2016 US Presidential Elections | Trump Wins

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mciahel Goodman said:
And Clinton actively supported both. She later tried to distance herself from Iraq, but she was quite hawkish about it initially.

The only real plus (for me at least) when it comes to Clinton is that she does not advocate boots on the ground, which is always good. At the same time, she wants a no fly zone over Syria -- one that will risk genuine conflict with Russian forces.


Obama was present in both of those races, so on average, the candidates felt a hell of a lot better.

You're not the only person who has time or patience to read up on history. I'd imagine many people in this thread have done the same (I've done it for years academically). Most of the US history I've studied -- as in actual study -- pertains to social issues, but also quite a lot on foreign relations. Maybe it feels like they're the worst candidates ever because Clinton is just wholly uninspiring whilst the GOP has given us the most right wing alternative in decades.
Click to expand...

What do you mean by uninspiring really?

For instance, Obama failed to close Gitmo for 8 years and closure is nowhere in sight, Obamacare is right now teetering with both UHC and Aetna pulling out and he hasn't completely removed troops from Iraq and Afghanistan. Do you think he is a failed president?

I think context here helps and a lot of emphasis is based on the ability to be a good orator. In my opinion, it's fine to be a decent/semi decent speaker if you know the ins and outs of policy. Just my 2 cents, mind you.
 
Mciahel Goodman said:
The one that I'm thinking about a lot lately is foreign policy. I've been reading a lot of material on her stances (re Russia, Syria, China), and they really aren't encouraging. But the only other option is a vile racist, and that's sad.
Click to expand...

A lot of this is just Washington establishment thinking, from the White House to the State Department, Pentagon, Langley and even scholars and think-tanks. That's why there's little variation from Clinton to Romney, Obama, or other mainstream Reps and Dems.

And to me its more, its just history. Of course to the US today its adversaries are China and Russia. Note adversary and not enemy, which is what an adversary can become. Just like the European empires were rivals, the British and Russian empires, how Russia and China still rival one another, China and Japan, etc, etc. Its just a fact of life.
 
Mciahel Goodman said:
You're not the only person who has time or patience to read up on history. I'd imagine many people in this thread have done the same (I've done it for years academically). Most of the US history I've studied -- as in actual study -- pertains to social issues, but also quite a lot on foreign relations. Maybe it feels like they're the worst candidates ever because Clinton is just wholly uninspiring whilst the GOP has given us the most right wing alternative in decades.
Click to expand...

I'm in no way shape or form suggest that I'm some kind of authority on US history. @Carolina Red and @adexkola to name but two are very knowledgeable and the former especially has linked to a lot of interesting tidbits in this thread or others regarding their founding, constitution or electoral process. I just have a beef with the 'two worst candidates ever' stuff because even with just a cursory glance, there were plenty of less qualified, more destructive and personally repugnant candidates/president than Hillary Clinton, and you needn't even dig very deep for that.

The Cheeto Jesus is in a league of his own, granted, even though George Wallace just for one would run him pretty close.

And your last sentence may be right and you are perfectly entitled to feel that way, but it doesn't change the facts. Isn't fact what leftys pride ourselves on?
 
fishfingers15 said:
What do you mean by uninspiring really?

For instance, Obama failed to close Gitmo for 8 years and closure is nowhere in sight, Obamacare is right now teetering with both UHC and Aetna pulling out and he hasn't completely removed troops from Iraq and Afghanistan. Do you think he is a failed president?

I think context here helps and a lot of emphasis is based on the ability to be a good orator. In my opinion, it's fine to be a decent/semi decent speaker if you know the ins and outs of policy. Just my 2 cents, mind you.
Click to expand...
I always feel like Obama had his hands tied by a racist opposition in the GOP. Also, as bad as Gitmo is, a lot of detainees were released under Obama's tenure. Considering it wasn't his doing in the first place, it's difficult to hold that against him. The drone strikes are probably the biggest mark against his name (again, that's just my opinion).

MarceloFalcon said:
A lot of this is just Washington establishment thinking, from the White House to the State Department, Pentagon, Langley and even scholars and think-tanks. That's why there's little variation from Clinton to Romney, Obama, or other mainstream Reps and Dems.

And to me its more, its just history. Of course to the US today its adversaries are China and Russia. Note adversary and not enemy, which is what an adversary can become. Just like the European empires were rivals, the British and Russian empires, how Russia and China still rival one another, China and Japan, etc, etc. Its just a fact of life.
Click to expand...
I do agree with this, it's definitely establishment thinking. You're correct on the nature of Russia and China -- they are adversaries in terms of global political power -- but I just don't appreciate any actual talk of conflict, or talk of policy that could lead to conflict.

The one big thing that Clinton has going for her, ironically, is that she has a record of changing her mind in relation to public opinion. Some might characterize that as a weakness, but it could also be a big positive. She's also not a bigot. So, in social terms, she could be very progressive -- especially with the SC up for grabs. But surely I'm not alone -- or maybe I am -- in having serious doubts over her hawkishness. My hope is that her ability to change her mind in relation to public opinion might serve her well here.
 
Mciahel Goodman said:
I'm always surprised that people actively support Clinton. I completely understand it in terms of opposition to Trump, and the least worst voice (on social issues it's by a distance), but she's still absolutely terrible. The two worst candidates ever (and I thought Kerry and Bush were both crap).

The interesting thing is that Clinton's campaign have actively pushed Trump's legitimacy as a candidate since the start. They've done it because they know they can beat him, which is smart, but there's also something deplorable in that notion too. That the political landscape will shift to the right by virtue of helping to legitimise the most right wing fringe candidate available.

I honestly hate them both.
Click to expand...

"Worst" is very subjective but I wouldn't be at all surprised if they were the two most unpopular candidates in history, which is much easier to measure.
 
InfiniteBoredom said:
I just have a beef with the 'two worst candidates ever' stuff because even with just a cursory glance, there were plenty of less qualified, more destructive and personally repugnant candidates/president than Hillary Clinton, and you needn't even dig very deep for that.
Click to expand...
It was a sweeping statement born out of frustration. I'll retract it :). You make a salient point in that regard.
 
sullydnl said:
"Worst" is very subjective but I wouldn't be at all surprised if they were the two most unpopular candidates in history, which is much easier to measure.
Click to expand...
That might have something to do with it -- popularity over capacity, perhaps. On the latter point, Clinton is qualified. So, my original statement is flawed. I'll acknowledge that.
 
Republicans want as few people as possible to vote. Bunch of degenerates.
 
Raoul said:
I'm in AZ at the moment. The vibe out here is much more progressive than I thought it would be, at least in the Phoenix suburbs. Definitely a winnable state for Hillary.
Click to expand...
Et voila


Trump doing a good job of speeding along the demographic shifts that were expected to take a couple more cycles.
 
Raoul said:
I'm in AZ at the moment. The vibe out here is much more progressive than I thought it would be, at least in the Phoenix suburbs. Definitely a winnable state for Hillary.
Click to expand...

Just because you're in a Starbucks it doesn't mean all those old white people won't vote for Trump.
 
Adisa said:
Republicans want as few people as possible to vote. Bunch of degenerates.
Click to expand...


This may interest you....

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/...blican-admits-it-has-nothing-to-do-with-fraud

“Of course it’s political. Why else would you do it?” he said, explaining that Republicans, like any political party, want to protect their majority. While GOP lawmakers might have passed the law to suppress some voters, Wrenn said, that does not mean it was racist.

“Look, if African Americans voted overwhelmingly Republican, they would have kept early voting right where it was,” Wrenn said. “It wasn’t about discriminating against African Americans. They just ended up in the middle of it because they vote Democrat.”
Click to expand...
 
Hat this point, Trump knows he's not winning. He just wants to burn the house down.
 
This is a country that actually had the option of Bernie Sanders..wow, just wow.

You would probably finance a insurgency in a country that was about to elect a candidate as bad as either of the two you are left with.
 
The Republicans have gone too far right for the right. They'll need to reform after this.

There is actually quite a lot of joy to be found in the notion of Republicans having to endure two terms of America's first black president followed by at least one term of America's first female president (whose surname is Clinton :lol:).
 
Crossie said:
I'm clutching at straws: 538's now-cast gives Hillary a 90.3% chance of winning.
Click to expand...

They haven't updated it yet. If Trump makes a comeback it would be noticeable in PA, NH, VA and FL. States like OH, NV, NC etc are states Hillary may win, but doesn't have to, to get to 270.

VK1G6.png
 
I'll take that CNN poll with a pound of salt. All that matters is the poll of polls and the route to 270. Clinton has a lot more ways to get there than Trump (and that's without the reports of red states like Arizona possibly gong blue) .
 
Status
Not open for further replies.