|
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. |
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On November 16 2016 23:47 zlefin wrote: I just dislike when people try to say it all comes down to X, or all the blame needs to go on Y. rather than accepting a more nuanced answer, wherein blame and causation are attributed to many different factors. In particular a lot of people who are predisposed to being anti-clinton tend to try to put everything on her, rather than letting blame&causation be spread around some. There are always outside factors that play a role. As far as I'm concerned though, the primary issue is the macro issue of how the candidate played their role and allowed these factors to influence their campaign. How Trump dealt with the Access Hollywood tape was actually, in hindsight, a pretty impressive quality of damage control relative to other candidates in similar positions. Romney defended his 47 percent for far too long and made it a huger issue. Clinton tried to rile up Russophobia in response to the leaks, and anti-FBI sentiment in regards to the letter. Those are not the faults of Access Hollywood, the people who leaked Romney's tape, Russia, or the FBI, respectively, but of the respective candidates. And that plays an even bigger role than the event itself.
On November 16 2016 23:56 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2016 23:52 LegalLord wrote:On November 16 2016 23:49 ticklishmusic wrote: I generally have the impression that Legal is a smart guy, but he obviously has a strong dislike of Clinton and lets that severely impede his view of her. For goodness sakes, he's posting garbage from a Newsmax gossip columnist. Aw, that's not really fair. I qualified that it was a questionable source with a tabloid writer posting. Besides, what's a better time to trash Clinton than when she lost by playing the campaign stupidly? Garbage is garbage at 2 am and 7 am. Eh, I don't disagree with you that the source sucks. Fair enough if you don't like it, though in this case it sounded interesting enough to share.
|
You can point to several different reasons why Clinton lost, but the reality is that she probably would have won had any one of those reasons not happened. And Bill Clinton and Barack Obama are entirely correct. Notwithstanding all of the other noise, Hillary blew the election with a very poor campaign strategy. She rightfully will be remembered as one of the worst candidates for president in history. Damn near everything was on a silver platter for her if she just played it straight, but she couldn't get out of her own way.
|
On November 17 2016 00:00 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2016 23:47 zlefin wrote: I just dislike when people try to say it all comes down to X, or all the blame needs to go on Y. rather than accepting a more nuanced answer, wherein blame and causation are attributed to many different factors. In particular a lot of people who are predisposed to being anti-clinton tend to try to put everything on her, rather than letting blame&causation be spread around some. There are always outside factors that play a role. As far as I'm concerned though, the primary issue is the macro issue of how the candidate played their role and allowed these factors to influence their campaign. How Trump dealt with the Access Hollywood tape was actually, in hindsight, a pretty impressive quality of damage control relative to other candidates in similar positions. Romney defended his 47 percent for far too long and made it a huger issue. Clinton tried to rile up Russophobia in response to the leaks, and anti-FBI sentiment in regards to the letter. Those are not the faults of Access Hollywood, the people who leaked Romney's tape, Russia, or the FBI, respectively, but of the respective candidates. And that plays an even bigger role than the event itself. if you wanna call it the primary issue that's fine. I might disagree or not, but it's not seriously wrong. my issue is when people talk as if it ALL comes down ot that, and all the blame should fall there. There's a big difference between saying something is the primary issue at say 60% of the reason, and saying it's 100% of the reason.
I'm also not seeing anything notably impressive about how Trump responded to the access hollywood tape.
|
He set the bar so low that he managed to get over it.
The Clinton campaign misplayed things in a number of ways certainly, but it was also them against a pretty incredible amount of shit from all directions - Wikileaks, Congressional Republicans, the far left, etc.
|
No she lost because her ego. That and that alone sunk her. Before even announcing her campaign she tried to undermine Obama's policy decisions, then took credit for it's successes, pulled the same shit she tried with Obama on the Sanders campaign with the DNC voters and sealed the fate with many who were already weary with her trustworthiness. Then of course after DWS was outed at the DNC she of course adds her to her campaign staff. Which pretty much sealed that she is okay with corruption.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On November 17 2016 00:08 zlefin wrote: I'm also not seeing anything notably impressive about how Trump responded to the access hollywood tape. He didn't defend it, not for a moment. That shouldn't be impressive but it is. It's the same as how when you do something wrong (in general), the easy and obvious solution is to apologize and try to make it better, but that that is so far beyond too many people that it becomes quite impressive for someone to be capable of that kind of self-admission of guilt.
|
On November 17 2016 00:11 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2016 00:08 zlefin wrote: I'm also not seeing anything notably impressive about how Trump responded to the access hollywood tape. He didn't defend it, not for a moment. That shouldn't be impressive but it is. It's the same as how when you do something wrong (in general), the easy and obvious solution is to apologize and try to make it better, but that that is so far beyond too many people that it becomes quite impressive for someone to be capable of that kind of self-admission of guilt. He did give a passable apology, with a fair bit of hedging and claiming that wasn't what he was like, especially later on. (especially once more evidence came up indicating he kinda is like that). he certainly did defend it some, like with the locker-room banter statement. so your claim he didn't defend it at all is simply wrong.
I agree it's generally a good response to give; I woudln't consider it quite impressive at all.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Would you prefer, "he did the right thing, and Romney and Clinton should have been smart enough to do so as well" instead? In any case it's a semantic difference of little consequence, that simply asserts that his response was better than average for people in his situation.
|
yes, I would prefer that. semantic differences matter; accuracy matters. Many of people's disputes in politics and elsewhere are partly because of inaccuracies and people shading things too much one way or the other. And because of difference in communication style and the inherent difficulties in communicating meaning accurately. I'd say it's a semantic difference of moderate consequence.
|
On November 16 2016 23:56 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2016 23:53 farvacola wrote:On November 16 2016 23:49 ticklishmusic wrote:On November 16 2016 23:29 zlefin wrote: Legal -> a decent article, but there's still the common error of not allowing for multiple layers of fault to be applied depending on the level of analysis; which is either foolish or disingenuous, and is clearly used in the standard biased fashion in this case. It's not really surprising to see all the Monday morning quarterbacking. Everything is 20/20 in hindsight. Those of us who pushed for Bernie during the Primaries might call it something different  but yes, there's no doubt that a lot of people are being a bit too incisive with their backwards glance criticism. Nothing will change the fact that a lot of people, myself included, were caught off guard by the election results. Bernie was still a weaker candidate. Sure he got some thing more right than Clinton, but he was wrong on plenty others. And I hope you're not one of those who think he would have survived the general. Show nested quote +On November 16 2016 23:52 LegalLord wrote:On November 16 2016 23:49 ticklishmusic wrote: I generally have the impression that Legal is a smart guy, but he obviously has a strong dislike of Clinton and lets that severely impede his view of her. For goodness sakes, he's posting garbage from a Newsmax gossip columnist. Aw, that's not really fair. I qualified that it was a questionable source with a tabloid writer posting. Besides, what's a better time to trash Clinton than when she lost by playing the campaign stupidly? Garbage is garbage at 2 am and 7 am. Bernie had his own weaknesses, but beyond the stamp of the primary result, it is not accurate to unequivocally state that he was the "weaker candidate." Nonetheless, playing a game of past hypotheticals is one of the least useful things Democrats can do right now.
As I see it, Bernie has it right when he says that Democrats need to relearn how to speak to the working, just above poverty line class, and that's what is important right now, alongside attention paid towards protecting those most likely to suffer during the next four years.
|
This Kris Kobach shadester is helping to devise some questionable tactics for the Trump team. Including starting on the wall without Congressional approval, by manipulating the current budget to divert funds to his wall. Surely Congress will object to such a use of executive power?
|
On November 17 2016 00:38 Doodsmack wrote: This Kris Kobach shadester is helping to devise some questionable tactics for the Trump team. Including starting on the wall without Congressional approval, by manipulating the current budget to divert funds to his wall. Surely Congress will object to such a use of executive power?
Kobach’s closeness to hate groups runs far deeper than speaking to TSCP. For years, Kobach has worked as a lawyer for the legal arm of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). The Southern Poverty Law Center has listed FAIR as a hate group since 2007—and for good reason.
Tanton founded FAIR, and its current President Dan Stein has said, among other things, “Immigrants don’t come all church-loving, freedom-loving, God-fearing … Many of them hate America, hate everything that the United States stands for.” In another instance, Stein said that the 1965 Immigration Act, which undid four decades of explicitly racist immigration policy in the United States, “was a great way to retaliate against Anglo-Saxon dominance and hubris…and it’s a form of revengism, or revenge, that these forces continue to push the immigration policy that they know full well are [sic] creating chaos and will continue to create chaos down the line.”
Kris Kobach is also extremely dedicated to making sure that minorities, women and low-income voters can’t participate in elections. His outrageously unconstitutional laws and actions were struck down by the federal courts last month. From the Kansas City Star:
Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach has suffered another stinging, embarrassing loss in court. And that’s a victory for the rights of voters in the Sunflower State.
Kobach’s anti-voter efforts were slapped down Friday by a federal appeals court in the District of Columbia.
The editorial went even further:
Earlier this year, the often-smug Kobach had assured people that the courts would uphold his attempt to make it harder to vote.
But that hasn’t happened at any step of the way, as courts often have ruled against Kobach’s disdainful attitude toward voters — especially those who have low incomes or are minorities.
This is a repulsive signal from Donald Trump. If this is a sign of things to come, buckle up. We are going to have to fight like hell to save this democracy.
http://m.dailykos.com/story/2016/11/10/1595617/-The-architect-of-the-most-racist-law-in-modern-American-history-has-been-named-to-Trump-s-team
Again, "wait and see" seems less and less like a good idea as each day passes.
|
Kobach helped write the Arizona immigration that, among other things "required that state law enforcement officers attempt to determine an individual's immigration status during a "lawful stop, detention or arrest", when there is reasonable suspicion that the individual is an illegal immigrant" (Wikipedia). Which by the way is a racist provision, so yes there are racist elements within Trump's power team.
|
Vice President-elect Mike Pence has ordered the removal of all lobbyists from President-elect Donald Trump's transition team, The Wall Street Journal reported on Tuesday night.
The action was among Pence's first since formally taking over the team's lead role. Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey was abruptly dismissed from the post last week.
Critics had excoriated Trump for including lobbyists, Washington insiders, and Republican Party veterans among his team, saying it contradicted the antiestablishment message that defined his campaign.
Earlier Tuesday, Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts said Americans "do not want corporate executives to be the ones who are calling the shots in Washington.
"What Donald Trump is doing is that he's putting together a transition team that's full of lobbyists — the kind of people he actually ran against," she said.
The move capped a chaotic day for Trump's transition team. Mike Rogers, the former congressman from Michigan who handled national-security duties, was ousted, as was Matthew Freedman, a senior defense and foreign-policy official.
Rogers was told that all team members picked by Christie were being ousted, The Journal reported, citing a source familiar with the situation. Rogers has publicly indicated that the team may be in disarray.
"Is there a little confusion in New York? I think there is. I think this is growing pains," he told CNN's Jim Sciutto. Sources cited by CNN in that story suggested infighting among Trump's close advisers. Another unnamed CNN source denied the claim.
Trump attempted to dispel talk of turmoil in a tweet late Tuesday: "Very organized process taking place as I decide on Cabinet and many other positions," the tweet said. "I am the only one who knows who the finalists are!"
Trump's team is tasked with finding and hiring 4,000 political appointees to fill out the federal government.
Source.
Hrm, so maybe now we know why some of these early transition steps have been delayed? Imagine that. Trump's keeping his word to drain the swamp.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
By the way, on the eve of his presidency, I'm curious what people think of Obama. I wrote this brief comment about his term; overall I myself approve of him but think his presidency will be remembered as "decent but not extraordinary" overall.
Quick polls: + Show Spoiler +Poll: Overall, do you approve or disapprove of Obama's presidency?Approve (12) 75% Disapprove (4) 25% 16 total votes Your vote: Overall, do you approve or disapprove of Obama's presidency? (Vote): Approve (Vote): Disapprove
Poll: On a scale of 1 to 10, how would you rate Obama's presidency overall?7 (9) 56% 2 (2) 13% 3 (2) 13% 8 (2) 13% 6 (1) 6% 1 (0) 0% 4 (0) 0% 5 (0) 0% 9 (0) 0% 10 (0) 0% 16 total votes Your vote: On a scale of 1 to 10, how would you rate Obama's presidency overall? (Vote): 1 (Vote): 2 (Vote): 3 (Vote): 4 (Vote): 5 (Vote): 6 (Vote): 7 (Vote): 8 (Vote): 9 (Vote): 10
I'd also like to hear more detailed opinions.
|
On November 17 2016 00:46 Doodsmack wrote: Kobach helped write the Arizona immigration that, among other things "required that state law enforcement officers attempt to determine an individual's immigration status during a "lawful stop, detention or arrest", when there is reasonable suspicion that the individual is an illegal immigrant" (Wikipedia). Which by the way is a racist provision, so yes there are racist elements within Trump's power team. Hey, we have to kick all those illegal Norwegian immigrants out too! Need to check Ulf Ljungstrom's status with the IND!
|
On November 17 2016 00:58 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +Vice President-elect Mike Pence has ordered the removal of all lobbyists from President-elect Donald Trump's transition team, The Wall Street Journal reported on Tuesday night.
The action was among Pence's first since formally taking over the team's lead role. Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey was abruptly dismissed from the post last week.
Critics had excoriated Trump for including lobbyists, Washington insiders, and Republican Party veterans among his team, saying it contradicted the antiestablishment message that defined his campaign.
Earlier Tuesday, Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts said Americans "do not want corporate executives to be the ones who are calling the shots in Washington.
"What Donald Trump is doing is that he's putting together a transition team that's full of lobbyists — the kind of people he actually ran against," she said.
The move capped a chaotic day for Trump's transition team. Mike Rogers, the former congressman from Michigan who handled national-security duties, was ousted, as was Matthew Freedman, a senior defense and foreign-policy official.
Rogers was told that all team members picked by Christie were being ousted, The Journal reported, citing a source familiar with the situation. Rogers has publicly indicated that the team may be in disarray.
"Is there a little confusion in New York? I think there is. I think this is growing pains," he told CNN's Jim Sciutto. Sources cited by CNN in that story suggested infighting among Trump's close advisers. Another unnamed CNN source denied the claim.
Trump attempted to dispel talk of turmoil in a tweet late Tuesday: "Very organized process taking place as I decide on Cabinet and many other positions," the tweet said. "I am the only one who knows who the finalists are!"
Trump's team is tasked with finding and hiring 4,000 political appointees to fill out the federal government. Source. Hrm, so maybe now we know why some of these early transition steps have been delayed? Imagine that. Trump's keeping his word to drain the swamp.
Tells me they're going back and forth because it's a shitshow, just like Trump's campaign was.
|
On November 17 2016 00:59 LegalLord wrote:By the way, on the eve of his presidency, I'm curious what people think of Obama. I wrote this brief comment about his term; overall I myself approve of him but think his presidency will be remembered as "decent but not extraordinary" overall. Quick polls: + Show Spoiler +Poll: Overall, do you approve or disapprove of Obama's presidency?Approve (12) 75% Disapprove (4) 25% 16 total votes Your vote: Overall, do you approve or disapprove of Obama's presidency? (Vote): Approve (Vote): Disapprove
Poll: On a scale of 1 to 10, how would you rate Obama's presidency overall?7 (9) 56% 2 (2) 13% 3 (2) 13% 8 (2) 13% 6 (1) 6% 1 (0) 0% 4 (0) 0% 5 (0) 0% 9 (0) 0% 10 (0) 0% 16 total votes Your vote: On a scale of 1 to 10, how would you rate Obama's presidency overall? (Vote): 1 (Vote): 2 (Vote): 3 (Vote): 4 (Vote): 5 (Vote): 6 (Vote): 7 (Vote): 8 (Vote): 9 (Vote): 10
I'd also like to hear more detailed opinions.
Obama will go down in history as a middling president. He had minimal accomplishments, and what he did accomplish is about to be erased by Trump. That said, I think that he should be judged by the promise of his 2008 campaign. By that standard, he has been an utter failure and disappointment. He ran on "hope and change," not "the status quo."
|
On November 16 2016 19:29 Sbrubbles wrote: The thing about the EC that would really bother me, if I were american, is not how people in small states are worth more than people in large states (that's a valid mechanism for a working federalist pact imo), but how opposition in decidedly non-swing states is worth practically nothing. It seems unfair to republicans in california and democrats in texas, or, in the case of this election, unfair to rural areas in california and urban areas in texas.
Counter-argument: Michigan wasn't supposed to be a swing state.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On November 16 2016 23:41 LegalLord wrote:A second-hand account from someone who talked with Billy Clinton on what he had to say about the Comey blame game. Again, source of some questionability, but the content is valid. Show nested quote +
In the waning days of the presidential campaign, Bill and Hillary Clinton had a knock-down, drag-out fight about her effort to blame FBI Director James Comey for her slump in the polls and looming danger of defeat.
"I was with Bill in Little Rock when he had this shouting match with Hillary on the phone and she accused Comey for reviving the investigation into her use of a private email server and reversing her campaign's momentum," said one of Bill Clinton's closest advisers.
"Bill didn't buy the excuse that Comey would cost Hillary the election," said the source. "As far as he was concerned, all the blame belonged to [campaign manager Robby] Mook, [campaign chairman John] Podesta and Hillary because they displayed a tone-deaf attitude about the feeble economy and its impact on millions and millions of working-class voters.
"Bill was so red in the face during his conversation with Hillary that I worried he was going to have a heart attack. He got so angry that he threw his phone off the roof of his penthouse apartment and toward the Arkansas River."
During the campaign, Bill Clinton felt that he was ignored by Hillary's top advisers when he urged them to make the economy the centerpiece of her campaign. He repeatedly urged them to connect with the people who had been left behind by the revolutions in technology and globalization.
"Bill said that constantly attacking Trump for his defects made Hillary's staff and the media happy, but that it wasn't a message that resonated with voters, especially in the rust belt," the source explained. "Bill always campaigned as a guy who felt your pain, but Hillary came across as someone who was pissed off at her enemy [Trump], not someone who was reaching out and trying to make life better for the white working class."
According to the source, Bill was severely critical of Hillary's decision to reject an invitation to address a St. Patrick's Day event at the University of Notre Dame. Hillary's campaign advisers nixed the idea on the ground that white Catholics were not the audience she needed to reach.
"Bill also said that many African Americans were deeply disappointed with the results of eight years of Obama," the source continued. "Despite more and more government assistance, blacks weren't economically any better off, and black-on-black crime was destroying their communities. He said Hillary should have gone into the South Side of Chicago and condemned the out-of-control violence."
Though Bill conceded that FBI Director Comey's decision to revive Hillary's email scandal created a problem for her campaign, he believed the issue had little impact on the outcome because it had already been baked into the decisions of most voters.
"A big part of Bill's anger toward Hillary was that he was sidelined during the entire campaign by her advisers," said the source. "He can't be effective if he sees himself as just another hired hand. He wasn't listened to and that infuriated him. After all, he knows something about campaigns, and he told me in early October that Hillary and her advisers were blowing it.
"Hillary wouldn't listen. She told Bill that his ideas were old and that he was out of touch. In the end, there was nothing he could do about it because Hillary and her people weren't listening to anything he said."
SourceThe "too arrogant to understand why she lost" narrative builds more and more clout as people who actually ran charismatic campaigns tell her that she did a bad job. Though that does assume that a tabloid writer is giving a valid account of his conversations with ol' Billy, which in this case seems reasonable enough.
You often see two kinds of people, when it comes to execution.
Ones that do absolutely all they can on all of the things they have the most control over and look for how they can perfect that even more. If these people find failure, they were not prepared enough for the circumstances. If these people find success, they think of themselves as "lucky" rather than paranoid in preparation.
One that do some reasonable job and then look outward for help and assistant in their endeavor. If these people find failure, they think of themselves as "unlucky" and start pointing fingers and shuffling the blame. If these people find success, it only goes to reinforce their confidence in their own ability.
Hillary is definitely in the second group.
No matter what, what Putin did, what Comey did, what Wikileaks did, and what Trump did, Clinton was in total control of her own campaign and what her own campaign did. Trump served up as an easy opponent with plenty of gaffs that disqualified him as president among a huge amount of voters. Clinton was fortunate as hell to have Trump as opponent. The other stuff on Putin, Comey, and Wikileaks only impacted the other part of the electorate, some of which had already disqualified Clinton as a candidate. In the balance, Clinton still had extremely favorable election situation.
Sometimes you just have to look in the mirror and say I fucked up.
I'm trying to imagine Bill Clinton throwing a phone off the top floor of a building right now.
|
|
|
|