U.S.A. 2016 General Election

[krbe 193]

The Boston Globe has been looking into the crystal ball, imagining their front page for 9 April 2017. I pity the Japanese, wrestling with the United States ambassador, His Excellency Kid Rock.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

A modest suggestion:

I think most are agreed that the present situation in the Congress of the United States of America cannot be allowed to continue.  This is an election year and it is probably not too late to find new candidates for every seat in the House of Representatives and one-third of the Senate.  Instead of being distracted by the three-ring circus of the Presidential race, let the American people get busy and clean out all the 'sweet old boys' who've been chair-warming on behalf of the lobbies for a number of terms.  This is supposed to be "government of the people, by the people, and for the people", and not for the General Motors Corporation or others who get the most benefit from the government at the moment.  Find the right candidates, stop funding the sell-outs, and get on with making America starting with an elected Congress, elected by the people rather than selected by the oligarchs.

[Ocram's Razr 964]

Gerrymandering and running unopposed tend to result in maintaining the Status Quo.

 

I'm not an anarchist but a sympathizer. I presume a sizable portion of Sanders, Trump, and 3rd party voters are also anarchist sympathizers.

[Sabretooth78 808]

On 4/8/2016 at 7:15 PM, Skimbo said:

With Cruz winning I fear for all the (little) progress USA did lateley and politics that favor the old industrial lobbies. Basically loosing pace against Euop, China and Japan in economical terms. I also fear that the next elections of the parlament (or however USA calls this) would make the democrats win and cause a similar lockdown like the last obama era years.

That's pretty much how it works.  Party X's POTUS candidate will decry everything Party Y's sitting president does and says.  Party X gets elected (typically only in a lame duck election and usually with a like Congress), and continues and expands upon those policies.  Party Y's supporters suddenly become outraged by those actions while they're now acceptable to Party X.  Freedom takes another downward lurch.  By midterms, however, signs of overreach become apparent (the mechanics of which are outside the scope of this thread and my ability to expound upon them at this time) and Party Y will take Congress.  Wash, rinse, repeat.

Counter-intuitively, the freedom and personal/economic liberty status here is generally better preserved when the office doesn't change party hands.  It's when the "different" party takes office that it's more likely to be perceived as a mandate and all sorts of unsavory legislation get rammed through.  I think this factors in on my otherwise surprising sympathy towards Sanders and my complete distrust of the GOP (along with their past actions).  Just as in 2008, I would have liked them to hold onto the office, if they hadn't selected such a God-awful candidate (as such I was OK with Obama winning).

 

16 hours ago, A Nonny Moose said:

Instead of being distracted by the three-ring circus of the Presidential race, let the American people get busy and clean out all the 'sweet old boys' who've been chair-warming on behalf of the lobbies for a number of terms.

 

16 hours ago, OcramsRzr said:

Gerrymandering and running unopposed tend to result in maintaining the Status Quo.

The thing is, polls continually reveal that while Congress has a very low approval rating - apparently 13% at the moment - yet you will find that approval ratings of individual reps are favorable.  In other words, "Congress stinks but my guy doesn't."  Similarly, you'll also hear responses such as not throwing the baby out with the bathwater.  Well folks, the baby drowned probably sometime during the Johnson administration; at least no later than Nixon.

The fact that gerrymandering even exists is proof that most voters aren't capable of critical thought, and it's no recent phenomenon, either.

13%.  I would be willing to bet that's on a similar order of magnitude as the average American approval rating of Kim Jong-Un now, Ayatollah Khomeini back in 1980, and certainly lower than Osama bin Laden's (among those who were aware of him by name) during the Soviet war in Afghanistan.  And yet as you allude, it would be so simple and easy within existing, peaceful means to fix.

  Edited April 11, 2016 by Sabretooth78  
allude vs. elude. Grrr, I knew that....

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

I never elude anything.  Did you mean allude?

This from BBC web site.

Is this a cry of 'sour grapes' from Der Donald?

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Paul Ryan prepares to quote General Sherman.

And yet he didn't want to be Speaker of the House either.  Could he be a reluctant Drag-in?  He has the experience and the profile.

[igotthis 12]

@OcramsRzr

Even Rome fell. The greatest empire the world had seen at its peak. We are declining because our citizenry is being "dumbified" by conservative attacks on education, social justice, and plain old common sense. Trump, for example has his support from the ignorant non-voter that now voted because he represents their isolated worldview - or should I say their narrow non-worldview...

Anyway, I look forward to November, whether it is slimeball Cruz or egomaniac Trump against Clinton or Sanders. Dems will wipe the floor with any candidate they can put up. The disarry in their Party gives me great joy and laughter.

 

IGT

[MilitantRadical 2,844]

14 hours ago, igotthis said:

@OcramsRzr

Even Rome fell. The greatest empire the world had seen at its peak. We are declining because our citizenry is being "dumbified" by conservative attacks on education, social justice, and plain old common sense. Trump, for example has his support from the ignorant non-voter that now voted because he represents their isolated worldview - or should I say their narrow non-worldview...

Anyway, I look forward to November, whether it is slimeball Cruz or egomaniac Trump against Clinton or Sanders. Dems will wipe the floor with any candidate they can put up. The disarry in their Party gives me great joy and laughter.

 

IGT

Don't get ahead of yourself. The average Sanders and Clinton voter is just as ignorant, if not more ignorant than the Trump voter. Youtube is currently littered with videos of Sandernistas running their mouths off saying and doing the dumbest stuff imaginable. Liberals don't see it, but the social justice wing of their ideology is currently more reviled and more ridiculed than the religious right. Social Justice is to Liberalism what televangelism was to Conservatives.

Clinton would get destroyed by Trump, or at least they'd destroy each other. The Clintons are so dirty only reason they're still in the game is because the media is generally afraid to expose them, even Fox News because Rupert Murdoch has money on Hilary. You think the "super predators" comment was bad? Wait 'till the fact that Bill Clinton helped smuggle the very drugs that caused the crack epidemic comes out again. Bill Clinton has sexually harassed and possibly even raped women. Hilary used the FBI to intimidate Bill's victims. She has a lot of weaknesses and Trump will exploit them.

[Sabretooth78 808]

^ Don't forget Trump and the Clintons have historically been good friends.  Then there was that phone call between he and Hillary right before he announced his candidacy.  One can only speculate over the topics discussed.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

BBC reports Trump is feeling put upon.

Run for the hills, Donald.  They really are after you.  A big mouth with no substance doesn't win elections when people get to the polling booth.  Quit now while you still have some shreds of dignity(?) left.

[philforhockey51 4,220]

Ohh the agony, all these claims about the candidates lacking in facts.  Since when do people whom go to public events with many other people become "friends"? Was this phone call recorded? As in is there some sort of proof that these two individuals were on the phone at the same time? Why would the media be afraid of anyone? Money on Hilary? like a bet? or do you mean he gave money to the campaign as he probably did with everyone else.    Facts are good let's stick to facts.

[Sabretooth78 808]

Figures I can't find the article now (it wasn't the "call" on the Tonight Show, either).  The gist of the article was that all it could do was confirm that the call was made (don't recall the substantiation) but that there was no record about what it entailed.  Basically got into a "we don't want to say, but you connect the dots..." sort of analysis.  For some reason I want to say it was the LA Times but I'm not sure.  Annoying.

Now there are several articles out there about a call he had with Bill (confirmed by aides), maybe that's it, but I could swear the one I read mentioned it was directly with Hillary.

And then there's this, from 2012:  http://time.com/3962799/donald-trump-hillary-clinton/

Spoiler

In 2012, as Obama was running for re-election, Trump called Clinton “terrific” again in an interview with Fox News, saying she performed well as Secretary of State.

“Hillary Clinton I think is a terrific woman,” he told Greta Van Susteren. “I am biased because I have known her for years. I live in New York. She lives in New York. I really like her and her husband both a lot. I think she really works hard. And I think, again, she’s given an agenda, it is not all of her, but I think she really works hard and I think she does a good job. I like her.

And on Fox and Friends on Wednesday, Trump explained why he donated to Clinton’s campaigns.

“I’m a businessman. I contribute to everybody,” Trump said. “When I needed Hillary, she was there. If I say ‘go to my wedding,’ they go to my wedding.”

Sure, "friends" and all, but if nothing else it just exposes him as another two-faced opportunist liar, just like all the other establishment politicians he claims to take exception to.

Either way, it's refreshing to finally see some backlash against a bag of hot air whose only really well-described policy stance has been construction of that dumb wall on the Mexican border.  It seems everything else is ranting jingoism.

[igotthis 12]

I could be totally wrong, but I do think Trump is a plant. I also think that his approach (misogyny, racism, ignorance of foreign affairs) just plays into the plan. The Republicans and the right-wing media (yes, right-wing and not left) created this scenario. This is one of the reasons I laugh so much at the Republican Establishment's concern at just how well he is (was?) doing. Now they are swallowing a bitter pill by promoting Cruz, considering they really don't like him at all. I am happy to see the Republican Party self-destruct. They deserve it.

