Author Topic: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate  (Read 511949 times)

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1700 on: May 25, 2016, 01:39:23 PM »

Isn't politics fun? It would be if it weren't so damn serious at the same time.

This is fun for me regardless.  And I am going to remind you all that I warned this thread that Trump was the great influencer, and would win both the nomination & the presidency regardless of what you all think of him.  Those of you who would never vote for Trump will simply not vote, out of disgust or whatever; but those of you that are not hard set against him already will end up voting for him, no matter how you would poll today.  The man is that good at this; he has simply been testing the waters for the past several cycles till the right moment.  This is his moment, as should be obvious by now.  The Clintons will count themselves lucky to avoid prison before the end of 2016, and even that is likely to require some significant "fines" taken from the Clinton Foundation coffers & a permanent ban on holding public office, due to what the email scandal has exposed about the foundations funding sources.  The debates are going to be a riot!  Maybe literally.  If Austin Peterson gets the Libertarian nomination, the debates might be better than pay-per-view!

v8rx7guy

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 823
  • Location: PNW
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1701 on: May 25, 2016, 01:48:53 PM »
Just because no one was arrested didn't mean they weren't breaking the law.  I was watching it on TV last night and they were throwing rocks at the police, jumping on the police car, fighting, and yes acting like criminals... pretty pathetic in my opinion.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7189
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1702 on: May 25, 2016, 01:50:15 PM »

Isn't politics fun? It would be if it weren't so damn serious at the same time.

This is fun for me regardless.  And I am going to remind you all that I warned this thread that Trump was the great influencer, and would win both the nomination & the presidency regardless of what you all think of him.  Those of you who would never vote for Trump will simply not vote, out of disgust or whatever; but those of you that are not hard set against him already will end up voting for him, no matter how you would poll today.  The man is that good at this; he has simply been testing the waters for the past several cycles till the right moment.  This is his moment, as should be obvious by now.  The Clintons will count themselves lucky to avoid prison before the end of 2016, and even that is likely to require some significant "fines" taken from the Clinton Foundation coffers & a permanent ban on holding public office, due to what the email scandal has exposed about the foundations funding sources.  The debates are going to be a riot!  Maybe literally.  If Austin Peterson gets the Libertarian nomination, the debates might be better than pay-per-view!

well, i hope you are wrong about rioting, though recent skirmishes at rallies aren't very encouraging.  I disagree that people who won't vote for trump simply won't vote - by that logic Trump would win all 50 states.  I must admit that Trump has been very adapt at keeping the media narrative focused on him.  I also don't see how Clinton would wind up in prison.  Censureship and fines perhaps, but I've yet to see anything that rises to 'harm' - one of the legal standards for imprisonment. I'm not sure that they will allow any LIbertarian candidate to participate in nationally televised debates.
Time will tell...
"Do not confuse complexity with superiority"

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7189
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1703 on: May 25, 2016, 01:51:05 PM »
Just because no one was arrested didn't mean they weren't breaking the law.  I was watching it on TV last night and they were throwing rocks at the police, jumping on the police car, fighting, and yes acting like criminals... pretty pathetic in my opinion.

I wasn't implying that no laws were broken. 
"Do not confuse complexity with superiority"

forummm

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7356
  • Senior Mustachian
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1704 on: May 25, 2016, 02:45:51 PM »
If Austin Peterson gets the Libertarian nomination, the debates might be better than pay-per-view!

Why would a 3rd party candidate be allowed to debate? The Commission on Presidential Debates is an organization started and run by the Republican and Democratic parties to control how the debates function. They don't let another candidate in unless they agree that it's in their best interests to do so. The League of Women Voters used to run the debates, but the parties wanted much more control and now get to do whatever they want.

hoping2retire35

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1230
  • Location: UPCOUNTRY CAROLINA
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1705 on: May 25, 2016, 03:00:41 PM »
Well, the polling is continuing to be alarming for the more likely race.

Last 4 polls for the general, Clinton vs Trump: Clinton +2, Clinton +6, Trump +3, Trump +5

Last 4 polls for the general, Sanders vs Trump: Sanders +16, Sanders +11, Sanders +4, Sanders +13

Swing states
NH TvC C+2
NH TvS S+16
AZ TvC T+4
AZ TvS S+1
OH TvC T+4
OH TvS S+2
PA TvC C+1
PA TvS S+6

Sanders is even up +5 in Georgia! That race would be a landslide.
Why are we still talking about Sanders? It's Clinton vs Trump

Edit:
And speaking of Trump vs Clinton,
In Ohio Clinton is beating Trump,
In Florida Clinton is beating Trump,
In Virginia Clinton is beating Trump,
In Pennsylvania Clinton is beating Trump,
In North Carolina Clinton is beating Trump,
Those are all the biggest most important swing states and Clinton is winning in all of them, a lot can happen between now and the election but nothing currently shows indication of Trump doing well.
Clinton will take CA, WA, OR, MN, IL, MI, NY, DC, MD, DE, NJ, VT, CT, MA, ME with ease as they are generally democrat states, and she will likely take the mentioned states above as well, giving her way more than the 270 needed. It would require Clinton to do something(or to have done something) very stupid to lose her gigantic lead. I think she takes the presidency with ease.

CLINTON NEEDS HIS SUPPORT AND AS LONG AS HE REMAINS POPULAR, SHE NEEDS HIS SUPPORT EVEN MORE.
According to the polls, she doesn't need his support. Caps lock doesn't make false statements true.
NO BUT IT DOES SAVE ON PINKY WEAR, AND FORGETTING TO USE IT AGAIN WHEN I AM DONE TYPING ON INTERNET FORUM

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1706 on: May 25, 2016, 03:28:47 PM »
If Austin Peterson gets the Libertarian nomination, the debates might be better than pay-per-view!

Why would a 3rd party candidate be allowed to debate? The Commission on Presidential Debates is an organization started and run by the Republican and Democratic parties to control how the debates function. They don't let another candidate in unless they agree that it's in their best interests to do so. The League of Women Voters used to run the debates, but the parties wanted much more control and now get to do whatever they want.

The Lib would have to poll at least 15%.  I don't consider this likely, but it could happen.  It would be awesome to see, though.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1707 on: May 25, 2016, 03:36:50 PM »
I disagree that people who won't vote for trump simply won't vote - by that logic Trump would win all 50 states.


Yup.  Reagan took 49 in 1984, and only lost the last one because it was his opponent's home state, and he didn't want to embarrass him, so he didn't campaign there in earnest.  I'm not willing to predict that such a landslide will occur, but I won't be shocked if it does.  California has voted Republican in my lifetime, and was pretty red in the 50's & 60's.  These things come in cycles, the pendulum seems to have started back the other way.

Quote
I must admit that Trump has been very adapt at keeping the media narrative focused on him. I also don't see how Clinton would wind up in prison.  Censureship and fines perhaps, but I've yet to see anything that rises to 'harm' - one of the legal standards for imprisonment. I'm not sure that they will allow any LIbertarian candidate to participate in nationally televised debates.
Time will tell...

Harm is not required when we are talking about a public servant acting under the color of law.  If Hillary was a CEO doing the same thing, it would just be corrupt.  Since she was the Secretary of State at the time, her actions are most certainly criminal.  The only question is, does Obama give her a pardon?  I think not.  The Clintons & Obama's actually hate each other, and if I were Trump, I would have called up Obama months ago and said, "If she gets a pardon, you won't get yours".  Obama is a smart man, and would be wise enough to wait and see what Trump can do.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1708 on: May 25, 2016, 03:49:42 PM »
On a related note, this is an excerpt I stole from Scott Adam's blog post....

