US Presidential Election XII

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
People also forget that this wasn't so long ago...Yale became coed in 1969 (!!) and Hillary started law school the next year from what I remember. We often thing of women's lack of access as something that happened 100 years ago, but this isn't even a generation removed.
 
I'm watching a Gary Johnson interview.

1. He says he draws more votes from Hillary
2. He didn't know what Aleppo was

Nope! This is why we can't have third parties.


He says that because there's tons of republicans who refuse to vote for him because they see it as a vote for Clinton. I'm sure his camp has done the research and said we need to dispel the idea that libertarians take only from republicans, in order to gather more republicans.

On the Aleppo question, I don't know whether he truly didn't know what it was, or if he was caught off by the odd way the guy said "a leppo." I give him the benefit, because I didn't just run a two question check on his intelligence and I know he's not an idiot.

I fail to see that "this" is "why we can't have third parties." You make it seem like we can't be part of the rest of the western world because of one fumble. If that's the case, we all know we have an arsenal of Trump fumbles. Why should we even have two parties? Might as well just have a one party system where we re-elect the same dear leader.
 
And make no mistake, even Obama benefitted from the gender bias when he was debating Hilary. Remember the "you're likeable enough" comment.
 
This forum is a dreadful place for those who want to criticize Clinton because the ones doing the criticizing are so batshit.


And when not-batshit-crazy criticisms get posted, they get driven into the ground by the usual critics.

Or, you get sorted into a bucket, Bernie bro.
 
Hillary tended to not answer any of the questions from the audience directly instead choosing to filibuster. At least Trump answered a few of the questions directly and succinctly, especially the one regards to an undocumented alien and military service.

Both came across poorly overall, but she came across worse (though Lauer may have come across poorest of all).

PatriotsBat2_large.jpg
 

I've been looking for a reason to post this for ages. A long read, but a very good one.

Understanding Hillary: The Clinton America sees isn’t the Clinton colleagues know. Why are they so different?

It begins:

This is not a profile of Hillary Clinton. It is not a review of her career or an assessment of her campaign. You won’t find any shocking revelations on her emails, on Benghazi, on Whitewater, or even on her health care plan.

This is an effort to answer a question I’ve been struggling with since at least 2008: Why is the Hillary Clinton described to me by her staff, her colleagues, and even her foes so different from the one I see on the campaign trail?

I’ve come to call it “the Gap.” There is the Hillary Clinton I watch on the nightly news and that I read described in the press. She is careful, calculated, cautious. Her speeches can sound like executive summaries from a committee report, the product of too many authors, too many voices, and too much fear of offense.

The Iraq War mars her record, and the private email server and the Goldman Sachs paydays frustrate even her admirers. Polls show most Americans doubt her basic honesty. Pundits write columns with headlines like “Why Is Clinton Disliked?”

And then there is the Hillary Clinton described to me by people who have worked with her, people I admire, people who understand Washington in ways I never will. Their Hillary Clinton is spoken of in superlatives: brilliant, funny, thoughtful, effective. She inspires a rare loyalty in ex-staff, and an unusual protectiveness even among former foes.

...

Eta - just realized I may have originally seen this article posted here, months ago. It's worth another post, in case it was missed the first time.
 
He says that because there's tons of republicans who refuse to vote for him because they see it as a vote for Clinton. I'm sure his camp has done the research and said we need to dispel the idea that libertarians take only from republicans, in order to gather more republicans.

On the Aleppo question, I don't know whether he truly didn't know what it was, or if he was caught off by the odd way the guy said "a leppo." I give him the benefit, because I didn't just run a two question check on his intelligence and I know he's not an idiot.

I fail to see that "this" is "why we can't have third parties." You make it seem like we can't be part of the rest of the western world because of one fumble. If that's the case, we all know we have an arsenal of Trump fumbles. Why should we even have two parties? Might as well just have a one party system where we re-elect the same dear leader.



well, my comment was meant to be slightly humorous, but if you like, one could argue that the two party system gives a necessary coherence and stability to a massive, multicultural population spread out over an entire continent with vast geographic and cultural differences. not to mention that 150 years ago the country was consumed by a near catastrophic civil war. these two parties also seem to be able to assimilate the issues and concerns presented by smaller parties (i.e., the Tea Party being absorbed by the GOP, though now at apparent great cost), so real changes in platform and positions can and do happen.

there's also the issue that there hasn't ever been a remotely credible third party candidate (Perot is the gold standard here), nor do third parties bother to do much beyond run for president. it seems that many those attracted to third parties -- aside from those who might be at present unhappy with their party's nominee, but have a long history of voting for the two parties -- like to complain about not having a choice but then do little to actually create a viable alternative choice, and then turn around and not vote and blame the system. it's difficult to run for state and local offices, but that's the kind of groundwork required to create a political party.