Also, I think that they promote their own self-destruction by opposing hearings on a new SCOTUS judge. They should take what Obama presented because when Hillary wins, she will be in a much stronger position. They cut off a foot to save an ear.

IGT

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

One of the most popular things in the U.S. is conspiracy theories.  If Der Donald is a stalking goat, he has certainly done a fine job in destroying all the credibility of the right wing of the G.O.P. which doesn't seem to have a left wing.  If something doesn't give soon, the U.S. will be left with only one party, and we know what happens then, eh?

[Ocram's Razr 964]

The D'ump couldn't have been a plant from conservative media because their reactions and coverage would have been vastly different in the early stages.

 

If The D'ump was planted by any one, it would be by someone associated with Clinton. Clinton has the most corporate money backing her campaign (vs backing other campaigns).

[MilitantRadical 2,844]

Part of me considered Trump to be a plant, but I don't think so anymore. If he is, the media have been pawns in an extremely sophisticated game. In that case, I think it's just as likely Sanders is also a plant. However the thing that makes me think Trump is genuine is that he will go after Bill's sexual indiscretions - something no one else seems willing to touch. With the hostility the left has for misogynists and sexual predators it's amazing Bill can even campaign for Hilary in this day and age.

Trump just doesn't seem like the kind of person who would sign himself up to be a fall guy. His reputation is at stake. What could the Clintons possibly offer him to make him throw the fight?

5 hours ago, igotthis said:

I also think that his approach (misogyny, racism, ignorance of foreign affairs) just plays into the plan.

Neither Mexicans or Muslims are a race and I don't think you can prove Trump hates women.

[igotthis 12]

41 minutes ago, MilitantRadical said:

Part of me considered Trump to be a plant, but I don't think so anymore. If he is, the media have been pawns in an extremely sophisticated game. In that case, I think it's just as likely Sanders is also a plant. However the thing that makes me think Trump is genuine is that he will go after Bill's sexual indiscretions - something no one else seems willing to touch. With the hostility the left has for misogynists and sexual predators it's amazing Bill can even campaign for Hilary in this day and age.

Trump just doesn't seem like the kind of person who would sign himself up to be a fall guy. His reputation is at stake. What could the Clintons possibly offer him to make him throw the fight?

Neither Mexicans or Muslims are a race and I don't think you can prove Trump hates women.

I'm confused. I never said anything about race. Please don't read more into my comments than I stated.

And there is plenty of proof that Trump is a misogynist. There is a solid reason why he has little support from the ladies.

IGT

[MilitantRadical 2,844]

16 minutes ago, igotthis said:

I'm confused. I never said anything about race. Please don't read more into my comments than I stated.

Did you not read the comment I quoted? You said he was racist or that his approach was racist. I assume you're talking about his Mexican illegals and the temporary Muslim ban comments. Neither of which are actually racist since neither are races.

16 minutes ago, igotthis said:

And there is plenty of proof that Trump is a misogynist.

Says there is plenty of proof, provides none. Insulting people who happen to be women doesn't make you a misogynist.

16 minutes ago, igotthis said:

There is a solid reason why he has little support from the ladies.

Why? 'Cause they're easily brainwashed by low-level propaganda?

[igotthis 12]

17 minutes ago, MilitantRadical said:

ODid you not read the comment I quoted? You said he was racist or that his approach was racist. I assume you're talking about his Mexican illegals and the temporary Muslim ban comments. Neither of which are actually racist since neither are races.

Says there is plenty of proof, provides none. Insulting people who happen to be women doesn't make you a misogynist.

Why? 'Cause they're easily brainwashed by low-level propaganda?

Oh, I see. Because I said he's racist you implied that I somehow meant Mexicans are a race and Muslims, too. That is your bad, not mine.

And please explain how calling women pigs is not misogynist, or how he complained that Megan Kelly (who I actually don't care much about) was bleeding out of "wherever"?

Look, we, as men, don't often realize how demeaning we are to women. We do it all the time; it has been done for centuries. We need to figure out how horrible we treat them quite a lot.

IGT

[philforhockey51 4,220]

I'm sure Trump doesn't "hate" women, he's been married to one three times and the third is quite the stereotypical "trophy" wife, he loves women, he just doesn't respect them, and that's the problem. Then again he doesn't respect anyone not named Trump.

[igotthis 12]

54 minutes ago, philforhockey51 said:

I'm sure Trump doesn't "hate" women, he's been married to one three times and the third is quite the stereotypical "trophy" wife, he loves women, he just doesn't respect them, and that's the problem. Then again he doesn't respect anyone not named Trump.