Quote
This is another example in which I think citizens are taking a more active role in fixing the world when government isn’t the right tool for the job. There’s something in the air now – maybe because of Trump – that feels intensely American. And by that I mean not waiting around for someone (such as the government) to fix your problem. We’re a nation of problem-solvers. I would argue that problem-solving is the most basic American character trait.

You need something invented? We’re on it.

You need a dictator removed? Can do.

You need economic stability in the world? Working on it!

Don’t like having a king? We can design a better system.

At the moment, citizens see our government as defective and they see Donald Trump as a wrecking ball. Step one: Demolition.

Step two is the scary part. What happens when you break the government? Do we devolve into chaos, anarchy, or dictatorship? Well, that might happen to some countries. In America, when stuff is broken, we fix it. And if it ain’t broken, we’ll break it anyway, just to fix it better. That’s sort of our thing. And we’re good at it.

I predict we’re going to see a wave of citizen involvement that is unprecedented. People everywhere (especially billionaires) are seeing that government can’t do everything. So they are stepping in. Gates is fixing Africa and whatnot. Thiel is planning floating cities to solve some types of immigration issues and more. And Mark Cuban probably has some good work ahead of him.

We live in interesting times.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6270
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1709 on: May 25, 2016, 04:01:56 PM »
I'm not willing to predict that such a landslide will occur, but I won't be shocked if it does.  California has voted Republican in my lifetime, and was pretty red in the 50's & 60's.  These things come in cycles, the pendulum seems to have started back the other way.

LOL.  Only Moonshadow could look at the fractured state of GOP politics and think it means that California will vote Trump.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7189
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1710 on: May 25, 2016, 04:09:59 PM »
I disagree that people who won't vote for trump simply won't vote - by that logic Trump would win all 50 states.


Yup.  Reagan took 49 in 1984, and only lost the last one because it was his opponent's home state, and he didn't want to embarrass him, so he didn't campaign there in earnest.  I'm not willing to predict that such a landslide will occur, but I won't be shocked if it does.  California has voted Republican in my lifetime, and was pretty red in the 50's & 60's.  These things come in cycles, the pendulum seems to have started back the other way.

My point was simply that if people who won't vote for trump won't vote, then Trump will win all the votes except a few scattered votes for outside parties.  Sorry that wasn't clear.
Yes, California has voted Republican in the last 50 years, but you could say the inverse about Texas and the entire US South.  In fact, every state but Alaska has gone with the Democrat at least once, and every one but DC has gone Republican at least once.  I'm not sure that amounts to a hill of beans for this election - we're a very different country then we were in the 70s and 80s.
"Do not confuse complexity with superiority"

infogoon

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 842
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1711 on: May 26, 2016, 11:43:39 AM »
So, are there going to be riots at the Democratic Convention, the Republican Convention, or both?

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7189
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1712 on: May 26, 2016, 12:35:44 PM »
So, are there going to be riots at the Democratic Convention, the Republican Convention, or both?

IMO we've set the bar very law for what constitutes a "riot" in today's media cycle. Personally, I don't consider a dozen or so people throwing sticks and stones to be much of a riot.  That's just idiots being disorderly (and they should be charged with the appropriate fines).
In comparison, take a look at the LA riots in 1992 (Rodney King) or the Chicago riots in 1968 (MLK Jr).  The former ended only after 55 people had been killed and the units from the Army, Marines and National Guard were called in.  The latter left 11 dead and encompassed 28 city blocks, with many of them destroyed by fire.

I think we'll have some idiots who step over the line and throw stuff, and wind up being pepper-sprayed/gased and detained.  A few cars might beset on fire too, and maybe some idiots will smash in a store window or two.  But no, I don't think there will be large riot.

Perspective...
"Do not confuse complexity with superiority"

golden1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1442
  • Location: MA
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1713 on: May 26, 2016, 01:22:33 PM »
Quote
Those of you who would never vote for Drumpf will simply not vote, out of disgust or whatever; but those of you that are not hard set against him already will end up voting for him, no matter how you would poll today. 

I never thought I would say this, but I think this is probably true.  Unless Clinton pulls a turn around in her image, or something else goes down, I think Trump has a good shot at winning this.  Especially since Bernie isn't playing ball.  Trump offering to debate Bernie was a master stroke.  In one move, it delegitimized her status as presumptive nominee, and it keeps the Democratic rivalry going.  I would not put it past Trump to take a fall in that debate to make Bernie look strong and cause further discord among the Democrats.   

Trump's behavior is already becoming normalized to many people.  "He doesn't mean anything he says so don't be worried about him."  - this is actually seen as a positive thing about Trump.  If you can convince a large group of people that what you say doesn't matter, then anything is possible.  More than anything else, this is the most damaging thing he does.  I teach my kids that honesty matters, integrity matters, and not to be a bully.  Now we have large groups of people saying that behaving like an immature child is perfectly acceptable as long as you "win".  In the same way that our culture has become more narcissistic since the 1960's, I think that that Trump's candidacy signals a broader cultural change. 

I read that quote from Scott Adam's blog.  The problem with that blog is that I am not entirely sure if he means anything he says in it, or if he is trying to use his "persuasion" skills on his readers.  I personally find the idea of our public policy being controlled by entrepreneurs and businessmen obscenely frightening, and I am not sure how the creator of Dilbert, a comic detailing the ridiculous inefficiency of private corporations, can somehow argue that private businessmen do things better than the government always. 

ShoulderThingThatGoesUp

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2881
  • Location: Emmaus, PA
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1714 on: May 26, 2016, 01:34:46 PM »
Engaging in a level and fair way had been publicly abandoned for years before this election. Unfortunately the current administration has made all disagreement into "obstruction" and other bad-faith activities. (And who can forget Freedom Fries from the previous one, though that was directed outside the country.) Look up the recent furor over Katie Couric's gun documentary, where they edited in B-roll of people sitting silently to act as if some interviewees had no answer to a question. It's fundamentally dishonest, but that's where we are now. James O'Keefe and Katie Couric.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1715 on: May 26, 2016, 02:54:49 PM »
I'm not willing to predict that such a landslide will occur, but I won't be shocked if it does.  California has voted Republican in my lifetime, and was pretty red in the 50's & 60's.  These things come in cycles, the pendulum seems to have started back the other way.

LOL.  Only Moonshadow could look at the fractured state of GOP politics and think it means that California will vote Trump.

Only a detached outsider could look at the state of either party, and make a (mostly) unbiased guess on future events.  Are you saying that the Dems are not fractured?  The 'Never Trump' crowd is extremely unlikely to engage in a riot at the national convention, but the jilted Bernie Sanders supporters have already demonstrated that enough of them are willing to Bern it all down, perhaps using moltov cocktails.  One way or another, this is going to be an election cycle that gets more than a paragraph in American History  textbooks in 100 years, and you know that is true, because you can feel it.  We all can.  We know that something is broken, although we certainly disagree about exactly what that is.  This is the 4th Turning.  The last one resulted in World War 2, and the one before that ended with the US Civil War.

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1220
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1716 on: May 26, 2016, 03:10:25 PM »
Quote
Those of you who would never vote for Drumpf will simply not vote, out of disgust or whatever; but those of you that are not hard set against him already will end up voting for him, no matter how you would poll today. 

