... from a curious foreigner. ;)
1. I understand that personal attacks and questioning your opponent's character is part of presidential campaigns. However, I have a feeling that in the past topics and issues still played a major role - this time, though, it seems that any political topics and issues have been completely sidelined. Is this a first or has it been this bad before?
2. Does the long, drawn out campaign trail (2 years from people throwing their hat into the ring to election day) reward attention grabbing candidates that are low on content and high on theatrics?
3. What do you reckon is the number of people who explicitly vote for a candidate, because they think they're the right person for the office vs. people voiting to keep the other candidate out? People have been joking that presidential elections are about choosing the lesser evil, but my outsider's impression is that it's not been this pronounced before.
4. What will be the conclusion the parties draw from this election? Will they make changes to the nomination and primary process? Will they consider going with more mainstream candidates that have a chance of negotiating bipartisan compromise on political issues? Or will the polarization of the American political landscape continue and possibly increase? I recall after the 2012 analysts agreed that Republicans need to approach e.g. Latin and Black voters, but it appears they chose the opposite.
I reckon your guesses are as good as mine.
Number 1 ain't new.
https://youtu.be/Y_zTN4BXvYI
1) As jimmy olsen said, this isn't anything new. it might be more pronounced this time than normally, but 2016 probably isn't the worst it's ever been.
2) Hard to say.
3) I think that the Republican Party might consider changing some of the rules for its primaries, at least to the extent that the party itself and not the various state governments set the rules, because the RNC didn't want Trump and if, for example, delegates were awarded proportionately in all states instead of some of them using winner-take-all, there would have been a much better chance of blocking him from the nomination. Keep in mind, though, that some of those rules are there to try to avoid having a brokered convention, which I think neither party ever wants to happen again.
The Democratic Party has little reason to change their rules because the DNC got the nominee they wanted (the party big-wigs love the Clintons' fund-raising abilities).
But as far as "going with more mainstream candidates" is concerned, that's really more up to the primary voters in each party than the national party organizations and big shots.
Quote from: dps on October 10, 2016, 05:22:45 AM
But as far as "going with more mainstream candidates" is concerned, that's really more up to the primary voters in each party than the national party organizations and big shots.
So there's only waiting for government to be so messed up and blocked that "I actually can get shit done" candidates become attractive?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 10, 2016, 02:48:39 AM
Number 1 ain't new.
https://youtu.be/Y_zTN4BXvYI
He didn't ask if it was new. :mellow: In fact he stated he knew it was normal.
It is worse. But there is a good reason for that. Yes issues were a bigger part of previous campaigns, I mean you have been through at least three others on Languish before. But there is a reason issues ceased to be a major part of these campaigns. I didn't like the debates in 2004, 2008, and 2012 for very different reasons than today. Those debates had candidates recycling boring talking points and not answering the question they were asked. People eventually tuned those out I think. Also they are rather hashed out by now. Everybody knows what talking points Republicans want to hear and what Democrats want to hear. So the only thing interesting is the personal attacks and man are they getting out of control. To the point that I am a little worried the loser might have to flee the country or some shit. I mean Hillary is basically called a criminal and Trump is basically a KKK rapist at this point. Crazy.
But remember it is the zingers like Lloyd Bentsen insulting Dan Quayle that tend to be remembered not whatever brilliant policy wonkish statements that were made. Hell some people still remember the 'Mama mama where's my pa?' line the Republicans used to chant at Grover Cleveland about his illegitimate child. So we probably eventually got the election we deserved. :P
But remember issues did play a pretty big role in the Democratic primary. That was actually a normal primary without a reality TV star who really knew how to play to the TV audience.
Quote2. Does the long, drawn out campaign trail (2 years from people throwing their hat into the ring to election day) reward attention grabbing candidates that are low on content and high on theatrics?
I think so. Few people who are gifted administrators or managers is likely to prosper in such an environment, or want to put up with such an extended and stressful process. The long campaign trail made lots of sense back in the day before the internet and all that but really all I need are about 20 minutes to look at each candidates' platform and read a few quotes before I can decide who I am going to vote for. I think most other people are the same. We could easily compact the whole process, Primaries plus general election, into about an eight week span and would be better for it IMO. But this is not likely to change anytime soon.
A big issue people might want to think about is how politically vulnerable this makes us internationally. Obama has been a powerless lame duck on the world stage for fully half his term because of this election. That is the only reason I have any hope it might one day change.
Quote3. What do you reckon is the number of people who explicitly vote for a candidate, because they think they're the right person for the office vs. people voiting to keep the other candidate out? People have been joking that presidential elections are about choosing the lesser evil, but my outsider's impression is that it's not been this pronounced before.
Well we have never had a candidate quite like Trump before. But I am a particularly bad person to ask this since I actually thought the Clintons were the people we needed to be back in power. 16 years of amateur hour in the White House was getting a bit stale. I thought some seasoned political operators might be what we needed. And the fact Hillary seemed to support my free trade/international alliances beliefs was also good. So there was probably only one or two candidates on the Republican side I would have voted for over her I think.
Quote4. What will be the conclusion the parties draw from this election? Will they make changes to the nomination and primary process? Will they consider going with more mainstream candidates that have a chance of negotiating bipartisan compromise on political issues? Or will the polarization of the American political landscape continue and possibly increase? I recall after the 2012 analysts agreed that Republicans need to approach e.g. Latin and Black voters, but it appears they chose the opposite.
I see things getting worse before they get better. The radical sides of both parties are going to seize the machinery. Clinton will probably be the last centrist for awhile. Hope I am wrong. The Bernie Sanders fans and the Trump populists are coming and the party system as we know it is going to be broken.
Quote from: Valmy on October 10, 2016, 07:14:48 AM
It is worse. But there is a good reason for that. Yes issues were a bigger part of previous campaigns, I mean you have been through at least three others on Languish before. But there is a reason issues ceased to be a major part of these campaigns. I didn't like the debates in 2004, 2008, and 2012 for very different reasons than today. Those debates had candidates recycling boring talking points and not answering the question they were asked. People eventually tuned those out I think. Also they are rather hashed out by now. Everybody knows what talking points Republicans want to hear and what Democrats want to hear. So the only thing interesting is the personal attacks and man are they getting out of control
I'm not sure that is fair. The talking points are evolving. The plight of African Americans was never such a strong issue before - same as this anti-trade deals/free trade stance. Meanwhile culture war items like abortion and gay marriage are seeing much fewer mentions in policy discussions.
QuoteI think so. Few people who are gifted administrators or managers is likely to prosper in such an environment, or want to put up with such an extended and stressful process. The long campaign trail made lots of sense back in the day before the internet and all that but really all I need are about 20 minutes to look at each candidates' platform and read a few quotes before I can decide who I am going to vote for. I think most other people are the same. We could easily compact the whole process, Primaries plus general election, into about an eight week span and would be better for it IMO. But this is not likely to change anytime soon.
Actually I have to take issue with this to. Before Trump, who were big, theatrical candidates?
Quote from: garbon on October 10, 2016, 07:30:54 AM
I'm not sure that is fair. The talking points are evolving. The plight of African Americans was never such a strong issue before - same as this anti-trade deals/free trade stance. Meanwhile culture war items like abortion and gay marriage are seeing much fewer mentions in policy discussions.
Perhaps. Though I think if guys like Pence were running things the gay marriage/abortion thing would return as a big issue.
Quote from: Valmy on October 10, 2016, 07:32:51 AM
Quote from: garbon on October 10, 2016, 07:30:54 AM
I'm not sure that is fair. The talking points are evolving. The plight of African Americans was never such a strong issue before - same as this anti-trade deals/free trade stance. Meanwhile culture war items like abortion and gay marriage are seeing much fewer mentions in policy discussions.
Perhaps. Though I think if guys like Pence were running things the gay marriage/abortion thing would return as a big issue.
So people who haven't survived a primary in recent elections?
Quote from: garbon on October 10, 2016, 07:30:54 AM
Actually I have to take issue with this to. Before Trump, who were big, theatrical candidates?
Obama.
But even before him we were getting polished political products more than superstars with tons of results behind them.
Quote from: garbon on October 10, 2016, 07:33:43 AM
So people who haven't survived a primary in recent elections?
I am not sure what you are referring to. How many elections back has this been true?
Quote from: Valmy on October 10, 2016, 07:37:44 AM
Quote from: garbon on October 10, 2016, 07:33:43 AM
So people who haven't survived a primary in recent elections?
I am not sure what you are referring to. How many elections back has this been true?
At least the last few. The strong evangelicals haven't been doing so well.
Quote from: Valmy on October 10, 2016, 07:36:01 AM
Quote from: garbon on October 10, 2016, 07:30:54 AM
Actually I have to take issue with this to. Before Trump, who were big, theatrical candidates?
Obama.
But even before him we were getting polished political products more than superstars with tons of results behind them.
I might have disliked the man and thought (still think) he'd have been much better had he waited to build relationships in Washington, but I don't really see how that's true. Unlike Trump he actually had policies. Many might have been 'chocolate milk in drinking fountains' but they actually were thought out unlike notions that 'Obamacare is going to be repealed and we are going to create the best health system (unspecified)'.
Quote from: garbon on October 10, 2016, 07:47:25 AM
At least the last few. The strong evangelicals haven't been doing so well.
Mitt was not exactly an evangelical, being a vile heathen Mormon and all, but I thought those issues were still things in 2012. Ah well it is has been awhile.
Quote from: garbon on October 10, 2016, 07:49:12 AM
I might have disliked the man and thought (still think) he'd have been much better had he waited to build relationships in Washington, but I don't really see how that's true. Unlike Trump he actually had policies. Many might have been 'chocolate milk in drinking fountains' but they actually were thought out unlike notions that 'Obamacare is going to be repealed and we are going to create the best health system (unspecified)'.
He certainly was big and theatrical though. He was an incredibly gifted campaigner for that reason.
Quote from: Valmy on October 10, 2016, 07:49:55 AM
Quote from: garbon on October 10, 2016, 07:47:25 AM
At least the last few. The strong evangelicals haven't been doing so well.
Mitt was not exactly an evangelical, being a vile heathen Mormon and all, but I thought those issues were still things in 2012. Ah well it is has been awhile.
I could be wrong but I don't recall him expounding a lot on that topic. Actually I can't recall at all what he said. :Embarrass:
Quote from: Valmy on October 10, 2016, 07:50:55 AM
Quote from: garbon on October 10, 2016, 07:49:12 AM
I might have disliked the man and thought (still think) he'd have been much better had he waited to build relationships in Washington, but I don't really see how that's true. Unlike Trump he actually had policies. Many might have been 'chocolate milk in drinking fountains' but they actually were thought out unlike notions that 'Obamacare is going to be repealed and we are going to create the best health system (unspecified)'.
He certainly was big and theatrical though. He was an incredibly gifted campaigner for that reason.
