2016 US Presidential Election Thread XIII

[BigMacPhisto]

Had she not had the incident at the memorial, no one would have known and it would have been fine.

This line of logic has literally been her campaign's entire problem.

Yes, Trump's line of attack on her health is without evidence and flat out disgusting, but her health is an issue given recent complications she had before this including all of these damn coughing fits in public appearances. Like the other mistakes, it's a damned if you do situation, but the right move is to be forthcoming. Otherwise, situations like the dizzy spell are going to eventually happen regardless, even if they're emanating from a short term condition that's relatively minor.

Staying home would have been the right call given the circumstances. It could have even become a plus since they could say she got a cold or whatever and allow her enough time to recuperate. If Trump attacks, he looks like a monster again and her getting a cold after meeting thousands of people and moving hundreds of miles a day is within reason.

 

[BVS]

Staying home would have been the right call given the circumstances. It could have even become a plus since they could say she got a cold or whatever and allow her enough time to recuperate. If Trump attacks, he looks like a monster again and her getting a cold after meeting thousands of people and moving hundreds of miles a day is within reason.

For someone who spends as much time on the Breitbart sites as you do, you'd think you'd know better.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[Kieran McConville]

I'd just like to make the observation that Donald Trump has one huge - enormous - vulnerable underbelly. Quite a bit of his rhetoric is designed to appeal to a sentiment that America ought to pull back from empire, though pretty clearly coming from a paleoconservative, not leftist, angle. And just this week I see an article in The Nation about the war without end that has been waged over the greater Middle East over the last sixteen years.

So there's that. There's real fatigue here, and maybe real disgust and dismay in some quarters. The entire political establishment is bipartisan on this. War without end. Both the Democrats and the Republicans are vulnerable, I would think. And here comes Trump sort of saying let's get out of this game. But HE IS NOT CONSISTENT. He'll say some of that, then he'll come out with this go-to-war-with-Iran garbage.

He could be absolutely holed below the waterline by a candidate who had a leg to stand on. Unfortunately there is no such candidate.

 

[DaveC]

i wonder if short wars are a late-19th & 20th century only thing. before then we had wars that lasted thirty years (the thirty years war) and even a hundred years (the hundred years war). almost every war was either one battle or decades long, albeit interrupted by tenuous ceasefires.

after the crimean war here are the wars involving the united states or other major wars involving great powers (not counting internal military operations besides the civil war and the cold war):

american civil war - 4 years
franco-prussian war - 9 months
spanish-american war - 3 months
world war 1 - 4 years
world war 2 - 6 years
korean war - 3 years (not counting the lack of peace treaty)
vietnam war - 9 years (gulf of tonkin to us withdrawal from saigon)
gulf war 1 - 1.5 months
kosovo war - 3 months

2000s

war in afghanistan - 16 years and counting
gulf war 2 - 12 years
war against daesh - 2 years and counting

military science and history is the study of the balance between firepower and mobility. at the moment firepower overwhelms mobility in every modern army on earth. the last time that happened was just before the start of world war 1 and we all know how that went in the early stages (if not: literal meat grinder). once mobility started to match firepower, with the evolution of tanks and aircraft, the war ended rather quickly. france was conquered in a little over a month in world war 2 because the blitzkrieg was all about using mobility to envelop the enemy and destroy them by cutting them off.

currently no military anywhere on earth gives a flying fuck about mobility or developing their maneuvering tactics. it's all about increasing firepower. bigger bunker busters, more aggressive artillery shells, etc.

the taliban and other groups like them hold the mobility advantage. they know the terrain. they move among the people. they use small trucks and cars or their feet to move around. they don't use armored conspicuous tanks and jeeps to roll around in. believe it or not, this gives a huge mobility advantage by allowing the enemy to move into battle positions without a likelihood of being interdicted. half the reason the allies won world war 2 was because of the advantage of being able to get into the rear and cause general havoc when the germans tried to withdraw to stronger positions.

unless the armies of the west figure out how to gain the mobility advantage, these wars are completely and decisively lost already. there is no point in fighting them. i don't know if that is even possible when you're on their turf.

i'm a little baked so i don't remember quite where i was going with this, but i think my point was that unless the us military wants to completely restructure their doctrine (lol not happening) there is no point in fighting foreign wars against a determined guerrilla opponent. that's a surefire way to spectacularly collapse an empire.

