EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 3733
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
And Hilary didn't barely hold off Sanders. The media played that race up to be a lot closer than it was, because no one watches if its not close. On May 05 2016 01:38 kwizach wrote: If you think Trump is the most vetted presidential candidate in history, you don't know your history. A lot of people who are for Trump don't seem to understand that the general election is nothing like the primary as well. So them not knowing about previous races does not surprise me. | ||
|
zeo
Serbia6268 Posts
On May 05 2016 01:38 kwizach wrote: If you think Trump is the most vetted presidential candidate in history, you don't know your history. Are you implying his background hasn't been thoroughly combed over by detectives paid millions of dollars to find out even the slightest misstep? Who has gone through more scrutiny as a presidential candidate? | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15401 Posts
On May 05 2016 01:42 zeo wrote: Are you implying his background hasn't been thoroughly combed over by detectives paid millions of dollars to find out even the slightest misstep? Who has gone through more scrutiny as a presidential candidate? I just think it's gonna be a totally different ball game. I'm not sure dirt is relevant in this election, somehow. I truly have no idea how this general election is going to go. What a bizarre time we're in. I honestly feel somewhat privileged, despite only being half white (har har har). This is a truly historic election. It's easy for us to see this as a big clown show, but it's important to recognize that this is a massive societal shift towards populism and a widespread disdain for the elite class. The take away from this election, so far, has been the rise of populism. Half of each party is ready to just crank up populism and trash the elites. What in the world? I mean, I think that is really worth focusing on. In a lot of ways, this is what is making me really afraid for Clinton. She's so much more electable in so many ways, but this populism movement is in direct conflict with her current persona. She is going to need to hop on the Bernie train soon, IMO. | ||
|
zeo
Serbia6268 Posts
On May 05 2016 01:46 Plansix wrote: Detectives paid millions? Context please. I think its a bit naive to think superpacs never spent a cent on digging up dirt against other candidates. Also all the 24h news channels running smear campaigns came up with nothing that wasn't already known (bankruptcies ect.). They have thrown everything at him. And I'll ask again, which other candidate has had every single word, every single step, every single thing in their lives scrutinized to the extent Trump was (before the general election I mean)? | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
I would have very much preferred a candidate whose foreign policy is not fucking terrible, but I don't think it's happening, and we can look forward to 8 more years of FP stupidity (if Clinton loses reelection, the Republicans will be even worse). Hopefully we'll be able to get rid of John Rambo McCain at the very least. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain17852 Posts
On May 05 2016 01:52 zeo wrote: I think its a bit naive to think superpacs never spent a cent on digging up dirt against other candidates. Also all the 24h news channels running smear campaigns came up with nothing that wasn't already known (bankruptcies ect.). They have thrown everything at him. And I'll ask again, which other candidate has had every single word, every single step, every single thing in their lives scrutinized to the extent Trump was (before the general election I mean)? Anybody who ran in a highly contested primary? JFK for instance. Or people who ran in multiple president races, like Nixon. Or people who were VP before running (Al Gore, and Nixon again). But yeah, I'm sure this is the first time in the history of humanity someone has been as scrutinized as the God Emperor himself. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
There are endless examples of people knew just as much about, if not more. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15401 Posts
On May 05 2016 02:04 Plansix wrote: Bush number one, former CIA director. Dwight D. Eisenhower, general. Harry Truman, previously in politics for a long time before becoming VP. There are endless examples of people knew just as much about, if not more. Trump was in the spotlight a long time, but in a certain context. And his persona kinda immunizes him to a lot of the normal scandalous stuff. If it turned out he had an affair 20 years ago, would anyone really give a shit? | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
Donald J. Trump said on Wednesday that he expected to reveal his vice presidential pick sometime in July — before the Republican National Convention in Cleveland — but added that he would soon announce a committee to handle the selection process, which would include Dr. Ben Carson. Mr. Trump made the comments in an interview with The New York Times the morning after he became the presumptive Republican Party nominee for president, facing only Gov. John Kasich of Ohio in the G.O.P. race. Mr. Trump, the Manhattan businessman, said that while he was not committed to making a more conventional political pick in the form of a seasoned politician, he was leaning in that direction. “I’m more inclined to go with a political person,” Mr. Trump said. “I have business very much covered.” He added, “I think I’ll be absolutely great on the military and military strategy.” But the vice presidential choice will probably not come until July, Mr. Trump said. As for the process used to make the selection, he said, “I’ll set up a committee, and that I will do soon.” “I think on the committee I’ll have Dr. Ben Carson and some other folks,” Mr. Trump said. Despite the fact that he has said generally nice things about Mr. Kasich, the governor of a crucial battleground state, Mr. Trump said that the governor was not currently on his short list. “Not at this moment,” Mr. Trump said. He also questioned why Mr. Kasich, who has been mathematically eliminated from getting the 1,237 delegates needed to secure the nomination, is remaining in the race through the June 7 primary in California. “I guess he likes the food in California,” Mr. Trump said. “The whole thing is ridiculous.” Source Rejoice, we get more sleepy Ben Carson! Rejoice.(sobs in hands) | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On May 05 2016 02:19 oneofthem wrote: electorate is dumb enough to elect a populist. the most important short term issue is preserving the center against extremists purely on ground of not being entirely detached from reality. then the establishment should take seriously the economic drivers of discontent. I really don't think that the drivers behind this discontent are economic in nature, just look at the same kind of populist movements in the economically stable European countries. The issues run much deeper and are more about increasingly nativist voterbases being fed up with the democratic parliamentary process as a whole. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
