Seen a few articles mentioning Julian Castro as Hillary's likely running mate, still don't see it. Kaine remains the favourite for me.
2016 US Presidential Elections | Trump Wins
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
- Status
I was assuming our man was referring to Bush v1.
These are the problems with incestuous politics.
I hate the idea of that pick. It's a massive pander (panda) choosing somebody who's done feck-all but be born with brown skin and kept his nose clean.
It's not hate, I think. It's more apathy. All I know of her platform is that she's the continuation of Obama, or better than Trump/Cruz, which is...
If she makes it to the general election I'll vote for her. But there is the possibility that some voters just won't be arsed to get out and vote. And if that happens, they shouldn't be blamed for not feeling strong about a candidate to vote.
That would be fine if it were the case except it's not. She's a regressive step from Obama. I'd wager that the same Dems who dislike her would have no problem with another 4 years of Obama, same for independents too in fact.
Clinton team is tearing it's hair out as to why she's so ulimeable. the simple answer is 20 years of smears by the right and a concerted media effort against her and Billy. But also the fact that they are ruthless and have many skeletons in their closet....including Vince Foster.
BTW...she was a total MILF in the early 90's.
BTW...she was a total MILF in the early 90's.
It seems like he's being groomed for the future. The Dems do love some identity politics.
exactly.
Fair enough. Apathy is understandable. But I would blame anyone who didnt vote for her for that reason if Trump got in. Or rather, I would say they had no right to complain if and when Trump started doing things they really objected to.It's not hate, I think. It's more apathy. All I know of her platform is that she's the continuation of Obama, or better than Trump/Cruz, which is...
If she makes it to the general election I'll vote for her. But there is the possibility that some voters just won't be arsed to get out and vote. And if that happens, they shouldn't be blamed for not feeling strong about a candidate to vote.
Having said that, another thought I had which in some ways contradicts the above: Obama promised plenty but hasnt delivered much, or, to be generous to him, hasnt been able to deliver much, because of the state of US politics, divisions in Congress etc. It has made the Presidency look kind of neutered. Does it therefore stand to reason that if Obama has been unable to get anything positive done, Trump may not be able to get that much negative done either? As in, with Congress the way it is, is the President basically powerless to do anything, good or bad? So even if Trump gets in, there isnt too much to worry about, he might do a few shit things, but it wont be as catastrophic as people think because he just wont have the power to execute his shit ideas?
I guess the problem here is things are never as symmetrical as this, it is easier to cause damage than it is to improve things. So even if a President doesnt have the power to be constructive, he does have the power to heighten international tensions and exacerbate trade wars etc.
On the other hand, it would aid my madcap idea that Texas would be winnable against Trump.
Clinton-Castro 2016!
The Clinton Foundation is also an issue. If she weren't running and her and Bill were just taking donations and look to put it to work around the world I don't think anyone would care much where from, and might actually get praise for the work done. But that's what Presidents do when they retire, and now she's back in the fray and so the origin of donations comes under scrutiny and it isn't pretty (in the age where big business and government are suspected of the worst intentions).
She's generally not inspiring either, never has been much. Not a good speaker like Bill or Obama.
I was just researching the question I posted above, having realised I dont have to rely on you lot for all my information, and I stumbled across this which probably answers my question quite well.
You generally want a VP who can say the shit that you can't because you're the Prez and above all that. She needs a younger attack-dog sort. But they also need the gravitas and smarts to actually be POTUS just in case. Is Castro like that?
Makes the Sarah Palin pick even more astounding when you think about how close we came.
Makes the Sarah Palin pick even more astounding when you think about how close we came.
The POTUS is also their Commander-in-Chief. He/she have enormous power over shaping their foreign policy, and that's why the prospect of a Drumpf's presidency is terrifying.
The President generally finds that he has more power in foreign affairs than domestic ones. And I agree with your last paragraph, a President is faced with many small decisions each day. I think if he ends up choosing right on most of those things just chug along and we never notice much. If he's often wrong, then I think you start having problems.
I guess my real point is, I hope people put all this aside and vote for her if it comes to it. I hope Trump doesnt get in because people find Clinton uninspiring.
Bear in mind that's the work of a Bernie Bro, who think Hillary is Rosemary's Baby.I was just researching the question I posted above, having realised I dont have to rely on you lot for all my information, and I stumbled across this which probably answers my question quite well.
Nixon barely gave a shit about domestic stuff. He relished the foreign policy and just left domestic up to others.....probably why he ended up getting into all that trouble.
Good point, but these things are about perception as much as anything arent they. If the question is: why do you hate Hillary so much, then that answers it, if the perception is that she is basically voting like a Republican.
It's mostly objectively correct though, biases aside.
Im sure it is accurate, the bias would be in what information you leave out as much as what you put in. What has Sanders voted for in the past that he might have changed his mind about, or not want to talk about, today? What has Clinton voted for / against that actually makes her look progressive?
A Republican president can get plenty done with a Republican Congress.
Serial LIAR Carly endorses Pathological LIAR Cruz.
If it's her voting record then I'd hope they were similarly vitriolic with their anti-Obama stuff 8 years back, given her senate record was as, if not more liberal than his. I think it's the same kind of simplistic idiocy that left us stuck with Corbyn over here.
Is she still peddling lies about planned parenthood?
But the party hates him. Isnt that going to be a sticking point?
Its a Texas thing.
Cruz reminds me of the Kenneth Baker slug from Spitting Image.
When he becomes the Nominee, the party will be his. Should he become President, he will set his own agendas. If Republicans in Congress go against their own President,they will be committing political suicide.
Interesting. I was assuming it would create civil war within the party. The Economist was this week talking about it possibly causing the party to split (though it would take a while for that to happen, it said.)
Look. These establishment politicians all have vested interest. They will fight tooth and nail. In the end voters count. Democracy.
EDIT:
Same story with the Dems.
Lets not kid ourselves all of them are for ordinary folk.
A general guide would be to look at delegates who back Bernie. These people have gone against the 'machine'.
Romney and a few sitting Senators and Governors have already said they'll write in a third party rather than vote for him. For a lot of them it'll be a pragmatic decision - does being an ally of Trump help or hinder them in their own state/district? Worth noting that the Dem Senate candidate that's taking on John McCain in Arizona in November has already put out an attack ad. All it did was say that McCain hadn't distanced himself from Trump, then played all the bad things Trump's said on camera. McCain came out attacking him a day or two later. There will be a lot of similar ads.
This is so cringey.
Yes, to be fair The Economist leader this week also talked about a possible split in the Democrats. What our Corbyn calls "New Politics" is alive and well in America. People are pissed off and the traditional parties are of declining relevance, parties need to reinvent themselves or they will die, basically.
I was just researching the question I posted above, having realised I dont have to rely on you lot for all my information, and I stumbled across this which probably answers my question quite well.
started sharing this on my tweeter. I hope no bernie bros starts following me though. xd
and if they commit political suicide the don will send the boys round to make sure they commit actual suicide.
Massive wakeup call for Hillary last night. She still got plenty of delegates, even in defeat, but she knows now that she can't pretend to pivot away to the Gen when Sanders is still nipping at her coat tails. Ohio will be massive.
It cant be much fun being Marco Rubio right now. How many times can one man be kicked in the bollocks and still keep getting up and going back for more?
He's preparing his campaign suspension speech for the evening of the 15th as we speak.
- Status