jokes/comments seem to be 25+ years old.

He has made numerous comments about Latinos. 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.

Trump's stance vis-a-vis gays? Apparently, guilt by association 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]

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 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]

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]

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]

To quote something I saw on Reddit:

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]

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 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.

[a completely inoffensive name]

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]

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]

??

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]

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]

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]

double-post

[Strike For The South]

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]

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]

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.

[drone]

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.

[Husar]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Husar]

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]

This may cause an increase in Trump voters:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...d-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.”

[Fragony]

Something big commin up, should have been, hmmmm 5 minutes ago but that' not US time

nope nothing

[Kralizec]

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]

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]

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-pol...american-dream

[Hooahguy]

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.