Okay but I thought we were discussing essentially style over substance. While I call complaining about that back then, he was/is miles ahead of Trump. Basically not even comparable really.
Quote from: garbon on October 10, 2016, 07:53:57 AM
Okay but I thought we were discussing essentially style over substance. While I call complaining about that back then, he was/is miles ahead of Trump. Basically not even comparable really.
He certainly had far more substance than Trump. But he was a Junior Senator will little to show for his short time in the Senate, beyond one speech at the 2004 Democratic Convention. His flair on the campaign trail is what made him President.
Answers
1. Easily the worst in the postwar era. Not even close.
2. Not historically. HW Bush, Clinton and Obama were high content candidates; W was less so but ran substantive campaigns and was not particularly theatrical. Among the other nominees of the of the last 25 years - Dole, Gore, Kerry, McCain and Romney are all easily on the content side vs. threatrical. There has never been a major party candidate as content poor and ignorant of the basics of American government as Donald Trump.
3. Typically people vote more for than against at least in the modern era. It's almost always the case that ultimate winner has significantly higher favorables than unfavorable, and pretty common that BOTH candidates - including the loser - do.
4. I have no crystal ball but both party organizations seem very dysfunctional, albeit in different ways. They will likely follow their path of least resistance, which is that everyone in them will draw the conclusion most convenient to their personal interest and preferred worldview and there will be no serious reassessment, much less reform.
If this debate wasn't a hands down win for Hilary, then I'm of the opinion that she's a pretty poor candidate.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 10, 2016, 09:54:16 AM
Answers
1. Easily the worst in the postwar era. Not even close.
2. Not historically. HW Bush, Clinton and Obama were high content candidates; W was less so but ran substantive campaigns and was not particularly theatrical. Among the other nominees of the of the last 25 years - Dole, Gore, Kerry, McCain and Romney are all easily on the content side vs. threatrical. There has never been a major party candidate as content poor and ignorant of the basics of American government as Donald Trump.
......
1. Indeed, lets not forget that in the debate Trump accused an ex-President, who was sitting in the room, of raping a 12 year old girl.
Sometime you just have to pinch yourself to remind oneself, just how nasty, slanderous and dangerous this campaign has gotten.
2. I think Vladimir Putin has a much better grasp of Russia's constitution than Trump does of his own country's, Putin needs to know that so he can ride roughshod over it in the most effective manner, in contrast I've seen nothing to suggest Trump doesn't believe his word will be law once elected.
I believe he accused Hillary of representing the defendant in a case of raping a 12 year old girl.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 10, 2016, 11:15:04 AM
I believe he accused Hillary of representing the defendant in a case of raping a 12 year old girl.
Oops, I misheard, probably just assuming all of the abuse was of the basest form. :blush:
Quote from: mongers on October 10, 2016, 11:11:03 AM
2. I think Vladimir Putin has a much better grasp of Russia's constitution than Trump does of his own country's, Putin needs to know that so he can ride roughshod over it in the most effective manner, in contrast I've seen nothing to suggest Trump doesn't believe his word will be law once elected.
I would assume that Vladimir Putin has a much better grasp of America's constitution than Trump. ;)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 10, 2016, 11:15:04 AM
I believe he accused Hillary of representing the defendant in a case of raping a 12 year old girl.
Bill was the defender in the case.
Quote from: mongers on October 10, 2016, 11:11:03 AM
2. I think Vladimir Putin has a much better grasp of Russia's constitution than Trump does of his own country's, Putin needs to know that so he can ride roughshod over it in the most effective manner, in contrast I've seen nothing to suggest Trump doesn't believe his word will be law once elected.
I've never seen any evidence Trump knows what the powers of the presidency are. That's one of the biggest of Trump's problems: He could do a lot of damage before the court system even caught up with him.
Quote from: mongers on October 10, 2016, 11:04:34 AM
If this debate wasn't a hands down win for Hilary, then I'm of the opinion that she's a pretty poor candidate.
I don't know, I mean there are a lot of things she had to worry about that would actually make this debate tricky.
Trump does have some odd views about constitutional authority - while does seem to think that the President has very extensive law enforcement and security authority, those powers apparently pale in comparison to the untrammeled power placed in the hands of the Junior Senator from the State of New York.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 10, 2016, 12:32:10 PM
Trump does have some odd views about constitutional authority - while does seem to think that the President has very extensive law enforcement and security authority, those powers apparently pale in comparison to the untrammeled power placed in the hands of the Junior Senator from the State of New York.
He admits her hands are bigger than his?
Quote from: Zanza on October 10, 2016, 12:14:44 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 10, 2016, 11:15:04 AM
I believe he accused Hillary of representing the defendant in a case of raping a 12 year old girl.
Bill was the defender in the case.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/10/09/why-donald-trump-just-attacked-hillary-clinton-for-defending-an-accused-child-rapist-explained/
If Bill had been accused of raping a 12 year old I would definitely remember it.
Quote from: Valmy on October 10, 2016, 08:03:39 AM
Quote from: garbon on October 10, 2016, 07:53:57 AM
Okay but I thought we were discussing essentially style over substance. While I call complaining about that back then, he was/is miles ahead of Trump. Basically not even comparable really.
He certainly had far more substance than Trump. But he was a Junior Senator will little to show for his short time in the Senate, beyond one speech at the 2004 Democratic Convention. His flair on the campaign trail is what made him President.
Being a junior Senator with little to show for his one term in Congress made him inexperience, not insubstantial.
Looking at the winning Presidential candidates of my lifetime, I'd classify them this way:
Johnson: a good mix of style and substance (you might not like either his particular style or the substance of his policies, but he had 'em)
Nixon: definitely substance over style
Carter: Very heavily style over substance
Reagan: Same comment as applies to Johnson
Bush the Elder: substance over style
Clinton: much more stylish than Bush I, but still more substance than style
Bush the Younger: more stylish than his dad, but not as much so as Clinton; still had more substance than style
Obama: actually pretty close to Bush the Younger on this axis IMO
So that's 8 candidates over 14 elections, and only 1 of them had style over substance as I see them, 2 were equal parts style and substance, and 5 were substance over style. I don't see a trend toward more theatrical candidates.
Is that really a dichotomy? There are boring politicians without substance and theatrical politicians with lots of substance...
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 10, 2016, 12:42:27 PM
Quote from: Zanza on October 10, 2016, 12:14:44 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 10, 2016, 11:15:04 AM
I believe he accused Hillary of representing the defendant in a case of raping a 12 year old girl.
Bill was the defender in the case.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/10/09/why-donald-trump-just-attacked-hillary-clinton-for-defending-an-accused-child-rapist-explained/ (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/10/09/why-donald-trump-just-attacked-hillary-clinton-for-defending-an-accused-child-rapist-explained/)
If Bill had been accused of raping a 12 year old I would definitely remember it.
Only Donald Trump would consider abiding by a code of ethics to be bad.
Quote from: Zanza on October 10, 2016, 02:31:46 PM
Is that really a dichotomy? There are boring politicians without substance and theatrical politicians with lots of substance...
Well, off-hand I can't think of any recent politicians who were successful on the national level who had neither, but having both, yeah, sure, see my list above.
Quote from: Zanza on October 10, 2016, 02:31:46 PM
Is that really a dichotomy? There are boring politicians without substance and theatrical politicians with lots of substance...
Hey I hope I am wrong. I am very concerned about the coming elections. We will see how things develop from here.
Quote from: dps on October 10, 2016, 02:26:00 PM
Carter: Very heavily style over substance.
Disagree; he was all substance to the point of anesthesia, and it ran so counter to convention nobody was buying any of it.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 10, 2016, 03:37:46 PM
Quote from: dps on October 10, 2016, 02:26:00 PM
Carter: Very heavily style over substance.
Disagree; he was all substance to the point of anesthesia, and it ran so counter to convention nobody was buying any of it.
Substance consisting of how woefully unprepared he was to be president?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 10, 2016, 03:37:46 PM
Quote from: dps on October 10, 2016, 02:26:00 PM
Carter: Very heavily style over substance.
Disagree; he was all substance to the point of anesthesia, and it ran so counter to convention nobody was buying any of it.
I'm not saying that he didn't have policies, ideas, and beliefs; he did--but he didn't run on them. He ran on being a smiling, friendly peanut farmer who was a born-again Christian and a Washington outsider who was going to D.C. and clean up the mess there. He never gave us any specifics as to what form that clean-up would take. Even after election day in 1976, people were still debating if he was a conservative, moderate, or liberal.
He ran as the anti-Nixon. He promised the American people he would never lie to us. As far as i know, he never did.
p.s. While he was president.
Quote from: garbon on October 10, 2016, 07:53:57 AM
Quote from: Valmy on October 10, 2016, 07:50:55 AM
Quote from: garbon on October 10, 2016, 07:49:12 AM
I might have disliked the man and thought (still think) he'd have been much better had he waited to build relationships in Washington, but I don't really see how that's true. Unlike Trump he actually had policies. Many might have been 'chocolate milk in drinking fountains' but they actually were thought out unlike notions that 'Obamacare is going to be repealed and we are going to create the best health system (unspecified)'.
He certainly was big and theatrical though. He was an incredibly gifted campaigner for that reason.
Okay but I thought we were discussing essentially style over substance. While I call complaining about that back then, he was/is miles ahead of Trump. Basically not even comparable really.
Biggest triumph of style over substance? Bill Clinton. Luckily, he rose to the task. It's hard to be a superstar when you're the governor of Arkansas.
Biggest triumph of style over substance is easily Reagan. He was a man with Alzheimer's who now is given credit with destroying the Soviet Union by saying mean things to them. Apparently calling them an evil empire was enough for the Russians to pack it in, good thing the Germans didn't know that in WWII!
Reagan had a rather rich policy agenda. It may have been better if much of it never saw the light of day, but he was pretty clear policy wise about what he was proposing and that's what his administration set out to do.
I think the problem with all of these comparisons is that the gradations between everyone else seems very insignificant when compared to the vast gulf that exists between all of them and Trump.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 10, 2016, 04:59:55 PM
Biggest triumph of style over substance is easily Reagan. He was a man with Alzheimer's who now is given credit with destroying the Soviet Union by saying mean things to them. Apparently calling them an evil empire was enough for the Russians to pack it in, good thing the Germans didn't know that in WWII!
reagan aka way baffled me as a republican idol. He seemed relatively liberal (especially compared to the current crop of republicans). Plus he's an actor who married a hooker. Seems like the opposite of what make a good republican.
Quote from: HVC on October 10, 2016, 06:29:33 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 10, 2016, 04:59:55 PM
Biggest triumph of style over substance is easily Reagan. He was a man with Alzheimer's who now is given credit with destroying the Soviet Union by saying mean things to them. Apparently calling them an evil empire was enough for the Russians to pack it in, good thing the Germans didn't know that in WWII!
reagan aka way baffled me as a republican idol. He seemed relatively liberal (especially compared to the current crop of republicans). Plus he's an actor who married a hooker. Seems like the opposite of what make a good republican.