also as the sanders phenomenon has shown the electorate is fairly angry, antiintellectual and basically has the epistemology of a bunny. it's not hard for hillary to lose | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On May 05 2016 02:26 Nyxisto wrote: I really don't think that the drivers behind this discontent are economic in nature, just look at the same kind of populist movements in the economically stable European countries. The issues run much deeper and are more about increasingly nativist voterbases being fed up with the democratic parliamentary process as a whole. i really disagree. the economic stress is everywhere. | ||
|
zeo
Serbia6268 Posts
On May 05 2016 01:52 Mohdoo wrote: I just think it's gonna be a totally different ball game. I'm not sure dirt is relevant in this election, somehow. I truly have no idea how this general election is going to go. What a bizarre time we're in. I honestly feel somewhat privileged, despite only being half white (har har har). This is a truly historic election. It's easy for us to see this as a big clown show, but it's important to recognize that this is a massive societal shift towards populism and a widespread disdain for the elite class. The take away from this election, so far, has been the rise of populism. Half of each party is ready to just crank up populism and trash the elites. What in the world? I mean, I think that is really worth focusing on. In a lot of ways, this is what is making me really afraid for Clinton. She's so much more electable in so many ways, but this populism movement is in direct conflict with her current persona. She is going to need to hop on the Bernie train soon, IMO. Something happened to American politics during the 2008 election cycle, it signaled a clear shift away from an emphasis on policy like economics ect. towards an emphasis on the culture 'issues' of the moment. Obama didn't win that election on policy, rather on the novelty and perceived significance of him becoming president actually bringing change. People aren't angry about the incredible differences between what he said he would to do and what he actually did because nobody really cared about his policies like closing Guantanimo, no more wars, against gay marriage ect ect. Now when you create a political climate where sound bites, catchphrases and cultural impact are many times more important than actual policy and issues like Obama did... figures like Trump and Sanders thrive. The thing with culture is that eventually you get counter-culture, and the counter-culture to the Obama regime is Trump. People get tired of whoever is in charge and naturally they rebel against the system, it's happened many times during human history. On the other side Sanders is like the Obama regime on speed/crack, where people think the solution to Obama is magnify everything by 10 and it will sort itself out. The real cultural battle starts now and it will be very interesting to follow, on one side are the plutocratic elite that have ruled the US for decades with their champion, and the other side which wants to get rid of the plutocracy but will it be for the better or worse not even they know. Interesting times. Without Obama there would be no Trump. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On May 05 2016 02:26 Nyxisto wrote: I really don't think that the drivers behind this discontent are economic in nature, just look at the same kind of populist movements in the economically stable European countries. The issues run much deeper and are more about increasingly nativist voterbases being fed up with the democratic parliamentary process as a whole. People are fed up with the people they elect not working. They have had it for 6 years since the tea party came along. People want leadership and for them to address critical issues like campaign finance, student loans, wage stagnation and so on. The problem is that both parties are leaned heavy into their base, the GOP a little more so. They dislike the system, but only because it isn't working for them right now. Edit: Without Nixon and the Southern Strategy, there would be no Trump. He is Southern Strategy's final form. | ||
|
pmh
1351 Posts
Sanders as vp with Clinton. It will allow to keep the support of young idealistic people while at the same time keep the fear that sanders will turn the usa into a socialist state at bay by having Clinton in charge. Now I don't know enough about this election to tell if this is a likely option for both Clinton and sanders. Would sanders be willing to have a more or less symbolical role and would Clinton be willing to work with sanders. Any insight on this is welcome, is this a likely combination for the democratic ticket? | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
no. clinton will smash trump on her own merits (and dismerits). sanders would be an awful vp pick. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15401 Posts
On May 05 2016 02:31 pmh wrote: Ok,after going through several scenarios I think there is one scenario that allows Clinton to beat Trump. Sanders as vp with Clinton. It will allow to keep the support of young idealistic people while at the same time keep the fear that sanders will turn the usa into a socialist state at bay by having Clinton in charge. Now I don't know enough about this election to tell if this is a likely option for both Clinton and sanders. Would sanders be willing to have a more or less symbolical role and would Clinton be willing to work with sanders. Any insight on this is welcome, is this a likely combination for the democratic ticket? Sanders is more of a BLM guy than an MLK guy. I don't think he'd welcome an opportunity to constructively make a difference through legislation. | ||
| ||