Johnson may not be an idiot, and he may have had a brain malfunction (all that THC!) but running for the presidency does require one to have a basic minimum knowledge of current events. given that Aleppo has been gassed with chlorine and this was headlines yesterday, one would think that it would have rung a bell.

Reports of a Chlorine-Gas Attack in Aleppo - The Atlantic

i watched this as it happened, and it was in no way a gotcha question. and it was far more basic than, say, someone quizzing GWB about the name of the prime minister of Pakistan (something he also should have known, btw).

Johnson seems to encapsulate the problem with third parties -- it's difficult to take them seriously, because they don't seem to be serious about actual policy.
 
well, my comment was meant to be slightly humorous, but if you like, one could argue that the two party system gives a necessary coherence and stability to a massive, multicultural population spread out over an entire continent with vast geographic and cultural differences. not to mention that 150 years ago the country was consumed by a near catastrophic civil war. these two parties also seem to be able to assimilate the issues and concerns presented by smaller parties (i.e., the Tea Party being absorbed by the GOP, though now at apparent great cost), so real changes in platform and positions can and do happen.



there's also the issue that there hasn't ever been a remotely credible third party candidate (Perot is the gold standard here), nor do third parties bother to do much beyond run for president. it seems that many those attracted to third parties -- aside from those who might be at present unhappy with their party's nominee, but have a long history of voting for the two parties -- like to complain about not having a choice but then do little to actually create a viable alternative choice, and then turn around and not vote and blame the system. it's difficult to run for state and local offices, but that's the kind of groundwork required to create a political party.



Johnson may not be an idiot, and he may have had a brain malfunction (all that THC!) but running for the presidency does require one to have a basic minimum knowledge of current events. given that Aleppo has been gassed with chlorine and this was headlines yesterday, one would think that it would have rung a bell.



Reports of a Chlorine-Gas Attack in Aleppo - The Atlantic



i watched this as it happened, and it was in no way a gotcha question. and it was far more basic than, say, someone quizzing GWB about the name of the prime minister of Pakistan (something he also should have known, btw).



Johnson seems to encapsulate the problem with third parties -- it's difficult to take them seriously, because they don't seem to be serious about actual policy.


I'm failing to understand your first point, as it seems quite opposite of the logical answer. Why would limiting two choices work to the advantage of a large, diverse population? It seems to me that it's the diversity that gets washed in such a state. If you have a belief that isn't sortable into the two really large, generalized boxes, it doesn't matter. Not only will your belief not make it into those large boxes, but it will never be even given adequate representation based upon the proportion of people who share that belief.

You're illegitimizing third party candidates by merely disregarding them. You call Ross Perot the gold standard, yet you don't acknowledge practically everyone else who ever ran and never achieved the same level of popular vote. Ross Perot isn't the "gold standard" of third party candidates, as they're often diverse and come from plenty of different backgrounds. Some are illegitimate, and some are not. You're just disregarding them and smacking a bit "third party" label on them. That's not the solution to third party candidates, it's the problem. You fail to take them seriously, because they're not a major party. And ultimately, they fail to become major players, due to your illegitimization.

This is even evident in your response here. You shrug him off as a pothead. Did you happen to read Johnson's actual reflection and response to his brain fart on Aleppo? About him owning up to his mistake and being frustrated and upset with himself? About him viewing Syria as a serious humanitarian problem? God forbid we have that in politics. Actual honesty, not honesty as a facade.

As a final note, I think it comes off rather ignorant to suggest that all third party candidates do is run for president. I'm assuming you've voted before... these third parties are actual parties with local chapters set up across the country. People run for office, and much like on the national scale with being disregarded, they're disregarded on those smaller ballots as well. Because there is no current system in place filled with money or known voices to endorse their campaign. Funny thing about that is, having a D or R next to your name is the sole reason you might be elected into a state congress, and then you work your way up from there.
 
Yes, accurate. I don't see much worth in regards to discussion re: Clinton on this board.

Criticize away if you've got concerns about her you want to share. I've shared a few of mine in here before and nobody's jumped on me about it.

My main point is that I just can't take Trump supporters seriously when they call her untrustworthy and try and call her out on any shady/reckless stuff she's done, because, well, look at who they're supporting.

And in regards to Assange and others of his ilk who claim to have all this information about her, at this point my feeling is basically, "Put up or shut up". If they have legit information that we deserve to know about her, something serious that we should be alerted to, fine. Then they need to just share it already. Especially if it's something truly damaging, something that proves she poses a serious risk to this country at large if she gets elected.

But if they really don't have anything that's any worse than what we've heard thus far, then they need to put a sock in it and let us focus on the issues that already exist with her. And we need to come to some sort of resolution on the e-mail issue and the foundation stuff and whatnot, too. If she's committed a criminal offense, then let's do something about that and punish her accordingly. If she hasn't, then people (and I'm speaking about the media and voters in general across the country and whatnot here) need to just drop it already and move on.
 
My main point is that I just can't take Trump supporters seriously when they call her untrustworthy and try and call her out on any shady/reckless stuff she's done, because, well, look at who they're supporting.

I understand this frustration, but it seems there has also been something of a default rebuttal for any concerns about Hillary that goes, "yes, but Trump!" Eventually she will win this election and will actually be in office, at which point the "better than Trump" argument becomes completely irrelevant.
 
I'm failing to understand your first point, as it seems quite opposite of the logical answer. Why would limiting two choices work to the advantage of a large, diverse population? It seems to me that it's the diversity that gets washed in such a state. If you have a belief that isn't sortable into the two really large, generalized boxes, it doesn't matter. Not only will your belief not make it into those large boxes, but it will never be even given adequate representation based upon the proportion of people who share that belief.

You're illegitimizing third party candidates by merely disregarding them. You call Ross Perot the gold standard, yet you don't acknowledge practically everyone else who ever ran and never achieved the same level of popular vote. Ross Perot isn't the "gold standard" of third party candidates, as they're often diverse and come from plenty of different backgrounds. Some are illegitimate, and some are not. You're just disregarding them and smacking a bit "third party" label on them. That's not the solution to third party candidates, it's the problem. You fail to take them seriously, because they're not a major party. And ultimately, they fail to become major players, due to your illegitimization.

This is even evident in your response here. You shrug him off as a pothead. Did you happen to read Johnson's actual reflection and response to his brain fart on Aleppo? About him owning up to his mistake and being frustrated and upset with himself? About him viewing Syria as a serious humanitarian problem? God forbid we have that in politics. Actual honesty, not honesty as a facade.

As a final note, I think it comes off rather ignorant to suggest that all third party candidates do is run for president. I'm assuming you've voted before... these third parties are actual parties with local chapters set up across the country. People run for office, and much like on the national scale with being disregarded, they're disregarded on those smaller ballots as well. Because there is no current system in place filled with money or known voices to endorse their campaign. Funny thing about that is, having a D or R next to your name is the sole reason you might be elected into a state congress, and then you work your way up from there.




If we have 3, 4, 5, candidates running for president, and someone wins with 32% of the vote, how legitimate is that when 2/3rds of the country voted someone other than the president? We don't have a parliamentary system, and o e could argue that the executive branch is necessary for any legislative advancement in a country so large and diverse. Choosing between two lends an air of legitimacy to the winner that choosing 1 president among 4 never would. Legitimacy and trust in the vote is imperative.

Third parties have only themselves to answer to when it comes to their lack of success at the local level, especially in, say, super liberal west coast cities.

Ross Perot is the gold standard because he was actually a part of the debates in 1992. That is the only time that's happened in my lifetime. I suppose one could also point to George Wallace. I don't take them seriously because they aren't serious candidates with serious positions. They haven't earned serious consideration. Am I supposed to take fucking Ralph Nader seriously? Lyndon LaRoushe?

Most talented candidates are able to locate themselves within the two major parties, despite having potential disagreements with elements of the party and its platform. It's because the parties are inclusive out of necessity and by design that third parties tend to have fringe candidates.
 
A strong, centrist, well known third party candidate could win if faced with to extremes. Like if Hillary was less of a centrist and more, say, Bernie like... or heck, if Bernie had won... Then in that scenario a well funded third party candidate would have a chance.

Most years they will just take votes away from the main candidates.
 
If we have 3, 4, 5, candidates running for president, and someone wins with 32% of the vote, how legitimate is that when 2/3rds of the country voted someone other than the president? We don't have a parliamentary system, and o e could argue that the executive branch is necessary for any legislative advancement in a country so large and diverse. Choosing between two lends an air of legitimacy to the winner that choosing 1 president among 4 never would. Legitimacy and trust in the vote is imperative.

Third parties have only themselves to answer to when it comes to their lack of success at the local level, especially in, say, super liberal west coast cities.