His first wife was a singer. :unsure:
An actress. I thought he meant Nancy. :hmm:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 10, 2016, 06:45:34 PM
Quote from: HVC on October 10, 2016, 06:29:33 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 10, 2016, 04:59:55 PM
Biggest triumph of style over substance is easily Reagan. He was a man with Alzheimer's who now is given credit with destroying the Soviet Union by saying mean things to them. Apparently calling them an evil empire was enough for the Russians to pack it in, good thing the Germans didn't know that in WWII!
reagan aka way baffled me as a republican idol. He seemed relatively liberal (especially compared to the current crop of republicans). Plus he's an actor who married a hooker. Seems like the opposite of what make a good republican.
His first wife was a singer. :unsure:
Nancy. Nancy was a hooker. Or at least that's the rumor. She was a hostess girl or something similar to that for a production company (MGM?) and that's what those types of jobs entailed at the time. A tell all book came out in the 90's by some lady who was famous for those sort of celeb books (think she did one on Sinatra too) which said Nancy was "famous" in Hollywood for giving the best bj's
Quote from: HVC on October 10, 2016, 06:49:54 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 10, 2016, 06:45:34 PM
Quote from: HVC on October 10, 2016, 06:29:33 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 10, 2016, 04:59:55 PM
Biggest triumph of style over substance is easily Reagan. He was a man with Alzheimer's who now is given credit with destroying the Soviet Union by saying mean things to them. Apparently calling them an evil empire was enough for the Russians to pack it in, good thing the Germans didn't know that in WWII!
reagan aka way baffled me as a republican idol. He seemed relatively liberal (especially compared to the current crop of republicans). Plus he's an actor who married a hooker. Seems like the opposite of what make a good republican.
His first wife was a singer. :unsure:
Nancy. Nancy was a hooker. Or at least that's the rumor. She was a hostess girl or something similar to that for a production company (MGM?) and that's what those types of jobs entailed at the time. A tell all book came out in the 90's by some lady who was famous for those sort of celeb books (think she did one on Sinatra too) which said Nancy was "famous" in Hollywood for giving the best bj's
Nancy was an actress who made eleven feature films in seven years and also appeared on Broadway. She may have been a party girl, but wouldn't have had time to get into prostitution even if she'd had any need for the money. She was married to Reagan in the third year of that contract.
Sounds like an urban legend.
being liberal with bjs is going to land you more parts than no bjs. plus are you really going to have us believe nancy was just so amazing that she didn't have to compete on the same level as all the other girls giving out the goods for parts?
grumbler sounds like a prude. people do have sex to get ahead in the real world.
Quote from: Fate on October 10, 2016, 10:21:50 PM
being liberal with bjs is going to land you more parts than no bjs. plus are you really going to have us believe nancy was just so amazing that she didn't have to compete on the same level as all the other girls giving out the goods for parts?
grumbler sounds like a prude. people do have sex to get ahead in the real world.
:huh: SO, you are arguing that "being liberal with bjs" and "to compete on the same level as all the other girls giving out the goods for parts" is prostitution?
I think you misidentified the prude, prude. :lol:
:hmm:
I would say it's an act of prostitution but doesn't make that one's occupation.
Why on earth do people hate hillary so much ?
That's something I'm not getting.
She just seems rather meh. Uninspiring and dull.
Quote from: Tyr on October 11, 2016, 10:09:43 AM
Why on earth do people hate hillary so much ?
That's something I'm not getting.
She just seems rather meh. Uninspiring and dull.
She was an intern on the Watergate investigation.
Part of it is from Bill and the original derangement syndrome from the 1990s
Part of it is that she exemplifies aspects of career-womanism and second-wave feminism and thus is an attractive target for people who hate those developments.
I think it is just that the Fox News propaganda machine has been working non-stop for a couple decades demonizing the Democrats. It isn't enough to hate Clinton because they stand for policies you disagree with - that just gets you CNN level of viewership.
Fox doesn't want CNN level of loyalty, they want rabid fans. And rabid people need meat to chew on, so they've been feeding it to them. Hillary is not just a liberal, she murdered those people in Benghazi. She doesn't just support socialized health care, she is a liar, fraud, and is actively working to destroy America.
Same with Obama - he isn't just a Democrat who wants the rich to pay taxes, he is a fake American and Muslim.
The Fox media campaign wants rabid followers who will watch their "news" rabidly. And you don't get that by measured, rational opposition to the political policies of the left. You get that by selling pitchforks, torches, and bed sheets.
That's true - you can't underrate the poisonous atmosphere created by the radio talk guys and their televisual allies on Fox. Faced with a Democratic President who governed as a moderate in both policy and temperament, they systematically bullied and intimidated anyone in the GOP who dared to suggest the idea of bipartisan governance, or indeed any governance at all. Even though I think a guy like Ryan is a policy fraud, at least he is talking about policy and willing to consider talking to the other side. If he and the McCains and the rest of the anti-deplorables lose their fight for the party with the Trumpian arrested development crowd, we're in deep trouble.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 11, 2016, 11:31:46 AM
That's true - you can't underrate the poisonous atmosphere created by the radio talk guys and their televisual allies on Fox. Faced with a Democratic President who governed as a moderate in both policy and temperament, they systematically bullied and intimidated anyone in the GOP who dared to suggest the idea of bipartisan governance, or indeed any governance at all. Even though I think a guy like Ryan is a policy fraud, at least he is talking about policy and willing to consider talking to the other side. If he and the McCains and the rest of the anti-deplorables lose their fight for the party with the Trumpian arrested development crowd, we're in deep trouble.
That's why I can't see any upside to the Trump situation.
Sure, he's likely to lose now, but that is because he's a narcissist and trash-talking misogynistic know-nothing, not because of his toxic populist notions. He's shown that there is an enormous market for toxic populism.
The fear I have is that the next time toxic populism is expressed, it will be by someone who is less of an obvious clown and troll than Trump. Such a person has a shot ...
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 11, 2016, 11:00:55 AM
Part of it is from Bill and the original derangement syndrome from the 1990s
Clintonian politica took free trade and law and order away from the GOP, made the Democrats electable again, and the Right has been seething with unbridled hatred ever since. Democrats are supposed to be big government unelectable peacenik welfare queen lovers.
QuotePart of it is that she exemplifies aspects of career-womanism and second-wave feminism and thus is an attractive target for people who hate those developments.
#MakeAmericanMenFeelThreatenedAgain
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 11, 2016, 11:31:46 AM
That's true - you can't underrate the poisonous atmosphere created by the radio talk guys and their televisual allies on Fox. Faced with a Democratic President who governed as a moderate in both policy and temperament, they systematically bullied and intimidated anyone in the GOP who dared to suggest the idea of bipartisan governance, or indeed any governance at all. Even though I think a guy like Ryan is a policy fraud, at least he is talking about policy and willing to consider talking to the other side. If he and the McCains and the rest of the anti-deplorables lose their fight for the party with the Trumpian arrested development crowd, we're in deep trouble.
IN what way is Ryan a "policy fraud"?
Populism can manifest in different ways. The last big bout of "toxic populism" we had was with George Wallace, whose campaigns and style has occasioned comparisons to Trump. The Wallace fever subsided , but a chunk of his support migrated to become "Reagan Democrats" in response to Reagan's inside-outsider campaign. I don't personally consider that a great outcome, but James Watt aside, I wouldn't consider the Reagan administration "toxic". Bottom line is that there likely will be someone who figures out how to ride this anti-system anger more effectively, but there is reason to hope it will be someone who will channel it in a less destructive direction
Poor Ryan man. A few years ago I found him a pretty interesting guy, actually putting forth plans to balance the budget and all. Now he is basically a clown, hated by the base for being a left wing liberal.
Quote from: Barrister on October 11, 2016, 11:48:48 AM
IN what way is Ryan a "policy fraud"?
He makes up/fudges numbers; plays "scoring" games on his budget proposals.
Quote from: Valmy on October 11, 2016, 11:50:54 AM
Poor Ryan man. A few years ago I found him a pretty interesting guy, actually putting forth plans to balance the budget and all. Now he is basically a clown, hated by the base for being a left wing liberal.
His Mom probably called this weekend and yelled at him. Probably doesn't want a shitload of nuns on his ass again, either.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 11, 2016, 11:49:53 AM
Populism can manifest in different ways. The last big bout of "toxic populism" we had was with George Wallace, whose campaigns and style has occasioned comparisons to Trump. The Wallace fever subsided , but a chunk of his support migrated to become "Reagan Democrats" in response to Reagan's inside-outsider campaign. I don't personally consider that a great outcome, but James Watt aside, I wouldn't consider the Reagan administration "toxic". Bottom line is that there likely will be someone who figures out how to ride this anti-system anger more effectively, but there is reason to hope it will be someone who will channel it in a less destructive direction
I think there's room for a 2020 GOP candidate to import elements of Trumpism such as enforced borders, clamp down on illegal immigration, and not reflexively propose to scrap everyone's health care, while dumping toxic elements such as the nativism, racism and general authoritarianism.
Unless they also back away from betraying our allies and scrapping our free trade agreements no deal.
Quote from: Barrister on October 11, 2016, 12:10:28 PMI think there's room for a 2020 GOP candidate to import elements of Trumpism such as enforced borders, clamp down on illegal immigration, and not reflexively propose to scrap everyone's health care, while dumping toxic elements such as the nativism, racism and general authoritarianism.
So you're saying the candidate in 2020 can dump the things that motivates the Trumpists and attempt to satisfy them with apparently reasonable right wing policies, hoping that dog-whistles will suffice to motivate them enough that he won't be outflanked by someone being more explicit?
I mean, it's definitely possible but to me it seems about as likely as the GOP successfully engaging in minority outreach after Obama's election.
Quote from: Jacob on October 11, 2016, 12:15:46 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 11, 2016, 12:10:28 PMI think there's room for a 2020 GOP candidate to import elements of Trumpism such as enforced borders, clamp down on illegal immigration, and not reflexively propose to scrap everyone's health care, while dumping toxic elements such as the nativism, racism and general authoritarianism.
So you're saying the candidate in 2020 can dump the things that motivates the Trumpists and attempt to satisfy them with apparently reasonable right wing policies, hoping that dog-whistles will suffice to motivate them enough that he won't be outflanked by someone being more explicit?
I mean, it's definitely possible but to me it seems about as likely as the GOP successfully engaging in minority outreach after Obama's election.
Well no. The things I outlined would be a marked departure from GOP orthodoxy. The Party tried very hard to come to an accommodation on illegal immigrants, and continuously has promised to scrap Obamacare, and keeps throwing out suggestions it may tinker with Medicare.
If you think the GOP can never do meaningful minority outreach you're saying the Democrats have a lock on the whitehouse. I don't think that's the case.
Quote from: Barrister on October 11, 2016, 12:34:02 PM
Well no. The things I outlined would be a marked departure from GOP orthodoxy. The Party tried very hard to come to an accommodation on illegal immigrants, and continuously has promised to scrap Obamacare, and keeps throwing out suggestions it may tinker with Medicare.
If you think the GOP can never do meaningful minority outreach you're saying the Democrats have a lock on the whitehouse. I don't think that's the case.
I think it's theoretically possible that the GOP can do meaningful minority outreach, but experience in the last year seems to indicate it has some internal institutional barriers to actually carry that out. Perhaps the post-Trump paroxysms will be what it takes to overcome those barriers, but right now it seems out and out bigoted pandering (as you say, toxic elements) carries the most weight, so if there's going to be dumping it seems like it's likely to be something else.
Personally, I think the GOP is going to have to lose the houses of congress and more state governments on account of toxicity before they'll start purging it with any kind of seriousness.
Quote from: Jacob on October 11, 2016, 12:52:04 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 11, 2016, 12:34:02 PM
Well no. The things I outlined would be a marked departure from GOP orthodoxy. The Party tried very hard to come to an accommodation on illegal immigrants, and continuously has promised to scrap Obamacare, and keeps throwing out suggestions it may tinker with Medicare.
If you think the GOP can never do meaningful minority outreach you're saying the Democrats have a lock on the whitehouse. I don't think that's the case.
I think it's theoretically possible that the GOP can do meaningful minority outreach, but experience in the last year seems to indicate it has some internal institutional barriers to actually carry that out. Perhaps the post-Trump paroxysms will be what it takes to overcome those barriers, but right now it seems out and out bigoted pandering (as you say, toxic elements) carries the most weight, so if there's going to be dumping it seems like it's likely to be something else.
Personally, I think the GOP is going to have to lose the houses of congress and more state governments on account of toxicity before they'll start purging it with any kind of seriousness.
I don't think voters are going to hold Trump against the GOP in 2020. No one is going to go "you know, Rubio/Pence/Ryan/Cruz seems pretty sensible, but this is the party that nominated Trump 4 years ago so I think I'll vote to re-elect Clinton". Trump is
sui generis.
I don't think that is the issue BB. The problem is that Trump's supporters are going to demand more Trumps not vile sell out establishment liberal traitors like Rubio/Pence/Ryan/Cruz.
Quote from: Valmy on October 11, 2016, 01:14:10 PM
I don't think that is the issue BB. The problem is that Trump's supporters are going to demand more Trumps not vile sell out establishment liberal traitors like Rubio/Pence/Ryan/Cruz.
As long as the GOP pivots to incorporate some elements of Trumpism like what I suggested, they'll fall in line the same way the Bernie Bros mostly have.
Quote from: Valmy on October 11, 2016, 01:14:10 PM
I don't think that is the issue BB. The problem is that Trump's supporters are going to demand more Trumps not vile sell out establishment liberal traitors like Rubio/Pence/Ryan/Cruz.
Yeah, especially after 4 years of TrumpTV telling them that.
Quote from: Barrister on October 11, 2016, 01:21:32 PM
Quote from: Valmy on October 11, 2016, 01:14:10 PM
I don't think that is the issue BB. The problem is that Trump's supporters are going to demand more Trumps not vile sell out establishment liberal traitors like Rubio/Pence/Ryan/Cruz.
As long as the GOP pivots to incorporate some elements of Trumpism like what I suggested, they'll fall in line the same way the Bernie Bros mostly have.
The Bernie Bros most certainly have not. Oh sure they might rally to vote to stop Trump this time but they will be back. The revolution will be televised so check it out in future Primaries.
Yeah, I think 2020 is going to be interesting for both parties.
They will both need to figure out how to incorporate the legitimate issues that drove Sanders and Trump "outsider" candidates, while avoiding the crazies.
Obviously this will be easier for the Dems than the Republicans, for both historical and policy reasons.
Quote from: Berkut on October 11, 2016, 01:29:57 PM
Yeah, I think 2020 is going to be interesting for both parties.
They will both need to figure out how to incorporate the legitimate issues that drove Sanders and Trump "outsider" candidates, while avoiding the crazies.
Obviously this will be easier for the Dems than the Republicans, for both historical and policy reasons.
Well the Democratic nomination will not be open like it was this year - you'll presumably have Clinton running for a second term. So while she may face a leftist insurgent in modern history no incumbent has ever lost the nomination.
Quote from: Barrister on October 11, 2016, 01:44:44 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 11, 2016, 01:29:57 PM
Yeah, I think 2020 is going to be interesting for both parties.
They will both need to figure out how to incorporate the legitimate issues that drove Sanders and Trump "outsider" candidates, while avoiding the crazies.
Obviously this will be easier for the Dems than the Republicans, for both historical and policy reasons.
Well the Democratic nomination will not be open like it was this year - you'll presumably have Clinton running for a second term. So while she may face a leftist insurgent in modern history no incumbent has ever lost the nomination.
True, but I don't think "modern history" is much of a guide anymore.
Quote from: Barrister on October 11, 2016, 01:44:44 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 11, 2016, 01:29:57 PM
Yeah, I think 2020 is going to be interesting for both parties.
They will both need to figure out how to incorporate the legitimate issues that drove Sanders and Trump "outsider" candidates, while avoiding the crazies.
Obviously this will be easier for the Dems than the Republicans, for both historical and policy reasons.
Well the Democratic nomination will not be open like it was this year - you'll presumably have Clinton running for a second term. So while she may face a leftist insurgent in modern history no incumbent has ever lost the nomination.
No, they just resigned when the situation became unfavuorable.
Quote from: Barrister on October 11, 2016, 12:10:28 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 11, 2016, 11:49:53 AM
Populism can manifest in different ways. The last big bout of "toxic populism" we had was with George Wallace, whose campaigns and style has occasioned comparisons to Trump. The Wallace fever subsided , but a chunk of his support migrated to become "Reagan Democrats" in response to Reagan's inside-outsider campaign. I don't personally consider that a great outcome, but James Watt aside, I wouldn't consider the Reagan administration "toxic". Bottom line is that there likely will be someone who figures out how to ride this anti-system anger more effectively, but there is reason to hope it will be someone who will channel it in a less destructive direction
I think there's room for a 2020 GOP candidate to import elements of Trumpism such as enforced borders, clamp down on illegal immigration, and not reflexively propose to scrap everyone's health care, while dumping toxic elements such as the nativism, racism and general authoritarianism.
What exactly does enforced borders and clamping on illegal immigration look like without nativism and racism? It isn't like the US is in any situation near say an Israeli one.
Quote from: garbon on October 11, 2016, 02:47:45 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 11, 2016, 12:10:28 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 11, 2016, 11:49:53 AM
Populism can manifest in different ways. The last big bout of "toxic populism" we had was with George Wallace, whose campaigns and style has occasioned comparisons to Trump. The Wallace fever subsided , but a chunk of his support migrated to become "Reagan Democrats" in response to Reagan's inside-outsider campaign. I don't personally consider that a great outcome, but James Watt aside, I wouldn't consider the Reagan administration "toxic". Bottom line is that there likely will be someone who figures out how to ride this anti-system anger more effectively, but there is reason to hope it will be someone who will channel it in a less destructive direction
I think there's room for a 2020 GOP candidate to import elements of Trumpism such as enforced borders, clamp down on illegal immigration, and not reflexively propose to scrap everyone's health care, while dumping toxic elements such as the nativism, racism and general authoritarianism.
What exactly does enforced borders and clamping on illegal immigration look like without nativism and racism? It isn't like the US is in any situation near say an Israeli one.
It's the difference between celebrating legal immigration, and denouncing all Mexicans (legal or not) as rapists. It requires some nuance (which of course is something Trump doesn't do) but isn't impossible.
Quote from: Barrister on October 11, 2016, 02:56:22 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 11, 2016, 02:47:45 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 11, 2016, 12:10:28 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 11, 2016, 11:49:53 AM
Populism can manifest in different ways. The last big bout of "toxic populism" we had was with George Wallace, whose campaigns and style has occasioned comparisons to Trump. The Wallace fever subsided , but a chunk of his support migrated to become "Reagan Democrats" in response to Reagan's inside-outsider campaign. I don't personally consider that a great outcome, but James Watt aside, I wouldn't consider the Reagan administration "toxic". Bottom line is that there likely will be someone who figures out how to ride this anti-system anger more effectively, but there is reason to hope it will be someone who will channel it in a less destructive direction
I think there's room for a 2020 GOP candidate to import elements of Trumpism such as enforced borders, clamp down on illegal immigration, and not reflexively propose to scrap everyone's health care, while dumping toxic elements such as the nativism, racism and general authoritarianism.
What exactly does enforced borders and clamping on illegal immigration look like without nativism and racism? It isn't like the US is in any situation near say an Israeli one.
It's the difference between celebrating legal immigration, and denouncing all Mexicans (legal or not) as rapists. It requires some nuance (which of course is something Trump doesn't do) but isn't impossible.
I agree that one could be less overt but I don't see how it would not still be there. Even if just dog whistling it has to be there because the majority of voters are not actually harmed by immigration (be it illegal or otherwise).
Quote from: garbon on October 11, 2016, 02:57:53 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 11, 2016, 02:56:22 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 11, 2016, 02:47:45 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 11, 2016, 12:10:28 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 11, 2016, 11:49:53 AM
Populism can manifest in different ways. The last big bout of "toxic populism" we had was with George Wallace, whose campaigns and style has occasioned comparisons to Trump. The Wallace fever subsided , but a chunk of his support migrated to become "Reagan Democrats" in response to Reagan's inside-outsider campaign. I don't personally consider that a great outcome, but James Watt aside, I wouldn't consider the Reagan administration "toxic". Bottom line is that there likely will be someone who figures out how to ride this anti-system anger more effectively, but there is reason to hope it will be someone who will channel it in a less destructive direction
I think there's room for a 2020 GOP candidate to import elements of Trumpism such as enforced borders, clamp down on illegal immigration, and not reflexively propose to scrap everyone's health care, while dumping toxic elements such as the nativism, racism and general authoritarianism.
What exactly does enforced borders and clamping on illegal immigration look like without nativism and racism? It isn't like the US is in any situation near say an Israeli one.
It's the difference between celebrating legal immigration, and denouncing all Mexicans (legal or not) as rapists. It requires some nuance (which of course is something Trump doesn't do) but isn't impossible.
I agree that one could be less overt but I don't see how it would not still be there. Even if just dog whistling it has to be there because the majority of voters are not actually harmed by immigration (be it illegal or otherwise).
You can be pro-immigration and still want illegal immigrants to be kicked out of your country.
Quote from: Barrister on October 11, 2016, 01:44:44 PM
Well the Democratic nomination will not be open like it was this year - you'll presumably have Clinton running for a second term. So while she may face a leftist insurgent in modern history no incumbent has ever lost the nomination.