Well said, sir. Well said. =)

[Sabretooth78 808]

13 hours ago, MilitantRadical said:

Part of me considered Trump to be a plant, but I don't think so anymore. If he is, the media have been pawns in an extremely sophisticated game. In that case, I think it's just as likely Sanders is also a plant. However the thing that makes me think Trump is genuine is that he will go after Bill's sexual indiscretions - something no one else seems willing to touch. With the hostility the left has for misogynists and sexual predators it's amazing Bill can even campaign for Hilary in this day and age.

Trump just doesn't seem like the kind of person who would sign himself up to be a fall guy. His reputation is at stake. What could the Clintons possibly offer him to make him throw the fight?

Neither Mexicans or Muslims are a race and I don't think you can prove Trump hates women.

A bit of a paradox, really.  Reagan was the Teflon President but I think that title can be passed on to Bill.  The guy can totally screw up and people will love him for it.  Not to channel him again, but George Carlin had a bit where he said "Bill Jeff" beat Bob Dole because he basically came out and said "I'm full of sh*t" and the voters appreciated his honesty.

As someone else who is rather Teflon-like, I'd say Trump's reputation has survived quite a bit.  The bankruptcies, the scams, the divorces, turning himself into an entertainment-based caricature, etc. and yet through all of it the guy somehow seems to still carry credibility (among a decent proportion of people).  The reputation he's developed over the last 10 years or so certainly isn't at stake.  You could say he has something to lose, or you can also say this would be the largest jewel on the crown.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

But the presidency is not a "plum".  It is a killer job.

[MilitantRadical 2,844]

15 hours ago, igotthis said:

Oh, I see. Because I said he's racist you implied that I somehow meant Mexicans are a race and Muslims, too. That is your bad, not mine.

Then why did you say he's racist?

15 hours ago, igotthis said:

And please explain how calling women pigs is not misogynist

Citation needed.

16 hours ago, igotthis said:

or how he complained that Megan Kelly (who I actually don't care much about) was bleeding out of "wherever"?

Where Megyn Kelly was bleeding from is up to your imagination.

And oooh... menstruation! How dare a guy suggest that a woman might be on her period! Get a sense of humor. Insulting a person who happens to be a woman isn't misogynist.

16 hours ago, igotthis said:

Look, we, as men, don't often realize how demeaning we are to women. We do it all the time; it has been done for centuries.

Forgive us oh lord we know not what we do!

So basically just being a man makes you sexist or misogynist?

Spare me the original sin of maleness. I'm not accountable for the bad things people who share my gender or race have done. I'm an individual who happens to be male, I can only make the best of what and who I am.

16 hours ago, igotthis said:

We need to figure out how horrible we treat them quite a lot.

Yes, get back to me once you, as a man, figure out how horribly you treat women.

15 hours ago, philforhockey51 said:

I'm sure Trump doesn't "hate" women, he's been married to one three times and the third is quite the stereotypical "trophy" wife, he loves women, he just doesn't respect them, and that's the problem.

Except for the fact that his company hires more female executives.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/donald-trump-a-champion-of-women-his-female-employees-think-so/2015/11/23/7eafac80-88da-11e5-9a07-453018f9a0ec_story.html

Don't be blinded by your hatred of Trump and just start tossing out these meaningless accusations based on your feelings.  Trump doesn't respect a lot of people, but he treats his enemies equally. If you look closely, you'll see he often credits his enemies for their skills. He's doesn't take his opponents for fools. He insults men and women alike. Trump's true feelings about women and other races is something we'll never know because we can't see into his heart.

If you think his policies are dumb that's one thing, but for some reason these claims about racism and misogyny always irritate me because I think if you look past your prejudices, as I did mine, you will see they aren't true and are mainly based on how the media has misrepresented his statements.

I too was in that reactionary mode when Trump started running. I wanted to latch on to anything negative. Then upon closer scrutiny, I saw the way his words were being twisted in order to defame him. That isn't to say he hasn't said some dumb stuff, like recently when he said women should be punished for having abortions, but all this "he's a hateful bigot" stuff is way over the top.

I constantly see liberals say things like "republicans so ignorant!" when they themselves just eat up and regurgitate the pablum mainstream media spoon feeds them. Lets face it, neither side has a right to claim intellectual superiority.