I never thought I would say this, but I think this is probably true.  Unless Clinton pulls a turn around in her image, or something else goes down, I think Trump has a good shot at winning this.  Especially since Bernie isn't playing ball.  Trump offering to debate Bernie was a master stroke.  In one move, it delegitimized her status as presumptive nominee, and it keeps the Democratic rivalry going.  I would not put it past Trump to take a fall in that debate to make Bernie look strong and cause further discord among the Democrats.   


Disclaimer - I'm not  a Trump or Clinton fan although I dislike Clinton more. 

Once Trump starts attacking Clinton, I think she's dead.  She has tons of baggage and Bernie has been too nice to her.  If he would have attacked the foundation, the FBI investigation, etc, he might have won the democratic nomination.  Trump won't play nice and her numbers will continue to drop.

Hopefully she gets indicted (unlikely) before the convention and the democrats put someone less bad that these 2 up.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7189
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1717 on: May 26, 2016, 03:34:53 PM »
I'm not willing to predict that such a landslide will occur, but I won't be shocked if it does.  California has voted Republican in my lifetime, and was pretty red in the 50's & 60's.  These things come in cycles, the pendulum seems to have started back the other way.

LOL.  Only Moonshadow could look at the fractured state of GOP politics and think it means that California will vote Trump.

Only a detached outsider could look at the state of either party, and make a (mostly) unbiased guess on future events.  Are you saying that the Dems are not fractured?  The 'Never Trump' crowd is extremely unlikely to engage in a riot at the national convention, but the jilted Bernie Sanders supporters have already demonstrated that enough of them are willing to Bern it all down, perhaps using moltov cocktails.  One way or another, this is going to be an election cycle that gets more than a paragraph in American History  textbooks in 100 years, and you know that is true, because you can feel it.  We all can.  We know that something is broken, although we certainly disagree about exactly what that is.  This is the 4th Turning.  The last one resulted in World War 2, and the one before that ended with the US Civil War.

I strongly disagree. 
There's a tendency every election cycle to think that "this is the most important election of our lifetimes!"  Most of the time it turns out not to be true.  Feelings ran high during the highly contested 2000 election, and Carter/Ford in 1976 and Nixon/Kennedy in the 60s.  This list goes on...

I have no doubt that our country will keep going on regardless of whether Clinton, Trump or Sanders sits in the oval office a year from now. Regardless of who wins a large segment of the population will think th country is "heading in the wrong direction", but we still still have the separation of powers. We've always been a country that questions our leaders, and a president who is viewed unfavorably by >50% of the population at any given time is the norm, not an outlier.  The curious part is that even when we don't like our President, our country still functions. People still work, inventors keep innovating, families keep having babies and our military keeps blowing stuff up.  We continue the narrative that "if the other guy was in things would be so much better!" but so far the Vandals aren't encroaching on Washington and the likelihood of dying in a terrorist attack is far less than from a car crash (which itself is far less than a heart attack).

 We've been through periods of extreme anxiety over being attacked... by the Russians, by the Nazis, by the French, by the Mexicans and by the British. We've undergone draconian witch-hunts for communists, gays, Japanese and actual perceived witches. We've had periods of extreme religious intolerance towards catholics and protestants, Jews and Athiests.  Now it's Muslims. This goes on for a few years until cooler heads and our laws prevail.

This too shall pass
"Do not confuse complexity with superiority"

Cressida

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1991
  • Location: Sunset Zone 5
  • gender is a hierarchy
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1718 on: May 26, 2016, 04:02:56 PM »
The curious part is that even when we don't like our President, our country still functions.

Exactly. Anyone who really thinks this is the year we finally burn down the system is deluded and/or bored.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1719 on: May 26, 2016, 04:12:51 PM »

Hopefully she gets indicted (unlikely) before the convention and the democrats put someone less bad that these 2 up.

Who would that be?  To be really honest, I'd still consider Hillary the best statesman that the left has right now & anyone that the Dems could put up in her place will crumple under Trump unless they find an outsider of their own.

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1220
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1720 on: May 26, 2016, 07:13:41 PM »

Hopefully she gets indicted (unlikely) before the convention and the democrats put someone less bad that these 2 up.

Who would that be?  To be really honest, I'd still consider Hillary the best statesman that the left has right now & anyone that the Dems could put up in her place will crumple under Trump unless they find an outsider of their own.

Clinton is corrupt and dishonest.  She is bought and Paid for.  The ig report on her email server, terry mcaullife investigation, her fbi investigation, Huge speaker fees and donations.  If the republicans had their shit together this would be over.  She's a terrible candidate.

Biden makes some stupid comments and is wrong on guns, but he's too poor to be massively corrupt.  He could sit in the office for 4 years and we could try again.

matchewed

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4143
  • Location: CT
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1721 on: May 26, 2016, 07:27:28 PM »
Isn't that just par for the course when you're an establishment candidate? How would the republicans begin to combat that? It would just be kettles calling pots black, and no politician truly wants to actually speak the truth of politics in our country, even if they're not "establishment" like trump or bernie.

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1220
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1722 on: May 26, 2016, 07:45:50 PM »
Isn't that just par for the course when you're an establishment candidate? How would the republicans begin to combat that? It would just be kettles calling pots black, and no politician truly wants to actually speak the truth of politics in our country, even if they're not "establishment" like trump or bernie.

Uh no.  I'm not aware of any other candidate being investigated by the fbi.  She and Bill are in their own league.  Biden are both likable and honest even if some of their ideas are batshit crazy.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1723 on: May 26, 2016, 07:57:48 PM »

Hopefully she gets indicted (unlikely) before the convention and the democrats put someone less bad that these 2 up.

Who would that be?  To be really honest, I'd still consider Hillary the best statesman that the left has right now & anyone that the Dems could put up in her place will crumple under Trump unless they find an outsider of their own.

Clinton is corrupt and dishonest.  She is bought and Paid for.  The ig report on her email server, terry mcaullife investigation, her fbi investigation, Huge speaker fees and donations.  If the republicans had their shit together this would be over.  She's a terrible candidate.

All true. Doesn't change my point at all.  She is a statesman, corrupt though she is.

Quote
Biden makes some stupid comments and is wrong on guns, but he's too poor to be massively corrupt.  He could sit in the office for 4 years and we could try again.

Biden was exactly who I was thinking of when I said, "Hillary is the best statesman the left has right now".  Biden is borderline senile, and definitely isn't a statesman.  Never has been, not even when he had full access to his mind.  Kerry isn't a statesman either, no matter what his fans may think of him.  And this cycle has proven that experience (not statesmanship) in politics is a negative point, so the Dems would have to find a capable outsider to counter Trump's greatest positive.  Who would that be?  It would have to be someone rather famous, probably wealthy but with leftist cred, probably a current or former leader of a major international corporation, without some crazy background, and born in the US.  Maybe Bill Gates?

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1724 on: May 26, 2016, 08:09:58 PM »
I'm not willing to predict that such a landslide will occur, but I won't be shocked if it does.  California has voted Republican in my lifetime, and was pretty red in the 50's & 60's.  These things come in cycles, the pendulum seems to have started back the other way.

LOL.  Only Moonshadow could look at the fractured state of GOP politics and think it means that California will vote Trump.