There are other ways the leftist insurgents can gain traction besides capturing the presidency. The landscape may look very different in 2020.
Quote from: Barrister on October 11, 2016, 03:00:18 PM
You can be pro-immigration and still want illegal immigrants to be kicked out of your country.
You can but you aren't really going to build a significant chunk of a platform on that without some racism and/or nativism backing you up.
I don't think racism has much of a following anymore.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 11, 2016, 03:28:43 PM
I don't think racism has much of a following anymore.
Are we not watching the same elections?
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 11, 2016, 03:28:43 PM
I don't think racism has much of a following anymore.
Racism is experiencing a re-awakening into the mainstream. The internet allows the racists to band together again and go on the offensive like the bad old days.
Quote from: Barrister on October 11, 2016, 03:00:18 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 11, 2016, 02:57:53 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 11, 2016, 02:56:22 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 11, 2016, 02:47:45 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 11, 2016, 12:10:28 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 11, 2016, 11:49:53 AM
Populism can manifest in different ways. The last big bout of "toxic populism" we had was with George Wallace, whose campaigns and style has occasioned comparisons to Trump. The Wallace fever subsided , but a chunk of his support migrated to become "Reagan Democrats" in response to Reagan's inside-outsider campaign. I don't personally consider that a great outcome, but James Watt aside, I wouldn't consider the Reagan administration "toxic". Bottom line is that there likely will be someone who figures out how to ride this anti-system anger more effectively, but there is reason to hope it will be someone who will channel it in a less destructive direction
I think there's room for a 2020 GOP candidate to import elements of Trumpism such as enforced borders, clamp down on illegal immigration, and not reflexively propose to scrap everyone's health care, while dumping toxic elements such as the nativism, racism and general authoritarianism.
What exactly does enforced borders and clamping on illegal immigration look like without nativism and racism? It isn't like the US is in any situation near say an Israeli one.
It's the difference between celebrating legal immigration, and denouncing all Mexicans (legal or not) as rapists. It requires some nuance (which of course is something Trump doesn't do) but isn't impossible.
I agree that one could be less overt but I don't see how it would not still be there. Even if just dog whistling it has to be there because the majority of voters are not actually harmed by immigration (be it illegal or otherwise).
You can be pro-immigration and still want illegal immigrants to be kicked out of your country.
Hi!
Come on. If Trump or Hillary said they wanted to rope up some niggers you'd damn sure see the difference. Real racism is gone from politics. Even the most hick right wing radical insert_epithet_here reject that crap.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 11, 2016, 03:28:43 PM
I don't think racism has much of a following anymore.
Too many chiefs. :yes:
Quote from: Barrister on October 11, 2016, 03:00:18 PM
You can be pro-immigration and still want illegal immigrants to be kicked out of your country.
I can't. It would be hypocritical. I want to be able to go where I want and do what I want, therefore, I must be willing to support the rights of others to do the same.
Quote from: Barrister on October 11, 2016, 03:00:18 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 11, 2016, 02:57:53 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 11, 2016, 02:56:22 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 11, 2016, 02:47:45 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 11, 2016, 12:10:28 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 11, 2016, 11:49:53 AM
Populism can manifest in different ways. The last big bout of "toxic populism" we had was with George Wallace, whose campaigns and style has occasioned comparisons to Trump. The Wallace fever subsided , but a chunk of his support migrated to become "Reagan Democrats" in response to Reagan's inside-outsider campaign. I don't personally consider that a great outcome, but James Watt aside, I wouldn't consider the Reagan administration "toxic". Bottom line is that there likely will be someone who figures out how to ride this anti-system anger more effectively, but there is reason to hope it will be someone who will channel it in a less destructive direction
I think there's room for a 2020 GOP candidate to import elements of Trumpism such as enforced borders, clamp down on illegal immigration, and not reflexively propose to scrap everyone's health care, while dumping toxic elements such as the nativism, racism and general authoritarianism.
What exactly does enforced borders and clamping on illegal immigration look like without nativism and racism? It isn't like the US is in any situation near say an Israeli one.
It's the difference between celebrating legal immigration, and denouncing all Mexicans (legal or not) as rapists. It requires some nuance (which of course is something Trump doesn't do) but isn't impossible.
I agree that one could be less overt but I don't see how it would not still be there. Even if just dog whistling it has to be there because the majority of voters are not actually harmed by immigration (be it illegal or otherwise).
You can be pro-immigration and still want illegal immigrants to be kicked out of your country.
That stance is theoretically reasonable, and practically meaningless in the USA today.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 11, 2016, 03:47:35 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 11, 2016, 03:00:18 PM
You can be pro-immigration and still want illegal immigrants to be kicked out of your country.
I can't. It would be hypocritical. I want to be able to go where I want and do what I want, therefore, I must be willing to support the rights of others to do the same.
I see.
Quote from: Berkut on October 11, 2016, 03:48:46 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 11, 2016, 03:00:18 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 11, 2016, 02:57:53 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 11, 2016, 02:56:22 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 11, 2016, 02:47:45 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 11, 2016, 12:10:28 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 11, 2016, 11:49:53 AM
Populism can manifest in different ways. The last big bout of "toxic populism" we had was with George Wallace, whose campaigns and style has occasioned comparisons to Trump. The Wallace fever subsided , but a chunk of his support migrated to become "Reagan Democrats" in response to Reagan's inside-outsider campaign. I don't personally consider that a great outcome, but James Watt aside, I wouldn't consider the Reagan administration "toxic". Bottom line is that there likely will be someone who figures out how to ride this anti-system anger more effectively, but there is reason to hope it will be someone who will channel it in a less destructive direction
I think there's room for a 2020 GOP candidate to import elements of Trumpism such as enforced borders, clamp down on illegal immigration, and not reflexively propose to scrap everyone's health care, while dumping toxic elements such as the nativism, racism and general authoritarianism.
What exactly does enforced borders and clamping on illegal immigration look like without nativism and racism? It isn't like the US is in any situation near say an Israeli one.
It's the difference between celebrating legal immigration, and denouncing all Mexicans (legal or not) as rapists. It requires some nuance (which of course is something Trump doesn't do) but isn't impossible.
I agree that one could be less overt but I don't see how it would not still be there. Even if just dog whistling it has to be there because the majority of voters are not actually harmed by immigration (be it illegal or otherwise).
You can be pro-immigration and still want illegal immigrants to be kicked out of your country.
That stance is theoretically reasonable, and practically meaningless in the USA today.
I can't disagree. I said in another thread a while back that there is no practical chance that immigration reform can be done the way I think it should.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 11, 2016, 03:44:01 PM
Come on. If Trump or Hillary said they wanted to rope up some niggers you'd damn sure see the difference. Real racism is gone from politics. Even the most hick right wing radical insert_epithet_here reject that crap.
So in your book 'real' racism is only that which is overt/in your face?
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 11, 2016, 03:28:43 PM
I don't think racism has much of a following anymore.
:huh:
Quote from: garbon on October 11, 2016, 04:06:22 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 11, 2016, 03:44:01 PM
Come on. If Trump or Hillary said they wanted to rope up some niggers you'd damn sure see the difference. Real racism is gone from politics. Even the most hick right wing radical insert_epithet_here reject that crap.
So in your book 'real' racism is only that which is overt/in your face?
Only racists talk about racism :mad:
Man. I grew up in a place where racism was absolutely a thing. Not the south, where they dealt with it, Ohio. But still, I'm saying that if any public figure came out with anything racist, that person's career would be over. We have come that far.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 11, 2016, 04:52:48 PM
Man. I grew up in a place where racism was absolutely a thing. Not the south, where they dealt with it, Ohio. But still, I'm saying that if any public figure came out with anything racist, that person's career would be over. We have come that far.
Sure, of course, progress has been made. No one is denying that. I don't think that means that we can rest on our laurels and say 'I don't think racism has much of a following anymore.' That's just not true.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 11, 2016, 04:52:48 PM
But still, I'm saying that if any public figure came out with anything racist, that person's career would be over. We have come that far.
The code words and dog whistles may have changed but the meanings haven't.
Pretty much
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a49415/america-waiting-for-donald-trump/
QuoteAmerica Has Been Waiting for Donald Trump
He is not an aberration. He is the culmination.
By Charles P. Pierce
Oct 9, 2016
ST. LOUIS—What's the latest news from the world's greatest democracy? Andrew Kaczynski has moved on over to CNN and he is on the case.
TRUMP: "My daughter is beautiful, Ivanka."
STERN: "By the way, your daughter."
TRUMP: "She's beautiful."
STERN: "Can I say this? A piece of ass."
TRUMP: "Yeah."
Must be a quote from Federalist 69.
The campaign of El Caudillo del Mar-A-Lago always has been a ridiculous campaign run by a ridiculous man who hijacked a ridiculous political party and now has rendered the entire American political system as ridiculous as the ferret he wears on his head. The ridiculous campaign, the ridiculous man, and the ridiculous political party cannot be considered separately. The ridiculousness of the political party, energized for decades by hayshakers, Bible-bangers, voodoo economists, jackleg preachers and the altogether crazy-assed elements of almost every political phylum, made it inevitable that a ridiculous man would run a ridiculous campaign one day. What very few people counted on was that the man and the campaign and the party would become so ridiculous that they would make everyone else ridiculous, too. Lord save us, he even managed to get the word "fuck" into the New York Fucking Times. Horseman, pass by!
Let's begin by sympathizing with poor Senator Kelly Ayotte, Republican of New Hampshire. She was just getting partly past the gaffe in which she called Donald Trump a "role model." But then came the electronic Reynolds Letter courtesy of Billy Bush and NBC, and now the Metternich of Manchester has to back and fill like she's digging the Erie Canal. On Saturday, while the wildfire was still raging, Ayotte decided that she can't...stands...no...more. Tiger Beat On The Potomac plumbs her political psyche for vestigial signs of sense.
"I wanted to be able to support my party's nominee, chosen by the people, because I feel strongly that we need a change in direction for our country," Ayotte said in a statement Saturday. "However, I'm a mom and an American first, and I cannot and will not support a candidate for president who brags about degrading and assaulting women."
(Left Unsaid: "And gets caught on camera doing it.")
So, disgusted by the presidential nominee of her party, Senator Ayotte—she of the soft-focus ads in which she talks earnestly about protecting women's health and birth control—will write in the name of a man who once insisted on adding "forcible" to the word "rape" in a bill, who signed a bill mandating that women who have miscarriages hold funerals for their lost children, and who was the original guiding force behind the spurious campaign to defund Planned Parenthood. This makes Kelly Ayotte look ridiculous.
Or, let's spare a kind thought for Joe Heck, who's running for the Senate out in Nevada. He, too, finally came to the conclusion that crude and stupid had gotten out of balance in the Republican Party and disavowed his party's presidential candidate. He announced this publicly, and he got booed, as Business Insider reports. This made Joe Heck look ridiculous.
"I believe that any candidate for president should follow an ethical and moral and decent campaign as they go about the trail," he told supporters at a rally with 2012 GOP nominee Mitt Romney. "And I accept that none of us are perfect." "However, I can no longer look past the pattern of behavior and comments that have been made by Donald Trump," he continued. "Therefore I cannot in good conscience ... continue to support Donald Trump, nor can I vote for Hillary Clinton." One woman in particular within the crowd expressed her dismay loudly, being the lone person to drown out his words with booing and heckling. Some initially cheered.
Or, let's look softly on Speaker Paul Ryan, who has had some harsh words for the nominee he thus far has failed to disavow, but he did un-invite him to an event in Elkhorn, offering the gig to Pence instead. However, Pence is said to be beside himself over the whole business, and that's at least one too many of him. He bailed on the event, leaving the zombie-eyed granny-starver to face the wrath of The Base alone, as CBS Minnesota recounts to our immeasurable delight.
Ryan announced Friday that Trump was no longer welcome at the rally after a recording was released featuring the former reality TVstar making vulgar comments about women. Trump's running mate Mike Pence was to fill in for Trump, but the Indiana governor canceled hours before the annual "Fall Fest" event began. Defiant Trump supporters voiced their frustration at Ryan and other Republicans who spoke at the county fairgrounds in front of two large American flags, rows of pumpkins and stacks of straw. Ryan — who said Friday he was "sickened" by Trump's words — was heckled with shouts of "Shame on you!" and "You turned your backs on us!"
It got better.
Wisconsin Attorney General Brad Schimel, the only speaker to directly address Trump's crude remarks, was heckled when he said "I know Donald Trump has said some things that are bad." "Get over it!" someone shouted...Many in the crowd made clear they were standing by the candidate. "Trump is a great man," said Scott Reese, a 40-year-old plumber wearing a red "Make America Great Again" hat. "We all make mistakes." Jean Stanley, a 50-year-old woman from New Berlin, Wisconsin, came to the rally wearing a pink T-shirt with bold, black lettering that said "Wisconsin Women Love Trump." "He's a real human," Stanley said. "It was a long time ago. We all have something in our past. He was a Hollywood icon then." Julie Marso, from Milwaukee, said she still supports Trump. "You should vote according to the issues facing this country, not the kind of dirt you can dig up on people," she said.
You bet, folks. Don't let those RINO bastards stab a genuine Hollywood icon—and real human—in the back.
Do I mock? Of course, I do. The Republican Party has been edging toward this catastrophe for 40 years, ever since it let goons like the late Terry Dolan help run its senatorial campaigns in the late 1970s. Dolan led to Lee Atwater, who led to Karl Rove and, altogether, they made Donald Trump not an aberration, but a culmination. It took into itself the debris of American apartheid. It allied itself with radicalized American Protestantism. It adopted a basic political philosophy of vandalism and nihilism. When confronted with an opportunity for human decency, such as in the case of Terri Schiavo, the party opted for cruelty. When presented an opportunity for political unity, such as in the aftermath of the attacks of September 11, the party opted for the despicable in domestic politics and for the barbaric overseas. When handed an opportunity to change course, such as when the deregulated casino economy nearly destroyed the world in 2008, it doubled down on the basic economic philosophy that caused the wreckage in the first place. And when it became plain that the party was on the wrong side of history, such as the movement for marriage equality, it chose to work in the states through pestiferous god-botherers like Mike Pence, whose name Kelly Ayotte will write in for president.
The Republican Party has been edging toward this catastrophe for 40 years.
When it won, the party opted for triumphalism. When it lost, it opted for obstruction. It has blown through democratic norms in every branch of the government. In the executive, it lied and tortured and worked almost exclusively to shove as much of the country's wealth upwards. As a legislative majority, it has consistently refused to do even the most fundamental tasks of governing the country. In the judiciary, the judges so carefully nurtured in the think-tank terrariums of the organized Right have let loose a flood of money into our politics and have worked assiduously to carve away the franchise from the people who might most inconvenience the party on Election Day. They have come dangerously close to completing the project of creating a new Jim Crow to ensure a new Gilded Age. And now, there are not sufficient roosts for all the chickens. If you have a party dedicated to vandalism and nihilism, how can you possibly be surprised when your presidential nomination is spirited away by a career vandal and a superior nihilist?
It doesn't matter now if he drops out or not. He has shown the world what the black heart of modern Republicanism—and of the modern form of conservatism that drives it—really looks like. He has become its beau ideal. He will stand for it until the party commits itself to real change and genuine outreach to those people it now only employs as targets for its timorous angry base to aim at. Whether he stays or whether he goes—and, god, I hope he stays—Donald Trump has burned down all the camouflage. He is what they are.
Donald Trump has burned down all the camouflage. He is what they are.
So, yes, I mock. I mock out of pure schadenfreude, thinking of what happened to good people like George McGovern and Frank Church when the NCPAC wolves came to the door. I mock almost reflexively, when I think of that idiot with the Purple Heart Band-Aid at the 2004 Republican National Convention, and of the Swift Boat mendacity aimed at John Kerry's undeniable heroism. I mock angrily, when I think of the atrocities carried out in my name, and when I think about the abandonment of the political commonwealth for private gain. Donald Trump was inevitable, and one way you can tell he was inevitable is that, on every major issue, Mike Pence is just as bad.
TRUMP: "She's beautiful."
STERN: "Can I say this? A piece of ass."
TRUMP: "Yeah."
Of course, I mock. To paraphrase Lenin, what else is to be done?
I think that dude has issues.
But both Trump and Pence are terrible, that much I can agree with.
https://youtu.be/WTylz2WToXw
Of course it does, it's all nice and Third Reichy.
I hope the Clinton White House starts putting the POTUS seal on tampons with your tax dollars.
She'll sign an executive order requiring me to put the seat down :(
lol, urinals: illegal under OSHA
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 11, 2016, 11:00:55 AM
Part of it is from Bill and the original derangement syndrome from the 1990s
Part of it is that she exemplifies aspects of career-womanism and second-wave feminism and thus is an attractive target for people who hate those developments.
I'll preface this by saying I would absolutely vote for Clinton before Trump, but I think they are both complete liars. She's a real politician that will say anything it seems, just like him.
The only good thing about this is that, at least if she is elected, things wont change.
And the whole email thing stinks, I'd be in jail for mishandling classified information and that is not me embellishing or overstating in the least.
Both candidates are just terrible and any one of these 'scandals' on either side would have torpedoed a candidate any other year.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi2.kym-cdn.com%2Fentries%2Ficons%2Foriginal%2F000%2F000%2F509%2Fdean-scream.jpg&hash=ec8d13c568c90724590233d0b13e319180fd6db6)
Ah the hypocrisy of only caring about Clinton emails.
I'm reluctant to write off trump just yet
The shadows of Brexit loom large.
Don't forget the Kippers actually murdered somebody. Literally. Did them no home.
Anyone who deletes any emails should be put in jail. Fact.
An email deleter is someone with something to hide!
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 12, 2016, 05:39:53 AM
An email deleter is someone with something to hide!
They are also likely an election rigger.
Quote from: Tyr on October 11, 2016, 10:09:43 AM
Why on earth do people hate hillary so much ?
That's something I'm not getting.
She just seems rather meh. Uninspiring and dull.
BBC article on the subject:
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-36992955
QuoteThe dark depths of hatred for Hillary Clinton
Few US presidential candidates have been disliked as much as Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. But attacks on Clinton in particular have sometimes crossed a line, displaying open hatred. Why?
Emily Longworth, 25, grew up in the southern state of Georgia discussing politics around the dinner table with her father and grandfather, both staunch conservatives.
Working as a weapons repair specialist in the US military, she had to be careful what she said about America's politicians.
But since leaving the military for an office job three years ago, she doesn't hold back - especially when it comes to Hillary Clinton.
"She is a lying, manipulative, narcissistic woman who deserves nothing except to be put in jail for life," she says.
Longworth's expletive-laden tirades have been attracting hundreds of thousands of viewers on Facebook and YouTube.
In one video, addressing Clinton and her "diehard feminist Nazi fans", Longworth describes her "disgust" at having to listen to "that painful scratching noise that you like to call intelligence spew from your mouth like typical Clinton diarrhoea".
She is also spokesperson for a group that sells T-shirts and merchandise carrying the slogan "Hillary for prison" - Clinton deserves a prison sentence, they argue, for episodes such as the Whitewater property controversy in the 1990s, the deadly attack on the US diplomatic compound in Benghazi in 2012 while she was secretary of state, and her use of a private email server while in office.
Many Americans might agree that Clinton is tainted by her role in these controversies, and this may help explain her unfavourability rating of more than 50%.
But most critics would not resort to the kind of extreme language that has seen Longworth blocked by Facebook for repeatedly violating its "community standards".
So why does she do it?
"If you have controversy... you strike conversation," she says.
"Unfortunately, it's the way society works... You do strike up conflict, but it promotes business and promotes the cause.
"This may be rash and unjustifiable with other people. It's not with us."
Longworth is part of a small but noisy radical tendency on the fringes of the Republican Party.
At Trump rallies, pockets of supporters shout "Lock her up!"
Some wear T-shirts saying "Trump that Bitch", and there are those who describe Clinton as "the servant of Satan" or use hashtags such as #Killary on social media.
Trump is also the focus of contempt, and worse - he's been likened to Adolf Hitler and accused of having a personality disorder.
"I've seen both candidates attacked based upon physical characteristics, both attacked based upon personality traits, both attacked based on past decisions," says Jennifer Mercieca, a historian of American political rhetoric.
"The one element that separates that two is that Clinton is also attacked for being a woman, and Trump is not attacked for being a man.
"Perhaps, since she is the first female presidential candidate, people are ill-equipped to criticise her about anything else, or in any other way, than via gendered and misogynistic slurs."
Misogyny can be obvious, she says - as in the use of the word "bitch" - or it can be hidden.
Many of the barbs directed at Clinton revolve around her husband's well-publicised sexual transgressions in the 1980s and 90s.
Last year, Trump himself retweeted the comment, "If Clinton can't satisfy her husband, what makes her think she can satisfy America?" though he later deleted it.
But some critics focus on her alleged role in the scandal, as a co-ordinator of attempts to keep the women involved quiet and to blacken their character.
In a recent film, Hillary's America: The Secret History of the Democratic Party - the top-grossing documentary in the US this year - conservative writer Dinesh D'Souza even argues that Hillary Clinton encouraged her husband to sleep with other women.
"She orchestrated all of this!" he says, in the film's narration. "She used his addiction to make him dependent upon her!"
This attack and others like it show a determination to cast Clinton as a "co-perpetrator" in her husband's wrongdoings, says columnist and author Michelle Goldberg.
"It also reinforces the idea that she is so power-crazed that she's unmoved by normal human drives like love, loyalty and jealousy."
In the decades that the Clintons have been in the public eye, US politics has become increasingly polarised - a process partly fuelled by the proliferation of radical voices on talk radio and the internet. The election of Barack Obama - the first black president, and one of the most liberal for decades - also proved to be a red rag to some, including D'Souza.
In one of a series of controversial books and films, the man described in the liberal media as "America's premiere conservative troll" argues that the president wants America to be "downsized" as punishment for the "sins of colonialism".
In his latest film - alluding to the Clintons' ability to turn political success to financial advantage - he goes so far as to accuse Clinton of being a gangster who plans to "steal America".
But Donald Trump himself has also done much to put about conspiracy theories regarded by many commentators as devices to whip up hostility towards Obama and Clinton.
He began his journey to the Republican nomination by reviving the long-debunked "birther" claim that Obama was not born in the US and is therefore ineligible to be president, only to disavow it last month.
He has warned the November election could be "rigged" in Clinton's favour, and alleged that Clinton and Obama were co-founders of the so-called Islamic State group.
Obama, he has long suggested, is Muslim, and in Sunday's debate he referred to Clinton, not for the first time, as "the devil".
According to Alexander Zaitchik, author of Gilded Rage: A Wild Ride Through Donald Trump's America, Trump's candidacy has made conspiracy theories "shockingly accepted" among people who believe mainstream politics has failed.
"He's promoting stuff that never would have been promoted up until now by the Republican Party," Zaitchik says.
Of all the Hillary haters, one of the most vitriolic is Texan radio host and Trump supporter Alex Jones, described by the Southern Poverty Law Center as "the most prolific conspiracy theorist in contemporary America".
The 9/11 attacks and the Boston Marathon bombings were, in his view, plots staged by the government.
In a shouty performance on the BBC's Sunday Politics in 2013 he reduced host Andrew Neil to twirling a finger around his temple, saying, "We have an idiot on the show today."
But his programme, the Alex Jones Show, and his InfoWars website attract an audience of millions across the US.
"She's a creep, she's a witch, she's turned over to evil," Jones said, referring to Clinton, in a special broadcast during the Democratic Party convention.
"Look at her face... All she needs is green skin."
During the same show, Jones played a video comparing the former first lady's laugh to a hyena.
Posted on the internet by a comedy network, the video had been taken down after complaints.
But if some found it entertaining, Goldberg says mockery of Clinton's appearance and her laugh represent "misogyny at its most elemental".
Harsh attacks on Clinton have not been confined to the right-wing.
In a bruising primary campaign against rival Bernie Sanders, she also made enemies on the left, one of whom, Andrew Levine, a Senior Scholar at the Institute for Policy Studies, told the BBC he would "swim through vomit" before voting for her.
In Mercieca's view, the rhetoric of this election has gone dangerously far.
"When we treat politics like sport or war, then we treat ourselves as fans or soldiers, cheering or booing or following orders," she says.
"When we treat politics like that, then those who hold differing views from us are not wrong, they are evil. They are not mistaken, they are enemies."
Benghazi attack: Clinton has said she takes responsibility for the attack on the US mission that killed four Americans in 2012. Several congressional hearings have failed to prove wrongdoing on her part
Use of a private email server: An FBI investigation concluded that no "reasonable prosecutor" would bring a criminal case against Clinton, but that she and her aides were "extremely careless" in their handling of classified information
Clinton Foundation: Questions over potentially inappropriate relations with wealthy foreign officials and businesses have proved fertile ground for Trump, but Clinton's campaign has pointed out he, too, was a Clinton Foundation donor. Clinton herself has stressed the lifesaving work of the organisation and denied allegations of corruption
Sex scandals: Donald Trump has brought women who accuse Bill Clinton of sexual assault - including Juanita Broaddrick who claims he raped her - to the forefront of his campaign. The Clintons have insisted the allegations are baseless, though the former president has acknowledged consensual affairs
I thought Ann Coulter was America's premier conservative troll.
Quote from: Alcibiades on October 12, 2016, 01:11:13 AM
And the whole email thing stinks, I'd be in jail for mishandling classified information and that is not me embellishing or overstating in the least.
I am sorry were you a cabinet secretary? A general?
It just strikes me as idiotic to expect somebody responsible for our entire foreign policy should also be held responsible for piddly shit like e-mail security and protocol. Her staff should be managing that shit. What does the President also have to look through his garbage to see if he accidentally threw something compromising away?
But that is just me, a state employee. The idea we would hold one of our commissioners responsible for this kind of nonsense is mind blowing. I know you feds are supposed to be morons but come on.
And of course there was a full investigation that turned up that she did nothing wrong but somehow she would still in prison but for what? Evil? Conspiracy? Demonic Sacrifices? I don't know.
Quote from: Alcibiades on October 12, 2016, 01:11:13 AM
I'll preface this by saying I would absolutely vote for Clinton before Trump,
That is an insufficient level of Hillary support here. BAN HIM
Quote from: derspiess on October 12, 2016, 09:52:24 AM
Quote from: Alcibiades on October 12, 2016, 01:11:13 AM
I'll preface this by saying I would absolutely vote for Clinton before Trump,
That is an insufficient level of Hillary support here. BAN HIM
Oh come on!
Fine. Whatever.
Quote from: derspiess on October 12, 2016, 09:52:24 AM
Quote from: Alcibiades on October 12, 2016, 01:11:13 AM
I'll preface this by saying I would absolutely vote for Clinton before Trump,
That is an insufficient level of Hillary support here. BAN HIM
Yeah, no joke! :lol:
Quote from: Valmy on October 12, 2016, 09:55:29 AM
Quote from: derspiess on October 12, 2016, 09:52:24 AM
Quote from: Alcibiades on October 12, 2016, 01:11:13 AM
I'll preface this by saying I would absolutely vote for Clinton before Trump,
That is an insufficient level of Hillary support here. BAN HIM
Oh come on!
Fine. Whatever.
:hug: HOOK EM
Quote from: garbon on October 12, 2016, 01:38:48 AM
Ah the hypocrisy of only caring about Clinton emails.
Trump isn't even worth discussing, he's unqualified to be president. The only :redeeming quality' about him is that he is a non-establishment candidate. That believes vaccines cause autism, global warming is a hoax, and that Obama is a Muslim born in Kenya.
Quote from: Alcibiades on October 12, 2016, 10:01:31 AM
Quote from: garbon on October 12, 2016, 01:38:48 AM
Ah the hypocrisy of only caring about Clinton emails.
Trump isn't even worth discussing, he's unqualified to be president. The only :redeeming quality' about him is that he is a non-establishment candidate. That believes vaccines cause autism, global warming is a hoax, and that Obama is a Muslim born in Kenya.
You're missing the formula, though. If you don't spend at least 2x the time bashing Trump as you do criticizing Hillary, you are obviously a closet Trump supporter.
Quote from: Valmy on October 12, 2016, 09:36:27 AM
Quote from: Alcibiades on October 12, 2016, 01:11:13 AM
And the whole email thing stinks, I'd be in jail for mishandling classified information and that is not me embellishing or overstating in the least.
I am sorry were you a cabinet secretary? A general?
It just strikes me as idiotic to expect somebody responsible for our entire foreign policy should also be held responsible for piddly shit like e-mail security and protocol. Her staff should be managing that shit. What does the President also have to look through his garbage to see if he accidentally threw something compromising away?
But that is just me, a state employee. The idea we would hold one of our commissioners responsible for this kind of nonsense is mind blowing. I know you feds are supposed to be morons but come on.
And of course there was a full investigation that turned up that she did nothing wrong but somehow she would still in prison but for what? Evil? Conspiracy? Demonic Sacrifices? I don't know.
I didn't realize you staties deal with classified information. Overclassification is real, you better not leak those garbage pickup routes! :mad:
And maybe grumbler is too old to realize what kind of transformation has taken place since Manning/Snowdon but the handling of classified information is beaten into our heads to an unbelievable degree. And if one of my soldiers in my shop mishandles classified information I am absolutely liable. There are officers being tried now for 'mishandling' classified information. Its wrong that she used her own server to house classified information, if I took anything off of the closed classified networks and put them on any private network even to an unauthorized location it would be inexcusable.
Everyone is trained on this, including her, she's signed the nondisclosure paperwork and taken the security training. Whether she just signed it without reading/taking the course is a definite possibility. But there is definitely the belief of a double standard here in the intelligence community and its frustrating. Sorry if that's not easily understandable.
Quote from: derspiess on October 12, 2016, 10:03:14 AM
Quote from: Alcibiades on October 12, 2016, 10:01:31 AM
Quote from: garbon on October 12, 2016, 01:38:48 AM
Ah the hypocrisy of only caring about Clinton emails.
Trump isn't even worth discussing, he's unqualified to be president. The only :redeeming quality' about him is that he is a non-establishment candidate. That believes vaccines cause autism, global warming is a hoax, and that Obama is a Muslim born in Kenya.
You're missing the formula, though. If you don't spend at least 2x the time bashing Trump as you do criticizing Hillary, you are obviously a closet Trump supporter.
I would have preferred Sanders or Warren. Seedy is going to be staking out my house now. :weep:
Quote from: Alcibiades on October 12, 2016, 10:01:31 AM
Quote from: garbon on October 12, 2016, 01:38:48 AM
Ah the hypocrisy of only caring about Clinton emails.
Trump isn't even worth discussing, he's unqualified to be president. The only :redeeming quality' about him is that he is a non-establishment candidate. That believes vaccines cause autism, global warming is a hoax, and that Obama is a Muslim born in Kenya.
+1
Quote from: Alcibiades on October 12, 2016, 10:01:31 AM
Quote from: garbon on October 12, 2016, 01:38:48 AM
Ah the hypocrisy of only caring about Clinton emails.
Trump isn't even worth discussing, he's unqualified to be president. The only :redeeming quality' about him is that he is a non-establishment candidate. That believes vaccines cause autism, global warming is a hoax, and that Obama is a Muslim born in Kenya.
I wasn't thinking about Trump.
Quote from: Alcibiades on October 12, 2016, 09:58:45 AM
Quote from: derspiess on October 12, 2016, 09:52:24 AM
Quote from: Alcibiades on October 12, 2016, 01:11:13 AM
I'll preface this by saying I would absolutely vote for Clinton before Trump,
That is an insufficient level of Hillary support here. BAN HIM
Yeah, no joke! :lol:
My apologies I was anxious to discuss the email issue with somebody, but I generally refrain from politics outside of the board so I jumped on my chance :P
Quote from: derspiess on October 12, 2016, 10:03:14 AM
Quote from: Alcibiades on October 12, 2016, 10:01:31 AM
Quote from: garbon on October 12, 2016, 01:38:48 AM
Ah the hypocrisy of only caring about Clinton emails.
Trump isn't even worth discussing, he's unqualified to be president. The only :redeeming quality' about him is that he is a non-establishment candidate. That believes vaccines cause autism, global warming is a hoax, and that Obama is a Muslim born in Kenya.
