US Presidential Election XII

[U2DMfan]

Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7

I poorly made this point before, but why engage Donald Trump's crap? It's like engaging Debra's post. It's not worth contradicting.

Yeah. It's all been pretty useless anyway. The whole process, the whole back and forth. Even seriously considering the idea that this guy might actually be President one day. Oh, I'm not saying it hasn't been entertaining because it has...but this election has been decided for a long damn time. The GOP needed a Hail Mary candidate like Trump to even have a prayer and had he been different, or even merely competent, the GOP just might have stood a chance because of his independently wealthy, celebrity, outsider status.

But no, he was far worse than anyone might have imagined, even if accepting all the offensiveness. The guy is a bigger know-nothing than anyone could have ever thought. And he's not really even 'as billed'. He's not an outsider. He's a campaign funder...a legal briber himself. He's supposed to be Joe America out to make sweet trade deals, yet he makes all his products overseas. He's supposed to be a warrior for average middle America and continues to double down on the same supply-side policies that have gutted the middle class. I mean...I could type 1,000 words on what's wrong with his candidacy. What's the point? He's not remotely going to win. And if they had nominated Jeb or Cruz or...whoever, they most likely weren't going to win regardless.

But anyway, it took me following about 4 elections closely in my lifetime to figure it out. Once 2012 hammered it home once and for all...I'm not looking back until proven otherwise. Following the day to day of these elections is totally useless (I mean, I follow it too, I'm just saying, getting too caught up in the micro narratives).

We can look no further back than 2004 and 2012 as great examples. Both incumbents, if following the 'micro', looked like they could have easily lost. Especially Bush in 2004. If you were following the polls and the BS and the news cycle (and especially if you wanted that to happen - as I did). In hindsight, that was never going to happen. 2008 was also pretty much baked in the cake...McCain never really had a shot. Though meaningless polling always says otherwise. And given that people always want to hear what they want to hear...there's always a reason to believe.

But all we had to do was look at the 'macro', the big picture, and it was all right there. In hindsight, it's easily predictable and obvious. And with the exception of a true toss up in 2000, that has been true of every other election in modern times. So if we are informed enough in the first place and just look at the macro, we shouldn't need hindsight to see the obvious. This is why I think I've made all of about 3 or 4 posts on this election.

So I'm going to come back on election night and copy and paste what I said months and months ago. And it will be essentially right. And it won't be because I'm Nostradamus. The GOP has a long, long way to go. And they certainly couldn't get there nominating someone like this, even against an incredibly unpopular Dem candidate. Joe Biden would have wiped Trump off the face of the earth. Even so, I'm curious to whether Trump can clear what Romney got in 2012 - which was 206 electoral votes. If Trump loses NC, which is very possible, he won't.

If she wins Florida on election night, have a drink, because it will be over that early. He simply can't win w/o FL. And even if he does win FL, he's got to sweep OH and PA in addition to holding what Romney won. Ain't happening and almost certainly never was. Maybe Kasich could have won OH and PA. Maybe he would have been the guy who could have pulled the upset...on second thought, nah, as I alluded to, I'm not getting fooled again until I'm actually fooled again. The GOP, more than anything else, has got to get right on economics before it can win the Presidency again. That's what people care about the most, even beyond the social politics of the day which are genuinely beginning to wear on a lot of people. It's just getting harder and harder to convince people that it's a good idea to funnel money up the ladder that hasn't come back down the ladder in at least a generation or two.

I say this as an advocate of generally smaller government, less than high taxation, a balanced budget, against deficit spending...pro-business capitalist...I understand all of it. I am also an Independent for the last 20 years...I've voted Dem and Rep, and I am not opposed to voting either in any given year. But there is no moral equivalence here. The Dems might work for the State, something I am not a fan of, but the Reps work for the Rich. And while I'm not someone who begrudges the rich, this is precisely why we are where we are. No, I'm also not for massive wealth redistribution ala Bernie...just don't feel I have many choices.

And more to the point, it's just increasingly harder to sell people on things that demonstrably don't work ("Reaganomics"). I invite any of the beleaguered Trump fans that don't understand what I'm saying to go watch Bill Clinton's 2012 DNC speech on Republican economics. Everything he said in it is/was true and more to the point - more people are believing in that truth than not - on GOP economics. Dismiss it as biased info from a liberal...it really was true. All of it. That's what made it such an incredible speech. How he can deliver that kind of information as if he was just a guy at a coffee shop.

There are lot of people like me, someone that could have easily voted for a Jon Huntsman type. A centric GOP candidate. But these types are the enemy of the Republican base. Dirty "RINOs". I get it, they've lied to the people for years to get their votes (while only doing the bidding of their funders). "We will give you jetpacks!" And now the people want their jetpacks. The GOP's national appeal is just simply finite. And if it's not a midterm election where so many people sit at home, they have no shot. There are only so many resentful and highly religious people you can pander to these days - in order to do the bidding of corporations and the extremely wealthy. The old tricks of the Party of the Rich are wearing thin. Nominating this fraud might seem like a solution to some, but better luck next time - for us all. Not that any of this is an endorsement of the Party of the State...but it is what it is.

As South Park framed it 12 years ago...The Turd Sandwich is a little better than the Giant Douche. Maybe 4 years from now we'll have a real 'outsider' who is competent and electable. Maybe that candidate will appeal more to our increasing (especially Gen X and millenials) libertarian natures...and this authoritarian bullshit can finally die its much belated death.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by Debra S

Ow, that hurts! Why do we need a smoking gun? We have a trail of miscreant activity. "smoking gun" comes from the Liberal media.

Seriously, this makes absolutely no sense. Are you enjoying some sangria tonight?

Originally Posted by Debra S

It's well known, not just by the far right, that Democrats depend on minority and poor people's votes, that's history.

Wow! As a self proclaimed "Christian", do you really want to go down this route?

Originally Posted by Debra S

I stand by all of my personal assertions.

Then start being honest.

Originally Posted by Debra S

Bill Clinton was impeached, btw, after getting a blow job in his White House office, and lying about it, and Hillary stood by her man.

Thank you for the history lesson. And your point? You do know of Trump's marriage record, right?


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[Diemen]

Originally Posted by Debra S

Ow, that hurts! Why do we need a smoking gun? We have a trail of miscreant activity. "smoking gun" comes from the Liberal media.

You don't seem at all concerned about the verifiably true miscreant activity Trump has engaged in. Why is that?

It's well known, not just by the far right, that Democrats depend on minority and poor people's votes, that's history.

Serving the poor and marginalized is also one of the central teachings of the Christian faith, and yet it's mocked as some wackadoo liberal agenda by many self-professed Christians on the right. Besides, it's completely misleading and insulting to claim that the main reason minorities and the poor tend to vote Democrat is because of government handouts.

Bill Clinton was impeached, btw, after getting a blow job in his White House office, and lying about it, and Hillary stood by her man.

I'm so glad you have enough insight into their relationship to be able to cast her in such a negative light for the actions of her husband.

[BigMacPhisto]

Originally Posted by PhilsFan

I wish we had a candidate running against Clinton that would allow us actual, real discussions about the Clinton Foundation, her foreign policy, and her connections to Wall Street. I really do.

Instead, we got a Republican.

That's pretty much how my girlfriend summed it up the other day. You can't ever even have much of a discussion about the Democrat's flaws because everybody on the level is batshit afraid of what's on the other side. Rightfully so, mind you.

It doesn't help matters that Clinton is facing off against that Republican.

If Clinton were facing off against a more moderate challenger in some European country, the media would be having an endless field day investigating all of these issues. The more you go down the rabbit hole, the worse everything gets with the Clinton Foundation and it's shit that should automatically disqualify anyone to be President.

But then what can we really do in this system? On the plus side, the honest guy with no baggage or corporate money came pretty damn close this past Spring.

[BigMacPhisto]

Originally Posted by Diemen

I'm so glad you have enough insight into their relationship to be able to cast her in such a negative light for the actions of her husband.

It's common knowledge that Hillary went out of her way to discredit any woman that brought up allegations about Bill while literally every history from people that knew them as a couple were aware that Bill would have flings on the side. That's information from the women that said they slept with him (or claimed sexual assault), his mistresses, etc.

If you honestly think Hillary Clinton was blindsided when Bill finally revealed under oath that he had cheated on her, then I've got a Bridge to Atlantis to sell you. Hillary has certainly been well aware of her husband's indiscretions and there's basically nobody in the media that actually believes they have a regular domestic life.

So for Clinton to willingly engage in fraud concerning their private life and then try to publicly hang women that she knew had slept with her husband or been assaulted by him, well yes, she is culpable for his actions.


Honestly, show of hands. Who in here thinks Monica is the only one that Bill had a fling with? Who in here thinks all of the women that accused him of assault are liars? And who in here thinks Hillary Clinton was never truly aware of this activity until he admitted the Lewinski fling to the American people?

I'll be flabbergasted if a single person in this thread actually says yes to any of those questions. You then tell me how someone can be considered a feminist icon when they've acted in that fashion.

[BigMacPhisto]

Originally Posted by BEAL

Here's a stat:

Since the end of the primaries, this is what each candidate has spent on TV adverts

Clinton: 42 million
Trump: 0

Zero

Is he saving it up to buy an entire weeks worth of ads on a network?

It really seems like this is a joke

It should be pointed out that Clinton spent millions on advertisements with nothing to show for it...she got her DNC bounce and then Trump has really dug his own grave as the days have gone on, but all of the money Clinton spent on advertisements in June/July leading up to the convention didn't move the needle in her direction whatsoever and she lost ground to the guy that wasn't spending a dime.

It speaks partly to Clinton's unlikability that the advertisements didn't make a difference but probably more so to the fact that political bombardment via ads is really just a wasteful expense in modern day politics. Just ask Sheldon Adelson when he spent $100,000,000 on races the Republicans all lost in 2012. The share of ill informed and politically stupid voters that these television advertisements have targeted in the past has dwindled to nothing in our polarized and much better educated society.

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Originally Posted by Debra S

Bill Clinton was impeached, btw, after getting a blow job in his White House office, and lying about it, and Hillary stood by her man.

Pics or it didn't happen

[deep]

Originally Posted by VintagePunk

True. I know I haven't contributed a ton to these threads, but I've been reading for months now, and my radar has been pinged. It's either an alter with a VPN, or a sudden Trump shill.

That's a tactic of the other side

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...source=twitter

many of you could be getting paid for your posting along with driving for Uber.

[Diemen]

Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto

there's basically nobody in the media that actually believes they have a regular domestic life.

Oh, well that settles it then.

Honestly, show of hands. Who in here thinks Monica is the only one that Bill had a fling with? Who in here thinks all of the women that accused him of assault are liars? And who in here thinks Hillary Clinton was never truly aware of this activity until he admitted the Lewinski fling to the American people?

Who in here thinks that focusing on the sexual indiscretions of her husband and what she may or may not have known about them is a complete distraction from the real issues of the day?

You then tell me how someone can be considered a feminist icon when they've acted in that fashion.

It must be easy living in such a black and white world.

[PhilsFan]

There's nothing better than a man telling a woman what her feminism should look like.

[martha]

Originally Posted by PhilsFan

There's nothing better than a man telling a woman what her feminism should look like.

Mansplaining feminism.


Sent from my iPad using U2 Interference

[Bluer White]

Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto

You then tell me how someone can be considered a feminist icon when they've acted in that fashion.

Mrs. Clinton's own political dreams were dependent on her husband. If she had kicked him to the curb at the time, it would have a thrown an...ummm...monkey wrench into things !

[Diemen]

Yes, there's no other possible reason she stayed with him.

Glad we've got her figured out.

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Originally Posted by Bluer White

Mrs. Clinton's own political dreams were dependent on her husband. If she had kicked him to the curb at the time, it would have a thrown an...ummm...monkey wrench into things !

So let's say this is true...

Okay. So what? Who gives a crap, and why does that preclude her from being President?

[Oregoropa]

Originally Posted by VintagePunk

It's either an alter with a VPN.

It's not an alter of any of my associates. Just a new poster that follows the credo ....

Sanders < Trump < John Cusack


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[martha]

Originally Posted by Bluer White

Mrs. Clinton's own political dreams were dependent on her husband. If she had kicked him to the curb at the time, it would have a thrown an...ummm...monkey wrench into things !

Mansplaining someone else's marriage.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[Bluer White]

Originally Posted by Headache in a Suitcase

So let's say this is true...

Okay. So what? Who gives a crap, and why does that preclude her from being President?

It doesn't preclude her from any office, of course.

I was responding to BMP's question of why Mrs. Clinton would help steamroll multiple females accusing her husband of serious misconduct.

[BVS]

So then is Trump's marriage misconduct on the table? No? Oh sorry *sweep under rug

I always forget. Different rules for Republicans. Different rules for men.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[DaveC]

Originally Posted by BVS

So then is Trump's marriage misconduct on the table? No? Oh sorry *sweep under rug

I always forget. Different rules for Republicans. Different rules for men.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

thank you.

[corianderstem]

re this conversation:

You've GOT to be fucking kidding me.