 

[BigMacPhisto]

You're on point with the reasoning and I agree with it completely. It's for those reasons that I thought Iraq/Afghanistan involvement was basically akin to Vietnam. You can never win until you just give up. Our leadership is always too damn stubborn to admit defeat, but perhaps we will elect someone that eventually sees the failure for what it is.

 

[PhilsFan]

The only story here is the ineptitude of her campaign. Their first instinct for everything is "hide this" instead of trying to get out in front of it, which would have been very easy. Would it have been pleasant? Of course not. It's a poorly timed illness given the way it could be spun. But what do they gain from trying to hide a story that everyone knows will come out anyway? It's not health issues, it's not emails, it's a consistent viewpoint that transparency is a nuisance to be avoided whenever and wherever possible.

 

[womanfish]

This line of logic has literally been her campaign's entire problem.

Yes, Trump's line of attack on her health is without evidence and flat out disgusting, but her health is an issue given recent complications she had before this including all of these damn coughing fits in public appearances. Like the other mistakes, it's a damned if you do situation, but the right move is to be forthcoming. Otherwise, situations like the dizzy spell are going to eventually happen regardless, even if they're emanating from a short term condition that's relatively minor.

Staying home would have been the right call given the circumstances. It could have even become a plus since they could say she got a cold or whatever and allow her enough time to recuperate. If Trump attacks, he looks like a monster again and her getting a cold after meeting thousands of people and moving hundreds of miles a day is within reason.

My point was that you don't know if Trump was there with a sickness either. I think we can all agree that the candidates have all had some illness over the last year and a half that they deal with and push on.
Bernie looked visibly sick a couple of times, and my thought was - damn, i can't imagine having to push that hard 24/7. Not, shit, this is the end of his candidacy!! what is he hiding!?! Why isn't he disclosing his physical state to us!!?
But somehow, it's the Clinton rule that she has to call a press conference when she's sick, or else she's the least transparent candidate in history!!

it's so tiring.

 

[Diemen]

it's a consistent viewpoint that transparency is a nuisance to be avoided whenever and wherever possible.

This kind of critique is odd to me. The Clinton Foundation has been a model of transparency among charities (contrast that to the Trump Foundation). The Clintons have released over 30 years of their taxes (contrast that to Donald Trump). Colin Powell was far less transparent in how he dealt with maintaining email records while SecState. She has gone before congressional witch hunts hearings/investigations numerous times to deal with their inquisitions questions. She has admitted fault (contrast that to Donald Trump).

I'm sure this will just be added on to the "we can't seriously discuss Hillary" pile, but of all the things to bash Hillary about, transparency seems an odd choice, given that she is completely normal in that regard among her peers, and arguably more transparent than normal.

 

[Irvine511]

I'm sure this will just be added on to the "we can't seriously discuss Hillary" pile, but of all the things to bash Hillary about, transparency seems an odd choice, given that she is completely normal in that regard among her peers, and arguably more transparent than normal.

it sounds like you're suggesting that she's subject to tougher scrutiny because she's a woman and it's just so wrong of you to play the gender card like that when you know it's because she's unlikeable.

 

[Diemen]

it sounds like you're suggesting that she's subject to tougher scrutiny because she's a woman and it's just so wrong of you to play the gender card like that when you know it's because she's unlikeable.

How dare you suggest such a thing.

 

[Bluer White]

currently no military anywhere on earth gives a flying fuck about mobility or developing their maneuvering tactics. it's all about increasing firepower. bigger bunker busters, more aggressive artillery shells, etc.

Not sure about that. The Pentagon and other countries are spending heavily on mobility (stealth) and precision weapons. Just recently in the U.S. the Zumwalt class stealth destroyer (a program in the tens of billions), and what's ballooned into a TRILLION dollar F35 program. And actually, in a trade-off for stealth and a single engine, the F35 is carrying *less* firepower on board. It's all about maneuvering, electronic integration of forces, and tactics. But at an enormous cost.

the taliban and other groups like them hold the mobility advantage. they know the terrain. they move among the people. they use small trucks and cars or their feet to move around.

i'm a little baked so i don't remember quite where i was going with this, but i think my point was that unless the us military wants to completely restructure their doctrine (lol not happening) there is no point in fighting foreign wars against a determined guerrilla opponent.

And I agree here, America takes all these hugely expensive weapons systems and will end up targeting a lot of rusty old Toyota pick-ups and soft target structures in the Middle East. In fact, the Pentagon cuts more effective, cheaper weapons systems in order to fund the new stuff.

 

[Oregoropa]

).



I'm sure this will just be added on to the "we can't seriously discuss Hillary" pile, but of all the things to bash Hillary about, transparency seems an odd choice, given that she is completely normal in that regard among her peers, and arguably more transparent than normal.

Getting your resume ready to become Hillary's press secretary?


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[Diemen]

Good rebuttal.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

it sounds like you're suggesting that she's subject to tougher scrutiny because she's a woman and it's just so wrong of you to play the gender card like that when you know it's because she's unlikeable.

There is absolutely truth to your point, but it's also undeniable that the Clintons, Bill and Hillary both, can at times be their own worst enemy.

 

[Irvine511]

Undoubtedly.

I have to say, the "basket of deplorables" was a political master stroke on Hillz's part. Sure, a few people got offended, but now we're talking about why Mile Pence won't call David Duke deplorable. The more the Trump campaign is linked to the darkest, most vile elements in American society, the more suburban Republican women will vote for Hillary. The conversation has shifted back to the undeniable fact that the gas in Trump's truck is racism.

I wonder why the Trump supporters in here won't denounce David Duke?

And why does Trump love Putin so much?

Putin. David Duke.
Putin. David Duke.
Putin. David Duke.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

I don't know if we can fairly judge how Trump is percieved vs how Clinton is received, because Trump has and continues to do and say so many things that would have torpedoed any other candidate's campaign that he's on a level all to himself.

Ultimately I believe it's why Clinton will win in an electoral landslide, but we are truly beyond the looking glass here when it comes to the Trump candidacy; so all common sense and historical precedence needs to be thrown out the window.

 

[PhilsFan]

This kind of critique is odd to me. The Clinton Foundation has been a model of transparency among charities (contrast that to the Trump Foundation). The Clintons have released over 30 years of their taxes (contrast that to Donald Trump). Colin Powell was far less transparent in how he dealt with maintaining email records while SecState. She has gone before congressional witch hunts hearings/investigations numerous times to deal with their inquisitions questions. She has admitted fault (contrast that to Donald Trump).

I'm sure this will just be added on to the "we can't seriously discuss Hillary" pile, but of all the things to bash Hillary about, transparency seems an odd choice, given that she is completely normal in that regard among her peers, and arguably more transparent than normal.

I guess when you're comparing her to Trump. But I would say I disagree strongly with your comparison to her peers. Why do we still not know half of the meetings she took as SecState? Why did ANY of the meetings we know about have to be forced by a lawsuit? That's the lack of transparency. And there's an obvious reason as to why: we saw how easy it was to draw a line from donations to the Foundation to meetings with the Secretary of State. You buy influence from her, the case is easy to make.

Now, you can cry conspiracy theorist nonsense or subjecting her to more scrutiny than other politicians, and that's your prerogative. My stance is that all politicians are dirty, but the Clintons are a good bit beyond the politics-as-usual stuff. Is that nonetheless better than Trump? Sure. But I was hoping for a little bit of a higher standard, I guess.

 

[anitram]

I don't know if we can fairly judge how Trump is percieved vs how Clinton is received, because Trump has and continues to do and say so many things that would have torpedoed any other candidate's campaign that he's on a level all to himself.

In a way he has played it perfectly - he was inexplicably offensive from his announcement speech and throughout the primaries we heard about Mexican rapists, Mexican judges, banning Muslims, female journalists bleeding out of their "wherevers", the size of his penis, disabled journalists and on and on and on. He has effectively conditioned the public to his repulsive persona so much so that he could say whatever at this point and it would just be accepted as par for the course.

And Republicans are hypocrites as a matter of course, so naturally Hillary's deplorable statement is an outrage while Trump's racism, sexism and other -isms are misunderstood/misinterpreted blah blah blah.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

That really is the most ridiculous and hypocritical thing from the GOP in a campaign cycle filled with ridiculous hypocrisy.

They are offended by deplorables... but not by, oh i dunno, pick anything their candidate has said and run with it.

 

[Irvine511]

The most worrisome thing is, if we get to the debate and Trump doesn't pee on Hillary's leg, it will be WOW! SO PRESIDENTIAL! DEFIED EXPECTATIONS! HE SHOWED HE BELONGED UP ON THAT STAGE WITH HER! LOOKING PLAUSIBLE!

 

[Irvine511]

In a way he has played it perfectly - he was inexplicably offensive from his announcement speech and throughout the primaries we heard about Mexican rapists, Mexican judges, banning Muslims, female journalists bleeding out of their "wherevers", the size of his penis, disabled journalists and on and on and on. He has effectively conditioned the public to his repulsive persona so much so that he could say whatever at this point and it would just be accepted as par for the course.



And Republicans are hypocrites as a matter of course, so naturally Hillary's deplorable statement is an outrage while Trump's racism, sexism and other -isms are misunderstood/misinterpreted blah blah blah.

The one thing to take heart from is that Trump is still way, way behind Romeny when it comes to women. I think the Trump outrageousness has been normalized with many white male voters, if not even enjoyed due to cultural misogyny, but living in a market hypersaturated with political ads and in the same media market as a purple-trending-blue state (VA), the Clinton campaign has been quietly releasing several devastating ads using Trumps own words against him. It's especially his mocking of the disabled reporter that I think will continue to make him unacceptable to moderate women. I still find the mocking shocking, so many months later. I do remember reading that the campaign has an ad solely focused on that up its sleeve, and it apparently tests through the roof. We'll see if that holds true.

So long as the conversation stays on this, I think all will be fine.

And, looking at how effective Obama was on the stump yesterday, combined with sterling economic data, and cheap gas, I have to feel optimistic.

The past few elections have seen a GOP bounce over Labor Day. I wonder if people come back from the dog days of August and check in for the first time in a while. They may give the candidates a fresh look. And then, if the D's do their job like they did in 08 and 12, that's the GOP polling high point. They get worse and worse as the fall goes on.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

The best thing the big D has going for them is an incredibly well organized ground game, where as the Trump campaign is an unorganized mess.

So worst comes to worse, if this is a close battle come November, one side will turn out the vote, and one won't.

 

[PhilsFan]

[TWEET]776096173723615232[/TWEET]

 

[Diemen]

And there's an obvious reason as to why: we saw how easy it was to draw a line from donations to the Foundation to meetings with the Secretary of State. You buy influence from her, the case is easy to make.

Is it though? Email records indicate that most donors who requested special meetings were told to go through proper SecState channels. As for pay-to-play, again, Hillary did not personally profit from any of the money donated to the foundation, as her extensive public tax records will back up. (And as an aside, if people want to donate millions of dollars to help the poorest of poor, in order to bend the ear of a politician, I don't necessarily see that as a terrible scandal.) And as SecState it would not be unusual for her to meet with some of the people she did meet with even if they were not donors.

The claim of buying influence is easy to make, sure, but harder to substantiate. But her opposition hasn't let years of hearings and investigations finding no evidence of wrongdoing dissuade them from trying. Say something enough times and it becomes the truth.

 

[trojanchick99]

I hate pay to play, but everything in Washington is pay to play. There's an entire industry of lobbyists whose function is to pay candidates to support their cause. At least in this case the money went to charity.

As for the debates it's going to be a farce. Trump will be applauded when he can spell cat, after having been supplied with the letters c and t. Clinton will be lambasted for not being able to solve the Riemann Hypothesis.

 

[anitram]

The only way this ever changes is if some sort of law is passed whereby you cannot participate in lobbying activities within say 5-10 years of leaving office. Which will never happen, so...

 

[corianderstem]

Who's the dude in that awful shiny suit?


Also, Trump and Dr Oz to discuss Trump's medical history. Or records. Or ... I don't know. His love of cheese.

A joke and a quack walk into a bar ....

 

[DaveC]

[TWEET]776096173723615232[/TWEET]

thanks for any context at all bruh... it's a well known fact that she was one of, if not the most prominent supporters of intervening in libya in the entire administration but that doesn't matter for much when you can do an iron horse-style drive-by, does it?

 

[LuckyNumber7]

The whole "didn't disclose pneumonia" and "not being transparent" thing on Clinton is such garbage.

Anyone who has ever worked hard and been ill has tried to hide it. It's not like we've discovered she's terminally ill and she didn't tell us. God forbid she was making excuses on 9/11, she would be criticized forever.

 

[BigMacPhisto]

But if she knew she was terminally ill and had two years to live, would she actually tell us? I think we all know the answer is no. It's the lack of transparency that opens up the possibility that they could hide a bigger issue from the public, just as her e-mail response continually changed with the public's growing knowledge of what happened.

It's just so much work. Making Hillary the nominee is like picking the dog from the shelter with an abundance of issues to deal with...this would have been a lot easier with someone that brings in millions like Bernie or someone safe like Biden. But people are in such a rush to elect a woman. My response? Baby steps.