You're missing the formula, though. If you don't spend at least 2x the time bashing Trump as you do criticizing Hillary, you are obviously a closet Trump supporter.
No, the formula for you is that you spent 100% of your time regurgitating the latest you heard from Rush on Clinton while mocking anyone who says anything negative about Trump, and then wonder why nobody believes you.
Quote from: Berkut on October 12, 2016, 11:04:27 AM
No, the formula for you is that you spent 100% of your time regurgitating the latest you heard from Rush on Clinton while mocking anyone who says anything negative about Trump, and then wonder why nobody believes you.
:lol: Okay Berkut.
I still believe in you Spicy.
Quote from: Alcibiades on October 12, 2016, 01:11:13 AM
I'll preface this by saying I would absolutely vote for Clinton before Trump
Is there some significance to your use of the conditional here?
Maybe he does not plan on voting?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 12, 2016, 03:03:57 PM
Quote from: Alcibiades on October 12, 2016, 01:11:13 AM
I'll preface this by saying I would absolutely vote for Clinton before Trump
Is there some significance to your use of the conditional here?
He has better things to do that day. I know I do.
Quote from: Alcibiades on October 12, 2016, 10:11:13 AM
Everyone is trained on this, including her, she's signed the nondisclosure paperwork and taken the security training. Whether she just signed it without reading/taking the course is a definite possibility. But there is definitely the belief of a double standard here in the intelligence community and its frustrating. Sorry if that's not easily understandable.
What's easily understandable is the fact that your lunchbox GS-12/13 ass is still making an equivalence between what you handle on a daily basis and what an ES/Cabinet appointment deals with at their 30,000 ft level.
Double standard, hilarious. Of course there's a double standard, and guess what: the important SCIF shit you handle on a daily basis is a hell of a lot more important that what Hillary herself handled--because she had a staff doing it for her. She Executive, You Not.
There's a saying in police departments, "the Chief doesn't write speeding tickets." And the Secretary of State doesn't print out her own TS briefing tear sheets--because
she's in the fucking room with the NSC and the President.For someone in Intelligence, you're pretty fucking thick on how government works. You don't like it, get detailed to the SES development program so you can have perks like a staff, too.
Quote from: Alcibiades on October 12, 2016, 10:11:13 AM
But there is definitely the belief of a double standard here in the intelligence community and its frustrating.
Why is that frustrating? If you were made Secretary of Defense wouldn't you expect your valuable time to not be taken up with this kind of stuff?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 12, 2016, 04:03:57 PM
Quote from: Alcibiades on October 12, 2016, 10:11:13 AM
Everyone is trained on this, including her, she's signed the nondisclosure paperwork and taken the security training. Whether she just signed it without reading/taking the course is a definite possibility. But there is definitely the belief of a double standard here in the intelligence community and its frustrating. Sorry if that's not easily understandable.
What's easily understandable is the fact that your lunchbox GS-12/13 ass is still making an equivalence between what you handle on a daily basis and what an ES/Cabinet appointment deals with at their 30,000 ft level.
Double standard, hilarious. Of course there's a double standard, and guess what: the important SCIF shit you handle on a daily basis is a hell of a lot more important that what Hillary herself handled--because she had a staff doing it for her. She Executive, You Not.
There's a saying in police departments, "the Chief doesn't write speeding tickets." And the Secretary of State doesn't print out her own TS briefing tear sheets--because she's in the fucking room with the NSC and the President.
For someone in Intelligence, you're pretty fucking thick on how government works. You don't like it, get detailed to the SES development program so you can have perks like a staff, too.
Meh, I still can't go home at the end of the day and send a gmail to someone about a question I had or something I read about or was briefed on that day. My boss can't do it, my Corps commander, who we brief and is partially responsible for your favorite area in the entire world, can't do it, why is your beloved any different?
Maybe you're just acting ignorant, but perhaps you'll recall the director of central intelligence in recent years? He was held accountable and lost his clearance, and faced punitive actions, but was let off lightly too. Do I need to have a vagina and be a complete mystery to you for you to get what i'm putting out?
You can't, and should not, have double standards just because you are higher on the totem pole.
Quote from: Valmy on October 12, 2016, 04:06:24 PM
Quote from: Alcibiades on October 12, 2016, 10:11:13 AM
But there is definitely the belief of a double standard here in the intelligence community and its frustrating.
Why is that frustrating? If you were made Secretary of Defense wouldn't you expect your valuable time to not be taken up with this kind of stuff?
Not taken up with this kind of stuff? The most basic rules that everyone is required to abide by? That the whole condition under which you are revealed important information is based on? I get it, everyone is exceptionally busy, and I have no doubt she doesn't know and never read the regulations and laws regarding it. I have zero problem with that given that most senior leaders are 'too busy' for it. However, there were definitely people that work for her that are responsible in keeping her in the loop and making sure she doesn't do anything illegal. Was that individual over ruled? Relegated to the corner because following the rules that everyone else has to is inconvenient? That's honestly the most likely answer, because following the law when it comes to properly handling classified information is a real pain in the ass. Seriously, it's a struggle and a major pain in the ass every single day, and most of it is overly cautious and ridiculous.
But, I mean, if you think its ok to let things like this slip, that's up to you. I don't begrudge your opinion, and it's just one of the little things that bothers me. But I'm not out there rallying against her or saying death to Hillary like I see all over social media, because at the end of the day I'm very apathetic about the whole thing and the election in general.
Quote from: derspiess on October 12, 2016, 03:37:59 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 12, 2016, 03:03:57 PM
Quote from: Alcibiades on October 12, 2016, 01:11:13 AM
I'll preface this by saying I would absolutely vote for Clinton before Trump
Is there some significance to your use of the conditional here?
He has better things to do that day. I know I do.
I'm in one of the bluest states in the country, if I voted this year I'd probably just vote opposite of my wife to get a rise out of her. :blush:
Quote from: Alcibiades on October 12, 2016, 04:47:08 PM
Quote from: derspiess on October 12, 2016, 03:37:59 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 12, 2016, 03:03:57 PM
Quote from: Alcibiades on October 12, 2016, 01:11:13 AM
I'll preface this by saying I would absolutely vote for Clinton before Trump
Is there some significance to your use of the conditional here?
He has better things to do that day. I know I do.
I'm in one of the bluest states in the country, if I voted this year I'd probably just vote opposite of my wife to get a rise out of her. :blush:
America's blue and red states confuse me.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.marketoracle.co.uk%2Fimages%2F2010%2FMay%2Fpolls-4-2.gif&hash=cecc5b23b3df55a8bb4e531a06af8a1ab41f4693)
Alcibiades: you seem to be basing your indictment on the erroneous assumption that Clinton routinely sent and received classified documents over her private email server. My understanding is the IG only found like six or seven docs that were classified plain vanilla nobody gives a shit secret *after* they had been sent traveled through that server.
Course that begs the question of how she *did* handle classified docs (did she maintain a separate, official email?) and if anybody knows, I would be happy to be enlightened.
Mongers: very counterintuitive, yes. A cruel trick played by Paul Begala, one of Bubba's political flunkies.
Quote from: Alcibiades on October 12, 2016, 04:26:01 PM
Meh, I still can't go home at the end of the day and send a gmail to someone about a question I had or something I read about or was briefed on that day. My boss can't do it, my Corps commander, who we brief and is partially responsible for your favorite area in the entire world, can't do it, why is your beloved any different?
No, no you can't. And guess what, she couldn't either. And she got dinged for it. Mentioning the covert drone program when the covert drone program is mentioned in a newspaper article about the covert drone program is a no-no, and she was taken to task by the FBI director in his testimony to Congress accordingly.
QuoteMaybe you're just acting ignorant, but perhaps you'll recall the director of central intelligence in recent years? He was held accountable and lost his clearance, and faced punitive actions, but was let off lightly too. Do I need to have a vagina and be a complete mystery to you for you to get what i'm putting out?
I recall the Director of Central Intelligence knowingly and intentionally removing physical material that was marked to be stored in a SCIF, knowingly and intentionally handing it over to an unauthorized person he was fucking, and knowingly and intentionally lying to FBI investigators about it after being questioned: which just so happens to be a felony. So what you're putting out is bullshit.
QuoteYou can't, and should not, have double standards just because you are higher on the totem pole.
Degrees of intent and severity and obstruction. But thank you for being so obtuse; you're everything we've come to expect from years of government training.
Now be sure to put the next person you see walking away from their laptop with their PIV card still in it in a Ranger choke hold until the tactical unit arrives.
You're the Devil.
I have tremendous hate in my heart. And I just fucking emailed it.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 12, 2016, 06:48:00 PM
Now be sure to put the next person you see walking away from their laptop with their PIV card still in it in a Ranger choke hold until the tactical unit arrives.
That's a pretty big infraction now, too. :XD:
Goddamned right it is. Unfortunately, it happens so often the Chinese already know about it, what with them being in the future and all.
http://fortune.com/2015/09/16/tom-brady-president-trump/
QuoteTom Brady endorses Donald Trump for president
I seem to have missed this last year.
:mellow:
Tim will be doing some soul searching.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on October 12, 2016, 07:42:08 PM
Tim will be doing some soul searching.
Whose soul will he be searching?
Quote from: dps on October 12, 2016, 08:06:38 PM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on October 12, 2016, 07:42:08 PM
Tim will be doing some soul searching.
Whose soul will he be searching?
In other words looking for his lost shoe.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on October 12, 2016, 07:42:08 PM
Tim will be doing some soul searching.
He's always been a loon. Thankfully he's a great football player.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on October 12, 2016, 07:42:08 PM
Tim will be doing some soul searching.
Don't you mean: SEOUL SEARCHING
Quote from: Valmy on October 12, 2016, 04:06:24 PM
Quote from: Alcibiades on October 12, 2016, 10:11:13 AM
But there is definitely the belief of a double standard here in the intelligence community and its frustrating.
Why is that frustrating? If you were made Secretary of Defense wouldn't you expect your valuable time to not be taken up with this kind of stuff?
And soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen violate the rules against disclosure of confidential information ALL THE TIME. Ship getting underway from the twelfth to the sixteenth? Everyone knows it: landlords ("I can't pay the rent on the twelfth, we're getting underway then"), the car mechanic ("I can't pick up my car until after we get back on the sixteenth"), pizza delivery guys, everybody. Yet, if that date is written down, you have to put a "(C)" in front of it.
Did Clinton's staff fuck up? Yep. just like every staff ever. But we are not talking about revealing the technical specs of the nuclear command and control system here, we are talking about mixing confidential material with unclassified material and storing it inappropriately, and about not correctly tracking down all the unclassified information that was retroactively classified.
The vilification of Clinton over relatively trivial stuff that she has already apologized for is mystifying. The constant excusing of Trump for his contempt for the truth is even more mystifying in the context of Hilary Clinton's mis-steps being unforgivable.