The US Election 2016, Part VI

[Guard Dog]

Enoch, the LP, like the other parties, is not monolithic. Clinton is not championing every position of the democrats. Trump isn't even championing half of the Republican positions. And yes among Baby Boomers and even Gen X'ers the LP message is a harder sell because they remember when it was the "Drugs, Drugs, Drugs and ban the Government NOW" party. The Harry Browne wing of the LP (the big "L" libertarians) is going the way of the "neo-cons". The "little L's" are in charge now. Johnson beat out John McAfee twice for the nomination, neither time was it close. And McAfee has a lot of "Large L " cred. The ultimate aim of the LP is still and always will be less government and personal liberty. And those two go very much hand in hand. But the idea now is small cuts with a scalpel rather than big hacks with a broadsword. I really believe the message has legs it just needs to be let out. Especially in an age when the government IS becoming heavy handed and intrusive.

[redneckdevil]

Tbh I'm not thinking Johnson's flub of Aleppo, for 2 reasons. One, I didn't even know about Aleppo or what was going down (not a good professional reason I agree and Two, it seems like a really small flub compared to Hillary's "flub" of not knowing C in an email means confidential.

[quidproquo]

Tbh I'm not thinking Johnson's flub of Aleppo, for 2 reasons. One, I didn't even know about Aleppo or what was going down (not a good professional reason I agree and Two, it seems like a really small flub compared to Hillary's "flub" of not knowing C in an email means confidential.

Except that Hillary didn't flub the meaning. She lied about it.  Clearly Johnson flubbed it.  Johnson can turn this to his advantage, not only for name recognition, but because he's taking the outcome on his feet.  No long complicated explanations and no defensive excuses.  Serves him well.

[redneckdevil]

I agree on both counts hence why I had flub in quotations

[Meshugger]

 

You hear that you racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, islamophobic cretins? Your leader hates you and you have to repent.

[BruceVC]

 

You hear that you racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, islamophobic cretins? Your leader hates you and you have to repent.

Why do you doubt some of Trumps supporters are bigots...they are, trust me

[Meshugger]

It doesn't matter if they hate everything from eskimos to the color of your shoes. None of that does. It's attacking the voters of another candidate, it's about as low as you can get as politician and leader.

[BruceVC]

It doesn't matter if they hate everything from eskimos to the color of your shoes. None of that does. It's attacking the voters of another candidate, it's about as low as you can get as politician and leader.

Trump started that ball rolling.....its now become a normal strategy 

[Meshugger]

Started what? Where did Trump attack Hillary's voters?

[quidproquo]

Assuming motives and values is the very heart of bigotry.  That's the definition of prejudice.  Saying that people who support Trump are likely bigots because of his rhetoric is akin to saying that people who support Clinton are morally bankrupt because they know she's corrupt but she's the person they want in office.  Could blame it on Trump, but this is nothing new in American politics.  Nothing new in politics altogether.  These two people, Hillary and The Donald, make the Policemen of Penzance look the consummate professionals.

[BruceVC]

Started what? Where did Trump attack Hillary's voters?

Come on dude....lets be honest

 

Tump villied 11 million Latinos as part of his official strategy, lets not even attempt to suggest Trump hasn't been offensive 

[BruceVC]

Assuming motives and values is the very heart of bigotry.  That's the definition of prejudice.  Saying that people who support Trump are likely bigots because of his rhetoric is akin to saying that people who support Clinton are morally bankrupt because they know she's corrupt but she's the person they want in office.  Could blame it on Trump, but this is nothing new in American politics.  Nothing new in politics altogether.  These two people, Hillary and The Donald, make the Policemen of Penzance look the consummate professionals.

Oh no I'm fine saying " some of Trumps supporters are bigots "...surly we dont need to dispute this?

 

You can say what you want about Hilary Clinton's supporters? Its not going to change her support base really   This election and the whole " Trump rise to  power " reality is unprecedented in US politics. I am surprised you think this is normal?

[Meshugger]

 

Started what? Where did Trump attack Hillary's voters?

Come on dude....lets be honest

 

Tump villied 11 million Latinos as part of his official strategy, lets not even attempt to suggest Trump hasn't been offensive 

 

 

lol, so nothing. Didn't you see how he likes his Taco bowl and how he likes to employ them? No? pffft.

 

Just keep on partying like people partied when Romney mentioned those horrible 47% who would vote for Obama.

[quidproquo]

Seems like an odd election from where I'm sitting, but who am I to say?  The Americans have a choice and they'll make it.  Whatever reason, solid, mistaken, or just plain crazy, will have to suffice for their lot.

[BruceVC]

Seems like an odd election from where I'm sitting, but who am I to say?  The Americans have a choice and they'll make it.  Whatever reason, solid, mistaken, or just plain crazy, will have to suffice for their lot.

It is odd because  I never realised how many people are so unhappy with Obama, I like Obama and I support most of his global policies and some of the domestic ones like the Gay Marriage Law 

 

Anyway this election is very exciting...cant wait to the actual election date 

[Elerond]

It doesn't matter if they hate everything from eskimos to the color of your shoes. None of that does. It's attacking the voters of another candidate, it's about as low as you can get as politician and leader.

 

Attacking another's candidates base support is basic strategy in politics. Which is something that also Trump does. It is strategy that aims to associate people that general public or certain demographic don't like with other candidate, so that they will have higher threshold to vote that other candidate, which makes it easier to lure them to vote yourself. It isn't nice strategy, but politics and politicians rarely are nice.

[Guard Dog]

 

No, it isn't unprecedented. He have had a few candidates with no experience and no love for their fellow man run and even win. Aaron Burr, George Wallace, John Tyler (who actually became President when William Henry Harrison died), and William Randolph Hearst were all bombastic and crude in ways to make you think Trump isn't so bad. There have been many with no prior political experience like Andrew Jackson, Woodrow Wilson, Zachary Taylor, Ulysses Grant, Dwight Eisenhower all won. They were all Army Generals (except Wilson) before running for office.  Ross Perot, Wendell Wilkie, Horace Greely, Winfield Han****, Winfield Scott all lost.

 

There are others but that's all I can think of off the top of my head. We've had Presidents who were not good people too. John Adams and his son, Richard Nixon, Warren Harding, and Lyndon Johnson were all reputed to be men you would look you in the eye, tell you to go f--k yourself then help you do it. 

 

Trump is hardly unprecedented. We've had a whole gallery of rogues, scoundrels, and pretenders along the way. 

Edited September 10, 2016 by Guard Dog

[BruceVC]

 

 

No, it isn't unprecedented. He have had a few candidates with no experience and no love for their fellow man run and even win. Aaron Burr, George Wallace, John Tyler (who actually became President when William Henry Harrison died), and William Randolph Hearst were all bombastic and crude in ways to make you think Trump isn't so bad. There have been many with no prior political experience like Andrew Jackson, Woodrow Wilson, Zachary Taylor, Ulysses Grant, Dwight Eisenhower all won. They were all Army Generals (except Wilson) before running for office.  Ross Perot, Wendell Wilkie, Horace Greely, Winfield Han****, Winfield Scott all lost.

 

There are others but that's all I can think of off the top of my head. We've had Presidents who were not good people too. John Adams and his son, Richard Nixon, Warren Harding, and Lyndon Johnson were all reputed to be men you would look you in the eye, tell you to go f--k yourself then help you do it. 

 

Trump is hardly unprecedented. We've had a whole gallery of rogues, scoundrels, and pretenders along the way. 

 

No you misunderstand me, I dont mean Trump is so bad and malicious it is unprecedented...as I mentioned numerous times most of the offensive things Trump has said are strategic and all about a political objective ...he miscalculated the impact of some of his comments but thats just hubris 

 

I mean the way Trump has won the  Republican  nomination and the strategy he has employed has been so effective because of the exciting political period the USA is going through

 

Its the overall political campaigns that are unprecedented 

[Hurlshort]

I actually think Nixon is a better person than the majority of our politicians today, based on two facts.  In 1960 the election was extremely close between him and JFK, and he could have challenged the outcome, there was plenty of whispers of fraud that might have turned the tide.  He chose not to, he didn't want to come across like a sore loser.  Then, after Watergate, he chose to resign.  I can't even imagine a politician doing that today.  Those both struck me as kind of honor among thieves moments.

[Guard Dog]

I actually think Nixon is a better person than the majority of our politicians today, based on two facts.  In 1960 the election was extremely close between him and JFK, and he could have challenged the outcome, there was plenty of whispers of fraud that might have turned the tide.  He chose not to, he didn't want to come across like a sore loser.  Then, after Watergate, he chose to resign.  I can't even imagine a politician doing that today.  Those both struck me as kind of honor among thieves moments.

He also had his "enemies lists" and a reputation for being verbally abusive of family and staff. Of course low character and high character can certainly co-exist. No one is so bad they don't have some redeeming qualities or so good they have no flaws. 

[Rostere]

 

I actually think Nixon is a better person than the majority of our politicians today, based on two facts.  In 1960 the election was extremely close between him and JFK, and he could have challenged the outcome, there was plenty of whispers of fraud that might have turned the tide.  He chose not to, he didn't want to come across like a sore loser.  Then, after Watergate, he chose to resign.  I can't even imagine a politician doing that today.  Those both struck me as kind of honor among thieves moments.

He also had his "enemies lists" and a reputation for being verbally abusive of family and staff. Of course low character and high character can certainly co-exist. No one is so bad they don't have some redeeming qualities or so good they have no flaws. 

 

Still, I'd take a person which is verbally abusive over one who is corrupt and won't resign any day.

[Malcador]

It doesn't matter if they hate everything from eskimos to the color of your shoes. None of that does. It's attacking the voters of another candidate, it's about as low as you can get as politician and leader.

Bit rich when you consider how Trump behaves like a low level forum troll. Certainly are a lot of trash backing Trump watching his rallies, but not sure of the percentage

[BruceVC]

 

It doesn't matter if they hate everything from eskimos to the color of your shoes. None of that does. It's attacking the voters of another candidate, it's about as low as you can get as politician and leader.

Bit rich when you consider how Trump behaves like a low level forum troll. Certainly are a lot of trash backing Trump watching his rallies, but not sure of the percentage

 

I'm surprised people seem to think " Trump hasn't really offended anyone " 

[BruceVC]

 

 

I actually think Nixon is a better person than the majority of our politicians today, based on two facts.  In 1960 the election was extremely close between him and JFK, and he could have challenged the outcome, there was plenty of whispers of fraud that might have turned the tide.  He chose not to, he didn't want to come across like a sore loser.  Then, after Watergate, he chose to resign.  I can't even imagine a politician doing that today.  Those both struck me as kind of honor among thieves moments.

He also had his "enemies lists" and a reputation for being verbally abusive of family and staff. Of course low character and high character can certainly co-exist. No one is so bad they don't have some redeeming qualities or so good they have no flaws. 

 

Still, I'd take a person which is verbally abusive over one who is corrupt and won't resign any day.

 

Are you referring to Hilary when you say  " who is corrupt and won't resign any day.  " 

[Guard Dog]

 

 

 

I actually think Nixon is a better person than the majority of our politicians today, based on two facts.  In 1960 the election was extremely close between him and JFK, and he could have challenged the outcome, there was plenty of whispers of fraud that might have turned the tide.  He chose not to, he didn't want to come across like a sore loser.  Then, after Watergate, he chose to resign.  I can't even imagine a politician doing that today.  Those both struck me as kind of honor among thieves moments.

He also had his "enemies lists" and a reputation for being verbally abusive of family and staff. Of course low character and high character can certainly co-exist. No one is so bad they don't have some redeeming qualities or so good they have no flaws. 

 

Still, I'd take a person which is verbally abusive over one who is corrupt and won't resign any day.

 

Are you referring to Hilary when you say  " who is corrupt and won't resign any day.  " 

 

That Hillary is corrupt (or at the VERY least irredeemably dishonest) is no longer a fact that can be disputed Bruce. I realize you picked you horse here and that's fine. As I posted before being dishonest or even corrupt does not mean she will not make an effective President necessarily. But you should be aware of what you are buying with her. 

 

And her bad qualities do not necessarily make Trump a better option for some folks. It's not for nothing we say elections here are about choosing the lesser evil.

Edited September 10, 2016 by Guard Dog