|
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. |
On November 08 2016 11:20 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2016 11:16 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Christ; Hillary is a terrible candidate, has she ever been genuinely happy about anything? She just seems so fake. Also if you want to see her genuinely happy then watch the debates again. Every time Trump stumbles she gets this glazed look over her eyes and her mind drifts to thinking of herself in January.
does this look like genuine happiness
debate gif
|
On November 08 2016 11:20 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2016 11:16 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Christ; Hillary is a terrible candidate, has she ever been genuinely happy about anything? She just seems so fake. She lacks the charisma of Obama but I think she'll do a decent enough job in the Oval Office. They are two very different skill sets. Also if you want to see her genuinely happy then watch the debates again. Every time Trump stumbles she gets this glazed look over her eyes and her mind drifts to thinking of herself in January.
I'm not sure. I think she was coached to have that look to be honest.
I agree with StealthBlue. If we had known how amazing Michelle Obama was at speaking we would have wrote her in as the democratic candidate!
It's like Clinton is quartz next to a diamond when the two speak in succession. Clintons alright but fuck god almighty Michelle can SPEAK.
On November 08 2016 11:23 Logo wrote:
The thing that's going to be annoying is if Clinton wins (or even if she loses maybe) the rebound is going to probably make people forget about Comey real quick, but it seems like Comey's lasting impact is going to be for the senate races which got a ton closer after the re-opening of the investigation.
Honestly the Senate races have been subject to so much speculation that the pre election polls have been wilder than the Presidential one. Who knows how people really thought at the time, think now, and will vote tomorrow?
|
On November 08 2016 11:20 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2016 11:16 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Christ; Hillary is a terrible candidate, has she ever been genuinely happy about anything? She just seems so fake. She lacks the charisma of Obama but I think she'll do a decent enough job in the Oval Office. They are two very different skill sets. Also if you want to see her genuinely happy then watch the debates again. Every time Trump stumbles she gets this glazed look over her eyes and her mind drifts to thinking of herself in January.
Chelsea has the same charisma as her mom: none. Hillary is a testament to being successful at something that you aren't actually suited for, albeit with a lot of hand holding.
|
On November 08 2016 10:55 Nyxisto wrote:
I don't really understand the huge support for Obama but disappointment with Clinton. They're very close on policy issues and Clinton is arguably less aloof and better connected in Washington. Sure Obama was a charismatic guy but if you liked him you should be at least enthusiastic about Clinton.
Charisma gap is real. But it's the trustworthiness thing above all. Obama is seen as a conviction politician. HRC is seen (charitably) as an opportunist.
Obama, for all his many faults (particularly in foreign policy), led the US for 8 years without major domestic catastrophe and a handful of legislative accomplishments. His administration's higher levels have never been involved in a scandal of scale, and he has personally never had anything resembling a scandal. Those are decent marks, all things considered.
Bill's administration, for all of its success riding the dotcom boom and getting the budget in order, was scandal-plagued from the start, in nonsense that very often centered around Hillary. His major accomplishments include things like cracking down on "superpredators" which resulted in the modern incarceration state. She is just surrounded by a never-fading cloud of smarminess. And maybe it's all a "vast, right-wing conspiracy." Maybe. But there was a far more serious effort to impugn the honor of the nation's first black president than there was the first lady in the 90s, and it met with much less success because the charges are laughable rather than credible.
Hillary hasn't really spelled out a vision for the presidency (which may be part of the problem). But mostly, her positions on paper (which are great) don't justify having faith in her as a leader, given her record and character.
|
United States43752 Posts
Poll: Republican candidate assuming R lossKasich (4) 31% Cruz (3) 23% Rand Paul (2) 15% Trump (second time is the charm) (1) 8% Rubio (1) 8% Haley (1) 8% Huntsman (1) 8% Walker (0) 0% Pence (0) 0% Sasse (0) 0% Cotton (0) 0% Jeb (0) 0% 13 total votes Your vote: Republican candidate assuming R loss (Vote): Walker
(Vote): Kasich
(Vote): Trump (second time is the charm)
(Vote): Rand Paul
(Vote): Pence
(Vote): Rubio
(Vote): Cruz
(Vote): Sasse
(Vote): Cotton
(Vote): Jeb
(Vote): Haley
(Vote): Huntsman
I can put it in the sticky at the top if anyone wants.
Give me some D candidates assuming that Trump wins.
Also my money is on Cruz. I think people will blame Ryan for opposition to Trump in a way that they won't blame Cruz, there will be a sense of "we would have won with Cruz".
|
On November 08 2016 11:23 CorsairHero wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2016 11:20 KwarK wrote:On November 08 2016 11:16 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Christ; Hillary is a terrible candidate, has she ever been genuinely happy about anything? She just seems so fake. Also if you want to see her genuinely happy then watch the debates again. Every time Trump stumbles she gets this glazed look over her eyes and her mind drifts to thinking of herself in January. does this look like genuine happiness debate gif
That gif is so bad anything would look unnatural at that speed.
|
On November 08 2016 11:25 Yoav wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2016 10:55 Nyxisto wrote:
I don't really understand the huge support for Obama but disappointment with Clinton. They're very close on policy issues and Clinton is arguably less aloof and better connected in Washington. Sure Obama was a charismatic guy but if you liked him you should be at least enthusiastic about Clinton. Charisma gap is real. But it's the trustworthiness thing above all. Obama is seen as a conviction politician. HRC is seen (charitably) as an opportunist.
Obama, for all his many faults (particularly in foreign policy), led the US for 8 years without major domestic catastrophe and a handful of legislative accomplishments. His administration's higher levels have never been involved in a scandal of scale, and he has personally never had anything resembling a scandal. Those are decent marks, all things considered. Bill's administration, for all of its success riding the dotcom boom and getting the budget in order, was scandal-plagued from the start, in nonsense that very often centered around Hillary. His major accomplishments include things like cracking down on "superpredators" which resulted in the modern incarceration state. She is just surrounded by a never-fading cloud of smarminess. And maybe it's all a "vast, right-wing conspiracy." Maybe. But there was a far more serious effort to impugn the honor of the nation's first black president than there was the first lady in the 90s, and it met with much less success because the charges are laughable rather than credible. Hillary hasn't really spelled out a vision for the presidency (which may be part of the problem). But mostly, her positions on paper (which are great) don't justify having faith in her as a leader, given her record and character.
He also quit smoking after being elected.
He is personable. I know things about him. Obama was a guy I felt like I knew a little bit about. Clinton? Fuck knows other than her collection of pantsuits.
|
kwark poll -> No. Just no. We've spent a very long time having to put up with this election, which we hate. We're not going to start the 2020 election now. We're going to wait. Preferably wait years.
|
On November 08 2016 11:29 zlefin wrote:
kwark poll -> No. Just no. We've spent a very long time having to put up with this election, which we hate. We're not going to start the 2020 election now. We're going to wait. Preferably wait years.
Agreed, I've had enough politics. I'll pay attention if Jesus or Lincoln join the race, but I'm tired of these half assed politicians without a shred of integrity.
|
On November 08 2016 11:28 Probe1 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2016 11:25 Yoav wrote:On November 08 2016 10:55 Nyxisto wrote:
I don't really understand the huge support for Obama but disappointment with Clinton. They're very close on policy issues and Clinton is arguably less aloof and better connected in Washington. Sure Obama was a charismatic guy but if you liked him you should be at least enthusiastic about Clinton. Charisma gap is real. But it's the trustworthiness thing above all. Obama is seen as a conviction politician. HRC is seen (charitably) as an opportunist.
Obama, for all his many faults (particularly in foreign policy), led the US for 8 years without major domestic catastrophe and a handful of legislative accomplishments. His administration's higher levels have never been involved in a scandal of scale, and he has personally never had anything resembling a scandal. Those are decent marks, all things considered. Bill's administration, for all of its success riding the dotcom boom and getting the budget in order, was scandal-plagued from the start, in nonsense that very often centered around Hillary. His major accomplishments include things like cracking down on "superpredators" which resulted in the modern incarceration state. She is just surrounded by a never-fading cloud of smarminess. And maybe it's all a "vast, right-wing conspiracy." Maybe. But there was a far more serious effort to impugn the honor of the nation's first black president than there was the first lady in the 90s, and it met with much less success because the charges are laughable rather than credible. Hillary hasn't really spelled out a vision for the presidency (which may be part of the problem). But mostly, her positions on paper (which are great) don't justify having faith in her as a leader, given her record and character. He also quit smoking after being elected. He is personable. I know things about him. Obama was a guy I felt like I knew a little bit about. Clinton? Fuck knows other than her collection of pantsuits.
I feel like folks in this thread don't talk to a lot of 35-40+ professional women and why Clinton is so well known for pantsuits.
|
On November 08 2016 11:27 KwarK wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Poll: Republican candidate assuming R lossKasich (4) 31% Cruz (3) 23% Rand Paul (2) 15% Trump (second time is the charm) (1) 8% Rubio (1) 8% Haley (1) 8% Huntsman (1) 8% Walker (0) 0% Pence (0) 0% Sasse (0) 0% Cotton (0) 0% Jeb (0) 0% 13 total votes Your vote: Republican candidate assuming R loss (Vote): Walker
(Vote): Kasich
(Vote): Trump (second time is the charm)
(Vote): Rand Paul
(Vote): Pence
(Vote): Rubio
(Vote): Cruz
(Vote): Sasse
(Vote): Cotton
(Vote): Jeb
(Vote): Haley
(Vote): Huntsman
I can put it in the sticky at the top if anyone wants. Give me some D candidates assuming that Trump wins. Also my money is on Cruz. I think people will blame Ryan for opposition to Trump in a way that they won't blame Cruz, there will be a sense of "we would have won with Cruz".
Wait, is the question who do you think will be the nominee? Not just who's going to try?
Cruz will be important, but I'm not so sure he'll win the primary.
|
On November 08 2016 11:32 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2016 11:28 Probe1 wrote:On November 08 2016 11:25 Yoav wrote:On November 08 2016 10:55 Nyxisto wrote:
I don't really understand the huge support for Obama but disappointment with Clinton. They're very close on policy issues and Clinton is arguably less aloof and better connected in Washington. Sure Obama was a charismatic guy but if you liked him you should be at least enthusiastic about Clinton. Charisma gap is real. But it's the trustworthiness thing above all. Obama is seen as a conviction politician. HRC is seen (charitably) as an opportunist.
Obama, for all his many faults (particularly in foreign policy), led the US for 8 years without major domestic catastrophe and a handful of legislative accomplishments. His administration's higher levels have never been involved in a scandal of scale, and he has personally never had anything resembling a scandal. Those are decent marks, all things considered. Bill's administration, for all of its success riding the dotcom boom and getting the budget in order, was scandal-plagued from the start, in nonsense that very often centered around Hillary. His major accomplishments include things like cracking down on "superpredators" which resulted in the modern incarceration state. She is just surrounded by a never-fading cloud of smarminess. And maybe it's all a "vast, right-wing conspiracy." Maybe. But there was a far more serious effort to impugn the honor of the nation's first black president than there was the first lady in the 90s, and it met with much less success because the charges are laughable rather than credible. Hillary hasn't really spelled out a vision for the presidency (which may be part of the problem). But mostly, her positions on paper (which are great) don't justify having faith in her as a leader, given her record and character. He also quit smoking after being elected. He is personable. I know things about him. Obama was a guy I felt like I knew a little bit about. Clinton? Fuck knows other than her collection of pantsuits. I feel like folks in this thread don't talk to a lot of 35-40+ professional women and why Clinton is so well known for pantsuits.
Nailed it. The only reason I know it at all is her Twitter account.
|
I'm hoping for someone completely new to decide that they're interested in running for president. None of the current batch is palatable from the R side and I would really prefer not to vote Hillary in 2020.
|
United States43752 Posts
On November 08 2016 11:32 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2016 11:27 KwarK wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Poll: Republican candidate assuming R lossKasich (4) 31% Cruz (3) 23% Rand Paul (2) 15% Trump (second time is the charm) (1) 8% Rubio (1) 8% Haley (1) 8% Huntsman (1) 8% Walker (0) 0% Pence (0) 0% Sasse (0) 0% Cotton (0) 0% Jeb (0) 0% 13 total votes Your vote: Republican candidate assuming R loss (Vote): Walker
(Vote): Kasich
(Vote): Trump (second time is the charm)
(Vote): Rand Paul
(Vote): Pence
(Vote): Rubio
(Vote): Cruz
(Vote): Sasse
(Vote): Cotton
(Vote): Jeb
(Vote): Haley
(Vote): Huntsman
I can put it in the sticky at the top if anyone wants. Give me some D candidates assuming that Trump wins. Also my money is on Cruz. I think people will blame Ryan for opposition to Trump in a way that they won't blame Cruz, there will be a sense of "we would have won with Cruz". Wait, is the question who do you think will be the nominee? Not just who's going to try? Cruz will be important, but I'm not so sure he'll win the primary.
Yeah, a bunch of them will try, although who will try is an interesting question. Who will win is more speculative about where the party will go in the next 4 years if they lose to Clinton. It's a broader question because if they lose this they may have to redefine themselves as a party, but whether they will or not is a big unknown.
|
On November 08 2016 11:32 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2016 11:28 Probe1 wrote:On November 08 2016 11:25 Yoav wrote:On November 08 2016 10:55 Nyxisto wrote:
I don't really understand the huge support for Obama but disappointment with Clinton. They're very close on policy issues and Clinton is arguably less aloof and better connected in Washington. Sure Obama was a charismatic guy but if you liked him you should be at least enthusiastic about Clinton. Charisma gap is real. But it's the trustworthiness thing above all. Obama is seen as a conviction politician. HRC is seen (charitably) as an opportunist.
Obama, for all his many faults (particularly in foreign policy), led the US for 8 years without major domestic catastrophe and a handful of legislative accomplishments. His administration's higher levels have never been involved in a scandal of scale, and he has personally never had anything resembling a scandal. Those are decent marks, all things considered. Bill's administration, for all of its success riding the dotcom boom and getting the budget in order, was scandal-plagued from the start, in nonsense that very often centered around Hillary. His major accomplishments include things like cracking down on "superpredators" which resulted in the modern incarceration state. She is just surrounded by a never-fading cloud of smarminess. And maybe it's all a "vast, right-wing conspiracy." Maybe. But there was a far more serious effort to impugn the honor of the nation's first black president than there was the first lady in the 90s, and it met with much less success because the charges are laughable rather than credible. Hillary hasn't really spelled out a vision for the presidency (which may be part of the problem). But mostly, her positions on paper (which are great) don't justify having faith in her as a leader, given her record and character. He also quit smoking after being elected. He is personable. I know things about him. Obama was a guy I felt like I knew a little bit about. Clinton? Fuck knows other than her collection of pantsuits. I feel like folks in this thread don't talk to a lot of 35-40+ professional women and why Clinton is so well known for pantsuits.
I've had plenty of particularly spirited discussions about whether women should wear pantsuits or dresses when working in a professional environment. It's surprising to me that people are as invested in this issue as they are.
|
On November 08 2016 11:35 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2016 11:32 Introvert wrote:On November 08 2016 11:27 KwarK wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Poll: Republican candidate assuming R lossKasich (4) 31% Cruz (3) 23% Rand Paul (2) 15% Trump (second time is the charm) (1) 8% Rubio (1) 8% Haley (1) 8% Huntsman (1) 8% Walker (0) 0% Pence (0) 0% Sasse (0) 0% Cotton (0) 0% Jeb (0) 0% 13 total votes Your vote: Republican candidate assuming R loss (Vote): Walker
(Vote): Kasich
(Vote): Trump (second time is the charm)
(Vote): Rand Paul
(Vote): Pence
(Vote): Rubio
(Vote): Cruz
(Vote): Sasse
(Vote): Cotton
(Vote): Jeb
(Vote): Haley
(Vote): Huntsman
I can put it in the sticky at the top if anyone wants. Give me some D candidates assuming that Trump wins. Also my money is on Cruz. I think people will blame Ryan for opposition to Trump in a way that they won't blame Cruz, there will be a sense of "we would have won with Cruz". Wait, is the question who do you think will be the nominee? Not just who's going to try? Cruz will be important, but I'm not so sure he'll win the primary. Yeah, a bunch of them will try, although who will try is an interesting question. Who will win is more speculative about where the party will go in the next 4 years if they lose to Clinton. It's a broader question because if they lose this they may have to redefine themselves as a party, but whether they will or not is a big unknown.
If Rubio wins we may hear about that for the next 4 years. Cruz will be a good Republican and rebuild a brand attacking Clinton. Ryan has no chance if he quits as speaker, and if the GOP loses the Senate he's going to take the heat from all sides dealing with Hillary. He better hope McConnell keeps his position.
Cotton has been working in the background, that's my darkhorse to watch rn. Anything else is just too speculative.
Although for me personally it's more interesting than thinking about tomorrow.
|
On November 08 2016 11:33 Probe1 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2016 11:32 Plansix wrote:On November 08 2016 11:28 Probe1 wrote:On November 08 2016 11:25 Yoav wrote:On November 08 2016 10:55 Nyxisto wrote:
I don't really understand the huge support for Obama but disappointment with Clinton. They're very close on policy issues and Clinton is arguably less aloof and better connected in Washington. Sure Obama was a charismatic guy but if you liked him you should be at least enthusiastic about Clinton. Charisma gap is real. But it's the trustworthiness thing above all. Obama is seen as a conviction politician. HRC is seen (charitably) as an opportunist.
Obama, for all his many faults (particularly in foreign policy), led the US for 8 years without major domestic catastrophe and a handful of legislative accomplishments. His administration's higher levels have never been involved in a scandal of scale, and he has personally never had anything resembling a scandal. Those are decent marks, all things considered. Bill's administration, for all of its success riding the dotcom boom and getting the budget in order, was scandal-plagued from the start, in nonsense that very often centered around Hillary. His major accomplishments include things like cracking down on "superpredators" which resulted in the modern incarceration state. She is just surrounded by a never-fading cloud of smarminess. And maybe it's all a "vast, right-wing conspiracy." Maybe. But there was a far more serious effort to impugn the honor of the nation's first black president than there was the first lady in the 90s, and it met with much less success because the charges are laughable rather than credible. Hillary hasn't really spelled out a vision for the presidency (which may be part of the problem). But mostly, her positions on paper (which are great) don't justify having faith in her as a leader, given her record and character. He also quit smoking after being elected. He is personable. I know things about him. Obama was a guy I felt like I knew a little bit about. Clinton? Fuck knows other than her collection of pantsuits. I feel like folks in this thread don't talk to a lot of 35-40+ professional women and why Clinton is so well known for pantsuits. Nailed it. The only reason I know it at all is her Twitter account.
Professional women couldn't wear pants before Clinton made the pant's suit the standard for a professional woman. It was blazer and a skirt at all times. In my state it used to be in the rules of conduct for attorneys that they would always wear a suit and skirt. One of my attorneys was kicked out of mock court during law school for wearing pants with a blazer by the judge holding the mock case. For professional women of bother parties in my office, Clinton is an icon because she changed the way a lot of them were viewed and how what men could require them to wear to be considered "equal".
|
On November 08 2016 11:42 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2016 11:33 Probe1 wrote:On November 08 2016 11:32 Plansix wrote:On November 08 2016 11:28 Probe1 wrote:On November 08 2016 11:25 Yoav wrote:On November 08 2016 10:55 Nyxisto wrote:
I don't really understand the huge support for Obama but disappointment with Clinton. They're very close on policy issues and Clinton is arguably less aloof and better connected in Washington. Sure Obama was a charismatic guy but if you liked him you should be at least enthusiastic about Clinton. Charisma gap is real. But it's the trustworthiness thing above all. Obama is seen as a conviction politician. HRC is seen (charitably) as an opportunist.
Obama, for all his many faults (particularly in foreign policy), led the US for 8 years without major domestic catastrophe and a handful of legislative accomplishments. His administration's higher levels have never been involved in a scandal of scale, and he has personally never had anything resembling a scandal. Those are decent marks, all things considered. Bill's administration, for all of its success riding the dotcom boom and getting the budget in order, was scandal-plagued from the start, in nonsense that very often centered around Hillary. His major accomplishments include things like cracking down on "superpredators" which resulted in the modern incarceration state. She is just surrounded by a never-fading cloud of smarminess. And maybe it's all a "vast, right-wing conspiracy." Maybe. But there was a far more serious effort to impugn the honor of the nation's first black president than there was the first lady in the 90s, and it met with much less success because the charges are laughable rather than credible. Hillary hasn't really spelled out a vision for the presidency (which may be part of the problem). But mostly, her positions on paper (which are great) don't justify having faith in her as a leader, given her record and character. He also quit smoking after being elected. He is personable. I know things about him. Obama was a guy I felt like I knew a little bit about. Clinton? Fuck knows other than her collection of pantsuits. I feel like folks in this thread don't talk to a lot of 35-40+ professional women and why Clinton is so well known for pantsuits. Nailed it. The only reason I know it at all is her Twitter account. Professional women couldn't wear pants before Clinton made the pant's suit the standard for a professional woman. It was blazer and a skirt at all times. In my state it used to be in the rules of conduct for attorneys that they would always wear a suit and skirt. One of my attorneys was kicked out of mock court during law school for wearing pants with a blazer by the judge holding the mock case. For professional women of bother parties in my office, Clinton is an icon because she changed the way a lot of them were viewed and how what men could require them to wear to be considered "equal".
Also related on the happiness thing remember that time Clinton was happy at her nomination rally and people started saying it was a sign of a brain disease?
|
On November 08 2016 11:28 Probe1 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2016 11:25 Yoav wrote:On November 08 2016 10:55 Nyxisto wrote:
I don't really understand the huge support for Obama but disappointment with Clinton. They're very close on policy issues and Clinton is arguably less aloof and better connected in Washington. Sure Obama was a charismatic guy but if you liked him you should be at least enthusiastic about Clinton. Charisma gap is real. But it's the trustworthiness thing above all. Obama is seen as a conviction politician. HRC is seen (charitably) as an opportunist.
Obama, for all his many faults (particularly in foreign policy), led the US for 8 years without major domestic catastrophe and a handful of legislative accomplishments. His administration's higher levels have never been involved in a scandal of scale, and he has personally never had anything resembling a scandal. Those are decent marks, all things considered. Bill's administration, for all of its success riding the dotcom boom and getting the budget in order, was scandal-plagued from the start, in nonsense that very often centered around Hillary. His major accomplishments include things like cracking down on "superpredators" which resulted in the modern incarceration state. She is just surrounded by a never-fading cloud of smarminess. And maybe it's all a "vast, right-wing conspiracy." Maybe. But there was a far more serious effort to impugn the honor of the nation's first black president than there was the first lady in the 90s, and it met with much less success because the charges are laughable rather than credible. Hillary hasn't really spelled out a vision for the presidency (which may be part of the problem). But mostly, her positions on paper (which are great) don't justify having faith in her as a leader, given her record and character. He also quit smoking after being elected. He is personable. I know things about him. Obama was a guy I felt like I knew a little bit about. Clinton? Fuck knows other than her collection of pantsuits.
But lots of it is also just an act. Obama is always aware of what he says and he speaks very differently in front of different audiences. Whenever some lengthy insider piece about his conduct in government circles comes up the story was always that he is distanced, technocratic and a loner.
He essentially governed outside of politics. His healthcare reform basically sidelined congress and his biggest achievements are on the international stage. His military policy is way more mercurial and secretive than anything before and his government was not very whistleblower friendly.
He has really run one of the most shadowy governments in a long time, which isn't necessarily bad but you can't seriously counter this with "I know when the guy stopped smoking". I actually expect Hillary to be a lot more straight forward in the way she addresses America's political institutions.
|
On November 08 2016 11:46 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2016 11:42 Plansix wrote:On November 08 2016 11:33 Probe1 wrote:On November 08 2016 11:32 Plansix wrote:On November 08 2016 11:28 Probe1 wrote:On November 08 2016 11:25 Yoav wrote:On November 08 2016 10:55 Nyxisto wrote:
I don't really understand the huge support for Obama but disappointment with Clinton. They're very close on policy issues and Clinton is arguably less aloof and better connected in Washington. Sure Obama was a charismatic guy but if you liked him you should be at least enthusiastic about Clinton. Charisma gap is real. But it's the trustworthiness thing above all. Obama is seen as a conviction politician. HRC is seen (charitably) as an opportunist.
Obama, for all his many faults (particularly in foreign policy), led the US for 8 years without major domestic catastrophe and a handful of legislative accomplishments. His administration's higher levels have never been involved in a scandal of scale, and he has personally never had anything resembling a scandal. Those are decent marks, all things considered. Bill's administration, for all of its success riding the dotcom boom and getting the budget in order, was scandal-plagued from the start, in nonsense that very often centered around Hillary. His major accomplishments include things like cracking down on "superpredators" which resulted in the modern incarceration state. She is just surrounded by a never-fading cloud of smarminess. And maybe it's all a "vast, right-wing conspiracy." Maybe. But there was a far more serious effort to impugn the honor of the nation's first black president than there was the first lady in the 90s, and it met with much less success because the charges are laughable rather than credible. Hillary hasn't really spelled out a vision for the presidency (which may be part of the problem). But mostly, her positions on paper (which are great) don't justify having faith in her as a leader, given her record and character. He also quit smoking after being elected. He is personable. I know things about him. Obama was a guy I felt like I knew a little bit about. Clinton? Fuck knows other than her collection of pantsuits. I feel like folks in this thread don't talk to a lot of 35-40+ professional women and why Clinton is so well known for pantsuits. Nailed it. The only reason I know it at all is her Twitter account. Professional women couldn't wear pants before Clinton made the pant's suit the standard for a professional woman. It was blazer and a skirt at all times. In my state it used to be in the rules of conduct for attorneys that they would always wear a suit and skirt. One of my attorneys was kicked out of mock court during law school for wearing pants with a blazer by the judge holding the mock case. For professional women of bother parties in my office, Clinton is an icon because she changed the way a lot of them were viewed and how what men could require them to wear to be considered "equal". Also related on the happiness thing remember that time Clinton was happy at her nomination rally and people started saying it was a sign of a brain disease?
Her entire public persona is a product of every single one of her actions being picked apart. She talked about not wanting to stay home and back cookies in the 90s and that shit blew up to levels that no one expected. Mothers across America wrote angry letters because the first lady who was also a successful and talented attorney talked about having different goals than them. During the 2008 run she wore one slightly low cut top and it was front page news for two days. Fucking endless discussions on CNN about tops.
The best twitter account on the internet has a public service message to all us. Please heed it's advice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