Only a detached outsider could look at the state of either party, and make a (mostly) unbiased guess on future events.  Are you saying that the Dems are not fractured?  The 'Never Trump' crowd is extremely unlikely to engage in a riot at the national convention, but the jilted Bernie Sanders supporters have already demonstrated that enough of them are willing to Bern it all down, perhaps using moltov cocktails.  One way or another, this is going to be an election cycle that gets more than a paragraph in American History  textbooks in 100 years, and you know that is true, because you can feel it.  We all can.  We know that something is broken, although we certainly disagree about exactly what that is.  This is the 4th Turning.  The last one resulted in World War 2, and the one before that ended with the US Civil War.

I strongly disagree. 
There's a tendency every election cycle to think that "this is the most important election of our lifetimes!"  Most of the time it turns out not to be true.  Feelings ran high during the highly contested 2000 election, and Carter/Ford in 1976 and Nixon/Kennedy in the 60s.  This list goes on...

I have no doubt that our country will keep going on regardless of whether Clinton, Trump or Sanders sits in the oval office a year from now. Regardless of who wins a large segment of the population will think th country is "heading in the wrong direction", but we still still have the separation of powers. We've always been a country that questions our leaders, and a president who is viewed unfavorably by >50% of the population at any given time is the norm, not an outlier.  The curious part is that even when we don't like our President, our country still functions. People still work, inventors keep innovating, families keep having babies and our military keeps blowing stuff up.  We continue the narrative that "if the other guy was in things would be so much better!" but so far the Vandals aren't encroaching on Washington and the likelihood of dying in a terrorist attack is far less than from a car crash (which itself is far less than a heart attack).

 We've been through periods of extreme anxiety over being attacked... by the Russians, by the Nazis, by the French, by the Mexicans and by the British. We've undergone draconian witch-hunts for communists, gays, Japanese and actual perceived witches. We've had periods of extreme religious intolerance towards catholics and protestants, Jews and Athiests.  Now it's Muslims. This goes on for a few years until cooler heads and our laws prevail.

This too shall pass

I never claimed that we would self-destruct as a society.  My point is that we are due for a major shift in the social order, and that usually has accompanied some form of internal or external conflict in the past.  Never has our society passed through a 4th turning unchanged or unscathed in recorded history.  Never.  What can't be predicted is how this 4th Turning will affect us, as a society and as a nation.  In the past, we have always come out of a 4th better for it, overall.  One of them gave us US independence, followed soon by the Constitution & the Bill of Rights.  The next ended slavery as a legal institution, both in law and in any moral code.  The latest established the US as a world economic, scientific & military power.  (Well, good for Americans; not so much the rest of the world, perhaps)

Malaysia41

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2950
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Verona, Italy
    • My mmm journal
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1725 on: May 26, 2016, 10:07:49 PM »
Bernie Sandwiches and Donald Drumpf debating in CA without HRC - I don't see any upside for her.
Last one to panic wins!

My Rohingya Refugee Charity (It's Tax Exempt!)

Privately funded political systems are just WRONG.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7189
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1726 on: May 27, 2016, 06:05:55 AM »
I'm not willing to predict that such a landslide will occur, but I won't be shocked if it does.  California has voted Republican in my lifetime, and was pretty red in the 50's & 60's.  These things come in cycles, the pendulum seems to have started back the other way.

LOL.  Only Moonshadow could look at the fractured state of GOP politics and think it means that California will vote Trump.

Only a detached outsider could look at the state of either party, and make a (mostly) unbiased guess on future events.  Are you saying that the Dems are not fractured?  The 'Never Trump' crowd is extremely unlikely to engage in a riot at the national convention, but the jilted Bernie Sanders supporters have already demonstrated that enough of them are willing to Bern it all down, perhaps using moltov cocktails.  One way or another, this is going to be an election cycle that gets more than a paragraph in American History  textbooks in 100 years, and you know that is true, because you can feel it.  We all can.  We know that something is broken, although we certainly disagree about exactly what that is.  This is the 4th Turning.  The last one resulted in World War 2, and the one before that ended with the US Civil War.

I strongly disagree. 
There's a tendency every election cycle to think that "this is the most important election of our lifetimes!"  Most of the time it turns out not to be true.  Feelings ran high during the highly contested 2000 election, and Carter/Ford in 1976 and Nixon/Kennedy in the 60s.  This list goes on...

I have no doubt that our country will keep going on regardless of whether Clinton, Trump or Sanders sits in the oval office a year from now. Regardless of who wins a large segment of the population will think th country is "heading in the wrong direction", but we still still have the separation of powers. We've always been a country that questions our leaders, and a president who is viewed unfavorably by >50% of the population at any given time is the norm, not an outlier.  The curious part is that even when we don't like our President, our country still functions. People still work, inventors keep innovating, families keep having babies and our military keeps blowing stuff up.  We continue the narrative that "if the other guy was in things would be so much better!" but so far the Vandals aren't encroaching on Washington and the likelihood of dying in a terrorist attack is far less than from a car crash (which itself is far less than a heart attack).

 We've been through periods of extreme anxiety over being attacked... by the Russians, by the Nazis, by the French, by the Mexicans and by the British. We've undergone draconian witch-hunts for communists, gays, Japanese and actual perceived witches. We've had periods of extreme religious intolerance towards catholics and protestants, Jews and Athiests.  Now it's Muslims. This goes on for a few years until cooler heads and our laws prevail.

This too shall pass

I never claimed that we would self-destruct as a society.  My point is that we are due for a major shift in the social order, and that usually has accompanied some form of internal or external conflict in the past.  Never has our society passed through a 4th turning unchanged or unscathed in recorded history.  Never.  What can't be predicted is how this 4th Turning will affect us, as a society and as a nation.  In the past, we have always come out of a 4th better for it, overall.  One of them gave us US independence, followed soon by the Constitution & the Bill of Rights.  The next ended slavery as a legal institution, both in law and in any moral code.  The latest established the US as a world economic, scientific & military power.  (Well, good for Americans; not so much the rest of the world, perhaps)

You might want to be a bit more careful with your posts if you want people to understand what you are saying.  You claimed we are going to enter into a Fourth Turn (a.k.a a crisis), that this election will be regarded as extremely important 100 years from now (moreso that most elections of the past several decades), that Sander's supporters will be lobbing explosives with a specific intent to destroy the entire institution and that 'we all know this is true/ we can feel it'.

I'm merely disagreeing, and adding that your references to a "Forth Turning" are muddled. I disagree there will be widespread violence (particularly among Sander's supporters).  I disagree this election will seem more important 100 years from now than others in the last half-century (or future half century) and I your claim that we are entering a new Forth Turning/crisis is both at odds with the main proponents of the theory (and I disagree that we are on the 'verge' of a new generational crisis).

According to the theory, a Fourth Turning is a crisis and its cyclical, occurring roughly every 80-90 years.  In American history the last Fourth Turn started with the stock market crash and great depression, not WWII as you suggested (theory holds that WWII brought us OUT of that Fourth Turning).  The one before that was the Civil War as you suggested.  Interestingly, the theory shows that we entered a Fourth Turning with the 'war on terror' and subsequent great recession, and that it has mostly run its course.  So your assertion that we are due for a new Fourth Turning is at odds with the theory.

 
"Do not confuse complexity with superiority"

golden1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1442
  • Location: MA
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1727 on: May 27, 2016, 06:46:08 AM »
Hey, thanks for the discussion.  The Strauss-Howe generational theory is really interesting stuff!  It actually gives an interesting template for a lot of the ideas I have had about politics and society in general swimming around in my head.

It seems like determining when the fourth turning actually was/is/will be is controversial right now.  Maybe the great recession was it, but maybe not - in fact probably not.  It was more like an earthquake tremor.  I mean, what really changed systemically after the great recession?  The same conditions that caused the great recession are still pretty much in place.  The status quo was not really changed in any fundamental way.  The great recession wasn't on the level of the great depression in terms of severity and human suffering, so it didn't really provide the catalyst to overthrow the existing system.  It is very possible that the "fourth turning" is yet to come.

But there are a lot of dangers to this type of theory.  Self-fulfilled prophecy and apocalyptic thinking is at the top of my list.  Also, as pattern seeking primates, we may just be finding patterns that don't really exist.  Another point is that this cycle doesn't necessarily have to exist in perpetuity, even if it is true historically.  Or it could all just be complete pseudoscience bullshit.  It's still interesting though. 

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7189
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1728 on: May 27, 2016, 08:17:12 AM »
Hey, thanks for the discussion.  The Strauss-Howe generational theory is really interesting stuff!  It actually gives an interesting template for a lot of the ideas I have had about politics and society in general swimming around in my head.
...
But there are a lot of dangers to this type of theory.  Self-fulfilled prophecy and apocalyptic thinking is at the top of my list.  Also, as pattern seeking primates, we may just be finding patterns that don't really exist.  Another point is that this cycle doesn't necessarily have to exist in perpetuity, even if it is true historically.  Or it could all just be complete pseudoscience bullshit.  It's still interesting though.
Yeah, we spent several weeks discussing this in my political theory class many moons ago.
I can certainly see how a large societal crisis (one that's fundamental to the way the society operates) will eventually lead to a new normal which, when compared to the crisis can rightfully be considered a "high" ... and that this can lead to progression of political ideas and cahnges in equality (or "an awakening")

But I share similar misgivings as you about whether these patterns will happen in the future.  First off, given the cycles are supposed to be 80+ years (roughly four generations worth) we've only gone through two and might be starting our thirds.  N=2 is not meaningful in any way to determine cyclical patterns.
also - while people have gone through great lengths to find similar patterns in other developed nations, it doesn't seem to fit all societies. For example - there's not much evidence of it for the ancient roman republic, nor most long-lasting dynasties in Asia.  While proponents bring up the enlightenment as an example of one "Awakening" - the enlightenment happened at different decades even in areas connected by trade/ideas/migration.  If the phenomenon truly exists, is it limited to only modern democracies?  If so, why?  If yes, can we really expect the sharing of information and ideas in 2016 to be roughly equivalent to the 1930s, 1860s and 1770s?

To rephrase my points to MoonShadow - I don't believe that we are 'pre-destined' to be on the verge (or already in) a Fourth Turn, nor do I see the kind of social chaos that our country experienced immediately before the Revolutionary and Civil wars.
Rhetoric is high - but that's par for the course during presidential campaigns. A few modest changes will occur following the election of the next president, and most of us will go back to grumbling about how things could be a lot better "... if only if...".

Time will be the ultimate judge.  I could be wrong and we could be on the cusp of radical, sweeping and all-encompassing societal change.  ::shrug::
"Do not confuse complexity with superiority"

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1729 on: May 27, 2016, 10:04:49 AM »
A 4th tuning doesn't require violence, but it is often associated with it.  And teh US is a violent culture with a violent past, so the crisis cycles might be more easily identified in the US than in other western nations.  The theory is based off of the ancient Roman concept of the Seculum, so there is certainly some evidence that this is something that is part of human nature.  I could be wrong about this being the crisis turn, but regardless the methods of campaigning that Trump has used for the past year will change politics in this nation for decades.  If only for that reason, this election cycle will be studied in 100 years.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6270
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1730 on: May 27, 2016, 11:06:37 AM »
the methods of campaigning that Trump has used for the past year will change politics in this nation for decades.  If only for that reason, this election cycle will be studied in 100 years.

I think the history books will record this election cycle as just another major party in the midst of an identity crisis that couldn't get their act together in time, and so fractured their own base and ended up with a minority fringe candidate who was doomed to a crushing defeat from the outset.  We've all seen that story before.

Politics hasn't changed in any meaningful way because of Donald Trump.  He's just an opportunist who saw a party floundering and took advantage of the chaos to increase his brand recognition.  After he loses, I predict he'll start a media network catering to the minority whacko population and go head to head with Glenn Beck and Rupert Murdoch.  Mass media is the one business he hasn't yet failed at, so it's a natural progression.

music lover

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 657
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1731 on: May 27, 2016, 11:35:32 AM »
Trump's behavior is already becoming normalized to many people.  "He doesn't mean anything he says so don't be worried about him."  - this is actually seen as a positive thing about Trump.  If you can convince a large group of people that what you say doesn't matter, then anything is possible.  More than anything else, this is the most damaging thing he does.  I teach my kids that honesty matters, integrity matters, and not to be a bully.  Now we have large groups of people saying that behaving like an immature child is perfectly acceptable as long as you "win".  In the same way that our culture has become more narcissistic since the 1960's, I think that that Trump's candidacy signals a broader cultural change.

Do your kids know how corrupt and dishonest Hillary is, or do your "lessons" to them simply follow party lines and turn a blind eye to how corrupt she is?

forummm

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7356
  • Senior Mustachian
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1732 on: May 27, 2016, 11:48:51 AM »
the methods of campaigning that Trump has used for the past year will change politics in this nation for decades.  If only for that reason, this election cycle will be studied in 100 years.

I think the history books will record this election cycle as just another major party in the midst of an identity crisis that couldn't get their act together in time, and so fractured their own base and ended up with a minority fringe candidate who was doomed to a crushing defeat from the outset.  We've all seen that story before.

Politics hasn't changed in any meaningful way because of Donald Trump.  He's just an opportunist who saw a party floundering and took advantage of the chaos to increase his brand recognition.  After he loses, I predict he'll start a media network catering to the minority whacko population and go head to head with Glenn Beck and Rupert Murdoch.  Mass media is the one business he hasn't yet failed at, so it's a natural progression.

I think you're generally right. What I do think changes is that we will see a few people learn from the experience and work to present a more populist non-establishment crusader type of image. Cruz and Trump read the room and positioned themselves that way years ago. Bernie's been Bernie for decades and just got in at the right time without really realizing it for awhile (and if he'd realized it and actually campaigned aggressively from the beginning, I think he would have won).

The major thing that could change is that the movement to get big special interest money out of campaigns could take hold. If the movement is successful, that is a revolution with huge potential.

Especially since Bernie isn't playing ball.  Trump offering to debate Bernie was a master stroke.

It was actually Bernie offering to debate Trump. Very smart, as you say. And it allows him to focus his attacks on Trump and knock him down the way only he can. Part of the reason he crushes Trump in head-to-head polling is because only he can make certain arguments with credibility, or would even want to make them. If he does a good job, it only makes the case stronger that he would be the best general election candidate (instead of Biden if something keeps Clinton from the nomination).

And I would say that Bernie is playing the game while also playing ball. His goal is to make policy changes in the party platform and elevate certain issues to prominence. And he's getting that done to some extent. If he shuts down and goes home, his leverage is gone. He has to keep campaigning to keep his influence around. There's no chance he gets any position in the HRC administration (she'll happily offer him the role of junior senator from Vermont). But at the same time, his campaigning is pretty positive and only tweaks Clinton in ways consistent with his policy message. If she adopts his policy goals, then those critiques lose any power.

He's also sticking around just in case she gets indicted or has another major scandal break before the convention. It's really the smart thing to do. And he isn't saying that's why he's sticking around because he limits his criticisms of her to policy issues. He said at the very beginning that people talk about her emails too much. And he isn't talking about the possibility of legal problems for her. He's really too nice for his own political good in those ways.

It also bears reminding that Clinton was still in the race at this point in 2008. In fact, she was arguing that even though she was behind in both pledged delegates and superdelegates at that point, that the superdelegates should still vote for her anyway. And she cited the fact that she was performing better in the polling for the general vs McCain than Obama was. So I'm sure she's about to drop out any day now because Sanders is just crushing Trump in all the polling (by 15 points in the latest poll!) while she is tied with him. I'm clicking refresh on the news just waiting for it...

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2008/05/clintons-closing-argument-to-superdelegates/53314/

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1220
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1733 on: May 27, 2016, 11:56:14 AM »

It was actually Bernie offering to debate Trump. Very smart, as you say. And it allows him to focus his attacks on Trump and knock him down the way only he can. Part of the reason he crushes Trump in head-to-head polling is because only he can make certain arguments with credibility, or would even want to make them. If he does a good job, it only makes the case stronger that he would be the best general election candidate (instead of Biden if something keeps Clinton from the nomination).


It would be fascinating if both went after Hillary as well as each other during the debate (the enemy of my enemy is my friend).

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6270
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1734 on: May 27, 2016, 12:13:47 PM »
Do your kids know how corrupt and dishonest Hillary is, or do your "lessons" to them simply follow party lines and turn a blind eye to how corrupt she is?

Voters have never taken the GOP character assassination pieces against the Clintons very seriously. Why do you think this time will be any different?  After 8 years of that nonsense, Bill retired as the most popular president in history.

Ken Starr, who led the charge against them, has been fired from his university job for protecting actual convicted rapists.  Newt Gingrich, who seconded the charge on grounds that marital infidelity was politically disqualifying, turned out to be also cheating on his wife.  The republican who replaced Newt as speaker of the house?  Bob Livingston, who resigned because he was cheating on his wife.  The republican who replaced him?  Dennis Hastert, currently in jail for being a pedophile.

Basically every republican who was involved in the anti-Clinton PR machine from the 90s is now disgraced, while the Clintons emerged mostly unscathed.  So I'm not worried that Trump is trying to join that bandwagon.  Go ahead, dude.  You may sway some ignorant voters by repeating the lies over and over again, but it's still all lies.

Hillary is too centrist for most of the democratic party.  She's too pro-military and she's too pro- wall street.  But she's also a competent administrator who will cement the economic and social progress we've made over the past decade, rather than tearing down America to start over again from scratch.  She won't deliver all the change that Bernie's supporters want, but she will deliver some of it and she won't roll back the positive changes we've already seen, so she will lay the groundwork for more slow and gradual change.  Trump, on the other hand, would set us back decades and make a Sanders-like presidency impossible in my lifetime.

I think Hillary, for all of her too-centrist faults, is a step in the right direction.  I hope enough Sanders supports can see that, after they accept that the change he represents seems to be too much, too fast, for most of the country.  I think we'll inevitably get there eventually, but it will take decades to do it, not one sweeping election that would just be stymied by an obstructionist republican congress anyway.  The time is not yet ripe.
« Last Edit: May 27, 2016, 12:19:20 PM by sol »

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7189
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1735 on: May 27, 2016, 12:26:29 PM »
Trump's behavior is already becoming normalized to many people.  "He doesn't mean anything he says so don't be worried about him."  - this is actually seen as a positive thing about Trump.  If you can convince a large group of people that what you say doesn't matter, then anything is possible.  More than anything else, this is the most damaging thing he does.  I teach my kids that honesty matters, integrity matters, and not to be a bully.  Now we have large groups of people saying that behaving like an immature child is perfectly acceptable as long as you "win".  In the same way that our culture has become more narcissistic since the 1960's, I think that that Trump's candidacy signals a broader cultural change.

Do your kids know how corrupt and dishonest Hillary is, or do your "lessons" to them simply follow party lines and turn a blind eye to how corrupt she is?

I'm curious how you are defining "corrupt" here, and what specific things leads you to conclude that Clinton is corrupt (at least more so than other individuals running for high-level office).
Most definitions stress bribery and fraudulent behavior.  Those require conscious actions. I concur that Clinton is closely funded by all sorts of powerful lobbies that have their own particular interest, but particualrly after Citizens United that can be said for most other candidates, including the last two Presidents and most of congress.  Accepting money from a company or individual to run a political campaign also isn't corruption per se.

So music lover: how is Clinton substantially more corrupt than our other leaders?
"Do not confuse complexity with superiority"

thd7t

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 955
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1736 on: May 27, 2016, 12:29:48 PM »
I agree that Sanders is playing the game and playing ball. I do not think that he is obliged to get out of the race, but I do think that while running as a Democrat, he is obliged to attack Trump as opposed to Clinton.Sanders is principled and I do not think that he or Clinton has damaged the other in any serious way. They have been contentious, but that's not a surprise.
Sanders knows that the best way to get his message out is through the Democratic party platform. He won't shoot himself in the foot by siding with Trump to attack Clinton (although Trump will try to get him to).

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7189
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1737 on: May 27, 2016, 12:56:26 PM »
@ sol
You bring up an interesting point about certain candidates being too centrist for their own party's most enthusiastic supporters, but closer to the median of the country as a whole. 
Just as an example, when this whole sideshow Presidential primary season started there was Jim Gilmore, a GOP candidate that was had relatively broad support in a battleground state (Virginia) with a large political divide between the urban/suburban north and the more rural south.  He was more liberal than most of the field but still conservative compared with most democrats.  His campaign never gained any traction whatsoever in part because his views weren't far enough to the right to allow him to even compete, let alone win, with any of the early state primaries.

I'm not advocating Gilmore would have been a good President (ideology is only one aspect of a good executive), but merely using him as a segway to this idea:
To what degree should we try to find and support a 'centrist' candidate that most of the country could tolerate, vs supporting a candidate that may personally share most of one party's views but seem too extreme for at least half of the country to ever get behind?

Personally I would consider myself left of center on most issues, but while I might personally like a more liberal candidate, I could see myself supporting a candidate who was somewhat right of center, if only because I think s/he would be accepted by a broader slice of the country then either a far-left or a far-right candidate.
"Do not confuse complexity with superiority"

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4515
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1738 on: May 27, 2016, 01:22:40 PM »
Do your kids know how corrupt and dishonest Hillary is, or do your "lessons" to them simply follow party lines and turn a blind eye to how corrupt she is?

Voters have never taken the GOP character assassination pieces against the Clintons very seriously. Why do you think this time will be any different?  After 8 years of that nonsense, Bill retired as the most popular president in history.

Ken Starr, who led the charge against them, has been fired from his university job for protecting actual convicted rapists.  Newt Gingrich, who seconded the charge on grounds that marital infidelity was politically disqualifying, turned out to be also cheating on his wife.  The republican who replaced Newt as speaker of the house?  Bob Livingston, who resigned because he was cheating on his wife.  The republican who replaced him?  Dennis Hastert, currently in jail for being a pedophile.

Basically every republican who was involved in the anti-Clinton PR machine from the 90s is now disgraced, while the Clintons emerged mostly unscathed.  So I'm not worried that Trump is trying to join that bandwagon.  Go ahead, dude.  You may sway some ignorant voters by repeating the lies over and over again, but it's still all lies.

Hillary is too centrist for most of the democratic party.  She's too pro-military and she's too pro- wall street.  But she's also a competent administrator who will cement the economic and social progress we've made over the past decade, rather than tearing down America to start over again from scratch.  She won't deliver all the change that Bernie's supporters want, but she will deliver some of it and she won't roll back the positive changes we've already seen, so she will lay the groundwork for more slow and gradual change.  Trump, on the other hand, would set us back decades and make a Sanders-like presidency impossible in my lifetime.

I think Hillary, for all of her too-centrist faults, is a step in the right direction. I hope enough Sanders supports can see that, after they accept that the change he represents seems to be too much, too fast, for most of the country.  I think we'll inevitably get there eventually, but it will take decades to do it, not one sweeping election that would just be stymied by an obstructionist republican congress anyway.  The time is not yet ripe.
Many of the Sanders supporters do believe it. 

golden1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1442
  • Location: MA
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1739 on: May 27, 2016, 01:35:19 PM »
Quote
Voters have never taken the GOP character assassination pieces against the Clintons very seriously. Why do you think this time will be any different?  After 8 years of that nonsense, Bill retired as the most popular president in history.

Ken Starr, who led the charge against them, has been fired from his university job for protecting actual convicted rapists.  Newt Gingrich, who seconded the charge on grounds that marital infidelity was politically disqualifying, turned out to be also cheating on his wife.  The republican who replaced Newt as speaker of the house?  Bob Livingston, who resigned because he was cheating on his wife.  The republican who replaced him?  Dennis Hastert, currently in jail for being a pedophile.

Basically every republican who was involved in the anti-Clinton PR machine from the 90s is now disgraced, while the Clintons emerged mostly unscathed.  So I'm not worried that Drumpf is trying to join that bandwagon.  Go ahead, dude.  You may sway some ignorant voters by repeating the lies over and over again, but it's still all lies.

Hillary is too centrist for most of the democratic party.  She's too pro-military and she's too pro- wall street.  But she's also a competent administrator who will cement the economic and social progress we've made over the past decade, rather than tearing down America to start over again from scratch.  She won't deliver all the change that Bernie's supporters want, but she will deliver some of it and she won't roll back the positive changes we've already seen, so she will lay the groundwork for more slow and gradual change.  Drumpf, on the other hand, would set us back decades and make a Sanders-like presidency impossible in my lifetime.

I think Hillary, for all of her too-centrist faults, is a step in the right direction.  I hope enough Sanders supports can see that, after they accept that the change he represents seems to be too much, too fast, for most of the country.  I think we'll inevitably get there eventually, but it will take decades to do it, not one sweeping election that would just be stymied by an obstructionist republican congress anyway.  The time is not yet ripe.

<---See my avatar.  :)

Seriously, this all sounds very reasonable and I hope against all odds it plays out that way.  I am just becoming more convinced day by day that it won't.  Seriously, who here thought that Drumpf would be the Republican nominee?  And all the Republicans, except for the ones who were disgraced or lost elections, are lining up to support him. 

Quote
Do your kids know how corrupt and dishonest Hillary is, or do your "lessons" to them simply follow party lines and turn a blind eye to how corrupt she is?

Not that it is worth answering such an angry and linear thinker, but I'll bite.

 I don't "teach" my kids to vote for anyone.  I am a registered independent.  My daughter is well aware of the email scandals, Bengazi, etc...  Like many in her age group, she likes Bernie and doesn't trust Hillary.  My son is younger, and he is just seeing Drumpf like the Bully in the school yard that he is.  (If I saw some kid acting the way that Drumpf does, I'd call him a bully, wouldn't you?  In fact IIRC, his dad sent him to military school for disciplinary reasons.)  I am intent on teaching my kids critical thinking skills, and if my kids end up in either political party, I would honestly be fine with it, provided they were decent humans.  If you are indoctrinating your kids to one end of the political spectrum, you aren't being a very good parent IMO. 

Hillary's transgressions skirt the lines of being ethical, but she doesn't generally violate social norms and standards like Drumpf does.  Drumpf is being investigated for fraud right now, although that isn't getting as much press as the email thing.   


Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1220
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1740 on: May 27, 2016, 01:51:18 PM »
Do your kids know how corrupt and dishonest Hillary is, or do your "lessons" to them simply follow party lines and turn a blind eye to how corrupt she is?

Voters have never taken the GOP character assassination pieces against the Clintons very seriously. Why do you think this time will be any different?  After 8 years of that nonsense, Bill retired as the most popular president in history.

Ken Starr, who led the charge against them, has been fired from his university job for protecting actual convicted rapists.  Newt Gingrich, who seconded the charge on grounds that marital infidelity was politically disqualifying, turned out to be also cheating on his wife.  The republican who replaced Newt as speaker of the house?  Bob Livingston, who resigned because he was cheating on his wife.  The republican who replaced him?  Dennis Hastert, currently in jail for being a pedophile.

Basically every republican who was involved in the anti-Clinton PR machine from the 90s is now disgraced, while the Clintons emerged mostly unscathed.  So I'm not worried that Trump is trying to join that bandwagon.  Go ahead, dude.  You may sway some ignorant voters by repeating the lies over and over again, but it's still all lies.

Hillary is too centrist for most of the democratic party.  She's too pro-military and she's too pro- wall street.  But she's also a competent administrator who will cement the economic and social progress we've made over the past decade, rather than tearing down America to start over again from scratch.  She won't deliver all the change that Bernie's supporters want, but she will deliver some of it and she won't roll back the positive changes we've already seen, so she will lay the groundwork for more slow and gradual change.  Trump, on the other hand, would set us back decades and make a Sanders-like presidency impossible in my lifetime.

I think Hillary, for all of her too-centrist faults, is a step in the right direction. I hope enough Sanders supports can see that, after they accept that the change he represents seems to be too much, too fast, for most of the country.  I think we'll inevitably get there eventually, but it will take decades to do it, not one sweeping election that would just be stymied by an obstructionist republican congress anyway.  The time is not yet ripe.
Many of the Sanders supporters do believe it.

The FBI seems to think something is amiss with Secretary Clinton.  The IG thought something was wrong with her e-mail practices.  Neither of those are partisan attacks.  Whether the FBI investigation yields an indictment, who knows.

Northwestie

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1224
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1741 on: May 27, 2016, 01:53:33 PM »
Trump is another in the long line of GOPers who were born on third base and think they hit a triple.

Cyaphas

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 499
  • Age: 35
  • Location: DFW, TX
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1742 on: May 27, 2016, 03:49:58 PM »

Seriously, this all sounds very reasonable and I hope against all odds it plays out that way.  I am just becoming more convinced day by day that it won't.  Seriously, who here thought that Drumpf would be the Republican nominee?  And all the Republicans, except for the ones who were disgraced or lost elections, are lining up to support him. 
   