Ross Perot is the gold standard because he was actually a part of the debates in 1992. That is the only time that's happened in my lifetime. I suppose one could also point to George Wallace. I don't take them seriously because they aren't serious candidates with serious positions. They haven't earned serious consideration. Am I supposed to take fucking Ralph Nader seriously? Lyndon LaRoushe?

Most talented candidates are able to locate themselves within the two major parties, despite having potential disagreements with elements of the party and its platform. It's because the parties are inclusive out of necessity and by design that third parties tend to have fringe candidates.


More major parties doesn't mean that in a general election, you won't end up with two favorites. But to answer your question, yes I'm 100% okay with the victor not being the majority vote. Plurality is enough, we aren't a populist democracy. That's the point of the electoral college. Look no further than 2000 when Al Gore lost while holding the popular vote. The electoral college has its flaws, of course, but it still exists for a way of each state to deliver their verdict -- not the popular count.

I think it's absurd that you'd say third parties only have themselves to answer to. Total disregard to the fact that the defecto two party system in place controls county and state politics. It's like you're suggesting that EVERY third party candidate in EVERY city only has themselves to answer to. As though, the inherent reason why third party candidates don't get elected to public office in these scenarios is simply because they somehow fuck it up or are somehow less qualified than other people who have just as much experience in politics as them?

And you totally missed why I scoffed at you calling Ross Perot the gold standard of third party candidates. You're acting as though he represents third party candidates. As though we actually do have three parties -- democratic, republican, and third. There's no "gold standard" for a third party candidate. They come in all shapes and forms. You can't just use Ross Perot to your credit and claim he's why third party candidates shouldn't exist. Look around you, Donald Trump is the candidate for the Republican Party. If he wanted to, he could've been Ross Perot this election. But he's not. Proof enough that a bumbling fool and the party (or lack thereof) he or she represents are mutually exclusive.

I mean, with your last paragraph you're just making the case that someone fit for office inherently should conform to the system, and that's what makes a good politician. Again, all I can say is look around at most other westernized countries with democratic elections. In most cases, they're able to support multiple parties -- some of which come and go in terms of popularity. And they get proportional representation in their houses of representatives.
 
I understand this frustration, but it seems there has also been something of a default rebuttal for any concerns about Hillary that goes, "yes, but Trump!" Eventually she will win this election and will actually be in office, at which point the "better than Trump" argument becomes completely irrelevant.
I don't think many countries have a president / prime minister with the sort of resume Clinton has. I doubt anywhere else in the world would someone with her experience be dubbed 'the slightly less bad option'.
No matter how many made up allegations there have been and will be against her, it doesn't change she has shown already she has the capabilities for the presidency.

Will she be 'the best', 'most beloved' president the US has ever had?
No, almost certainly not.
But to make it that she is a hack who only will win because she's up against a buffoon is doing her a disservice.
 
I don't think that's the point. Not a lot of people desiring to discuss legitimate criticisms of Clinton in this thread wish to "level the playing field
" with Trump, so to say.
 
It might not be the point, but I get very wary of the general perception that Clinton is an obvious bad candidate who is lucky she is up against Trump.

Legitimate criticism of Clinton results in about as many people defending Clinton by stating "better than Trump" as there are people who make out that their criticism is a clear indication Clinton is barely electable and not a preferred option (and of course unlikable). So basically the people who object to others saying "better than Trump" are stating indirectly that they only vote for her because she is better than Trump. (And then there are of course people who would vote for Trump no matter who he is up against).

I don't think there's any politician over here in The Netherlands I don't disagree with at least 15% of the time. That doesn't mean none of them truly deserve my vote.
And I wish any of them had the qualities and experience of Clinton.
 
It might not be the point, but I get very wary of the general perception that Clinton is an obvious bad candidate who is lucky she is up against Trump.

Legitimate criticism of Clinton results in about as many people defending Clinton by stating "better than Trump" as there are people who make out that their criticism is a clear indication Clinton is barely electable and not a preferred option (and of course unlikable). So basically the people who object to others saying "better than Trump" are stating indirectly that they only vote for her because she is better than Trump. (And then there are of course people who would vote for Trump no matter who he is up against).

I don't think there's any politician over here in The Netherlands I don't disagree with at least 15% of the time. That doesn't mean none of them truly deserve my vote.
And I wish any of them had the qualities and experience of Clinton.

The insane crusade of the media to make the absolute disgustingly dangerous disaster that is Trump, somehow equal to the most qualified candidate possibly ever in Clinton is the problem.

Heard on CNN this morning...

"Who had a better week this week, Trump or Clinton?

Well that's a tough one. Trump praised Putin and how well he "controls" his country, he said Putin was superior to our president, he said our Generals were a disaster and an embarrassment to our country, he claimed he could and would fire the existing generals and replace them, he said the military court was non-existent, he lied continuously about being against Iraq, he said women should expect to be raped because they serve with men in the military, and he had a proven illegal contribution from his foundation which served as a payoff to an AG to drop a case of his fraudulent University.

BUT... Clinton seemed a bit defensive about the email questions at the Commander in Chief town hall... Sooooooo... Ummmm... Its kind of a toss up. But I think Clinton narrowly wins the week."

This is not hyperbole or a joke or sarcasm. This is reality.
 
Most talented candidates are able to locate themselves within the two major parties, despite having potential disagreements with elements of the party and its platform. It's because the parties are inclusive out of necessity and by design that third parties tend to have fringe candidates.

This is actually pretty sad and probably goes a long way to explain why so many people feel disillusioned with the system and feel like politicians stand for nothing. And that's a real problem.
 
I don't think there's any politician over here in The Netherlands I don't disagree with at least 15% of the time. That doesn't mean none of them truly deserve my vote.

Seriously. You don't achieve major change by insisting on ideological purity that aligns rigidly with your specific values.
 
This is actually pretty sad and probably goes a long way to explain why so many people feel disillusioned with the system and feel like politicians stand for nothing. And that's a real problem.



possibly, but the two parties might be necessary, which has been my entire point. there has to be a force of moderation and stability, which two parties that easily absorb outliers gives us. the coalition-forming happens within the party itself, and the oppositional clarity of the two parties keeps everything coherent and understandable, from Mississippi to Seattle. only two parties also make it easier to negotiate between the executive and legislative branches of the government.

i know it's become fashionable to stomp our feet and demand more perfect reflections of our imagined selves running for president, but in a country where people are so different and spread out across a vast continent, it likely works better to have someone broadly identify with either of the two parties (or as an "independent") and then work within the party itself to move or change it's platform. one could say this is the great success of the Sanders campaign -- by joining the Democrats, he was better able to affect mainstream political thought than he ever would have running as an independent. this is, in effect, what the Green Party and the Liberatarians do to the D's and the R's -- they threaten to pull votes away from each party, causing the party to change insofar as much as they need to retain a critical mass of votes going into an election.
 
Last edited:
And you totally missed why I scoffed at you calling Ross Perot the gold standard of third party candidates. You're acting as though he represents third party candidates. As though we actually do have three parties -- democratic, republican, and third. There's no "gold standard" for a third party candidate. They come in all shapes and forms. You can't just use Ross Perot to your credit and claim he's why third party candidates shouldn't exist. Look around you, Donald Trump is the candidate for the Republican Party. If he wanted to, he could've been Ross Perot this election. But he's not. Proof enough that a bumbling fool and the party (or lack thereof) he or she represents are mutually exclusive.


Ross Perot is the most successful third party candidate of the modern era, hence he is the "gold standard" because he was (and still is) the most successful. he was actually on the debate stage in 1992. nowhere have i claimed they shouldn't exist, but i have claimed that the two party system is necessary and perhaps even a good thing in the US, due to it's unique character, population, geography, history, system of government, etc.

it seems to me that you'd be mistaken to mistake a black swan like Trump as proof of anything, really, beyond his own celebrity powers, the weakness of the field, and the post-Obama GOP madness (and the reverberations of what was a nearly catastrophic economic collapse in 2008). the 2020 GOP nominee will likely be back to the model of a more typical GOP candidate. also, Trump's views aren't all that much out of the mainstream of the GOP candidates in general, and it also speaks to the size of the field that diluted anti-Trump votes so no credible opposition was able to rise. i think everyone, Trump included, is shocked he's the nominee, and i think he was planning on running as a Perot (and then starting his own cable network).



I mean, with your last paragraph you're just making the case that someone fit for office inherently should conform to the system, and that's what makes a good politician. Again, all I can say is look around at most other westernized countries with democratic elections. In most cases, they're able to support multiple parties -- some of which come and go in terms of popularity. And they get proportional representation in their houses of representatives.


"most westernized countries" are different, and have different systems of government, and thus have different needs than the US.
 
if the US had a multi-party system, they would probably be regional parties rather than ideologically based. i'm not so sure if that would be a good thing.
 
if the US had a multi-party system, they would probably be regional parties rather than ideologically based. i'm not so sure if that would be a good thing.


I could see a party popular in the Pacific NW.

A Latino based party in border states.

New England party.

Rust Belt populist party.

Ultra-Conservative Southern party.

A Mormon based party in Utah and Idaho.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom