1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. We've had very few donations over the year. I'm going to be short soon as some personal things are keeping me from putting up the money. If you have something small to contribute it's greatly appreciated. Please put your screen name as well so that I can give you credit. Click here: Donations
    Dismiss Notice

Politics The 2016 US Presidential Election

Discussion in 'Tilted Philosophy, Politics, and Economics' started by ASU2003, Mar 23, 2015.

  1. Lindy

    Lindy Moderator Staff Member

    Location:
    Nebraska
    If "Damning by faint praise" means anything, then Hillary Rodham Clinton is damned well on her way to being damned well damned.

    I'm sure she really wishes Bernie would just go away so that she can have that to which she feels so well entitled.
     
  2. Street Pattern

    Street Pattern Very Tilted

    Agreed.

    I'd much rather have Bernie Sanders as a dinner guest than Hillary Clinton. I can't imagine being able to relate to her on a personal level, and that's coming from a guy who also lives in the political world.


    Still, I think you're being a little too hard on her. Pretty much every "scandal" about her is invented or wildly overhyped. I think she is plenty competent, and while she is certainly secretive, and demanding of personal loyalty in a way that makes me uneasy, I can't think of a way in which she is dishonest or corrupt about anything important.

    Okay, obviously that depends on what's considered important.

    She has been in public life across decades during which political circumstances have changed radically, and she has changed with the times (e.g. gay marriage, criminal justice, Iraq war), but overall, she has been extraordinarily consistent in her views and intentions across a wide range of issues.

    Here's something Thomas Edsall wrote the other day about her:
    When Trump begins to really wear on people, Hillary's advantages will still be there.
    Are you old enough to remember LBJ? He was not likeable at all, not even the least little bit, not even when he won a landslide election in 1964, and his competence (e.g. on Vietnam) can be questioned in retrospect.


    He was certainly unethical: willing to steal elections, sleep with other men's wives, pretend to support segregation, etc., but he was far more politically principled and motivated than most people gave him credit for, and I don't think "dishonest", by itself, captures that combination of qualities at all.

    More than any other president of the 20th century or maybe ever, he was personally effective in Washington. He held the Senate in the palm of his hand. And executives (presidents, governors, mayors) who control the legislative body always look better than those who don't.

    Has Trump driven his own car in recent years? Not really relevant. Also, I don't think there is any real chance of an indictment.


    God, yes, you're absolutely right about that. We would be so, so much better off.


    Obviously this is somewhat unpredictable, but I doubt it will be that one-sided.


    In the end, Trump is grossly unfit to be president, and I am pretty confident that he will be ultimately rejected. Lots of candidates (at all levels) who looked wild and seductive amidst a hot primary contest turned out to be pretty unappealing in the cold light of early November.

    --- merged: May 25, 2016 at 10:02 AM ---
    I generally agree, but not on all those specifics.


    draconian attitudes about drug/vice laws

    Hillary's statements along those lines come from an era when politicians were all trying to outdo each other in how mean and draconian they could be. Failing to play that game at the time meant you were disqualified from mainstream politics.

    This is like trying to hang Lyndon Johnson over stuff he said about segregation in 1958. I mean, sure, it was bad, but that wasn't the last word on his views.

    insufficient dedication to gun control

    If anything, I fear she is coming across as too dedicated to gun control. Notwithstanding my own support for stringent controls, (1) limiting access to guns would reduce the number of murders and suicides, but not affect crime in general, an argument unfortunately too subtle for most people, (2) much of the country is vehemently opposed, and it's not realistic to expect progress on the federal level in our lifetimes, (3) effort and political capital a president wastes on advocating gun control means less progress on other fronts, and (4) every word she says about it makes it more likely she will be defeated.

    I cringed during her reply to Bernie about gun manufacturer liability. He was realistic, pointing out that making manufacturers liable for misuse of guns would simply drive arms manufacturing overseas, and she responded in a way that made her look like a stooge for tort lawyers.

    hawkish defense positions and accordant foreign policy

    Yup, she's more hawkish than me. But I trust she has learned from the experience of the last 16 years.

    especially Wall Street

    Would she deliberately hobble Dodd-Frank? With Elizabeth Warren watching? Can't imagine that.