I did. I think he's going to win too. I think he's just as trashy as the rest of the candidates. But, he isn't really Red and he isn't really Blue. I think that he's going to be the designated fall guy for all of the hurt about to finally come to fruition from the world banking system failures. Red and Blue had a huge part in causing it, the step back for an election, The Don catches the falling knife and then Red and Blue come to the rescue.
“For to be free is not merely to cast off one’s chains, but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others.”
-Nelson Mandela

“Gold is the money of kings, silver is the money of gentlemen, barter is the money of peasants – but debt is the money of slaves.”
-Norm Franz

MDM

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7551
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1743 on: May 27, 2016, 05:54:47 PM »
Trump is another in the long line of GOPers who were born on third base and think they hit a triple.
Would it be better if he tried to steal second?

Malaysia41

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2950
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Verona, Italy
    • My mmm journal
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1744 on: May 27, 2016, 06:32:46 PM »
The major thing that could change is that the movement to get big special interest money out of campaigns could take hold. If the movement is successful, that is a revolution with huge potential.

Anyone who lives in a state other than those listed below, I recommend you go to wolf-pac.com. If you agree with the objective - of having states pass resolutions to add a 28th amendment to the constitution, negating the effects of such cases as Citizens United - then contact your STATE representatives and ask them to put such a resolution up for a vote. Wolf pac even has the text ready to go for them.

Here are the states that have already PASSED such resolutions: Vermont, California, Illinois, New Jersey
States where a resolution is PENDING: Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maryland, Missouri, New Hampshire, Washington

If 32 states pass these resolutions, then Congress will have craft an amendment and put it up for a vote. Any representative who is sick of dialing for dollars for the DNC or RNC could jump at this.

So if you live in say, Virginia, Texas, Maine or Oregon, and you want $ out of elections, I suggest you check out how to push for your state to adopt this resolution.
« Last Edit: May 27, 2016, 06:37:15 PM by Malaysia41 »
Last one to panic wins!

My Rohingya Refugee Charity (It's Tax Exempt!)

Privately funded political systems are just WRONG.

ShoulderThingThatGoesUp

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2881
  • Location: Emmaus, PA
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1745 on: May 28, 2016, 05:38:20 AM »
The major thing that could change is that the movement to get big special interest money out of campaigns could take hold. If the movement is successful, that is a revolution with huge potential.

Anyone who lives in a state other than those listed below, I recommend you go to wolf-pac.com. If you agree with the objective - of having states pass resolutions to add a 28th amendment to the constitution, negating the effects of such cases as Citizens United - then contact your STATE representatives and ask them to put such a resolution up for a vote. Wolf pac even has the text ready to go for them.

Here are the states that have already PASSED such resolutions: Vermont, California, Illinois, New Jersey
States where a resolution is PENDING: Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maryland, Missouri, New Hampshire, Washington

If 32 states pass these resolutions, then Congress will have craft an amendment and put it up for a vote. Any representative who is sick of dialing for dollars for the DNC or RNC could jump at this.

So if you live in say, Virginia, Texas, Maine or Oregon, and you want $ out of elections, I suggest you check out how to push for your state to adopt this resolution.

Why the eagerness to repeal the First Amendment? Look at all the money Jeb Bush spent, and it didn't get him a damn thing. It doesn't matter.

That "amendment" says "Corporations are not allowed to give money to any politician, directly or indirectly." Does this mean that the New York Times isn't allowed to endorse Hillary Clinton?

matchewed

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4143
  • Location: CT
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1746 on: May 28, 2016, 07:06:14 AM »
The major thing that could change is that the movement to get big special interest money out of campaigns could take hold. If the movement is successful, that is a revolution with huge potential.

Anyone who lives in a state other than those listed below, I recommend you go to wolf-pac.com. If you agree with the objective - of having states pass resolutions to add a 28th amendment to the constitution, negating the effects of such cases as Citizens United - then contact your STATE representatives and ask them to put such a resolution up for a vote. Wolf pac even has the text ready to go for them.

Here are the states that have already PASSED such resolutions: Vermont, California, Illinois, New Jersey
States where a resolution is PENDING: Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maryland, Missouri, New Hampshire, Washington

If 32 states pass these resolutions, then Congress will have craft an amendment and put it up for a vote. Any representative who is sick of dialing for dollars for the DNC or RNC could jump at this.

So if you live in say, Virginia, Texas, Maine or Oregon, and you want $ out of elections, I suggest you check out how to push for your state to adopt this resolution.

Why the eagerness to repeal the First Amendment? Look at all the money Jeb Bush spent, and it didn't get him a damn thing. It doesn't matter.

That "amendment" says "Corporations are not allowed to give money to any politician, directly or indirectly." Does this mean that the New York Times isn't allowed to endorse Hillary Clinton?

Opinion != money

forummm

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7356
  • Senior Mustachian
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1747 on: May 28, 2016, 01:18:20 PM »
I recommend you go to wolf-pac.com.

+ 1 million. I have followed their activities and they are a very good cause.

It would be fascinating if both went after Hillary as well as each other during the debate (the enemy of my enemy is my friend).

Too bad Trump is a scared little squirrel and weaseled his way out of the debate. What a weak baby. He spends all day on TV talking. No reason he can't talk with Sanders.

Trump, on the other hand, would set us back decades and make a Sanders-like presidency impossible in my lifetime.

Totally disagree here. I have no idea what Trump would actually do, but regardless, it doesn't mean it would quell the appetite for someone to change things in a big way. In fact, there's a strong argument to be made that it could actually increase the desire for change (especially as a contrast to  a corporatist, continuist, Clinton presidency). There are so many forces at play here that it's difficult to forecast. But Trump being an idiot and screwing things up doesn't mean that people will decide that going in an intelligent and popular direction with big goals (that the rest of the world has already met) is a bad idea.

Of course Clinton is a better choice that Trump. And you have to take what you can get now. But it's not clear what these choices bear on what candidates will take hold in future cycles.

forummm

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7356
  • Senior Mustachian
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1748 on: May 28, 2016, 01:24:58 PM »
Why the eagerness to repeal the First Amendment? Look at all the money Jeb Bush spent, and it didn't get him a damn thing. It doesn't matter.

It's amending, not repealing. We've amended amendments before.

The presidency is the one office where is much easier to win without all the special interest money. You get so much free media time because of all the press coverage of the race. So it's easier to compete without spending cash, or to get enough exposure to get lots of small donors. But even so, you will still likely have 2 candidates this year who spend a billion dollars of mostly big donor money.

The smaller races are much more dependent on big pockets. If you're running in say Montana, it's very easy for a couple special interests to be able to overwhelm donors from Montana and blanket all the local media there. They could write a check for $10 million and dramatically tilt that race.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7189
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1749 on: May 29, 2016, 06:43:53 AM »
Interesting development in the federal investigation into Trump University. 
Judge Gonzalo Curiel cited "public interest" and ordered the release of internal Trump University documents including “playbooks” that advised sales personnel how to market the high-priced courses. He rejected the arguments from Trump's legal team that the documents should be protected as trade secrets because the company (Trump University) does not currently exist.

This came the same day that Trump publicly criticized Judge Curiel at a rally in California, calling the judge a "hater of Trump" and that "[he] should be ashamed of himself. I think it’s a disgrace that he is doing this"

Baring any more legal maneuvers the documents will become public record on Thursday, June 2nd.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/judge-orders-release-of-internal-trump-university-documents/2016/05/28/2e960e5e-24f9-11e6-8690-f14ca9de2972_story.html

"Do not confuse complexity with superiority"