 

[philforhockey51 4,220]

As someone who works for a company that is stilled owed millions of dollars by Trump, and though I personally have not been in the same room as him, I can relate what I've heard about how he handles closed door meetings and the such. I do not say the words or take the actions he takes that are easily perceived to be disrespect but I can read and my comprehension skills were tested and I achieved high scores.  No one will ever know what is truly in someone's "heart" as you will not be able to know what is really in the "liberal" heart, but if the public persona is perceived to be so...disrespectful how can you deny that?  Please note hiring practices have so much more to do with so many other things that gender is not really a factor, or shouldn't be, and that does not relate his feelings or impressions of women, his words do. 

[igotthis 12]

15 minutes ago, MilitantRadical said:

Then why did you say he's racist?

This new format really confuses me, so I hope I am doing this properly. He is racist. I guess you need to read about his shuffling on endorsements by David Duke, claiming he doesn't know about him or the KKK. "I'll have to research that". Give me a break. He spoke about Duke a few years ago and he knows exactly what he is talking about.

Citation needed.

I think you need to start watching the debates. I don't need to cite anything, you need to pay attention to politics if you are going to post on a politics thread.

Where Megyn Kelly was bleeding from is up to your imagination.

LOL, that is just rich.

And oooh... menstruation! How dare a guy suggest that a woman might be on her period! Get a sense of humor. Insulting a person who happens to be a woman isn't misogynist.

Forgive us oh lord we know not what we do!

So basically just being a man makes you sexist or misogynist?

Spare me the original sin of maleness. I'm not accountable for the bad things people who share my gender or race have done. I'm an individual who happens to be male, I can only make the best of what and who I am.

Yes, get back to me once you, as a man, figure out how horribly you treat women.

 

Quote

Except for the fact that his company hires more female executives.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/donald-trump-a-champion-of-women-his-female-employees-think-so/2015/11/23/7eafac80-88da-11e5-9a07-453018f9a0ec_story.html

Don't be blinded by your hatred of Trump and just start tossing out these meaningless accusations based on your feelings.  Trump doesn't respect a lot of people, but he treats his enemies equally. If you look closely, you'll see he often credits his enemies for their skills. He's doesn't take his opponents for fools. He insults men and women alike. Trump's true feelings about women and other races is something we'll never know because we can't see into his heart.

If you think his policies are dumb that's one thing, but for some reason these claims about racism and misogyny always irritate me because I think if you look past your prejudices, as I did mine, you will see they aren't true and are mainly based on how the media has misrepresented his statements.

I too was in that reactionary mode when Trump started running. I wanted to latch on to anything negative. Then upon closer scrutiny, I saw the way his words were being twisted in order to defame him. That isn't to say he hasn't said some dumb stuff, like recently when he said women should be punished for having abortions, but all this "he's a hateful bigot" stuff is way over the top.

I constantly see liberals say things like "republicans so ignorant!" when they themselves just eat up and regurgitate the pablum mainstream media spoon feeds them. Lets face it, neither side has a right to claim intellectual superiority.

 

 

[MilitantRadical 2,844]

What did Trump say about David Duke a few years ago?

"I think you need to start watching the debates. I don't need to cite anything, you need to pay attention to politics if you are going to post on a politics thread."

Yes you do need to cite. You've only demonstrated your own ignorance, not mine. Show me where he called women "pigs".

 

[MilitantRadical 2,844]

1 hour ago, philforhockey51 said:

As someone who works for a company that is stilled owed millions of dollars by Trump, and though I personally have not been in the same room as him, I can relate what I've heard about how he handles closed door meetings and the such.

So you have a personal bias against Trump because your company is owed money by his and you've heard stuff about him. Okay...

1 hour ago, philforhockey51 said:

 I do not say the words or take the actions he takes that are easily perceived to be disrespect but I can read and my comprehension skills were tested and I achieved high scores. 

Ouch, that sentence doesn't demonstrate it, but maybe English isn't you're first language. Sorry but if you're going to say you're smart you should write intelligently.

1 hour ago, philforhockey51 said:

Please note hiring practices have so much more to do with so many other things that gender is not really a factor, or shouldn't be, and that does not relate his feelings or impressions of women, his words do. 

Well for a misogynist gender would be a factor, wouldn't it?

What has he said about women as a group that is negative? I'm open to evidence, someone just show me.

[Ocram's Razr 964]

1. The burden of proof falls upon the claimant.

2. There was an economist (Alan Greenspan) who hired all women for senior staff and set the wage to "slightly better" than the then running wage for women in that position. This move proved to be extremely profitable.

  Edited April 15, 2016 by OcramsRzr  
Alan Greenspan in 1980s

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

This is getting a little far afield, as American politics is wont to do.  One of the things I dislike about the whole process is the delving into the most intimate details of a candidate's or appointee's private life.  If the public record isn't good enough, why nominate such a person in the first place?