    The financial services industry is a real and necessary thing, it is not going away, and it is not necessarily bad for the country when it prospers. It's not like chattel slavery or cigarette manufacturing, where the reasonable goal is to get rid of it.

    the prison-industrial complex

    I don't see any evidence for this. Yeah, she participated in the lock-em-up rage of the 1990s, but the connection between the Clinton crime bill and the orgy of imprisonment is overstated. Most of that happened on the state level, which has more than 90% of the prison population. I don't see that she supported or allied with the private prison corporations. In any case, when it comes down to making political choices about imprisonment, I can't imagine that she'll come down on the side of the PIC.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 1, 2016
    • Like Like x 3
  3. Chris Noyb

    Chris Noyb Get in, buckle up, hang on, & be quiet.

    Location:
    Large City, TX
    In the real world Bernie is out; even if he wasn't (he will be) he's too socialist for most folks. His social programs would require lots of money, namely tax dollars, and major changes. Even leftist Democrats have said "Whoa, wait a minute." If the US was in a major crisis, such as another Great Depression, Sanders' FDR-ish ideas might fly with voters and sitting politicians, but not until then. Under the current conditions in the US he would never get the necessary support, even from his own party. Unless he made some major compromises, he would most likely be a four-year lame duck POTUS.

    Hillary is a career politician. I count her many years as "just Bill's wife" as part of her career because I have no doubt that during that time she was indeed involved in politics. That makes her an easy target, but it also means that she knows how to "get things done." What exactly she might want to accomplish isn't clear. I can see her back-tracking/compromising on some issues; a career politician knows which way the wind blows and that you choose your battles. This would hold even truer if reelection was one of her goals. OTOH she could be a determined campaigner & arm-twister for issues dear to her.

    Trump, while clearly a pompous ass who should repel voters, still scares me. Between the Republican loyalists who can't bring themselves to abandon the party, and the "what the hell, give Trump a chance" voters, he could pull it off. Or at the very least make the election a lot closer than folks might expect. Anoter factor is Trump could actually turn out to be a savvy deal maker as POTUS.

    I would rather take my chances with Hillary as POTUS.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  4. rogue49

    rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

    Location:
    Baltimore/DC
    And for those who hate/dislike Hillary, you get a gimme...
    Clinton E-Mail Use Violated Rules, Inspector General Finds

    However, point 1...
    Point 2
    Point 3
    Now, she still has to deal with the separate FBI probe on this.
    But most experts have doubted it will not come to anything criminal or done "by intent"

    Basically, the same mindset that security and telecomm had back then...it's increased and developed by now.
    and Executives, just being executives. They get by on different rules and have more leeway than the most of us get. (still happens to this day...government or corporate)

    So just one more thing for Trump and the GOP to harp on incessantly
    as if they didn't have enough already
    and not discuss the real policy issues and qualifications at all.

    Politics is not about politics anymore.
    It's a friggin' personality contest.
    A beauty contest. (no wonder Trump thrives in this type of play) :rolleyes:
     
    Last edited: May 25, 2016
    • Like Like x 2
  5. rogue49

    rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

    Location:
    Baltimore/DC
    So, just so we can consider things fairly...
    Without the horse-race spin from the media...or those with sour grapes.

    538 did a great statistical comparison of the Dems' primary.

    The System Isn’t ‘Rigged’ Against Sanders

    Quite frankly, I just think Sanders suffered from the same thing that Trump benefited from.
    Name recognition...and familiarity.

    Trump's momentum played to his advantage in comparison to a hug field of 17 competitors.
    He was known...the others weren't. And the fact that Rubio didn't rage out until the end. Cruz was still "hated" and Jeb Bush was just "meh".
    Trump got all the early wins...and just built. (much less, played vicious)

    Sanders wasn't really known in comparison to Clinton.
    His name wasn't known. His rep wasn't known. (other than "the socialist") And Clinton didn't allow many early debates. Plus he may have played it too soft and gentlemanly early on.

    If Sanders and Rubio had gone out gang-busters from the get go...I think they would have done much better.

    Now, this isn't dismissing Hillary...she's actually a very accomplished person...and played her cards wisely close to her vest. Quiet was king initially on the Dem side, since there were so few opponents.
    Much the opposite of what Trump did on the GOP side to get attention. Crude, yes. Dangerous, yes. But it got him noticed, standing out in a crowd.
    Hillary just had to go stealth. Keep respectable...or at least, stable.

    Plus, she learned BIG from her previous loss...get the momentum. Leverage all your players to your side. And leverage the system.
    Both she and Trump did relatively few commercials. Didn't need to.
    Jeb spent galore, but he pulled an "Al Gore"...you said, "eh" when you saw him. Say what you will about GWB, he's got a personality.

    Hillary was a national known name. And despite her nay-sayers. Did a respectful job by relative comparison. She was known for putting her nose to the grindstone.
    AND she had 2-3 years of the media harping on the fact and putting out there as the prospective Dem nominee. Her name was repeated again and again. People and VIPs got used to her in mindset.
    Sanders didn't have a chance, until he gained balls and momentum...but it was too late by then.
     
    Last edited: May 26, 2016
    • Like Like x 1
  6. Remixer

    Remixer Middle Eastern Doofus

    Location:
    Frankfurt, Germany
    Hi guys, dropping by real quick.

    I haven't paid much attention to the race as Trump and Clinton were pretty obvious a while ago.

    Clinton I'd hate to see become president, as it would just be another continuation of the current retardo (TM) 2-party system in the US. Next to my impression of her being a lot of empty air and buzzwords to hit the right notes with the liberal and center-left demographics.

    And while I don't exactly like Trump for his views, or respect him much for his business acumen, I am very curious to see how much damage a whacky self-made billionaire can do to the system in place in DC. On a personal level I see him as nothing more than a skilled used car salesman at the moment; he will say whatever and take any political position he needs to in order to get the votes, and there's no point in judging something that's nothing more than a facade.

    I'd be very interested in seeing how a Trump POTUS would play out, even if just for the entertainment value.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  7. Charlatan

    Charlatan sous les pavés, la plage

    Location:
    Temasek
    And this is why many Americans will ultimately vote for him.

    It's still a l0ng way off from November and much will change between now and then.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. Lindy

    Lindy Moderator Staff Member

    Location:
    Nebraska
    No.

    This is not about sex. This is about the abuse of power and position.

    This is not like JFK and Marilyn Monroe.

    This is not like FDR and Lucy Mercer.

    Those were at least, more or less, presidential affairs with others from the same social class and standing.

    Bill Clinton is about a sitting President (or Governor) using the power of his position to sexually exploit lower level government employees. As chief executive these women were his employees.

    Hillary condoned Bill's behavior to keep her own position. Without Bill in the White House, Hill was just another highly paid lawyer in a town that had them by the brigade.
     
  9. Levite

    Levite Levitical Yet Funky

    Location:
    The Windy City
    I disagree. There is no credible evidence to suggest that Bill's affairs were not consensual in nature. He does not appear to have given any notable favors in return for sex, or compelled the women with either threats or retribution, much less physical force. The power differential may make them unethical, but not criminally exploitative.

    Bill wasn't the first president to fuck all kinds of folks he shouldn't've. And most of the other presidents did not actually choose more selectively than he did. It's highly questionable to suggest that Lucy Mercer (or Missy LeHand) were of similar social class or standing to FDR (although I'll grant you Princess Martha of Sweden). And while Marilyn Monroe may have been of JFK's class and standing by virtue of sheer star power, the same can't be said for many of his other affairs, which were apparently too numerous for anyone to have a complete accounting of them. He seems to have gotten his dick into any cute girl in his environs who stood still long enough. Much the same is the case for all other presidential mistresses and flings and one-nighters, all the way back to Thomas Jefferson.

    Having affairs is unethical, by definition. But it has not been criminal for a long time, and even when it was, it was never a politically relevant crime, much less a "high crime and misdemeanour." HRC is not the first political wife, or even first First Lady, to cover up her husband's philandering for political weal.

    There are plenty of things for which I judge Bill Clinton an overrated president at best, and many for which I judge him either a fool or a corporate tool. But when it comes to his personal life, I refuse to force him to a higher standard than previous presidents, and I also refuse to make his puss-hounding out to be more than it is: unethical, sleazy, unfortunate, but nothing new or at all out of the ordinary in Washington. And by extension, I refuse to force Hillary to a higher standard than previous First Ladies or other political wives when it comes to dealing with her husband's rampant fuckery. Her covering for him was par for the course, and has no real bearing on her problematic political nature.
     
    • Like Like x 4
  10. redravin

    redravin Cynical Optimist Donor

    Location:
    North


    Don't really see that.
    Hillary has always been her own force of nature.
    Being part of the team to get your man elected is a little different than being the queen or something.
    There is a shitload of work if you are actively involved and from what I know she always has been.

    But what kind of relationship you have, whether it is open or choices are made to ignore certain behaviors really has nothing to do with the rest of us.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  11. rogue49

    rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

    Location:
    Baltimore/DC
    I'd rather focus on their policy and their capability.
    And even still, the consequences of their words and decisions.
    Moralism is relative.
     
  12. Chris Noyb

    Chris Noyb Get in, buckle up, hang on, & be quiet.

    Location:
    Large City, TX
    I don't see Hillary condoning Bill's infidelities.

    If Slick Willy (a very appropriate moniker in British English slang :D) had used threats of retribution and/or promises of advancement to obtain sex from women, at least on a regular basis, we would've heard about it. Probably ad nauseam. While it would be impossible to say he never abused his power, the reports (at least the ones we heard) suggest that he simply had a way of charming the panties off of women.

    Hillary has known for decades about Bill's infidelities; why she tolerated them is difficult to say. If she was indeed protecting her position, rather than simply tolerating a cheating husband, she has been doing so for a very long time. The list of women who didn't leave their cheating husband in order to maintain their position, societal and/or political, would be extremely long.

    ON THAT NOTE--Check out what Kenneth Starr was up to at Baylor University, namely covering up sexual assaults by members of the football team.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  13. Street Pattern

    Street Pattern Very Tilted

    The two-party system is baked into the U.S. constitution. Unlike parliamentary democracies, the US has a single directly elected executive. The winner of that single quadrennial election gets total control over the entire US federal executive branch. That creates an irresistible incentive to build a 51% coalition to take that prize; any other approach is self-defeating. With everyone pursuing that strategy in a constantly changing world, you end up with two stable parties.

    Indeed, the party system is so stable that it would be effectively impossible to kill either one of them. If a party wins complete control, then the other party would become the powerful voice of dissent. Both parties have institutional continuity going back more than 150 years, but they have adapted to changing political circumstances so effectively that, on some dimensions, they have completely traded places.

    The presidency is the balance-wheel of American politics. Whichever party holds the presidency gradually loses everything else. With Obama in the White House for eight years, Republicans now control both houses of Congress and almost every state government. The reverse was true after eight years of the George W. Bush administration.
    As an American, I hope our people don't fool around electing a president who will "do damage".
    JFK had MANY more involvements than just Marilyn Monroe. "Kennedy's lovers were prominent, accomplished women, as well as strippers, airline stewardesses, and secretaries." (Source.) For example, he had sex with a 19-year-old White House intern. (Source.)
     
    Last edited: May 28, 2016
    • Like Like x 1
  14. Remixer

    Remixer Middle Eastern Doofus

    Location:
    Frankfurt, Germany
    Having the current 2-party system baked into the constitution does not negate the issues that exist with it, nor is it a reason not to attempt to improve it. I understand the US Constitution is seen and revered as a Holy Grail of sorts by Americans, but it is nothing more than a few pieces of paper. It doesn't hold any intrinsic value.

    You describe the American political system as if it was an eternal struggle between two huge, opposing forces and through this struggle they achieve a balanced output, with the President in charge of steering the ship; and it appears to be a perfectly good system to you.

    I certainly disagree with that view. The American political machine is extremely inefficient in my eyes and listing out all the details why would frankly be way too time-consuming, but suffice to say for now on a general basis:
    - The 2-party system's biggest weakness by far is the allocation of too much power to one of the parties at any one time. I'm certain the Republican brinkmanship with the US economy a few years ago serves as a stark reminder.
    - Political compromises on bills and specific stipulations often do no result in a balanced approach. Negotiations between only 2 sides are much move likely to end up one-sided compared to negotiations between multiple powerful stakeholders where each represents a different area of interest/priorities.
    - The "stability" of the 2-party system you speak of has a huge laundry list of issues by itself, especially in terms of corruption. Political stability isn't only achieved by assigning inheritance rights for power onto a select group of recipients (such as is your case), but a multi-party system where a range of parties of different sizes holding proportionate amounts of power as assigned to them in the previous election by the nation's population is just as effective (if not more) at achieving stability by keeping each other in check. And if stability is the epitome of justifications for the 2-party system's existence, then you may just as well argue that a long-running benevolent dictatorship is the optimal choice.
    - Your system does not represent as many of the interests of the entire population as possible. The two parties simply occupy their respective camp and adopt policies/priorities in proportion to their current need of ensuring maximum votes for them and whatever they happen to just feel like adopting. Anyone else and the causes they care about is, plainly speaking, shit outta luck.

    And speaking of parliamentary democracies vs presidential democracies, the US approach has been working out just great. Especially when your leaders forced a presidential democracy upon Afghanistan at the time when international constitutional advisors were developing its constitution and strongly argued for a parliamentary democracy given the situation on the ground, which resulted in the massive shitshow that was Hamid Karzai, and now is called Ashraf Ghani.

    So yes, as a non-American I do hope to see significant damage being done to the political establishment by the next POTUS in order to necessitate a reformation, and hopefully evolution, of the system.
     
  15. ASU2003

    ASU2003 Very Tilted

    Location:
    Where ever I roam
    I think the biggest mistake is that the senate gives 2 representatives to each state, instead of enacting a national vote where the party nominates people and will seat them based on the percentage of votes overall. That way you would get Green party, libertarian, Tea Party, Socialist, and other parties being represented.
     
  16. rogue49

    rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

    Location:
    Baltimore/DC
    Well, half the problem is the American public, who likes their politics easy and not complex.
    In total, many if not most, don't like to vote, don't want detail and want easy answers.
    They are like the kid who didn't like history.
    KISS principal.

    The ones that talk about it and interested are smaller in volume than the whole.

    So you get 2 sides...one that represents complex, but they tend to be more unorganized and non-linear.
    The other, which represents very aggressive but fairly non-complicated ideas...they are very on point and linear.

    But the populous itself really doesn't want more than that.
    Even right now, you can see people who identify themselves...are going from independent to 1 of the 2 parties. - LINK to graph
    If they were interested in complexity...they'd stay independent.

    Most don't want to think about it...or they want to do it minimally.
    It's not part of the mindset.

    Complicated ideas are not their thing.
    Nor does the system encourage it.
    Lack of investment.
     
  17. rogue49

    rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

    Location:
    Baltimore/DC
    Hillary Clinton Struggles to Find Footing in Unusual Race

    Actually, I don't think she's struggling...I think she's just keeping quite and letting the momentum carry her. (538 says she's 97% to win in CA and 93% in NJ)
    Personally, I were her...I'd be relaxed, personable and make the easy talk show circuit.
    Others have their own advice - link

    Burnie is on a burn...going out in flames. He's all over the place on all the media, no hold barred (non GOP, non Trump style that is) Perhaps gunning for an anglr at the convention and in Congress after the fact.

    However, Trump is having his own difficulties...
    Perhaps Hill should make Warren VP...
    Then she'll have an attack dog for Trump
    Sate the Burners
    Have a domestic policy czar to balance her foreign policy strength
    I wonder if Wall Street would allow that??
     
  18. redux

    redux Very Tilted

    Location:
    Foggy Bottom
    The Libertarian Party held its convention this weekend and nominated two former Republican governors -- Gary Johnson (NM) for President and William Weld (MA) for Vice President.

    Johnson got 1% of the vote in the 2012 election and is polling pretty well at 10% in several recent polls. He needs 15% in five polls to be in the debates.

    It is probably a good bet that most of the new supporters are Anyone-but-Trump Republicans that should have Hillary smiling.

    And then there was the wrap up act, a candidate for chair of the Libertarian Party stripping down to his thong on stage and live on C-Span.

     
  19. Derwood

    Derwood Slightly Tilted

    Location:
    Columbus, OH
    I don't buy the 10% stat for a second. Libertarians are great at bitching about the current system and big on ideas, but awful at showing up at the voting booth
     
    • Like Like x 1
  20. rogue49

    rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

    Location:
    Baltimore/DC

    Yep, you may want less or nothing from govt...but you still have to play with a system and be involved to get representation.
    It doesn't happen by magic or wishes.
    Amazing how that works.

    This goes for friggin' Dems and independents in non-presidential elections too.
    PSA - They happen EVERY year.

    Still need to make election a federal holiday. :rolleyes: